ML20011D575

Responds to Urging Commission to Allocate Necessary Resources to Ensure That Advanced Reactor Designs Submitted for Certification Evaluated Equitably & in Timely Manner

ML20011D575
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/01/1989
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Lloyd M HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY
Shared Package
ML20011D571	List: ML20011D570 ML20011D575 ML20011D578 ML20011D583
References
CCS, NUDOCS 8912280019
Download: ML20011D575 (35)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i t-O tto o UNITED STATES g 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 t

f s *..+ s December 1, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Marilyn Lloyd, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Madam Chairman:

I am responding to your letter of October 30, 1989, in which you urged the Commission to allocate the necessary resources to ensure that all advanced reactor designs submitted for design certifica-tion are evaluated equitably and in a timely manner. In the Commission's final rule on licensing reform (10-CFR Part 52), we adopted a certification process (design certification by rule-i making) that would allow the Commission to consider the broadest range of design certification requests, including those submitted by foreign corporations, and to allcw the Commission greater flexibility in establishing hearing procedures. Our intent was to i ensure that our certification process would be both equitable and efficient. We also noted in the Statement of Considerations accompanying the rule that priority would be given to designs for which there is a 4 demonstrated interest in the United States (see enclosed Federal l Register Notice dated April 18, 1989 - p. 15375). This language was included to assist the Commission in prioritizing its review of advanced designs. Where a clear domestic preference exists for a particular design, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will assign the highest priority to review of that design in. order to ensure early identification of the regulatory requirements for the design and timely notice of the design's acceptability from the regulatory standpoint. Although there have been some indications that evolutionary light water reactor designs may be preferred in the short term, there has been no domestic preference expressed for any particular design. In the absence of such interest, we are proceeding to-review those designs that have been submitted for review as they have been-received. In all cases, these re-views have been and will continue to be conducted in a fair manner based on safety and technical considerations, subject only to the constraints imposed by current resource limitations and our obligations to meet our other regulatory responsibilities. 8912280019 891201 4 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC

4 1 2 For your information. I am also enclosing a listing of advanced designs that have been submitted to date or are anticipated by the NRC. The list indicates the staff's estimated completion dates. If you need any further information, please contact me. Sincerely, u h.b a Kenneth M. Carr

Enclosure:

1. April 18, 1989 Federal Register Notice 2. Status of Review of Advanced Reactor Designs Submitted to the NRC, cc: Rep. Sid Morrison 1

i ENCL.0SURE 1 15372 ' Fsderal Register / Vol. 64, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations Pehrwork Red,etion Act of 1980 (44 pon Pusmeta mponesanoes coerract: public workshop, this time on the text of U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). Steven Crockett. Attorney, OfBee of the the propowd rule.8 how Orde13378 General Counsel, telephone (act) 492-tsarina the second,76. day comment 1000, on procedural matters, or Jerry period, the Commission received over 70 his program /setivityis beted in the Wilson. OfBee of Nuclear Regulatory wie of comments, ranging from one.page Catalog of FederalDomestic Assistance Research, telephone (301) 492-4720, on letters to multi. paged documents, one of under No.10.028 and is subject to technical matters, U.S. Nuclear which included an annotated rewrite of , Enocutive Order 18372, which requires Regulatory Comunisalon. Washington, the whole rule.De commenters ! intergsvernmental consultation with DC 30'45. included the Department of Energy state and local officials. (See F CFR Part surnsesserrey mposuaATsoet (DOE), agencies and omces in the states 3015, Subpart V.) of Connecticut, Indiana, New York, and L ocksmund IJet of Subjectsla 0 CFR Part 77 North Carohns, the Nuclear Utihty Animal diseases. Bison, Cattle, De Commission has long sought Management and Resources Council nuclear power plant standardisation (NUMARC), the American Nuclear { Transportation.Tubwculmis. and the enhanced safety and licensing Energy Council, Westinghouse, General Accordingly, we are adopting as a reform which standardisation could Electric, Combustion Engineering Stone Anal rule, without change, the interim make possible. For more than a decade, a Webster, the U.S. Chamber of rule that amended e CFR Par? 77 and the Commission has been ad Commerce,the Union of Concerned that was published at 54 m 1146-1146 provisions to10 Cm Part 80 Part 2 Scientists (UCS), the Nuclear ta january 12,1000. that allow for hmited dogmes of Informetion and Ruource Service Authority:21 LLS.C.111.114.11aa 116-117, standardination, and for as many years, (NIRS), the Ohio Otisene for i ' sac 121.1Mb.1Mf; F CFR L17,3.81 and the Commission has been proposing Responsible Energy (OCRE), the 371.t(dl. legislation to Congress on the subject. Maryland Nuclear Safety Coalition, and Done et Wuhington. DC, this 12th day of De Commission was frequently asked several utilities, corporations, public Apra tees. b Members of Congress to what extent interest groups, and individuale. All the knee w,Cleeser, I elation on the subject was necessary, comme,nts may be viewed in the Achninisuoser. AmmelandplanrNeolth an in doing the analyste necewary to agency a public document room. Jaspecison Semce, reply to these questions, the no Commission has carefully, IFR Dn m.mse yued 417 as; e4s am) Commission came to believe that much considered all the comments and wishes of what it sought could be accomphshed to express its sincere appreciation of the within its curnnt statutory authority, often considerable efforts of the nus the Commission embarked on commenters. While the bread outhnes, standardination rulemaking, and even many of the details, of the l ' NUCLEAR REGUL.ATORY De rulema process has been Proposed rule remained unchanged in CONSSION y and hl y public. A year and a the analrule,few sections of the h ago, the Commiselon announced its sed rule have escaped revisionin 10 CFR Parts 2,50,51, St, and 170 intent to pursue standardisation of the comments, and some have l CW 3100-Acel rulemaking inits Pohey Statement on en thoroughly revised. In the Nuclear Power Plant Standardi ation (52 remainder of this section of this final j Earty Site Permits; Standard Dee'en FR 34884: September 15,1987).no rule preeable,the Commiselon makes ' Certificati:na; and Combined Lloonses Policy Statement set forth the pinci[les two general responses to comments and ' for Nuclear Power Reactors that would guide the rulemaking an then summarises both the comments I Almecv: Nuclear Regulatory provided for a forty five day comment and its ros nses to them. In Section II Commissi n. period on the Policy Statement. On of thle rule preamble, the October 20,1987, about mid way Commlesion responde to comments on Actioet Final rule. through the comment period the NRC the chiefissues reised by the comments. i ausseaAny:no Nuclear Regulatory staff held a public workshop on the Whue Section 11often touches on the Commissien is now adding a new part Polley Statement. During the Workshop' broad policies which lie behind the rule, the staff presented a detailed outhne of readers wishing to know more about

to its regulations which provides for the propowd rule and caswered those broad policies may consMt the

issuanca cf early site permits, standard prehminary questions about it. A statement of considerations which was

[ design certifications, and combined l c:nstructirn permits and operating transcript of the workshop may be found published with the proposed rule.In licenses with conditions for nuclear h the Comminion's public document Section I!!, which proceeds section-by. power reactors.The new part sets out room. Gelman Building. 2120 L Street, section through the final rule, the the review procedures and licensing NW, Washington. DC. After a lengthy Commission notes minor changes and wquirements for applications for these internal consideration of the comments offers some minor clarifications of the received on the Policy Statement and meaning of some provisions. For a 1 ti n1 sin e d the outhne of the rule presented at the complete record of the differences t v e carly resslution oflicensing issues and Workshop, and after pubile brieangs of cnhtnce the safety and rehability of the Commission and the Advisory a cwe que teaser and pubbe pe

w. the nuc! eat power plants.

Committee on Reactor Safeguards h*os b unpomeded try commealm en te (ACRS), the Commiselon lasued a propmed rub who claim eM es pubhc wu em CFractrVf Daft:May 18,1989. propoud rule (53 FR 32000: Auguest 23, ["", T y","u*j N u*,* O s m, AIctess: Documents relative to this 1986) and provided for a sixty day peslu e est sme te importanes of es ruh. final rule mey be examined and copied comment period.De comment period one "woufd thke est se NRC would oneoweee 2e for a fee at the NRC Public Document was extended to 75 days on October 24' "'d""we pubbe pamcipean m ea r* Room. 2120 L Streei NW, Waehington, spee (53 FR 41000). Mid way through ',',,'M*Ma*Y/asey,,p,,e8g,pg c DC. that pened the NRC staff again held a commmies ed.

eso:ral 8vJghalCr / Vol. $4. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 153?3

• 1 a

between the propose' rule and the final Stat:a. On the one hand the d rule, resdere may consult the comparative text of the final rule, which Commission is vigorously accused of scope gnly in hlghly restricted circumstances. is available in the agency's public promotmp the nuclear industry and shutting localgovernments and As to how designs should be certified, d:cument room. Individual cittsens out of the licensing most commentere think the Commission 7wo Centro /Aesponses to Comments process. On the other hand the has authority to certify either by rule or Before summing up the comments and Commission is told that the beensing by beense However,some commentere the Commission's responses to them, the proceu u "the :eason" for "the lou of see advantages in certification by Commission wishes to make clear what the nuclear option", and that toform of license.OCRE forinstance.says that that process is the " sine que non" of the certification by license is more h has not tried to do in this rulemaking. viabibry of that option, appropnete, and some industry First, although this is an important rulemaking, it does not resolve all the Certainly the Commission hopes that commenters think that more protections oafety, anytronmental, and political this rule wiU have a beneficial effect onare available to the holder of a design issues facing nuclear power.The the licensing process. In other words, license than are available to the the Commission hopes that effort has " holder" of a design rule. Some Commission received urgings to not bnn wasted on a rule which will comunentere prefer certificatJon by undertake deep reforms before issuing never be used But the Commission is license because they believe that a this final rule.The Commission was, for Instance, urged to streamline the hearing not out to secure, angle handedly, the heanna on a license has to be a formal procedures in to Cm Part 2. Subpart C. viability of the industry or to shut the adjudication. restructure the utilities

• Liabilities under general public out The future of nuclear The finalrule reflects the the Prictr Anderson Act, decide once power depends not only on the licensing Commfselon's long-standing preference and for all what safety criteria shaU be procus but also on economic trends and for certificauon by rulemaking (see the applied to aU future plants, solve the events. the sefety and reliability of the old 10 CML Part 90. Appendix 0, problem of nuclear waste, turn aU health plants, pobtical fortunes, and much else, paragraph 7, and for certification and safety regulation-not just the The Commission's intent with this beenng proc)edures which, while they NRC's--ever to the states, reconsider rulemakingis only to have a sensible permit formal procedures when needed, whether economic considerations and stable procedural framework in do not soeurne that formal procedures should ever enter into safety decisior.s.

place for the consideration of future are the best means for resolving every dui e, and to make it possible to ulety beun' conductlocalrunrung referends on whether a given nuclear power plant reso e safety and environmentalissues Finally, the deepest differences among before plants are built rather than after. f, w' d Summaryof the Comments andthe n nc of et nd r zation and a e Commission was urged to do everything Commission's Responses other evices for early resolution of licensma issues for the licensing before it did anything. However, the Commission has stuck The comments on the proposed rule process.One commenter believes that. to the simple aim in this rulemaking of are characterized both by their broad once a plant is built under a combined providing procedures for the agreement that standardization and license, there need be no hearing at au standardization of nuclear power plants eatly resolution of licensing issues are before operetion begins.Several of these des.rable, and by their often deep commenters characterize the proposed and more generally for the early differences on what kinds of designe rule's provisicn for an opportuntry for a sesolution of safety and environmental issues in licensing proceedings. The should be certified. how they should be heanna just before operation as the old Commiesion has declined to he the fate certified and what consequences tw step licensing process under a sithis rulemaking to the progress of the certification should have for the different name. Othere believe not only agency's many other ongoing efforts. licensing process, that there should be such a hearing but As to what kinds of designe should be also that resolution ofissues in oather such as revision of the agency's bearing certified, except for the very few who proceedings does not entailany procedures, implementation of the policy Statement on Safety Goals (51 FR opposed anylicensing of any nuclear restriction on the issues which may be 300:8. August 21.1986), development of power plant. no commenter opposes the raised in the hearing after construction. certihcation of designs which differ techniques of staalysis of risk and cost, significantly from the designs which Many of these commenters attribute to and preparation for the licenomg of a have been built thus fan but some: UCS, the Commission an intent to do away high level waste repository. The hnal rule necessarily touches on substance for instance, say that only "a dvanced" with public participation in the licensing process. whenever 11 sets forth requirements for designs should be certifad. and many. The Commission has given more the technical content of applications for including UCS. DOE. and Westmghouse, consideration to this issue than to any say that only desi ns for whole plants other procedural question raised by the oarly site permits, design cernfications, 6 should be cerufied. et combined licenses, or discusses the While not withholding certification proposed rule. As a result, the proposed applicabihty of existing standards to new designs and new situations. But from incomplete designs or designs rule's provisions on bearings just before even bere, the Commission has avoided which are not advanced, the final rule operation have been revised in the fmal catablishing new asfety of bee moved a long way from the position rule (the revised provisions are the Commission took in the legislative discussed in more detail below). environmental standards, although the proposalit made shortly before this However, the final rule still provides for Commission may choose to adopt additional safety standards applicable rulemaking began. There, certification an opportunity for a hearing on lunited to new designs prior to the advent of was held out only for evolutionary light losues before operation under a combined license. But the mere fact of r design certifications. weter designs, but was permitted for tha this opportunity does not mean that the 6 Second. many saw this rule as the design of any " major portion" of a plant, occasion for arguments over the future The final rule provides for certification rule is hidmg the old two. step process e viabihty of nuclear power in the United of advanced designs and permite under a different name. By far the p certification of designa of less than full greater part of the issues which in the past have been considered in operating

u w m.eerai neg w T E S.. w m ru.esy. % n E W Tause ana M isne ~ ~ ~ uc:neeseann,s wouid. unde, the new as is noied above. ihe ruie. uniike the is ainsdy secu,ed. See 20 Crs >0.ios j rule be considered at the c:mbined legisla uve proposals which preceded it, and UCS v. NRC 824 F.2d 106 (D.C. Cir, t lirense stage or in a certificaton provides for cernfication of advanced 1967). However, initial certification does proceedag. includmg the bulk o! designs. However,it also provides for not involve backfitting. Designers will. I emergency plantting inves. Similarly, ceruncation of evolutionary light weter of course, strive for a cost effective the mere Iset that any beanns pnor to dulgns. ne Commission's legislauve design, but the Commission declines to I cperation would be hmited does not proposals on standardization have incorporate a cost. benefit test in the l mean that the Commiselon is attempting always focused on these designs, on the standards for certificaton. l to remove the public from the licensing grounds that the Lght water designe now degree of

c. Requinments on Scope of Dwign and i

process. ne rule does not prevent the in operation provide a higand safety. l public from participeting in the protection to public heal on p,, top ( resolution of any operstmg beense issue. Moreover, the Commission does not in the statement of considerations It simply moves the bulk of the issues up believe that the nquimment in some accompanying the proposed rule, the front in the licencing process to the cases for a prototype is such a burden. Commission noted that the proposed design cerufication, early site permit. Whatever burden having to test a rule permitted certification of end combined beense parts of the prototype may be, the burden may be incomplete designs only in limited cases, t

procen, lenened by agreements of cost sharing while the legislation the Commission U. no Prindpalissues among utilities and other organisations.

had proposed to the 100th Congress had and bylicensing the prototype for been less stringent about scope of J. Requirernents for Applicodons for commercial operation. It is well to design. De Commission invited i Desyn Ceroficouon remember also that, under the rule. comment on whether the final rule Because design certfication is the key prot type testing is mquind only for abould return to the policy nflected in i certification or an unconditional final the propowd legislation. DOE. l out enh need se e n early " 8"[de \\0 ^ I design Westinghouse, and UCS among others, resolution of licensing inues, the "[pp ndix 0 (formerly in Part 50) can be p art eIto ope fic Commission begins its discussion of the po er en aclud granted subject to conditions requirin8 elements of course-4bould be certified. prmeipalissue with reap n e,to e protot testing. See 10 CFR Part 52, NUMARC. bowever, advocates a return comments c,n e pre requirements for oppgose e Appen ' O, paragraph 5. Moreover, a cations for licensed prototype may be replicated. to the policy of the legislatjon proposed to the tooth Congmn. One engineenns cv " Advanced" Designs

b. Require nent to Address Unnsolved firm arTues that requiring complete Safety Issues and Safety Goals designs would limit market forces that ne proposed rule provided for ceruheation both of e volutionary light-Several commenters object to the could contribute to standardization.

water designs that is. improved proposed rule's requirement that ne finalrule is even more stringent applicants for certificebon propose about completeness of design then the versions of the light. water designa now technical ruolutions of Unresolved proposed rule was. The fmal rule's in operation, and of " advanced" designs. SafetyIssues and high and meium-provisions on scope, see i 52.47, reflect that is, designs which 6ffer significantly from the evolutionary light water prionty Generic Safety lesues. This a policy that certain designs, especially designs. or which incorporate, to a requirement, and similar ones relating to designs which are evolutions of light. probabilistic risk assessments and the water designe now in operation, should greater extent than evolutionary light. Commission's Three Mile Island not be certined unless they include all of i water designs do, simplified. inherent, a passive, or other innovative means to requirements for new plants, to CFR a plant which can affect safe operation 50.34(f), were announced in the of the plant exceptits site specific occomplish their safety functione (the Commission's Severe Accident Policy elements. See i 52.47(b). Examples of distinction between evolutionary light. water designs and advanced designs is Statement (50 FR 32138; August 8,1985) designs which are evolutions of I and in the Commission's Pohey currently operating light water designe 6scusud at greater length below). The Statement on Stander &tation (52 FR are General Electric's ABWR. proposed rule required that some 34864: September 15,1987). Some Westinghouse's SP/90, and Combustion j advanced designs could not be certified until full scale prototypes of them were commenters callit " inappropriate" to Engineering's System 80+, Full scope impose this burden on appbcants. may also be required of certain built and tested. While agreeing with the Others ny that no resolution of one of advanced designs, namely, the requirement for prototype testing of these (saues should be irnposed on a " passive" light. water designs such as some edvanced designs, several design unless the resolution had passed General Electric's SBWR and commenters. UCS prominent anions a cost benefit test. Westinghouse's Ape 00. Considerations them say that ceruficauon should be The Commission believes that it is not of safety, not market forces, constitute held out only to advanced designs. UCS inappropriate to require that an the basis for the final rule's requirement crgues that without such a limitation on appbcant for certification show either that these designs be full scope designs. the designs which could be offered up that a particular issue is not relevant to Long experience with operating light-for certification, the proposed rule the design proffered in the application, weter designs more than adequately would disenminate against the or that the applicant has in hand a demonstrates the adverse safety impact development of advanced designs of design specific resolution of the issue which portions of the balance of plant greater safe, because, given the choice (the applicant is of course not required can have on the nuclear island. Given between see certfication of a to propose a generic resolution of the thle experience. certification of these familist design and seeking certif cation issue). As to cost benefit tests, the designs must be band on a of a design which the Commission might Commission will of course apply them to consideration of the whole plant. or else tequire to be tested in a full 4cale the resolution of safety issues where the the cerufications of those designs will prototype, an applicant would choose to resolutions are being imposed on lack that degree of finality which should avoid having to build a prototype. existing plants and adequate protection be the mark of certification.

• Federal Register / Vol. 84. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18,1989/ Rules and Regulations 15375 However, the Commission hu not functions. such as passive decay best provisions in to Cm Part So for transfer adopted UCS's position that no design of removal and rescuvity control, which or revocadon of a bcense.See to Cm incomplete scope could ever be have not beenlicened and operated in 50.80 and 80.100. However, a rule certified. nere is no reason to conclude the United States. See id.

that there could never be a design which cerufying a design does not strictly t, protects the nuclear island against

d. Certificadon by Rulemaking speaking. belong to the designer.

I adverse effects caused by events in the De Proposed rule provided for design Therefore, such a rule cannot be balance of plant.De Anal rule therefore certification by rulemaking. Here the transfermd or revoked by adjudicatory provides the opportunity for certificadon proposed rule was in accord with the enforcement. Applying 6 to.co. in of designs ofless than complete scope,if old to CFR Part 50. Appendix 0, particular, to a rule certifying a design they belong to the class of advanced Paragraph 7(this paragraph is now would be akin to giving the vendor of the design a patent. but the Commission dtsigns. See 152.47(b). Examples of oeing replaced by Subpart B of Part 52). has no authority to luue potents, designs in this class include the peWye However,in the notice of proposed light water designe mentioned eben rulemaking, the Commission invited Nonetheless. the vendor whose design and non. light. water designs such as comments on whether certification is certified by rule is not without } General Electric's PRISM. Rockwell's should be by license rather than rule. protection. Section 52.83[s), the SAFR. and General Atomic's MHTCR. Although the Commission expressed Adminletrative Procedure Act, and, But here too the rule sets a high some doubts on the matter, commentere ulumstely, judicial review protect the standard: Certification of an advanced gueraUy agrw eat the Comminion has ver dor against arbitrary amendment or l design ofincomplete scope will be given the authority to license dwigns. Some reciosion of the certification rule, and i enly after a showing. using a full scale industry commenters and some pubhc thelaw of patents and trade secrets i prototype, that the balance of plant interest groups alike go further and protects the vendor against unlawful use cannot significantly affect the safe aque that ceruficauon by beenu is of the design. In order to give the vendor cperatic,e of the plant. preferable. Industry commenters aguing more opportunity to treet elements of Standardaation along these lines may this position believe that the rights and the design as trade secrets. the final rule i indeed limit some market forces, obligations which attach to a license are prov des that proprietary information cleant dan son which anach to a contained in an applicanon for design barticularly those which encourage ably differentfsted range of products, rule. For instance, a bcense is posumed certification shall be given the same However, the final rule's requirements by so d, r treatment that such information would kt be 31ven in a proceeding on an on scope in no way limit innovative g,w, c nnot an dw arrangements amo vendorsand nuty's consent. Some public interest application for a construction permit or i crchitect.engmeers)or bringmg new Ups preIer cerufication y 3icense an operating license under to CFR Part ($n's'e w'o

80. See t $2.81. Moreover, an applicant designs before the Commission.

'V' ,j ave s l rm referencing a design certification and I ne finalrule is clearer than the adjudication seeking to use a designer other that. the l proposed rule was in identifying those designs which cannot be certified The Commission continues to believe designer which achieved the without a program of testing. For that cerufication by rule is preferable to cerufication would have to comply with purposes of determining which designe certification by beense. As DOE sa il 52.63(c) and 52.73. and the other must undergo a testing program to be design certification will. like a rule,ys, ahave designer would have to pay a porton of certified, the rule distmguishes between generic application.Moreover the cost of review of the application for all advanced designe-be they passive cert 2 cation by rulemaking leaves the outmeshon. See 10 CFR 170.12 (d) and light. water or non. light water-and Commlulon free to adapt heart'nt (e), as amended in this document. evolutionary light. water designs. Some procedures to the requirements of the testing may be required of all advanced. subject matter, rether than rely

e. Applicability of Existing Standards designs. Passive hght. water designs are exclusively on formal adjudicatory With one exception. the proposed rule to some extent also evolutions of the devices even when they are not useful did not say what safety standards hght water designe now licensed. but (hearing procedures an more fully would be applied to a design proffered discussed below). Finally, certificationl or certification, or even precisely what f

they have design features which are not Oy rulemaking permits the Commission ( exisung infonnedon mquimme present on plants licensed and operating to consider reactor designs submitted by4 applicants would have to meet.8 In its in the United States. nerefore the rule foreign corporations. However, the l lengthy and highly detailed comments, requires that the maturity of the passive Commission will give priority to designs NUMARC proposes addmg to the rule a light. water designs be demonstrated for which there is a demonstrated large number of highly specific cross. through a combination of experience, interest in the United States. ne references to Part 50, and a statement tppropriate tests, of analyses, but most Commission will review other designs that no other portions of Part 50 apply. likely not through prototype testing. See mources permit. De finalrule provides that the 4 52.47(b)(2). While analyses may be For the reasons just given, the final standards set out in to CFR Part 20. Part relied upon by the staff to demonstrate rule retains provisions for certification 80 and its appendices, and Parts 73 and the acceptability of a particular safety by rulemaking. Westinghouse suggests 100 will apply to the new designs where feature which evolved from previous also addin by beense g provisions for certification those standards are technically relevant experience or to justify the acceptabibty leavingit to the applicant to to the design proposed for the facility, of a scale model test. it is very unlikely choose between certification by license See new I 5148. Application of Parts 20. that an advanced design would be and certification by rulemaking.ne

50. 73, and 100 to the certification of new certified solely on the basis of analyses.

Commission. however, prefera Prototype testmg is likely to be required rulemaking and sees no advantage to 'ne proposed rule did state thei en appheateen for cernficaton of advanced non light. providmg such an option. for certincauon would have in demontrite that the water c'esigns because these NUMARC. while supporting dotsn comotied with the i.chnically relevani revolutonary designs use innovative certification by rule, suggests adding @.'l$',,comye pggt ;nd means to accompbeh their safety provisions analogous to existing i swal. u n ses (proposed rule) t

15376, l'adatal Register / Val. K No. 73 / Tutaday. April 18, 1913 / Rules and Regulations designa. as'refiscied in 4 stoa, abould must be a formal adjudication However, portoo af b oosts incurred b go a long wey toward establishing the th'.s conclusion is clearly not the law; regulation. Deferral of fees is more in regu! story standard that new designs therefore, the facts in a certdostion hne with the pobcies behind tbooe must meet. and thereby provide the proceeding are act whoDy ediu6catory. statutes than is putung the borden of regulatory stabibty thatis an enaantal Moreover,if such facts must be anoertainty on the pubbc. prerequisite to reahr.ing the becaSts of categonzad at an. they an more et ndardir.ation.The Commission

• legislative" than "adjodicanve", as gN

[ recognizes that new dealans may UCS defines those terms, for while they Standardization has the double aim of incorporate new featress not addressed are "releled to acuvibes of b paren". anhanche safety and makmg it possible by the current standardsin Parts 24 50, they are not ansquely so, and they are to resolve duign inun before 73 or 100 and that, accordmaly.new facts about "mdustry practices, construction. Of these two aims, standards may be required to address sciennSc data", engmaerms principles, enhanced safety is the chief, becanoe any aut.h new design features. and the hke. pre construcham ruolution of design %erefore, the NRC staff shall, as soon Sweest comnantere slao argue that issues could be schieved simply through l as practicable, advise the Commleston the cartification proceeding abould be a combined constructon permits and of the need for criterie for judging the formal adju6cauoc because crose-operating licenses with con 6tions. safety of designs offered for cert 6 cation examinanon is an unsurpasud means Adaievement of the enhanced safety that are dSennt from or supplementary for discoverms the truth. Again, the which standanhaatjon makes possible to current standards in 10 CFR Parte 20, argument proves too much. namely, that will be frustrated if too frequent changes $0,73, and 100. The Commission shad every rulemak ing. Indead every species to either a certded design or the plants consider the NRC staffs v,ews and oflawmaking, obound be formal refereadng it are pernuned. determtne whether editional adjud cebon. Part 62 does not assame The proposed rule put forward rulemaking to needed or appropriute to the superiority, or even the usefulness, princJpaUy three means of preventing a resolve generic questons that are of formal procedures for resolving nery continual regnesion from epplicable to muriiple designs.The issue; but it does provide for their use standaduuon. Ftret. h proposed rde obitetive of such rulemskmg would be where they an the only means available required that any amendment proffered to incorpo ste any new standards in for resolving an issue properly, by b bolder" of a cernficanon be ce lopeu hardsin g Fees for Review of Applications considered in a notice and comment etYan ta the context of the Commission's revrew The final rule adheres to the toe pobey rulemaking and granted if the and approval of in6vidual oppbestione embo6ed in the proposed rule. An Energy Act and the Commission,tonue i amendment compbed with the A s for design certficatons. On the other applicant for design cernfication does hand, new design festures that are not have to pay an appbcation fee, but ngulauna. Second, the proposed rule unique to a parucular design would be the applicant wiu have to pay the full pronibited the bcensee of a plant built addressed in the context of a rulemaking cost of the NRC review of the acconhas to a ceru8ad design from making an plant whif change to any part of the proceedmg for that particular design. appbcation, although not until the cartscation is referenced in an was ducnbed in the

f. Heannge on Appbcations for Design application for a constrneun peWt w certification unleu the boensee had 1

l Ceruficauons combined Ucense, or, falhng that, not baan granted an exempnon under to Uke the proposed rule, the final rule unt] the cart $cahon expires. The CFR 60.12 from the rule certifytag the g provides for nouce and comment details of the scheme of deferral of the design.hird, the proposed rule stated rulemaking on an appbcanon for a fees appear in conforming amendments that the Commission would not backfit a design ceruScation. together with an to the recently amended to CFR Part 170 ceruned design or the plants built i opportunity for an informal heanns on (53 FR 52632; December 29,1988). accordmg to it unless a backfit were an opphcation for a design certficeuen. UCS aparts that the prov:aion for necessary to assure compliance with the The rule also permits the noe of enore deferral of fees for NRC reviewis applicable regulations or to assure formal procedures where they am the " unconscionable". To the contrary, the adequate protection of pubuc health and I only procedures available for reaching Comminion bebevos that there is safety. See i 52.63 of the proposed rule, a given issue properly. See i 52.52. UCS nothing " unconscionable" about deferraj $3 FR 32074, col 3, to 32075, col. L The and othere aryue that any hesnng on of fees for a program whose aim is to Commission invited comment on I cernficacon abould be a formal enhance safety, whether the amendment and exemption adtudication. In partcular, UCS argues Some industry commenters assert that standards were etnngent enough and on that the cernbca tion proceeding will be the requinment for payment of the fuD whether the backnttmg standard gave deahng with adtu6cative, as opposed to cost of NRC review presents an certifications a reasonable degne of leinslauve, faets and therefore should be " insurmountable disincentive" to the finality. See 63 FR 32067, col 2. fully a djudica tory. UC3 charseterizes development of cerufied duigns.Some ne comme.nts focus on the standard adtudicauve facts as " uniquely related industry mmmenters propose putting a of amending the certdication, one group to activities of the parties that an at celung on fees for cernfication review, of comments wantmg to make it harder inue" and legislative facts as " facts in order tu help vendors better estimate for the " bolder" of a certification to get about industry proetices, economic the oosts of developing and cernfying a an amendment. and another group impact, scient2Dc data, and other design. The Comrnission fu!]y recognizes wanting to make it easier. Several information about whit.n the pernes that it will be difficult for a vendor to commenters say that the proposed rule have no specialinformauon." estimate the costs of taking a design wrongly makes it easier for the designer UCS' argument proves too much. If the through to certScation. Howevar. a to amend the certified design than it is facts to be considered in a certification ceiling on fees only displaces the burden for the Commineion to backht the preceedmg are whoUy adjudicauve, of that uncertainty from the vendor to design.To correct this perceived then, because those isete are like the the public. In recent years, the NRC has imbalance, UCS, among others, proposes facts considered in any rutemaking on been obbged by statute to charge fees that no amendment be granted unless it safety iscues, every such rulemaking which return to the Federal Treasury a consututes a safety enhancement,and

Fed:ral Register / Vol. M. No. 73 / Tuesday April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regalations 153 7 tha,t any amendment granted be regulations.The Atomic Energy Act features that i 50.50 prohibits changing back$tted on all plants built according allows the Commission to consider costs without prior NRC approval. Moreover, to the desipo being amended. OCRE only in deciding whether to establish or the level of design detail in certifications proposes that. at a minimum. no whether to enforce through backfitting should affort! bcensees an opportunity cmendment should be granted which safety requinments that are not to take advantage ofimprovements in would entall a domesse in safety. On necessary to provide adequate equipment. the other side NUMARC proposes protecton. See UCS v.MtC 324 F.2d ne comments on the proposed rule virtually the same standard as a 108,120 (1987). raise two other important fmality issues. tnaximum: Any amendment which has ne Enti rule,like the proposed rule, both connected with backfitting. The no safety impact should be granted. Permits applicants for combined first bears on the criteria for renewal of DOEin effect argues that the licenses issued under the rule, and a design certification.ne proposed rule Commission does not have authority to bcensees of a plant built according to a provided that the Commission would ask for more than OCRE's minimum, certified design, to request an exemption grant a request for renewal of a design because this type of amendment would under 10 CR 50.12 from a rule certifying certification if the design complied with be proposed for economic, plant a design. Among 1.ie comments on the regulations in effect at renewal and any eff ciency, or other business reasons and appropriateness of using 6 50.12 in the more stringent safety requirements the NRC has no expertise or authority in standardaation context were NIRS' which would bring about a substantial crees involving business judgments. The comment that i 50.12 permitted increase in safety at a cost justified by i l !aw firm of Bishop Cook, Purcell, and exemptions at a "whim" and DOE's the increase (strictly speaking. the Reynolds, representing several utibties. suggestion that no exemptions abould be backfit rule would not apply at renewal. proposes a backfitting standard more granted at all. Out of respect for the but the proposal nonetheless stnngent than the one in the proposed unforeseen, the Commission has decided incorporated the backfit rule's cost-rule: The Commission should not impose to adhere to i 50.12, but the final rule benent standards). See 152.59(a) 53 m backfits on a design for the sake of does require that, before an exemption 32074, col. a. Bishop, Cook, among i compliance with applicable regulations can be granted, the effect which the others, proposes that the standard for unless the lack of compliance has an exemption might have on renewal be compliance with regulations cdverse impact on safety. Going even standardaation and its safety benefits in effect not at renewal but rather at the further in the same vein, the U.S. must be considered. time the certification was originally Chamber of Commerce proposes that As a further guard against a loss of issued. together with any other more even where the lack of compliance has standardaation. the final rule. again like strm' gent requirements which are en adverse impact on safety, the backfit the proposed rule, also prohibits a just10ed under the backfit rule. The abould have to pass muster under a cross benefit analysis, bcensee of a plant built according to a proposed rule's criteria were in fact cernfied design from making any change equivalent to Bishop. Cook's in their ne fmal rule places a designer on the to any part of the plant which is impact on a given design certification. same footing as the Commission or any desenbed in the certification unless the but they differed in their impact on the I sther interested member of the public. bcensee bas been granted an exemption timing of some backfit analyses, the No matter who proposes it, a change under to CR 50.12 from the rule proposed rule providing that some will not be made to a design certifying the design. Because the would be done in rulemakings while the certification while it is in effect unless certif cation is a rule 10 Cm 50.12. not given certification was in effect. the change is necessary to brms the 50.59. is the standard for determining liowever, the final rule adopts Bishop. certification into compliance with whether the licensee may make changes Cook's proposal because it more clearly Commission regulations applicable and to the certified portion of the design of says that imposition of more strmgent in effect when the certificaton was the plant without prior approval from requirements on a design durms a issued. or to assure adequate protection the NRC. NUMARC says that, given the renewal proceedmg wiu be governed by of public health and safety. See practicalities of construction and the backfit standards. I 52.63ts)(1). Thus, the fmal rule cannot hmited resources of the NRC staff, De second of the other important be said to make it easier for a designer licensees need the flexibility afforded by finality issues raised by the comments i to emend a certification than for the i 50.59. However, the Commission concerns the fmality of 10 Cm Part 32. Commission to backfit the design. But believes that the certifications Appendix 0 (formerly in Part 50) fmal more important, the final rule thus themselves and i 50.12 will provide the design approvals (FDAs) already in provideo greater assurance that necessary flexibility with respect to the effect on the effective date of this rule. standttdaation and the concomitant certified portion of the plant (or at least Section 52.47(a)(2) of the proposed rule safety benefits will be preserved. as much flexibility as is consistent with stated that holders of FDAs in effect on The Commission is not adoptmg achieving the safety benefits of the effective date of the rule might have Bishop, Cook's suggestion that standardaation). while 150.59 will to submit more information to the staff comphance be required only when non. continue to apply to the uncertified in cormection with the review for compliance would have an adverse portion. How much flexibility I 50.12 certification. NUMARC proposes adding impact on safety. Licensees seeking willprovide depends inlarge part on a " grandfather" clause which would relief from a design certification, who bow much detallis present in a design prohibit the Commission from imposing. believe that non compliance would have certification, and just how much is during the certification proceedmg. any no adverse irnpact on safety, should present will be an issue which will have change on that part of the design which request an exemption under to CFR to be resolved in each certification is covered by an already effective FDA 50.12.Neither is the Commission rulemaking. The Commission does unless the change meets the enteria of cdopting the suggestion of the U.S. expect. bowever, that there will be less the backfit rule. Chamber of Commerce that cost. benefit detailin a certfication than in an Adoptinn of NUMARC's proposal enalysis be used to determine whether application for certification, and that a would not only entail a significant to impose backfits on designs to bnng rule certifying a design is likely to change in the force of an FDA. It would them into compliance with apphcable encompass roughly the same design elso extend the range of apphcation of

153 3 Federal Resister / Vol 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1999 / Rules and Regulations the backfit rule.Under ' r.isting NRC 10 CFR 2 toe and to Cm part 51 applicants for carly site permits. See e tegulatsona. anTVA binds the etaff in a Appenda Q (formerly la part to). 6 52.1?(a). betnoms proceedag but motin a paragraph 5. ne Connecticut Siting Last.sithough the Commission cernhcauon proceedmg and even in a CamrB strong'y suggesta that the State acknowledges the possibihty that non. I aicensms proosedma the staff may, on of Connectmut would be unable to nuclear development of a site would be l the g ounds of sigruficant new participatela an NRC hearms on an postponed when a site is reserved for a I inforzeuon or other good cause, op.caten far an early site permit nuclear plant and then a plant never reconsider en eerber determins uos. See ess the application proposed a built there. the Commission believes 10 Ca part 51 Appendix 0. parag'eph " spec 65c" nuclear power plant. FmaDr. that such a possibility does not loom 5.Moreover, the FDA dass not bind the one commenter is concerned that land very large. persons are not hkely to go to Comnussion or the Commission's approved under an early alte permit the expense of applying for en early site s djuicatory panels.1d. at para graph 8. rnaght never le used for a noclear power permit unlen there is a good prospect ne backLt rule appbes to any proposal plant. and thus development of the land that the site will be used for a nuclear which would require the holder of an for a non nuclear use would have been power plant Moreover.it may be that TDA to meet a new standard in order to needlenly delsyed. many of the sites for which early site temain in possession of the FDA. see 10 The Commission bebeves that early permits might be sought an already set CR 50.10w!a)(1), but the backLt rule site permits can usehdly serve as aside for use by utilines: thus, even does not change the force an FDA has in vehicles for resohv.g most site issues though non nuclear development of the proceeing.procea&ng or certiheation before large commitments of masources site might be postponed. non utility voes a licensing are made. Moreover, the Con mission of the site would not be. Last. even hM1 ARC's proposal. however, would believes that a term of tan to twenty during the period in which an early site bmd both the staff and the Commisalon years for early site permits will snake permit is in effect. non nuclear uses of in a certification proceeing and wou d early site permits more useful for early the site are not prohibited altogether. add a cost benebt test to the tests which resolution of site issues than would the See 15135. must be met before a determination f ve. year term in to Cm teos and to The comments on the proposed rule r.ade in an FDA could be reconsidered. CTR part 51 App. Q. because the longer raise two other important issues hu1 ARC's proposal thus would term wiu require less frequent conceming the rule's provisions on early affecovely amend both the backfit rule reassessments ofinues than would the site permtts The first issue concerns the and the cited paragraphs of Appendix shorter term. The hve year term is a division of authonty between the 0: It would. in effect. turn any existing function not of the rehabibty of the Federal govemment and local TDA into a partial certtfication. Here the informaton available to make the govemments over the siting of nuclear Comminion would rather adhere to the decisions. but r6ther of the fact that the power facihties. The New York State f.nahty provisions in the e.xistmg decisions made under those provisions Energy Office is concerned that the regulations,incluing Appen6x 0 and may orJy resolve isolated site issues e the beckfit rule.ne Cornmission proposed rule leavn the impression that and anucipete site utiliudon in the very only an early site permit imm the NRC beheves that.in this situation, these naar term. The Comnussion is confident is necenary to set aside land for a revisions adequately balance the meed or finality vnth the seed for flexibihty that there wiu be informanoo adequate nuclear power plant. To the contrary, to deal with cnforeseen safe *y advances 1o support site approvals lastag up to 20 the rule does not. indeed. could not, years. After all.the Commission heenses change the division of authority or nsks. plants and their sites for operation for between the Federal govemment and Early Site Permits periods of up to tece twenty years, the states tner the siung of nuclear What design certfication is to the Where adequate information is not plants. An early site permit constitutes eatly resolution of design isetes the available, early alte permits will not be approval of a site only under the Federal lasued. early site permit is to the early statutes and reguistions administered by resolution of site related issues. Both the The Commission is also confident that the Comrnission.not under any other certification and the permit make it enough informanon on reactor design applicable iswe. possible to resolve important licensmg will be available in an early one permit he last importantissue raised by the issues belare a construction permit proceedmg to pernut sound judgmente comments on early site permits concerns proceedeg They in effect make poseible about environmental impacts and thus the proposed rule's requirement that the the banking of designs and ettes, thereby to enable state and local agencies such application contain a plan for ndress of r.aking the beansing of a gnen plant as the Connecucut Siting Council to the site in the event that the site more efficient.However, some parucipate effectvely in an early site preparation work and similar work and commenters quesnon whether the permit proceeding.The Council says similar work allowed by 10 CFR Commission should issue early site that for it to meanmsfully participate in 50.10(e)(1) la performed and the site permits.ne Attorney General of New a decision on an application for an early permit expires before it is nierenced in York. for instanm. sees no naad for site permit, the appbcation would have an application for a construction permit early este permits and questions whether to cantam" projected eminalon, or combined license issued under the there could be gands adequate to discharps, alte impacts, safety factors, rule. ne proposed rule required that the support approval of a site for twenty and exact operational parameters * *

• plan provide nasonable assurance that years, the term of early site permits proposed for a site".It is just such redress carried out under the plan would under the proposed rule (the fmal rule talormation which both the reposed achieve a 'self maintaining.

provides that perrnits will have terms of rule and the fmal rule w restuin of environmentally stable, and between ten and twenty years). He aesthetically acceptable site" which pomte out that under the NRC's current

• Tw the cecanasien dect.nse se feu.= en conformed to local coning laws.The repulatione. NRC early decisions an site nasunen at anns-as eve er emen a only important difference between the suitability issues raised in connection j,Q'j,"$*M y* g g [

proposed and final rules on this subject with a oonstruction permit generally could han sne d. ewe or emehn wheb o peruni is that the final rule requires such a plan remem effective for only five years See i..us inn to tw. art tearn musi beve. only of applicants who wish to perfonn

_ _ _ _ -

• Tederal Register / Vol. 54, No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1909 / Rules and Rerulations 15379 the cetivities a!! owed by to CFR (for the tatt of section 185 set below).

shou thereupon tasee e barnse a tu $M0(e)(1) h*UMARC up that this They ohen cite kwer Aeoesor erphcanL... requiremant is "scherenvy unworkable" DeveAqpment Co. v. ladernationol union and would icvolve the tw ion in ofElectrian/ Worders. 347 U.S. 398 42 U.S C. 2235. To be sure, the section as localzoninglaws, gainst a vanery of (1961) as support for this interpretsuon speaks in terms of a construction matelang redreas a of section 165. To these arguments-permit's being issued firet. and then a To the coctrary, the rule's provisions those who believe that there should be heense (presumably an operating en site redresa. includmg the provision no heartng, or else only a highly license). However, the contrast between en soning, are roodaled on the redress restncted heanns. af et construction is the two licenses le not fundamental to requirements iroposed on the Clinch complete reply that section 14th of the the section.ne substance of the section River Breeder Rasctor project. See in the Atomic Energy Act gives the is clearly indicated by the title of the Matter of the U.S. Deparusent of Energy, Comrnission authonty to combine a section and by the list of fmdings the et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor construction permit sad an operaung Commission must make. The section Plant).1LP 4M,21 NRC 507 (1963). license in a single license (for the text of may be paraphrased thus: A Moreover, the Commission has long secuon 16th. see below)- construction permit is not a grant of required that applicants' environmental A closer look at section 10th and 185 autbonry to operate once construccon is nports 6scuss compliance with local shows that s >ction leth clearly swes the complete: before operation begins, the lew s. includ.ng zoning laws. See to CTR Commission authority to combme a original application nust be brought up 1145(d). Appanntly, NUMARC le not construction permit and operatin to date, and the Comrnission must make oppesed to redress per se for sheecse in a single license and that certain afHrmative Endings. Thus the NUMARC's picposed revision of ( 52.25 secton 165 is not inconsistent with critical matter is not the separation of P i of the preposed rule speaks of the section selb. Section 16th says. in the Mo licenau, but the need for f possibility that redreas of adverse pertinent part, that the Commission has spes.c findings before operabon. With environmentalimpacts might be the authonry to "ocasider in a single this substance, both the proposed rule necessary. The Commission is orJy applicaton one or more of the scavitie* and the final rule are entirely in accord d requinns that such redress foUow the for which a heense is required by this (the pertment provisions of the final rule precedent established at C!mch Rwer Act [and] combine m a single license w 11 be described in more detail below). snd proceed accordmg to a plan ene or more of such actwiues..." 42 Moreover,in differencating between a incorporated in the early site permit. U.S C 221. The plain language of this

• construction permit" and a later Containing a redress plan, the penrJt section clearly applies to the combining

" license", section 185 is not taking 1 Itself wiu consttute assurance that. if of constructon pemute and operating exception to secton 1eth. Secuon 165 / l site preparation activities are carried licenses, for both construction and does not say, forinstance, j cut but the sitt never used for a nuclear opersoon of nuclear power facilities are "Notwithstanding anything in section power plant. the site will not be left in " activities for which a license is telb to the contrary, appbcants aball be cn unacceptable condition. required by this Act",natnely by granted initially orJy a construction i J CombinedLicenses sections M1 and 185 of the Act, see 42 pemut." By speaking of a separate U.S.C. 2231 and 2235, and section 103s lesuance of a license after completion of c.The Commission's Authority to !ssue of the Act makes any license to operate construction. section las simply Combmed Licenses a commercial nuclear power facility conforms itself to the sunplest case. in There are two important questions in " subject to such conditions sa the which the licenses an in their ' connection with the proposed rule's Commission may by rule or regulation elementary, uncombined states, end provisions on combined construction establish... See 42 U.S.C. 2233. Had avoids having to make an already long permits and operating beenses with Congress intended that construction section longer in order to acknowledge conditions. The firstis whether the permits and opersting licenses for the esse which section 16th makes Commission has the authonry to issue commercial nuclear power plants be possible. Moreover, section 185 combined licenses. ne second is excluded from the language of section acknowledges section selb impbcitly whether,in cases where aU design 36th, surely Congress would have amid when it speaka not of a separate issues are resolved before construction so nght in that section for the plain application for an operating license but btgins. there should be a bearing after language of that sectie invun their sim[ly of an updating of the onginal ,pp cation. Therefore, neither the construction is complete, and if so, what inclusion and they are the most inues abould be conaidated at the important ifcenses issued under the Act. proposed rule nor the final rule can be bea m Section 185 is not to the contrary, faulted for not providing for a separate i Comments on whether the Section 165 says,in patinent part. issuance of u opustW licean. Cc= mission has the authonty to issue CONSTRtJCTION PNTS--All This interpretation of section 185 is i combined licenses tend to mirror the appbcants for beenses to construct... confirmed by the legislative history of commenters* views on wbst kind of uninaoon facihties abau... be initiaUy the section. In 1954. when Congress was ! heanng should be held after considering proposed amendments to g,,N'M ,' jP ", *' the Atomic Energy Act of1946. construction is complete. In other words, g

the discussion of this issue tecds to be feelhty, upon the flhag of arty additional representatives of the industry l

reeult oriented. Thus, many who believe informenoe needed to brtag the ongzaal complained that the proposed section I oppbcation up to date, and upon Erwimg that 185 required thet construenon of a that there should be a beenng after the facihty autbonned has been constructed l l construction, and that it shou'd be as and will opere te in conformity with the facihty be completed "under a mere j full a htating as operating license appucation as amended and in conformity construction permit, without any I beermgs often are, argue that the p o o a o assurance at that stage that there wiD be l Comnunion has no authonty to issue issued any license to... operste it after combin2d licenses. Dey claim that in the obsence of any good cause bems it has met all the speciScabons of the i section185 of the Atomle Energy Act shown so the Comansoon why the granting of construction pennit." Atomic Energy Act i candates a two. step licens!ng process a beenae would not be in secordance with of1954: Hearings on S. 3323 and H.R. the proviajana of this Act, the Comnuasion 8882 before the joint Committee on l

15M0 Fcderal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations i Altmic. Energy 83r'd Congress. 2d Adminletrative Procedure Act (APA) hearing slao believes that en issue in the ,Seuirn.113 (May 10,19M). nese which says,in eff;ct, that adjud cation heanns should be whether construction representatives proposed instead that la not required in cases in which the has been completed in accord with the power facility appheants should be able agency decision rests " solely on . terms of the combined license, and the to obtain a single license covering all inspections, tests. or elections". See 5 final rule so provides. Also, under cepects of their activitiee-construction. U.S.C. 554(a)(3). Under Part 52's section 165 of the Atomic Energy Act. possession of fuel, and operation-end provisions of combined licenna, a the Commission must fmd. prior to that the license abould contain the combined license will contain the teste, facility operation, that the facility has conditions the applicant would have to inspection, and analyses. and been constructed and will operate in meet before operation of a constructed acceptance criteria therefor, which are conformity with the application and the I facility could begin. !d. at 313 and 118. necenary and sufficient to provide rules and regulations of the Commission. On this proposal, the following coDoquy reasonable assurance that the facility This statutory finding. in the context of took place: has been constructed and will operate in Subpart C of this rule, translates into l Representative H:NSHAW net seems to conformity with the license and the Act. two separate but related regulatory i me to be reasohable, ti,at you should put alj See 152.97. DOE o argument amounta to findings: that compliance with the the condicons into t hcense that can be put the claim that the kind of tests and acceptance criteria in the combined l into t bcense. net would be fair enough. inspectione spoken of in Part 52 is the license will provide reasonable Chairman COLI. Would you mind my same as the kind of tests and auurance that the facility has bt en l interruption? Why cannot that be done under inspections spoken ofin the APA* conetructed and will operate in l the tenne of the bill as it is now? The Comaussion agrees that findings accordance with the Commisolun's l FNo'n undo'u$i which rest solely on the results of tests requirements, and that the acceptance od so reted. and inspections abould not be criteria have in fact been satisfied. The I chairmas Cots. Of course it would. adjudicated. and the final rule so former finding willbe made prior to I . Id. at 119. Chairman Cole said this even f d o e on u loeuence of the combined license, and j though neither of the draft bills before mak before operation begins under a "IU"'""'U D' O N '*I" '"Y combined license willnecessarily combined license hearing under section the Committee contained the text of what is now section 16th. Twelve days always be based on wholly self. 189a of the Act.The latter findmg i I later, as if to put the matter beyond all implementing acceptance criteria and cannot by its nature be made until later, doubt, the Committee incorporated the therefore encompassed within the ApA afur construcdonis substantish present text of section 18th into both exception.The Commission does not complete and therefore cannot by its bills.The final rule provides for just believe that it is prudent to decide now, nature be the subject of any heanng such a single license, with conitions. as before the Commission has even once [rior toissuance of the combined was discussed in this colloquy-gone through the process of judgmg cenpha, to the pxunt that an Power Reactor Development Co. v. whether a plant built under a combined opportunity for hearms should be Electnce! WotAers 367 U.S. 396 (1961)- license is ready to operate, that every afforded prior to operation. it should be is not to the contrary. The issue in that finding the Commission will have to confined to the single issue that cannot case was not whether the Commission make at that point will be cut.and-have been litigated earlier-whether the had the authority to combine a acceptance enteria are estisfied. No dried froceeding according to highly commenter has offered any legal construction permit with an operstm8 detaile " objective criteria" entailing license with conditions. but whether the little judgment and discretion in their argument to the contrary

• Commission could postpone the ultimete application. and not involving questions Commenters disagree greatly on safety fmdings until construction was of" credibility, conflicts and whether any otherissue should be complete. The Court ruled that the sufficiency", questions which the Court considered in a hearing. The proposed Commission could, and found support in UCS v. NRC. 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.

rule provided that intervenors could for its conclusion in section 185. which 1964), held were marks of inues which contend that significant new information showed the Court said, that " Congress should be litigated at least under the showed that some modification to the contemplated a step by. step procedure." feets of that case. Indeed, trying to site or the design was necessary to 56718 S. at 405. But the Court did not assure that the tests. inspections, and assure adequate protection.To this. cay, wetion 185 mandates a separate related acceptance criteria in the NUMARC responds that "no one could issuance of an operatinglicense. combined license are wholly self. seriously consider ordering a new plant notwithstandmg section 16th." The implercenting may well only succeed in with :he licensing uncertainties it would interpretation of section16th of the Act introducing inordmate delay into the (Fee " NUMARC proposes a complete was not at issue. heenng on the application for a rewn. of 8 52.103, elements of which

b. Heanngs After Conetruction is combined license.

are discussed below. Severalindustry Compiem Thus, the question becomes whether commenters point to the "added the rule should provide an opportunity burdens" that applicants would be The first issue concerning hearmas for a post. construction hearing on the assuming under the proposed rule as ofter completion of construction under a issues which are not excepted from grounds for severely limiting the issues combined license is whether there adjudication by the ApA. Whether the for beanng. Rockwell lntemational. for should be such hearings at all. Most Commission could or should go further instance claims that, with the hearing cenunenters, whatever their affiliation. under its governing statutes we leave to believe the 6ere should be the future consideration and experience: . secoon tas eleo eeye set. pne to es* roues cpportunity for such bearings.They this rule adopts an approach within the aer..wt be an abeemoe of sood en== be as disagree only over how limited the bounds of our legal authority which seta obown to m comauman wbr a srannas of ** hearings should be. DOE arfues that reasonable limits on any post. hc. nee. 14 not be in accordance wim me

• • • 'k*,'s,^.".,*,'d,**,'.*.],MbI there should be no such heanngs at all.

construction hearing. In this regard. $.uon'has an opportuns r for beanas se ,y As the pnncipal support for its every commenter who believes there e argument. DOE cites the section of the should be such an opportunity for eat wiu be made pnw to fecht> opmuss I ~ '~ ' ' " ' " " ~ *'

l .rederal Register / Vcl. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulatiens 15381 under i 52.103, them will be four pubbc To the eatent that these commenters CFR Laos. This approach to issues teannes for each plant. offer any practical argunents in favor of concerning the inadequacy of the Pubhc interest g*oups also take a dim this approach, they are not pereussive. con,bined beense is well4ounded in the view of the proposed rule's limita tions Rock well Interna tional may engage in discretion afforded the Commission on the bearing.though their reasons an some double countag when it asserta under section 146 of the Act to not the industry's. UCS says that a that there are four public beanage for determine what conettutes " good bcensing proceeding without uncertainty each plant. but when the Maryland cause" for not permitting operstion. and is a sham. OCRE goes further and Nuclear Safety Coalition says that the in the analogy which this approach hes asserts that the uncertainty should be pubbe can debate licensing tasuas only with the way construction permits are ) d;stnbuted equally:In a perfectly fair in an early site persait hearms and after treated in operating license pmceedings. l proceeding, (the] chance (of winning] construccon, and therefore needs Contentions alleging inadequacies in a would be 50%."The Maryland Nuclear Safety Coalition counts only two another hearing on design lasues,it construction permit are not now beenngs for each plant. N!RS says that inexpheably simplyignores the admissible in an operating license many problems with the curtent mandatory public bearms on the proceeding. Similarly, under the fmal generstion of reactors were cured under apphcation for the combined license and rule, contentions alleging inadequacies the full two-step Ifeensing process. the opportunity for a public bearing on in a combined license are not admissible an application for a design certl$ cation. in a post construction beanns. nis latter group of commenters Moreover, contrary to N!RS, Moreover, as we noted. this ap I appears to be opposed to any limitation shortcom' in certain plants were not fully estisfies applicable law. proach on the post construction hearing, for not discovend cause thelicensing one of them proposes a conente alternetis e to the proposed rule's proceedings consisted of two steps but M ad uues provssions on the heanng. UCS does say rather because design issues had to be These are taken up section by section. that the heanns should encompass "all resolved and construction made to Not discussed are most of the many l Isrues that are meterial to the NRC's conform to design before operation changes made to the proposed rule for a pmval of an operating license for the beFan. Part 52 provides for no less. the sake of clarity, brevity, consistency, p ant", but that statetnmt is either o ne final rule adopts a straight. specificit however.y, and the like. Worth notme: forward approach to limitmg & issues is that this FederalRegistd the questfon o at seu e sb u d be in any post.construccon beanns on a notice moves Appendices M. N, O, and encon passed or it is the claim that* combined license. As a matter of logic. Q of part 60 to part $2. so that. except when it comes time to determine. every conceivable contention which for Subpart F of to CIR Part 2. all of the whether the plant has been built in could be raised at that stage would Commission a regulations on j corJormity with the terms of the necenarily take one of two general standarchsation and early resolution of combined bcense. all the operating forms. it would allege either that licensing issues will be in one part of to beense issues resolved befor, construction had not been completed-CFR Chapter L Readers are reminded construction should be treated as if they and the plant would not operate-in that a comparative text showing all had never been resolved. Many corJormity with the terms of the deletions from, and additions to, the commenters do in fact seem to be combined license, or that those terms proposed rule is available in the NRC's making such a claim. for they contend were themselves not in conformity with public document room, against any limits on the post. the Atomic Energy Act and pertinent construction beanng at the sarne time Commission requirements. The final rule J.EorlySite Permhs that they support the idea that design makes issues of conformity with the At the suggestion of NUMARC and issues should be resolved befor, terms of the combined license part o; others. I 52.17 now gives applicants for I construction. any post. construction beanng. unless early site permits the option of There have to be substantiallimits on those issues are excepted from submitting partial or complete the issues that can be raised after adjudication by the APA exception for emergency plans, for final approval. construction. A licensing proceeding findings which are based solely on the Also, the section requires a redress plan without any uncertainty m result may be results of testa and inspections. The only of applicants who wish to be a ble a sham, but the bulk of the uncertainty final rule does not attempt to sayin to perform the site preparation work and should be addressed and resolved prior advance whatissues nught fall under similar work allowed under 10 CTR to. not af ter, construction. Part 52 does that exception. The comments ar, 50.10(e)(1). Last. incorporatmg not remove uncertainty,it simply nearly unanimous in the opinion that suggestions by UCS and others, the reallocates it to the beginning of the issues of conformity with the combined secuon says what factors should be licensing process.The alternative license are properly encompassed in any considered in determining whether the apparently o!Iered by opponents of post construction heanng. Moreover, area surroundmg the site is " amenable" leits on the post. construction beanns this limited opportunity for hearms is to emergency planning.To avoid is in effect. to double the uncertain *y by consistent with the Commission's belief suggestmg that the Commission is considering every design issue twice.* that, even if section 145 did not speak at adopnas new emergency planning all to the need for a conformity fmding, standards. I 52.17 abandons the . Even e the Cornmission itself would need to I ferprm e % teocRzenameora w make such a findmg prior to operation in proposed language o,f "amenabihty to dme in be perfaci m.une. e.we h. emergency planning in favor of adueved in r piecine iudses with iona of coma. order to conclude,in the language of language drawn from existing I,ImEs. N N N a [ [. $ section 103. that operation is not reguls tions on emerTency plarming. we.-an = pment ope eeos of the pieni-en inimical to the health and safety of the Section 52.18 now reaket clear that ene..ua aan twe nu ch.oce4 are egeanni public.De fmal rule also provides that need for power is not a consideration at se a ns ouu ovmn to s. the duce of comma issues of wbether the terms of the the estly site permit stage. NdY .Ea"o [e combined limnse are themselves in a number of places-ll 52.23.52.53. party i euce et -mems i.m..comang => ocsz. inadequete are to be brought before the $2.87, and portions of other sections-wecufe. Commission under the provisions of 10 the rule prcvides exphcitl) fer ACRS r l i .9 ..,,m,.,,.

j g8[ ' Tederal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulatione l review of issues to make clear that. even original permit can be Exed at a term performance requirements and include though the Atomic Energy Act does not. shorter than twenty years. See the necessary codes. standards, and in terms give the ACRS e role in the 6 52.27(a). other acceptance and performance granting of early site permits, design in its comment on l $2.31.1ABoeuf, criteria to which the equipment and cerufications, or combined licenses, the tamb st'.ggeats that at renewal, the materials will be fabricated and tested. ACRS is to have the same role with burden should be on the Commission to Construction and installation nspect to these devices that it does with show why an early site permit should specifications would have to identify the nopect to construction permits, not be renewed, but that a given permit criteria and methods by which systems, operstmg licenses, and the like should be renewed only once, and for structures and components are erected Wherever the ACRS is spoken ofin Part not more than ten years. The Anal rule or installed in the facility and include

52. the intention is that the ACRS review retairis the provisions of the proposed acceptance, performance, inspection, the pertinent issues according to the rule because they provide more and testing nquiremente and criteria.

standards specified therein. Dexibility to both the Commission and in 6 52.47, the provisions on teetma of f As in the proposed rule. I 52.25 holders of permits. prototypes have been reworded to avoid provides that the holder of en early site Much of the dacuuion in Sections permit which contains a site redress II.1.f. and D.S.b. above on the nnality of suggestmg a presumption that designs of the affected class could be certified only plan or the applicant for a construction design certifications and hearings after after successful testing of a prototype. permit or combined license which construction is relevant to the One individual and the U.S. Metric references such an early site permit, provisions in 6 52.39 on the finality of Association urged that the rule require may perform the activities at the site early site permita. Section 52.39 now that technicalhformationin ollowed by to CFR 50.10(e)(1) witMut states that, except to certain limited applications be in metric unita. '!he NRC first obtaining the separate circumstances, issues resolved in a staff believes there is much merit in this authonzation required by 6 50.10. The Proceeding on en early site permit shall New York State Ene Office appears be treated as resolved in any later croposal. but because the public has not to take this to mean t the holder of procuding on an applicadon which had an opportunity to comment on it. It the permit may perform the work references the early site permit. One of is not incorporated in the final rule.The without NRC approval.To the contrary. Ge circumstancu involyn peudone NRC staff is considering propostrig an the early ette permit which contains a under to CFR 2.206 that the terms of the amendment to Part 52 on the subject for redress plan is itself NRC approval.The early site permit should be modified: Commiulon nyiew, law finn of LeBoeuf. Lamb. Leiby & 6 52.39(a)(2)(lii) assumes that the On il 52.53. 52.55. and 52.63, see the MacRae. representir;; several utilities. Comminion shaU mooln me luun remarks in Section 111.1. above on orgues that recent case law, especially raised by the etition in accordance il $2.23. 52.27. and 52.39. respectively. NRDC v. EPA. 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir, with the stan ard in paragraph (a)(1) of Also, t 52.55 of the proposed rule set ten 1968). calls into question the sesame ucuon. years as the duration of certifications. The final rule extends the duration to Commission's limitations on non. safety 2 Dwipn Certifications fifteen years, to permit more operating related construction before issuance of a permit. lABoeuf. Lamb concludes that in the proposed rule, l 52.45 contained experience with a given design to i 52.25 and related portions of Part 52 matenal on scope of design and testing accumulate before the certification should be deleted and the hmitations in of prototypes.This material now comes up for renewal or ceases to be I 50.10 revieweo at the light of the case appears,in modified form,in i 52.47. available to applicants for combined law.The Office of the General Counsel The phrue essentially complete licenses. In addition. I 52.63(a)(3) now is undertsking a review and will nuclear power plant." which is used in limits Commission-ordered recommend to the Commission if any 52.45. le defined as a design which modificauons of design. certified changes to these sections are warranted. includes all structures, systems, and elements of a specific plant to situations components which caa affect safe in which the modification is necenary In the meantime, the Commission has operation of the plant except for site. for adequate protection and special occided to keep Part 52's provisions on - specific elements such as the service circumstances as defined in to CFR site work intact and consistent with the water intake structure and the ultimate 50.12(a) are present.This double related provisions in Part 50. best sink.Therefore those portions of requimment does not mean that if a Section 52.27 now contains some of the design that are either site specific 8Pecific plant pruents an undue risk but the meterial which appeared in I $2.29 (such as the service water intake no special circumstances are present the of the proposed rule. OCRE objects to structure of the ultimate heat sink) or plant will not be modified. Rather. the the provision in i 52.27 which treats an include structures systems and modification will take place through oarly site permit as valid beyond the components which do not affect the safe modification of the certified design date of exptration in croceedings based cperation of the faculty (such as itself, as provided for elsewhere in the on applications which have referenced warebouses and sewage treatment same section. the early site permit. OCRE argues that facilities)may be excluded from the Theoretically. it would be possible for this provision allows clever applicants scope of design. In addition, an an applicant whose application to avoid new site requirements by essentially complete design is a design referenced a certified design to select referencing an early site permit just that has been finalized to the point that designer (s) other than the designer (s) before it expires. At bottom. thfs le procurement specifications and which had achieved certification of the really an argument that early site construcUoo and installation standard design. Section 52.63(c) makes permits should have shorter durations. specifications can be complete > and clear that such an applicant might be The Commission is confident that the made available for audit if it is required to provide information which is sgency will be able to make site determined that they are nquired for normally contained in procurement judgments which will retain their Commission review in accordance with specifications and construcUon and validity for the durations provided for in the requirements of I 52.47(a). installation specifications and which is the final rule. However, the final rule Procurement specifications would have consistent with the certified design and does provide that the duration of an to idenufy the equipment and material ave 0able for audit by the NRC staff.

Teddal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15383 Also, l 52.73 requires a demonstration Section 52.43 now provides that the that 11 would be acceptable for that the new deel eris quahhed to initial term of a combined beense shall interested persons to wait until notice is supply the des. Last, the new designer would heve to pay a portion of not exceed forty years from the date on received before they examine the record which the Commission makes the of construction.nese time penods e'e the cost of the review of the appbcation for certification. See to CFR 170.12(d) findings required by 6 52.103(c). hke the sixty.daylimit in the Hobbs Act. On 6 $2.87 see the discussion in cnd (e), as amended in this document. It Section U1.1.on 5 52.23. 28 U.S.C. 2344, for petitions for direet [udicial review of an egency rule. These is expected. se a practical matter, that NUMARC posed removing from umits assume that the petitioneris applicants referencing a certified design would select the designer which had i 52.89 any te erence to design familiar with the fundamentals of the schieved certification of the standard certhentions, on the grounds that. record before the limited period begms, design. environmentalimpact statements should The limited period is then provided for not be prepared in connection with consideration of options. consultation 3 CombinedLicenses certification rulemakings. De with other interested persons, and Section 52.73 now provides that the references in this section to design draft of pleadings. !n any event, the entity that obtained cernficaticn for a certifications are not meant to imply final e provides sixt ye. in des must be the entity that supplies that environmental impact statemente consideration of the pl a standard the esign to an appliu;it for a must be p red in connection with 8 52.103 imposes on titioners. combined license referencing the design. design ce cations. Moreover, as noted bove. to assist unless it is demonstrated that another Section 52.99 has been reworded to 5terested persons in becoming familiar entity is quahfied to su y the design' reflect more clearly that the inspection with the construction record. 6 52.99 This provision was ed because an carried out during construction under a now provides that notice of staff entity suppl the design should be combined license will be based on the op royals of construction willbe quehfied to o so; the entity which tests, inspections, analyses, and related pu lished periodically in the Federal obtained the cernfication will have acceptance criterie proposed by the Register. Any hearing held under demonstrated its quehfications by oppheant, approved by the staff. and 6 52.103(b)(2)(1) will use informal incorporated in the combined license. procedures to the maximum extent a$t ente e ofI 52 proposed rule now appears'75 of the Seseralindustry commenters proposed recticable and permissible under law. in i 52.79 of adding to this section a requirement that {n particular, the Commission intends to the final rule the staff prepare a review schedule in make use of the provisions in 5 U.S C. DOE preposes redrafting I 52.79 to connection with each combined license. 554. 556, and 557 which are applicable to require that no apbe considered unless However, such a requirement would be determining applications for initial heation for a combined license lars ly duplicative of a long. standing licenses. Under i 52.103(b)(2)(li). the it references a certified design. The fmal sta practice under which the staff NRC staff will review the i 1.206 rule does not contain this restnction p ares an annualinspection plan petition and make appropnate because there ma be circumstances in ch allocates resources according to recommendations to the Commission w which a combine license would the priorities among all pending concerning the petition. The / p rly utihre a non. standard design. inspection tasks.The annual plan Commission itself willissue a decision y an ecause such a restnetion would abould assure the timeliness of staff granting or denying the petition in whole i mean. among other things, that eve. review of construction under a or in part. rototype would have to be license in a combined license. Section 52.99 Finally. Urenco. Inc., is concerned that lly two. step process. In connection envisions a " sign.as.you go" process in the last subsection of 5 52.103 not be with l 52.79's provisions on submission which the staff signs off oninspection taken to suggest that the Commission cf complete eme ney plans. NIRS units and notice of the staffe sign offis would have to make separate findir.cs somehow conclu es that Subpart C's published in the Federal Register. UCS for each of the numerous " modules" of a provisions on emergency planning says that it is " totally inappropriate" for gaseous diffusion facility.The issue of " extend" to the detriment of state and the Commission. while construction is local governments, the " realism" going on, to sign off on inspections and how the modules of a gaseous diffusion feelhty should be licensed is beyond the doctnne set forth in to CFR 50.47 and thus put matters beyond dispute which scope of this rulemaking: I 52.103 recently affirmed in Commonwealth of might otherwise be raised after therefore cannot suggest that the Massachusetts v. NRC. 856 F.2d 378 (1stconstruction is complete. However. UCS Commission would beve to make Ctr.1988). Apparently.NIRS believes has misunderstood the Commission's separate findings f"each of the thet to settle emeregency planning role in the inspection process. While modules of such a 4cihty. issues before construction is to " extend" construction is going on, only the staff the doctrine. To the contrary, although signs off on inspections.ne IV. Replicate Plant Concept Subpart C assumes the " realism" Commission makes no findings with in the notice of proposed rulemakmg. doctrine. as it is entitled to do. It does reWPect to construction until the Commission pubbshed a revised not extend it.The doctrme remains construction is complete. Section 52.99 precisely what it is in i 50.47. Moreover, has been modified to make this point policy statement on rephcation of plants the Commission's sim in drafting more clearly, and invited comment on the revised Subpart C's provisions on emergency UCS and other commenters object to policy. See 53 FR 32067 col. 3. to 32068. planning has been to follow to the the section in i 52.103 of the proposed remarked that the statement's col.1. Severalindustry commenters mrximum feesible extent the National rule which provided interested persons requirement that the application for Governors' Association's Recommendation, at its 79th annual thirty days after notice of proposed replication be submitted within five authorization of operation in which to years of the date ofissuance of the staff meeting.11:1987, that "... emergency request a hearing on the specified safety evaluation report for the base plans should be approved by the NRC grounds. Yet the thirty. day requirement plant effectively made replication before it issues the construction pertcit was drawn from section 1894 of the Act. for any new nuclear power plant." Neither the Act not Part 52 Imagmes unavailable for the short term.They recommended removing the restrict.on.

Federal Regist:r / Vol. St. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 28, 1989 / Rules and Regulatirns n;384 \\ er et 1: set lengthening it ne subsequently identWed by b ACRS or Paperweek Reduction Act Statement , Commission has decided to retain this dunna the public heanngs on the base restnetion. ne five. year Agure is in fact plant appbcation as requiringlater his f nalrule amends information already a lengthening of the analogus resolutiers collection te9utrements that are subject figure in the !mmediately preceding (5)Identdication of the major to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1900 v;nion of the policy statement.The contractore, with justification for the (44 U.S.C. 3501 st seg4 nese rntriction is a reDection of the acceptabibty of any that an different mquirements have been submitted to the Commission's bebef that a$an aplications than those used by the base plant omce of Management and Budget number years probably ought to bven applicant and (OMB) for any review appropriate under which reach back further t i I (6) A discussion of how the replicate the Act.no efective date of this rule I i considered as custom. plant plant design will conform to any provides for the nine days required for applications. che es to the Commission's regulations OMB nyiew of ee orm a W n Policy on Replication whi have become effective since the couection mquirements octained in the y ,g y g, y

rule, i

De repbcate plant conceptinvolves plant. Public reporting burden for this l on application by a utibty for a license couection of information is estimated to i ta c netruct or operste one or more EnvironmentalImpacWiegerlant everage 3L000 hours per response. riuclect power plante of essentially the Exclusion includmg the time for reviewing same design as one alnady licensed. ne final rule amends the procedures instructions, searching existing data ne design of the plant almedy currently found in Part 50 and its sources, gathering and maintaining the j licensed (termed the base plant design) appendices for the filing and reviewing data needed, and completing the may be replicated at both the of applications for construction permits, reviewing the collection of information. construction permit and operatin8 operating licenses, early site reviews. Send comments regarding this burden i license stages, and in applications for and standard design approvals. As such estimate or any other aspect of this combined construction permits and they meet the eligibihty criteria for the collection of information, including operating licenses in a one-step categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR suggestions for reducing this burden, to l heensing process. Replication of an $1.22(c)(3).That section appbes to the Records and Reports Management approvsd base plant design at the "[s]mendments to... Part [] 50... Branch, Division ofInformation construction permit stage is a whleb relate to (i) procedures for filing Suppport Services. Office of Information prerequisite for its replication at the and reviewing appbestions for licenses and Resources Management. U.S. sperstmg license stage. Although or construction permits or other forms of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, replication of the base plant design at permission...." As the Commission Washington. DC 20555: and to the the o rating license stage is not explained in promulgating this Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-i inan atory, that is, the operating license exclusion. "[o]lthough amendments of 0000), Office of Mansbement and c$st m an a$p cit!o h' 's nk'n's i v$ arts of the M s Budget. Washington. C 20503. i e ngly recommended. An appbcation for a replicate plant amendments themselves relate solel to Regulatory Analysis Y snust demonstrate compliance with the matters of rocedure. [They)...do act ~ As presently constituted, the four bcenomg requirements for new have an ef et on the environment. 49 American popul. tion of nuclear power plant designs as set forth in the 9352. 9371. col. 3 Narcb 12.19M) reactors consists largely of ons.of.a. Commission's Severe Accident Pobey (final nVironmutal protection Statemtnt (50 FR 32138. August 3.1985). regulstions). Accordingly, pursuant to kind designs. Experience has shown that Each application proposing to 1M 5122M. no ennronmental the highly individualistic character of this population has consumed enormous replicate a previously bcsensed plant impact statement or environmental wtll be subjected to a quahfication essessment need be prepared in resources in the processes of design, review to determine the acceptabibty of cometion with ihm final mles.' construction, and safety review. Because, typically, design of a plant was the base plant for replication and to not complete when construction ofit define specific matters that must be 'It **h** *e nbcanon dtfrerseen for the began. many safety questions were not addressed in the appliestion for the [,'y,N,*',"$,Ngg*,*$,,,,, resolved untillate in the licensing repbcate plant. A turther requirement sa m emadmenu m. in feet emmenses a se proceeding for that plant.ne late for qualification la that the application part ac procedme and sould have been plead to resolution of questions introduced great for a rsplicate plant must be submitted

• etpart uncertainty into proceedings, because within rive years of the date ofissuance

$*T, "9*8""*" ***'*8*8 '****8 fuk" lengthy safety reviews, constmetion the process of resolution often entailed

• Mn"i $e'UtMMe$"'?

of the etaff safety evaluation report for the base plant. The qualificauon review a stantem sina a comply wie the reeuaremonia. delays, and backfits. Moreover, the low will censider the followmg information-an appbcant mer have to inuld and issi e prowtype incidence of duplication among designs (1) The arrangement made with the plaat na aci clearh wie an eennemminamme' has meant that experience gained in the developers of the base plant design for M',$,'i g'e7,,,'MTo','"$,"e,d", construction and operation of a given e I its replication: er e safety rule wtuch apphu no operenas piente. plant has often not been usefulin the (2) The compatibility of the base plant the formal ecuae et promulsenas e ster am sely a construction and operation of any other design with the characteristics of the g g g,a g g ',8m 4M plant, and has made the generic alte proposed for the replicate plant; ,,,uncence er e eeriain kind or adveneed dee.si6 (3) A description of any changes to the trader the presemi - es meesiasfat sometruence permit and operenes beense for e base plant design, with justification for envvenmenter aseenmeni er unpaa sistaneet een pretorype plant wouM of some to e matar sedal the changes; be made Cf es FR ei a3?t cola s-s (estarias into acuae enth e sesruficant taped en the eetwoomast (4)The etstus of anImatters an ogwesent wie e State mader Sectise 274 of the and would estall the preparonos eren Anoesc Energy Act has no housediato er meneereble envtronamental tunpect statement Cf. Id. sol s (sie Mantified for the bese plant design in sevtmannanapact and amte woman a sie,ee meet prepare detened savtrermeestal the sefety evaluation report, or catesoncal ucJosion) The tenance et the anehm before ser bconu seriate econnak e--

l l Ted:ral Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15385 rnolution of continuing safety issues standardization. Clearly,if the (Dec. 9.1985) The impact on intervenots azere comphcated. Commission and the indus spend the or potential intervenors w ~11 be neutral. In the face of this experience with a twources necessary to cert a score of For the most part, the fmel rule will popula tion of unique plants, there have designs and then no ap references any of them,plicant affect the timirig of bearir:gi rather then i 1 long been fundamentaDy only thne those noources the scope of issues to be heard. For alternauves for Commission action, the will have been largely wasted. On the example. many site and des.gn issues last two of them not mutuaUy exclusive: other hand. it is just as clear that if a wiU be considered earlier, in connection either make no effort to b about an econ of plants uses a single certified with the issuance of an early site permit t increased degree of standa tion, or design, there will have been a great or standard design certification rather prgpose legislation on standar&sation, saving of the resources of the industry, than later. in connection with a facility l cr enact by rulemsking as much of a the egney, and the interested public licensing proceedmg. Similarly, a scheme for promotus standardization alike. To be added to the uncertainties as the Commission's current statutory surroundm' g the industry's response, combined licensed proceeding will authonty permits. The Commission has there are also uncertainties concernin include consideration of many of the l for some tune concluded eseinst the first the costs of the certification process, g issun that would ordinarily be deferred i until the operating license proceedmg. citernative, havtryt decided that a and the costs of developing the designs Thus, the timing rather than the cmt cf substantial increase in standard ration themselves, especially the advanced would enhance the safety and reliability designs, which may require testing of participating in NRClicensing cf nuclear power plants and require prototypes. However. if the industry proceedings will be effecied. intervenvre fewer mources in safety nyiews of finds it in its interest to proceed with the may experience someincreased plants. and that the Comrnission should development of nuclear power, there is preparabon costs l! they seek to reopen previously decided issues because of tae have in place provisions for the review every reason to expect that the safety increased showing that wiU be requinJ. of standardized designs and other and economic benehts of devices for assuring early resolution of standardization will far outweigh the Once a bearing commences, howes er, safety questions. The Commission has upfront costs of design and Commission an intervenor's costs should be therefore pursued standarization both certification: Review eme for decreased because the issues will be by propoems legislation-without applications forlicenses will be more clearly defined than under exisung success-end by promulgating rules,in drasticaUy reduced, the public brought practice.Therefore. in accordance with particular Appendices M. N. and O to into the process before construction. the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1960. 5 Part 50 (now Part 52) of to CTR. Lacking construction times shortened. economies U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby Irgiststion on standardization, the of scale created. reliability of plant certifies that the final rule will not has e Commission believes that the most performance increased, maintenance a sign ficant economic impact on a suitable alternative for encouragmg made eas!er, qualified vendor support substantial number of small entities and further standardi stion is to fiU out and made easier to maintain, and, most that, therefore, a regulatory flexibility j expand the Commission's regulatory important, safety enhanced. analysis need not be prepared. i scheme for standar6zation and early Thus. the rationale for proceedi38 Backfit Analysia 1 I l resolunon of safetyissues. 873)' g8 be This rule does not modify or add to ) ,,,uranu l Therefore, the Commission now promulgates a new set of regulations,to willin fact be used by the utilities, @ se systems, structum. components, w be placed in a new part in to CTR. Part however. it is certain that if the design of a facility; or the design

52. This new part facilitates the early reasonably expected benefits of approval or manufacturing license for a resolution of safety issues by providmg standardization are to be gained, then facW M h proedum w for pre-construction permit approvalof the Commission must have the organization required to construct or power plant sites, Commission,

procedural mechanisms in place for operate a facility. However. it could be certification of standardized designa,

m. ew of applications fx early she argued that this rule mo&fies and adds and the issuance oflicenses which approvals, design cernfications, and to de procedures or organization combine permission to construct a plant combined licenses. The most required to design a facihty. since the with permission to operate it once fundamental choice is. of course, the mie adds to, or else at least spells out, construction cr it has been successfully industry's, to proceed or not with the requirements for applicants for completed. ldeaUy. a future opplicant standar6:stion according to its own design certifications. Moreover, the rule.

j will reference an approved site and a weighing of costs and benefits. But the at the very least, substantially moihes certified design in an application for a Commission must be ready to perform the expectations of anyone who had combmed license, thus obviating the its review responslbilities if the industry hoped to apply for a design certifiestim need for an extensive review of the chooses standardization. under the previously existing section 7 apphcation and construction. The Regulatory Flexibility Act Cartification of Appen6x 0 particularly of any such ) who presently hold preliminary or f:nal l provision in Part 52 for Commission The final rule willnot have a design approvals under that Appen6x. l certification of designs has the. significant impact on a substantial Nonetheless, the Commission bel. eves ad6tional objective of encouraging the l l use of standardized designs, thereby number of small entnies The final rule that the backfit rule does not apply to cd&ng to the benefits of early resolution wtU reduce the procedural burden on this rule and, therefore. that no backfit the safety benefits of accumulated NRC licensees by improving the reactor analysis pursuant to to CTR 50.109(cl!s I expenence and the economic benefits of licensing process. Nuclear power plantrequired for this rule.The backfit rule licensees do not fallwithin the ) econocues of scale and transferable definition of small businesses in section was not intended to apply to ever) i Quanthcstion of the costs and 3 of the Small Business Act.15 U.S.C. action which substantially changes i experience. settled expectations. Clearly, the beckf:t benefits of this rulemaking is probably 632, the Small Business Size Standards rule would not apply to a rule which j of the SmallBusiness Administrationin i not possible. hiuch depends on use 13 CFR Part 121. or the Commission's would impose more stringent extent to wluch the industry pursues Size Standards published at 50 R 50241 requirements on all future applice% far construction permits, even though :.n.h a I l

'15386

• Federal. Resister / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18,19'.3 / Rules and Regulations ru11r argvebly m!sht have an adverse the Energy Reorganisetjon Act of1974.

Sec. itopact on a pmon who was as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and &&3, Stas Environmentalneww. considering applying for a permit but the Comaussion is adding to 10 CFR 52.pl Autbonsabon to conduct site had not done so yet in this latter case. Chapter i e new Part 52 and adopting

• euviues.

the back$t rule protects the construccon amendments to 10 CFR Parts 3. 50. 51. $193 Emes:ptions and varianen. permit holder, not the prospective ar'd 17&. 52 e7 luunce of combined beenoes. appbcant, or even the present applicant.

1. Part 12 is added to read as follows:

Prwp eumNS ew. P*# 52 hu o e a. f PANT $2-EARLY SITE PERMf7S: gp$MenagQmbined hoenu. Sit g Tule arguebly imposes more etnngent STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS: requirements for design certiScauon and AND COMSINED UCENSES POR Appenda M-Stander &aet on of Dnisn: Manufactun of NucJear Power Mesetors, thereby may have an adverse isopect on NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Constructoa and Operebon of Nuclear some persona. However, the effects of c,,,,,g py,yg g.,, Power Ructore Manufactured Pursuant the final rule will be largely prospective, to Comamin ucem and the rule does not require any Sec. APPen&x N-Standar&ssboe of Nuclear ) present holder of a design approval (no $11 Secpe, ent s' 52 fuuuns. ar Power person holds a design certification) to Ej Reactors of Duphcete Design et Multiple meet new standards in order to remain ste tr[o o 11ecuon requirements: I"*8 in possession of such an approval. OMB spprovst Ilat of Subjects Appendix P-[ Reserved) g,gp n A.4,,y Site Permite Appen&x o standareseuon of Dwign: Jo CTR Pctf 2 till scope of subpart Staff Review of Standard Designe 5113 Roletionshsp to Subport F of to CFR Appendix Q-Pre.Appbcation Early Review Adminiettetive practice and procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct Part 2 and Appenix Q of thle part of Site Sultabihtylanes $115 F1hng of oppbcetone. Authortry: Sece.103.104.161.1s1153.186. material Clanified information. 52.17 Contents of appliceuons. 189 to SteL 936.946.953.954.955.DH.as Environmental protection. Nuclear 52.1s Standards for nnew of appbeations. amended. ecc. 234. a3 Stat 1244. as amended Materials. Nuclear power plants and 5:19 Permit and renewel fees. [42 USC 2133,2201,2232,2233,2236. 2239. reactors. Penalty. Sem discriminetion. 52.21 Heennss. 22a21 eece. act. act son, as Stat 12411244. Source mater al. Special nucleat 52.23 Referral to the ACRS. 124a.1246 as amended (42 USC la41. SM2. material. Weste treatment and disposal. 5224 laeuance of early she permit Sa46). 52 25 Extent of actnnes permitted. l JO CTR Part 50 5127 Dureuon of perm!L O*8"I IF'VI8I'O' l Antitrust. ClassiBed information. Ftre 52m Anhesbe for meewel 8511 Saope. protection. Incorporation by reference. $ N,$,I",'g"n",',",k Thla part governs the issuance of l Intergovernmental rela tions. Nucle ar st35 Un of site for other purposes. enny site permits, standard design power plants and reactors, penalty. 52.37 Reporeng of defects and certifications, and combined licenses for i i Radiabon protection. Reactor siting noncocephance; nvoca ton. enspension, nuclear power facilities licensed under cntena. Reportmg and recordieepmg mo&ficanon of permits for cause. section 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy requirements. 52.39 Finality of early site permit Act of 1954, as amended (88 Stat. 919). deternunations. 20 CTR Porf 51 and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Subpart S-StanderW Dealen Certmaat one Act of 1974 (88 Stat.1242). Administrative praetice and 5141 Scope of subpart i513 De m na, procedure. Environmentalimpaet 52 43 Relationship to Appendices M. N. and As used in this Eart. statement. Nuclear meterials. Nuclear O of this part. power plants and resctors. Reporting 52.45 Fihng of applications. (a)" Combined license" means a and recordkeeping requirements. 52.47 Contents of appbcations. combined construction permit and Jo CTR Porf 32 514e Standards for review of oppbcabons, operating license with conditions for a 52 to Fees for review of apphcanons. nuclear power facility issued pursuant l Administrative practice and 52.51 Adnunistratve nytew of apphcanone. to Subpart C of this part. procedure. Antitrust. Baekfitting. 52.53 Referral to the ACRS. 83#* (g)..Early site permit" means a Combined license. Early site permit. '['I 8*d*'d d*'58" Commluion approvalinued pursuant Emergency planning. Fees, inspection-52.55 Dureuon of certificeuon. to Subpart A of this part,for a site or Limited work authorizauon. Nuclear 5157 Appheation for nnewat sites for one or more nuclear power power plants and reactors. Probabilistic 52.59 Cntene for rene- $1. facilidea. I risk assessment. Prototype Reactor $161 Dureuon of renet.at (c)" Standard design" means a design l siting criteria. Redress of site. Reporting 52.63 Finehty of standard daign which is sufficiently detailed and end recordkeeping requirments. ceruficanons. complete to support certification in Standard design. Standard design Subpart C-Combined uoensee accordance with Subpart B of this part. certification. 52.71 Scope of subpart, and which is usable for a multiple JO CTR Porf 170 52.73 Relationship to Subparts A and B. number of units or at a multiple number 5175 Filir.g of appbcanone. of sites without reopening or repeating Byproduct matenal. Nuclear 52.77 Centants of applications: general the review. I materials. Nuclear power plants and informenon. ree etors, penalty. Source material. 52.70 Contents of applications; technical W " Standard design certification" .. design certification". or " certification" Special nucleat material. guy. For the reasons set out in the s for nyiew of app iceuon means a Commission approvat issued l 5183 Appbcability of part 50 provtalons. pursuant to Subpart B of this part. of a prea nble and under the authority of the 52.53 Administrouve nyiew of appbcatoes. standard design for a nuclear power Atomic Energy Act of1954. as amended. Sta7 Referral to the ACRS. facility. A design so approved may be l 4 1

Tederal Redster / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Taeday, April 18, 1989 / Ruhe and Rerulations 15387 teferred to na a " earn $od standard from the Commuasion esparately from an need not include en assessment of the design". (s) All other terms in this part have apphestion for a construction permit ce the meaning set out h 10 CTR 50.2. or a cotrianed bconse int a facihty. benefits (for example, need for power) of the proposed accon but must include section 11 of the Atomic Eastgy Act, as l8335 Fitna of appenatona, an evaluation of therneuve sites to appbcable. (s) Amy person who may apply for a determine whether thm is any 9 St.g laterpetasons. construction permit under to Cm Part obviously supenor alternative to the site Except as specificaDy authoriand by

50. or ior a combined bcense under 10

pmposed, ph(ysical charactonetics unique to theb)(1)The CPR Part $2. may file with the Director tht Commisalonin wnting.no of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an interpnuuon of the mea,rdag of the regulations to this part by any officar et application for an early site permit. An ktoposed site, such u egness hmitations employee of the Commission other than application for an early site permit may m the ares sarroundmg the site, that be filed notwithstan&ng the fact that an could pose a signincent impediment to a wntien interpretation by the General application for a construction permit or the development of emergency plans, Counsel will be recognized to be bindmg a combined license has not been filed in(2)m appbcation may also either:

upon the Commission. connection with the alte or altas for (1) Propose major features of the g gg.s e,Wymanon seem which a permit is sought. emergency plans, such es the exact sizes ,,,,,n,,, gang,,,,,,,,, (b) m appbcadon must comply with of the amergency planning sones, that (s)The Nuclear Regulat the filing mquirements of to Cm 60.30 can be reviewed and approved by NRC I'}')p h d pply in consultation withIIMAin the Commission has submitted e absence of complete andintegrated information coDection re uirements ,n i ,p contained in this part to tTe Office of emergency plans: or D I*U *8 P0"'*58 *I I D'e (11) Propose complete and integrated is referenced by I 60.30(s)(1), ar Management and Budget (OMB) for apphcable emergen plans for review and approval as requind by the paperwork (c), (d), anjparagraphs (a), (b) (1)-{3),approval y the NRC,in consultation Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et (e). seq.). OMB has approved the with f e Federal Emergency information collection requirements 6 51.17 contenta et appnoemona. Mansp. ment Agency,in accord with the centeined in this part under control (a)(1)The application must contain applicable provisions of10 CTR 60.47, number 3150(b). the information nquind by to CFR 80.33 (3) Under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)(i) (b) The approved information (s)-(d), the first three sentences of of this section, the opphcation must i 50.34(a) 1 of emerge (nc) and, to the extent approva) include a desenption of contacts and collection requirements contained in this y plans is sought under arrangements made with local, state, part appear in ll 52.15,53.17,52.29, 5 45,52.47, $2.57,52.75,52.77, and 52.79. paragraph (b)(2)(il) of this section, the and federal governmental agencies with information required by 5 $0.33 (g) and emerge y planning responsibilities. p$ceo ould cb e 2)(11) of a se tio a at i s2.11 teope of subpart. followteg shat make good faith efforts to obtain This subpart sets out the nquirements (1) The number, type and thermal from the same governmental agencies and procedures appbcable to power level of the facihties for which certifications that:(1) N proposed Commission inauance of early site the site may be used; emergency plans are precocable; (ii) permits for approval of a site or sites for (ii) The boundaries of ti e site: hoe agencies are committed to one of more nuclear power facilities (iii) ne proposed generallocation of participating in any further development separate from the filing of an application each facihty on the site: of the plana,includm' g any required 5 eld for a construction permit or combined (iv) The anticipated maximum levels demonstrations, and (iii) that these bcense for such a facihty. of tediological and thermal effluents agencies are committed to executmg 1 s1.13 me6enonship to subpart F et 10 each facihty will produce, their responsibihties under the plans in CFR Part 2 and Appendia Q of ins part-(v)he type of cochng systems, the event of an amargency. & & procedures of this subpart do not intakes, and outflows that may be application must contain any replace those set out in Subpart F of 10 associated with each facihty; certi5 cations that have been obtained. If (vi)W seismic, meteorological, CFR Part 2 or Appendix Q of this part. hydrologic, and geologic characteristics these certifications cannot be obtained. the application must contain Subpart F epplies only when early of the proposed site (see Appendix A to information, includmg a utility plan, review of site suitabihty isenes is sought to CTR part 100); sufficient to show that the proposed in connection with an appliction for a (vti) The location and description of plans nonetheless provide reasonable permit to construct certain power facilities. Appendix Q spplies only when any nearby industrial. mihtery, or assurance that adequate protective NRC staff review of one or more site transportat on facihties and rectes: and measures can and will be taken. in the (viii) The existing and projected future suitability issues is sought separately population profile of the area event of a radiological emergency at the from and prior to the submittal of a aunounding the site. (c)1f the applicant wishes to be able

alte, construccon permit. A Staff Site Report (2) A complete ennronmental report to perform, after grant of the early sits issued under Appenchx Qin no way as utred by 10 CPR 51.45 and 51.50 affects the authority of the Commission must included in the appheation, permit, the activines at the site allowed or the presiding officerin any provided, however, that such by 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first obtaining the separate authonzation proceedmg under Subpart F or G of to environmental report must focus on the nquired by that section, the applicant CTR part 2. Subpart A applies when any er vironmental effects of construction plan for redress of the site in the eventshaU rep puson who may apply for a and operation of a reactor, or reactors, construction permst under to CFR Part which have charactenstics that fan 50 or for a combined license under 10 within the postulated site parameters, that the activities an performed and the t

CFR part 52 seeks an early site permit and provided further that the report referenced in an apphcation for a site permit expires before it is

3 5388 ' Tederal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations construction permit or a combined requirements for docketing in (b)1f the activities permitted by license issued under Subpart C of this ll 2.101(a)(1H4), and the requirements paragraph (e) of this section are part. The application must demonstrate forissuance of a notice of bearms in performed at any alte for which an early that there is reasonable assurance that il 2.104(a) (b)(1)(iv) and (v). (b)(2) to site permit has been panted, and the fedress carried out under the plan wiU the extent it runs parallel to (b)(1)(iv) site is not referenced in an application achieve an environmentaDy stable and and (v). and (b)(3), provided that the for a construction permit or a combined aesthetically acceptable site suitable for designated sections may not be license issued under Subpart C of this whatever non nuclear use may conform construed to require that the part wbtle the permit remains valid, then with local soning laws. environmental report or draft or final the early site permit must remain in i SMO manda m W W environmental impact statement include effect solely for the purpose of site an assessment of the benefits of the redress, and the holder of the permit Applications filed under this subpart proposed action. In the hearing, the shaU redress the site in accordance with will be reviewed according to the presidmg officer abau also determine the terms of the site ndress plan applicable standards set outin to Cm whether, taking into consideration the required by 9 52.17(c). lf. before redress part 50 and its appendices and part 100 alte criteria contelned in to CFR part is complete. a use not envisaged in the as they apply to appbeations for 100, a reactor, or reactors, having redress plan is found for the site or parts construction permits for nuclear power characteristics that fall within the thereof, the holder of the permit shall plants. In particular. the Commission parameters for the site can be carry out the redress plan to the greatest shaU prepare an environmentalimpact constructed and operated without undue extent possible consistent with the etstement during review of the risk to the beelth and safety of the alternate use, apphcation. in accordance with the public. All hearings conducted on applicable provisions of to CPR part $1 applications for early site permits filed iSt.37 Dureteen of permet. provided, however, that the draft and ' under this part are governed by the (a)Except as provided in paragraph f nel environmentalimpact statements procedures contained in Subpart G of (b) of this section, an early site permit part 2. issued under this subpart may be valid prepared by the Commission focus on for not less than ten not more than the environmental effects of $ 52.23 I4eferral to the ACft8. construction and o erstion of a reactor' twenty years from the date of issuance. or reactors, which ave charsetenstjes The Commission shall refer a copy of (b)(1) An early site permit continues that faU within the postulated site the appbcation to the Adytaory to be valid beyond the date of parameters, and provided further that Committee on Reactor Safeguards expiretion in any proceedmg on a the statements need not include an (ACRS).ne ACRS shat report on those construction permit appbeauon or a [ assess:nent of the benefits (for example, portions of the application which combined license application which need for power) of the proposed action' ccncern safety, references the earl site permit and is docketed alther be ore the date of but must include an evaluation of g SL24 lasuance of earty ette permtt-alternative sites to determine whether expiration of the early site permit. cr. if there is any obviously superior After conductmg a hearing under a timel op lication for renewal of the 152.21 of this subpart and receiving the permit as een filed, before the mi aio e all ete ne af't report to be submitted by the Advisory Commission has determined whether to consultation with the Federal Committee on Reactor Safeguards under renew the permit, t 52.23 of this subpart, and upcn (2) An early site permit also continues e r ei o a ion req of the determining that an application for en to be valid beyond the date of applicant by l 52.17(b)(1) shows that early site permit meets the apphcable expiration in any proceeding on an there is no significant impediment to the standards and requirements of the operating license appbcation which is 1 f 1 At mic Energy Act and the based on a constructjon permit which dn[ther anafo f sture7o " Commission's regulations, and that references the early site permit, and in wh emergency plans submitted by the notifications. if any, to other agencies or any heanns held under i 52.103 of this applicant under $ 52.17(b)(2)(1) are bodies have been duly reade, the part before operation begins under a acceptable, and whether any emergency Commission shallissue an early site combined license which references the plans submitted by the applicant under Permit. In the form and contauung the early alte permit. 152.17(b)(2)(ii) provide reasonable conditions and limitations, as the (c) An applicant for a construction assurance that adequate protective Commission deems appropnate and permit or combined license may, at its rnessures can and will be taken in the "'C"Y' O.wn nsk. reference in its applica uon a event of a radiologicaleme gency. t 82.25 Estent of acevttsee permetses. 'fpj Ch an a e h .d not f St.19 Permit and renewal fees. (a)If an early site permit contains a granted. De fees charged for the review of an site redress plan, the holder of the application for the initialissuance or permit, or the applicant for a l $2.29 AppNcanon tenenewal. renewal of an early site permit are set construction perrnit or combined license (a) Not less than twelve not more than forth in 10 Cm 170.12, together with a who references the permit, may perform thirty.six months prior to the end of the schedule for their deferred recovery. the activities at the alte allowed by to initial twenty year period, or any later There la no application fee. CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first obtaining renewal panod, the permit holder may the separate authorization required by apply for a renewal of the permit. An I 82.21 Hearta9a-that section, provided that the final apphcation for renewal must contain all g An early site permit is a partial erwitonmentalimpact statement information necessary to brms up to i i construcuon permit and is therefore prepared for the permit has concluded date the information and data contained I subject to all procedural requirementa in that the activities will not result in any in the previous application. 10 CFR part 2 which are applicable to significant adverse environmental (b) Any person whose interests may construction permits. includmg the impact which cannot be redressed. be affected by renewal of the permit t 2

_ _ _ _ _. ~ _ _ _ Federah Resister / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1999 / Rules and Regulations 15389 may request a hearing on the application for renewal. The request for a hearms activities. The information provided facia, that the acceptance criteria have must comply with to CTR 2.714. If a could be the baala for imposing new not been met. The permJt holder and beanns is granted, notice of the hearing requirements on the penrA in will be pubbsbed in accordance with to accordanos with the provisions of NRC staff may fde answars to the petition within the time specahed in to CTR 1.703. I 52.30. lf the permit noidar informs the CTR 1730 for answere to mot one by Director that the holder no longer parties and sta5. lf the Commission. in (c) An early alte permit. sithat original intends to use the site for a nuclear its judgment, decidea, on the basis of the or renewed, for which a timely power plant, the Director shall terminate pettions and any answers thereto, that application for renewal has been Sled. the permit. remains in effect until the Commission the petition meets the requirements of has determined whether to renew the I 88 87 "' P"8 "' '"d this paragraph, that the issues are not 3 penrJL If the permit is nof renewed,it ',Q, exempt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. continues to be vaUd in certain 554(a)(3), thet genuine issuee of material proceedings in accordance with the For purposes of Part 21 and to CFR fact are raised, and that settlement or 50.100, an early alte permit la a other informal reeNtion of the issues is provisions of I 52r(b). (d)The Cornmission shad refer a copy coneneton pumit. not possible, then iLe genuine issues of of the application for renewal to the material fact raised by the petition must 4 Advisory Committee on Reactor g gg,3, Finnmy of earty ans permet be resolved in accordance with the rep:rt on those por)tions of theSafegustds (ACRS.The ACRS abaU seeemsnesena, provisions in 554,556, and $57 which are (e)(1) Notwithstanding any provision applicable to determining oppbcation for application which concern safety and in 10 CR 50.100, whue an early site initiallicenses. shau app!y the criteria set forth in permit is in effect under il 52.27 or 52.33 (111) A petition which aUeges that the 4 i 52.31. the Cornmission may not impose new terms and conditions of the early site requirements. including new emergency Permit should be mo&fied will be f $2.3 t Crfierta for reneweL planning tequirements on the early site processed in accord with 10 CTR 1.206. permit or the site for which it was Before construction commences, the te e if the Co as on ta es issued, unless the Commission Commission shall consider the petition that the site complies with the Atomic detennines that a mo&fication is and determme whether any immediate Energy Act and the Commission a necessary either to bring the permit or action is reqotred. lf the petition is ladens and orders opphcable and in the site into compliance with the anted, then an appropriate order wiu te ei ect et the ume the site permit was CMh's regulations and orders e issued. Construction under the applicable and in effect at the time the sIon may wish permit was issued, or to assure construction permit or combined license i e ents e m will not be affected by the granting of to impose after a determmation that adequate protection of the public health the petiton unless the order is made there is a substantalineresse in overau and safety or the common defense and immediately effective. I protection of the public health and secunty. (iv) Prior to construction, the ( safety or the common defense and (2)ln making the findings required for Commission shall find that the tence c,f secunty to be derived from the rww issuance of a construction permit, i requirements and that the & rect and c;erating license, or combined license. the early site permit have been met. in& rect costa ofimplementation of those r the fin &ngs required by 6 52.103 cf (b) An applicant for a construction requirements are Just;fiedin view of this Ws part. H 6e oppheadon fu the permit, operating bcense, or combined increased protection. c notructen pennit. operaung heanse. beense who has hled an appbcation (b) A denial of renewal on this basis or emcbined license references an early referencing an early site permit issued does not bar the permit holder or site permit, the Commission shall treat under this subpart may include in the another applicant frorn fihng a new as resolved those matters resolved in apphcation a request for a variance frorn appbcanon for the site which proposes 6e proen&ng on the appbcadon fu one or more elements of the permit. In changes to the site or the way in which issuance or renewal of the early site deterw minF whethat to grant the it is used which correct the deficiencies permit. unless a contention is admitted venance, the Commission shall apply cited in the denfal of the renewal. that a reactor does not fit within one or tl.e same technicaUy relevant entens as j $2.33 Duration of renewal more of the site parameters included in wete applicable to the apphcataon for the site permit, or a petition is filed the or a.nal or renewed site permit. Each renewal of an early alte permit which aueges either that the site is not lasvance of the variance must be subject tney be for not less than ten nor more in compliance with the terms of the to Lugation during the construcuon than twenty years. early site penrJt, or that the terms and penrat, operstmg beanse, or combined con &tions of the earl bcense proceedmg in the same manner j S2.35 Use of efte for otrer pwposes-should be mo&fied. y site permit as otherissues material to those A site for which an early site permit has bern issued under this subpart may (1) A contention that a reactor does proceedings. } be used for purposes other than those not fit within one or more of the site Suboart 8-Standard Dealen described in the permit. Including the parameters included in the site permit Certifications location of other types of energy may be litigated in the same manner as facihtita. The permit holder shallinform other issues material to the proceeding. I 52 U Scope of av6pect. the Director of Nuclear Reactor (ii) A petition which alleges that the This subpart set out the requirements site is not in compliance with the tenna and procedures applicable to Regulation of any significant uses for the of the early site permit must include. or Comrnission issuance of rules granting site which have not been approved in clearly reference, official NRC the early site permit. ne information documents, documents prepared by or standard design certfication for nuclear about the act vities must be given to the Directorin advance of any actual for the permit holder, or evidence power facilities separate from the liling admissible in a proceeding under of an application for a construction construction or site moddication for the Subpart G of Part 2, which show, pnma facihty. permit or cornbined license for such 1

390 ' Tadoral Register / Vol 54, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations I stas metationaNp to Appenanose ti, Dt. Nuclear Reactor Regulation an be sufficiently detailed to allow and 0 of INo parL application for a final desip approval completion of the final safety analysis (a) Appendix M to this part governe and cerufication. and desip specific probabihetic nok the issuance of Ucenses to manufacture (2) Any person who seeks certification enessment required by parapoph muclear power reactors to be installed but already holds, or has appbed for, e (e)(1)(v) of this section: and operated at sites not identified in final desip approval. also shall file with (vui) Justification that compliance the manufacturing license application. the Dinctor of Nuclear Reactor with the interface requirements of Appendix N governs licenses to Regulation en applicetion for parereph (a)(1)(vii) of this section is construct and operate nuclear power certification, because the NRC staff may verifiable through inspection. testing i reactors of dupheate design at multiple require that the information before the (either in the plant or elsewhere). or altes.These appendices may be used staff in connection with the review for analysis.The method to be used for independently of the provisions in thje the final desip approval be venfication of interface requirements subpart unless the applicant also wtabes supplemented for the review for must be included as part of the proposed to use e cernfied standard desip cerufication. teste, inspections, analyses, and approved under this subpart. (d)The applicant must comply with acceptance enteria required by I (b) Appendix 0 governs the sta!! the filing requirements of to Cf1t parapaph (s)(1)(vi) of this section: and a teview and approvel of preliminary and 50.30(e) (1H4), and (6) and 50.30(b) as (ix) A representative conceptual i fmal standard designs. A staff approval they would apply to an application for a design for those portions of the plant for under Appendix 0 is no way affects the nuclear power plant construcuon permit. which the application dou not seek authority of the Commission or the ne following portjona of 8 50.4,which certification, to aid the staff in its review presiding officer in any proceeding is referenced by 9 60.30(a)(1), are of the final safety analysis and under Subpart G of to CFR Part 2 applicable to the extent technically probabilistic risk assessment required Subpart B of Part 52 governs relevant: paragraphs (e):(b), except for by paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section, Commission approval, or certification, parepaphs (6);(c); and (e). and to permit sunement of the .1 [' 9 I 52.47 Contents of appucations, ade acy el the interface requirements A pendix 0is ter u a e for (a)ne requirements of this paragsph heu

• y parapaph(s)(1)(vii)of this C'

rb certification of a standard design under apply to all applications for design this subpart. An appbcation for a fmal certficauon. (2) The application must contain a design approval must state whether the (1) An application for design level of design information sufficient to applicant intends to seek certification of cerufication must contain: enable the Commission to jud e the the design. if the applicant does so (i) The technical information which is applicant a proposed means o assuring intend. the appbcauon for the final required of applicants for construction that construction cenforms to the design design approval must,in addition to permits and opereting licenses by 10 and to reach a finalconchssion on all containing the information required b CFR Part 20, Part 50 and its appendices, safety questions associated with the Appendix 0, comply with the applicab. le and Parte 73 and 100, and which is design before the cerufication is requirements of Part 52 Subpart B, technically relevant to the design and granted.The information submitted for a particularly ll 52.45 and 52.47, not site specific: design certificetion must include l (11) Demonstration of compliance with performance requirements and design 3 51ss mag of appuosuons-any technically relevant portions of the information sufficiently detailed to (a)(1) Any person may seek a Thne Mile Island requirements set forth permit the preparation of acceptance standard design cerufication for an in 10 CFR 50.34(f): and inspection requirements by the j essentially complete r:uclear power (111)The site parameters postulated for MLC, and procumment specifications plant design which is an evolutionary the design. and an analysis and and construction and installation change from light water reactor designs evaluation of the design in terms of such specifications by an applicant.The g of plants which have beenlicensed and parameters: Commission will require, prior to design in commercial operation before the (iv) Proposed technical resolutions of certification, that trJormation normally effective date of this rule. those Unresolved SafetyIssues and contained in certain procurement (2) Any person may also seek a medium and hyh priority Generic specifications and construction and standard design certification for a Safety issues wrtich are identified in the installation specifications be completed nuclear power plant design which version of NUREG-0933 current on the and available for auditif such thifers significantly from the light water date six months prior to application and informationis necessary for the reactor designe described in perspaph which are technically relevant to the Commission to make its safety (a)(1) of this section or utilizes des' - determination. simplified, inherent, passive, or other (v design specific probabilistic risk (3)The staff shall advise the applicant k innovauve means to accomphsh its assessment on whether any technicalinformation safety functions. analyses, posed tests, inspections,beyond that required by this section (vi) Pro (b) An application for certification and acceptance criteria which must be submitted. inay be filed notwithstandmg the' fact are necessary and sufficient to provide (b) This paragraph applies, according that en application for a construction reasonable assurance that,If the tests, to its provisions, to particular permit or combined licanae for such a inspections and analyses are performed applications: facility has not been filed. and the acceptance criteria met, a plant (1) he application for certification of (c)(1)Because a final design approval which references the design is built and a nuclear power plant design which is under Appendix 0 of this part is a will operate in accordance with the an evolutionary change frote light water prerequ: site for certfication of a design certification. reactor designs of plants which have standard design, a person who seeks (vti) The interface requirements to be been licensed and in commercial such a certi0 cation and does not hold, met by those portions of the plant for operation before the effective date of or has not applied for, a final design which the application does not seek this rule must provide en essentially approval, shall file with the Director of certification. These requirements must complete nuclear power plant design r

~ Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15391 except for site specific elements such as various options. includmg any in a formal hearing. The staff will be a the service water intake structure and restrictions which will be necessary party in the hearmg. 1 the ultimate best sink. during the construction and startup of a (c) The decision in such a heanns will (2)(i) Cerufication of a standard given module to ensure the safe be based only on information on which design which differs si#cantly from operation of any module already all parties have had an opportunity to the bght water reactor designe desenbed operstmg-in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or comment. either in response to the utihres simphfied, inherent. passive, or 181.as stenaares for review of notice of proposed rulemaking or in the other innovative means to accomplish appaastions. informal heanng. Notwithstanding Its safety functions will be g anted only Applications filed under this subpart anything in 10 CR 2.790 to the contrary. if will be reviewed for compliance with proprietary information will be i l (A)(J) The performance of each safety the standards set out in to CFR Part 20. protected in the same marmer and to the feature of the design has been Part 50 end its appendices, and parts 73 same extent as proprietary informstion demonstrated through either analysis, appropriate test programs expenence, and 100 as they apply to applications for submitted in connection with i or a combination thereof. construction permits and operating applications for construction permits (2) Interdependent effects among the Licenses for nuclear power plants, and and operating licenses under 10 Cm safet features of the design hase been as those standards are technically Part 50 provided that the design C ' relevant to the design proposed for the pg[g, published in I foun acceptable by analysis,

facility, j

sppropriate test programs, experience. or a combination thereof; 6 S2.at Foss for reytow of appacetsons. I SL83 Referrel to the ACMS. (3) Sufficient data exist on the safety The fees cha The Commission shallrefer a copy of feetares of the design to assess the application for$ed for the review of an the application to the Advisory e initialissuance or analytical tools used for safety analyses ever a sufficient range of normal renewal of a standard design Commiun on Reactor Safegunds operating conditions. transient certificat on are set out in to Cm 170.12. (ACRS).ne ACRS shall report on those conditions. and e ified accident together with a schedule for their portions of the application which deferred recover C0"C"" **I'IT' application fee. y. There is no eo$t ' i "" na n I SL54 leauanos of standere seeign (() The scope of the design is $ $2.51 Asminletrative review of Complete except for site specif c appHcat6ons. elements such as the service water After conducting a rulemaking intake structure and the ultimate beat (a) A standard design certificationis a proceeding under i 52.51 on an 'I^U "' rule that will be issued in accordance application for a standard design of sn)There has been acce table testmg with the provisions of Subpart H of to certihcation and receiving the report to (B appro notely sited. llsite, CFR Part 2. as supplemented by the be subrnitted by the Advisory prototype o the design over a sufficient provisiens of this section.The Committee on Reactor Safeguards under range of normal operating conditions. Commission shallinitiate the i 52.53, and upon determming that the transient conditions and specified hak after an application has application meets the applicable been file under i 52.45 and shall standards and requirements of the auin core co i ion f the specify the procedures to be used for the Atomic Energy Act and the criterion in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A)(f) of rulemaking. @nminbn e ugdams, h this section is not met. the testmg of the (b)The rulemaking procedures must Commission shallissue a standard prototype must demonstrate that the provide for notice and comment and an design certification in the form of a rule non.ceruhed portion of the plant cannot opportunity for an informal heanng for the design which is the subject of the significantly affect the safe operation of before an Atomic Safety and 1.icensing

• Pplica tion.

the plant. Board. The procedures for the informal (ii) The application for fmal design hearms must include the opportunity for I $2.55 Dursen of somestion. approval of a standard design of the written presentations made under oath (a) Ex type desenbed in this subsection must or affirmation and for oral presentations (b) of t)u, cept as provided in paragraph s section, a standard design propose the specific testing necessary to and questioning if the Board finds them certification issued pursuant to this support certihcation of the design, either riecessary for the creation of an subpart is valid for fifteen years from whether the testing be prototype testing adequate record or the most expeditious the dste ofissuance. of the testing required in the altemative way to resolve controversies. (b) A standard design certification by paragraph (b)(2)(1)(A) of this section. Ordinarily, the questioning in the continues to be valid beyond the date of The Appendix 0 final design approval informal bearing will be done by expiration in any proceeding on an of such a design must identify the roembers of the Board, using either the application for a combined license or specif c testing required for cert fication Board's questions or questions operating license which references the of the design. submitted to the Board by the parties. standard design certification and is (3) An application seeking The Board may also request authority docketed either before the date of certification of a modular design must from the Commission to use additional expiratiori of the certification, or. lf a describe the various opbons for the procedures, such as direct and cross thtely application for renewal of the configuration of the plant and site. examination by the parties. or may tertification has been filed before the includmg variations in. or sharms of. request that the Commission convene a Commission has determined whether to common systems. interface fonnal hearms under Subpart G of10 requirements, and system interactions. CFR Part 2 on specific and substantial renew the certification. A design certification also continues to be valid The final safety analysis and the disputes of fact. necessary for the beyond the date of expirationin any probabilistic risk assessment should Commission's decision, that cannot be hearing held under 152.103 before also cecount for dtfferences among the resolved with suff cient accursey except operation begins under a combinn!

15392 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations license wh'ich references the desip requirements are justifi:d in view of this to assure adequate protection of the ' certification. incrossed protectien.In addition the pubuc henith and safety or the common (c) An applicant for a construction applicant for renewal may request an defense and security, and (ii) special permit or combined license may, at its amendment to the design certification. circumster cos as denned in to Cm swn risk, reference in its apphcation a De Coeusission shaU grant the 80.12(a) are present, the Commission design for which a design certification amendaeu request if it determines that may not im>ose new toquirements by appheation has been docketed but not the an,crdanent will comply with the plant-specific order en any part of the granted. Atomic EnerWY Act and the design of a s pecific plant re.erenemg the 0 IL87 M'8888" '" """ Commission's regulations in effect at the design certif. cation if that part wes time et renewal. lf the amendment approved in the design certification. In (a)Not less than twelve not more than thirty six months prior to expiration of requert antaus such an extensive change addition to the factors listed in the initial fifteen. year penod, or anY to the design certification that an l 50.12(a). the Commiselon shall later renewal penod. any person may eetentially new standard design is being consider whether the special apply for renewal of the certification. propt4ed, an appbcation for a design circumstances which 6 80.12(a)(?) An application for renewal must contain certification shall be filed in accordance requires to be present outweigh any all information necessary1o bring up to with i S2.45 and $2.47 of thle part. decrease in safaty that may result from date the information and data contained (b) Denial of renewal does not bar the the reduction in standardization caused appbcant. or another appbcant. from by the plant. specific order. in the previous application. The h!ing a new application for certification (4)Except as $rovided in10 CFR Commission will require, prior to renewsl of certification, that information of the design, which proposes design 2.758,in making the findings required for normally contained in cartain changes which ccrrect the deficiencies issuance of a combinedlicense or cited in the denial of the renewal-operating license, or for any hearing Ionsfruction d sta uon i 52.81 Dure #en of renewd under i 62.103, ths Commission shall specificauons be completed and Each renewal of certification for e (,' c$,f $g",'u7n avellable for audit if such informstaon is standard design will be for not less than o necessary for the Commission to make ten nor more than fifteen years' renewal of a design certification. its safety determination. Notice end (b)(1) An app 1icar t or1icensee who comment procedures must be used for, t 82.6e Finality of standard design references a standard design rulemaking proceeding on the ooruneauona. certification may request en exemption application for renewal.The (a)(1) Notwithstanding any provision from one or more ele.nents of the design Commission. in its discretion. may in to CFR 50.100. whue a etandard certificauon. The Conunission may grant require the use of additional procedures design certification is in effect under such a request only tilt determines that in individual renewal proceedings. 6 52.55 or 52.61, the Commission may the exemption will comply with the (b) A design certification, either not modify, rescind, or impose new requirements of to CFR 60.12(a). In original or renewed, for which a timely requirements on the certification, addition to the factors listed in applicatien for renewal has been fued whether on its own motion, or in 5 50.12(a), the Commission shall remaint. In effect untu the Commission response to a petition from any person. consider whether the special has determmed whether to renew the unless the Commission determines in a circumstances which 8 40.12(e)(2) certification.lf the certification is not rulemaking that a modification is requires to be present outweigh any renewed,it continues to be valid in necessary either to bring the decrease in safety that may resuh from i certain proceedings. in accordance with certification or the referencing plants the reduction in standardization caused i the provisions of i 52.55. into compliance with the Commission's by the exemption.The grtnting of an (c)The Commission shall refer a copy regulations appbcable and in effect at exemption on request of an applicant of the application for renewal to the the time the certification was issued or must be sub}ect to litigatica in the same Advisory Committee on Reactor to escure adequate protection of the manner as other issues in the operatin Safeguards (ACRS).The ACRS shall public bealth and safety or the common license or combined licensa hearmg. g report on those portions of the defense and security.The rulemaking (2) Subject i 80.59, a licensee who application which concern safety and procedures must provide for notice and references a standard design l shall apply the enteria set forth in comment and an opportunity for the certification may make chan(tes to the i 52.59. Party which applied for the certification design of the nuclear power facihty, Is2.se cettertaforeenswaL to request an informalhearing which without prior Comrnission approval. uses the procedures described in 5 52.51 unless the proposed change.nvolves a i (a)The Commission shaU issue a rule of this subpart. change to the design as desceibed in the granting the renewalif the design, either (2) Any modification the NRCimposes rule certifying the design.The licensee as originaUy certified or as moddied on a design certification rule under shall maintain records of all :hanges to i during the rulemaking on the renewal, paragraph (e)(1) of this section will be the facility and these records must be complies with the Atomic Energy Act applied to su plants referencing the maintained and available for audit until and the Commiselon's regulations certified design, except those to which the date of termination of the license. applicable and in effect at the tune the the modification has been sendered (c) The Commission will require. prior certification was issued, and any other technicaDy irrelevant by action taken to granting a construction pe:mit, requirements the Commission may wish under paragraphs (a)(3) (a)(4). or (b) of combined license, or operatus license toimpose after a determination that this section. which references a standard design there is a substantialincrease in overaU (3) While a design certification is in certificauon. that information normaUy protection of the public bealth and effect under i 52.55 or 6 52.81. unless (i) conteined in certain procurement safety or the common defense and a modi $ cation is necessary to secure specifications and construction and secunty to be derived from the new compliance with the Commission's installation specifications be completed requiremente and that the direct and regulations applicable and in effect at and available for audit if sur.h in,lirect costs ofimplementation of those the ti2ne the certification was issued. or information is necessary for the

- - - ~ - -. - - - - Todar 1 Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15393 Commission to make its safety Commlulon in connection with the references a certined standard design, determinauons. including the early site permit. but must contain,in the test, inspections, analyses and determination that the appbcation is addibon to the information and analyses acceptance enteria contamed in the consistent with the certihed design. Bis otherwin required,information cerufied design must apply to those information may be acquired by sufficient to demonstrate that the design portions of the facility design which are appropnate arrangements with the of the facihty falls within the parameters covered by the design ceruncation. design cernfication applicant. speciLed in the early site permit. and to Subpart C--Combined Uconoes resolve any other significant (d)he application must contain emergency plans which provide environmentalissue not considered in Masonable assurance that adequate g gg,79 g p,, gun,,,g, any revious proceeding on the site or protective measures can and will be (2) e' application does not en rocc ss p e em 3 n a at "'""**'"'ya Y she pennR ee Commission issuance of cornbhed (1)If the application references an Ej I" licenses for nuclear power facihues. hq en of10 50 30(f)by early site permit, the application may I 51.78 Rotationahlp to Subparta A and B. including with the application an ,I 'f '"#I An application for a combined license environmental report prepared in under this subpart may, but need not, accordance with the provisions of plans, approved in connecuon b reference a standard design certihcation Subpart A of to Cm part St. issuance of the permit. d3[es app mference an early site permit, or if no a d p gg issued under bpanBo e or an early e pe ue u p rt ,,,, y of this part, or both. In the absence of a contains a site redreer plan as described emergency plans wm approved in demonstration that an entity other than in i 52.17(c), and if the applicant wishes emetion with the issuance of the the one originally sponsonna and to be able to perform the activities at ee permit. the applicant shall make good obtaining a design certincation is s te allowed by 10 Cm 50.10(e)(1), then raith efforts to obtain certifications from qualified to supply such design, the the application must contain the the local and State governmental Commission will entertain an information required by l 52.17(c). agencies with emergency planning i application for a combined license (b)The applicadon must contain the responsibilities (1 that the proposed emergency plans )are practicable, (ii) which references a standard design technically relevant in!ormstion certificaton issued under Subpart B nquired of epplicants for an operating that these agencies are committed to only if the entity that sponsored and license by to CG 50.34. The final safety participating in an further development obtained the certification supplies the analysis report and other required of the plans,inclu ng any requimd field certified design for the appheant e use, information scay incorporate by demonstrations, and (iii) that these reference the final safety analysis report agencies are committed to executing I s2.75 Ftung of appneenana, fcr a cernfied standard dest.in their responalbilities under the plans in l Any person except one excluded by partcular, an application n mncing a the event of an emergency.The 10 Cm 50.38 may file an appheation for certified design must describe those application must contain any a combined license for a nuclear power portions of the design which are site. certifications that have been obtained. lf t facibry with the Director of Nuclest specific, such as the service water these certi5 cations cannot be obtained, Reactor Regulation. The applicant shall intake structure and the ultimate best the application must contain i cor: ply witn the filing requirements of sink. An application referencing e information, including a utility plan, i to CR 50.4 and 50.30 (a) and (b). except cernfied design must also demonstrate sufficient to show that the proposed for paragraph (b)(6) of I 50 4, as they compliance with the interface plans nonetheless provide masonable would apply to an application for a , requirements established for the design assurance that adequate protective nuclear power plant construction permit. under i 52.47(a)(1), and have available measures can and will be taken in the The fees associated with the filing and for audit procumment specifications and event of a radiological emergency at the review of the application are set out in construction and installation site. to Cm part 170' speciDestions in accordance with reference a) certified design, thel 52.47(s)(2. lf the application does not III'81 8'**88'88 ' '"" *' ( $2.77 Contents of appucations; general 88P"**8'"** entirmsten. application must comply with the Applications filed under this subpart The application must contain aU of the requirements of l 52.47(a)(2) for level of will be reviewed according to the information required by to CFR 50.33, as design information, and abau contain standards set out in to CM Parts 20,50, that section would apply to applicants the technicalinformation required by 51,55,73, and 100 as they apply to for construction permits and operating l l 52.47(a)(1) (i), (ii), (iv). and (v (3), and. t! the design is modular,) andapplications for construction permits beenses, and to CFR 50.33a, as that and operating licenses for nuclear power section would apply to an applicant for 152.47(b)(3)' plication for a combined plants, and as those standards are a nuclear power plant construction (c)The sp technicauy relevant to the design permit. In particular. the applicant shall license must include the proposed test, proposed for the facility, comply with the requirement of inspections, and analyses which the i 50.33a(b) regarding the submission of licensee shall perform and the f 82.83 Appacat>nNy of Part 80 provtalona. entitrust information. acceptance enteria therefor which are IJnless otherwise specifically 152.7s Dntents of appncations; technical necessary and sufficient to provide provided in this subpart, all provisions infonnauon-reasonable assurance that. if the tests, of 10 CTR Part 50 and its appendices inspections and analyses are performed applicable to holders of construction (s)(1)In general,if the application and the acceptance criteria met,the permits for nuclear power reactors also references an early site permit, the facility has been constructed and will apply to holders of combined licennes application need not contain operate in conformity with the combined inferr:.ation or analyses submitted to the license. Where the application issued under this subpart. Similarly, all provisions of 10 CG Part 50 and its

335 .Tederal Register / Vol. 64. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Retrulations appendices appbcable to bolders of actwities allowed by to CFR 50.10(e)(1) l 5L57 leauence of sema6ned asenses. l cpersting beenses also apply to bolders without Erst submittag a alte redreas (a)De Commlulon shaU issue a cf combmed beenses issued under this plan in accord with l 5239(a)(3) and combined license for a nuclear power subpart. once the Commission has made obtaining the separate authorisebon facility upon finding that the applicable the findings required under 4 52.103, required by 10 CR 50.10(e)(1). tequlremento of to CR 50.40,50.42. provided that as applied to a combined Authorization must be granted only after 50.43. 50.47, and 50.50 have been met. I beense.10 CR 50.51 taust require that the presidmg officer in the proceedmg and that there is reasonable ensurance the initial duretion of the beanse may on the application bas made the findings that the facility will be constructed and not exceed 40 years from the date on and determir.ation required by 10 CFR operated in conformity with the license. I which the Commiselon makes the. 50.10(e)(2) and has determined that the the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. findings required under i 52.103. e te redran plan meets the criteria in and the Commission's reguletions. However, any hmitations contained in 152.17(c). (b)De Commiulon shallidenufy in Part 50 regardmg applicability of the provisions to certain classes of facibties (3) Authorisation to conduct the the beense the tests. inspections, and activitin desenbed in to CFR analyses that the licensee shall perform C Ue 2 *pP y-50.10(e)(3)(i) may be granted only after sind the acceptance criteria therefor i 15L86 Administretrve revlow of the presiding of6cer in the combined which are necessary and sufficient to appim license proceedmg makes the additional Provide reasonable assurance that,if the A proceeding on a combined beense is fmding required by 10 Cm tests, inspections, and analyses are subject to aU applicable procedural 50.10(e)(3)(ll). Performed and the acceptance criteria (b)lf, after an a met, the facihty has been constructed aquinmente contained in to Cm Part 2. combined license $plicant for a and will be operated in conformity with including the requirements for docketing as performed the (l 2.101) and issuance of a notice of activities permitted by paragraph (a) of edcenu, ee[the Commission, Atomic rovisions of the Energy Act. en a hearing (l 2.104). All bearmes on eis ucm de application for de combined licenses are governed b the regulations. Anheletion from the terms of modification to, procedures contained in Part 2. Subpartlicense is withdrewn or denied, and the addition to or C. early site permit referenced by the a combined license. including any appbcation expires, then the appbcant modification to, addition to, or deletion i 1 52.87 Referrel to the ACMS. shall redress the site in accord with the from the tests, inspections, analyses, or he Commission shall refer a copy of terms of the site redress plan.1f. before related acceptance criteria contained in the apphcation to the Advisory redress is complete, a use not envisaged such license is a proposed amendment Committee on Resclor Safe [ruards in the redress plan is found for the s..e to such beenee. There shall be an (ACRS). The ACRS shall report on those or parts thereof, the applicant shall opportunity for a hearing on the p:rtons of the application which carry out the redress plan to the greatest proposed amendments, and any hearing concern safety and shall apply the extent possible consistent with the held must be completed before critena set forth in i 52.81, m alternate coe. operation of the facihty, accordance with the finality provisions cf this part j $193 Esemptions and wartenaea. l SL99 Inspect 6on during construsoon. I 5Les Environmentai revtow. (a) Appbcants for a combined license Afterissuance of a combined license, g 'I under this subpart, or any amendment to the NRC staff shall assure that the site pe to ed an d a combined beense, may include in the required inspections, tests, and analysc. design, the environmental review must application a request, under 10 CFR are performed and that the presenbed focus on whether the design of the 50.11 for an exemption from one or acceptance criteria are met. Holders of facility falls within the parameters more of the Commiselon's regulations, combined licenses aball comply with the specified in the early site permit and including any part of a design provisions of to CR 50J0 and 5031, At eny other significant erwitonmental certification rule. The Commission shall appropriate intervals during issue not considered in any previous grant such a request ifit determines that construction, the NRC staff shall publish proceeding on the site of the design. lf the exemption will comply with the in the Federal Register notices of the the application does not reference an requirements of to CFR 50.12(a) or successful completion of inspections. early site permit or a certified standard 52S(b)(1)if the exemptionincludes any tests, and analyses, design. the environmental review part of the design certi0 cation rule. gagget p,,.,p,. tion.i.nteiry.i,,, e., procedures set out in to CR part 51 (b) An applicant for a combined If, before the Commission makes the must be followed. Including the issuance license or any amendment to a g

• 8' "

"I

1. g*

af a final environmentalimpact combined license, who has filed an tt e al e thIt statement but excluding the issuance of application referencing an early site a supplement under i 51.95(a)- permit issued under this subpart may significant changes in the licensee's ilitt Authortastion to monduct afte include in the application a request for a activities or proposed activities have oewym.a. vanance from one or more elements of occurred subsequent to the previous (s)(1)If the appbcation references an the permit. In determining whether to review by the Attorney Ceneral and the early site permit which contains a site grant the variance, the Commission shall Commission in connect 2on with the i redress plan se described in i 52.17(c) apply the same technically relevant issuance of the conibined license, the the applicant is authorized by n 52.25 to criteria as were applicable to the antitrust revisew required by section perform the site preparation activities application for the original or renewed 105c(t) of the Atomic Energy Act must described in to CFR 50.10(e)(1). site permit. lseuance of the variance be completed prior to commencement of (2)1f the epplication does not must be subject to litigation dunng the commercial operation of the facility. reference en early site permit which combined license proceeding in the Upon completion of this review, the contains a redress plan, the apphcant same manner as other issues material to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation trey not perform the site preparation that proccadmg. may impose any additionallicense I r C

Federal Reglotar / Vcl. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulatirne 18395

• conditions as authorised by section 106c be processed as a request for action in power twetore to be manufactund pursuant of the Atomic Energy Act.

accord with 10 CFR IJ06. The petitioner to e Commiulos boense and subsequently 9 SMOB Opwoton imder a combtied aball Ele the petition with the Sec etary lastalled et te etw pauant to e Comuninin i of the Commisalon. Before the licensed. in 130.33 of mis chapter, h

asenes,

"' Wet'88 Permit, are of the type described "Y,3 $$h * [d N[s*s(n' P'$ bh gw g g (a) Not less than 180 days before ePproach to the standar&asues of nuclear loodmg of fuelinto the reactor, c.) co aces holdet of the combined bcense writing. notify the f'ammlaalon of the conalder the petition and determine a da w u te oestaat otherwin expected dates of both fuelloading and whetbHanyimmediaW ecumla ) ws. ee pmeism in pen to apphuble criticality.The Commission shall required. If the petition la ted, then to construcuos paralia, locluding the ublish notice of these datea in the an appropriate order will esued. Fuel ederal Registw. The Federal Register loading and operation under the. nquirement in I saas of this abspier for mysew of the opphostian by the Adneory notice must also edvise persone whose combined license will not be affected by committw os Reactor Safeguards and the Interests may be affected b facihty the granting of the petition unless the holens of a pubuc heartas. apply la context. operetion of their rights un er paragraph ordw is mde hmdiakly effecWye' with roepect to mettere of ro6elogical health (c) Priw k fuelloading. the and safety. environmental pmtecuen. 6ad the (b) of this section'han so days after Commiselon shall And that the common defense and wcurity, to beene.e )(1) Not later t Pu lication of the nobce required by acceptance criteria in the combined pursuant to thle Appendix M to manul.6tum nuclew paragraph (e) of this section, as person liceroe have been met and that. bonnen)pown macere (manufactunnsto be ope whose interest may be affected accordingly. the facility hee been la the beena appbcaties. facili operation may file one or hth of constructed and will operate in

3. An oppbcation for a manufacturms the lo owing in wnung:

conformity with the Atomic Energy Act bcense parenant to this Appendix M must be (i) A petiuon which shows, prise and the Commission's regulatjons. lf the submitted. es spectSed in 4 804 of this facie that one or more of the acceptsnce combined license is for a modular chapter and meet au the requimmenu of criteria in the combined license have not dulgn. each mactor module may require g g 30 u(s) (1Hel and so.us (e) and (b) of been met and. as a result, there is good a separate hadicg as construccon this chapur except that the prehminary cause to moddy or prohibit opwebon; or proceeds. safety analysis sport shall tw designated as (U) A petition to moddy the terms and e *dnign mport" and any required conditions of the combined license, Appendicos A-L[Reesrved) talormouon er analywe mienne to Ww (2)(i) A good cause petition filed under Appendix M--Standardisation of mattwo shau be pm&cated on postulated site paragraph (b)(1)D) of this section will be Design: Manufacture of Nuctsar Poww puameters which must be specified in the application. ne opphceuon must also granted by the Commission onl Reactom: Construction and Opwotion of include information pertaining to duien includes or clearl references yifit of$cial Nuclear Power Reactore Manufactured featurn of the proposed reactoete) that effect NRC documents. focumenta pnparedPursuant to Commission License j s oyping with e ryecas in the by or for the combined license holder, or Section 101 of the Atomic Energy Act of ovidence admissible in a proceedmg 1BM es amended. and I 50.10 of ttus chaptet

8. An oppbcant for a manufactunns license under Subpart G of part 2, which show.

requim a Comminion hoewe to transfer or pursuant to thle Appendix M ehell submit prima facie. that the acceptance criteria aceive in intersta te commerca, manufacture-wnh his applicadon an envitorunentai report have not been met. The combined produce. transfer. acquim. pomus. use-as mquimd of applicante for soutruction license holder and NRC staff may file u]suin. or expon any producuan o' permits in accordance with Subpen A of Part I" I ac Hy. e Nguleums in Part 80 st of this chapter. provided. bowever, that answere to the petition within the time such report aball be directed et the specified in 10 CFR 2.730 for answere to hNN7e fore c$o*"$ae

• * **I* *'"" 'I 'h' "* ** I ' ' 'h' motions by partiu and staff. If the en of Commieston in its judgment decides. on constructico of a production or utilisetion
  • • "**'""'8*

"" I 8" facibly. and the lesuance of an operating $,$ ', $ Q d ' g 'i),," N,""' # the besie of the petitions and any license before opusuon of the facility.ne i g answen thereto, that the petition meets {'0VI' ions of part to relating to the facility beving charactensitice that faU within the the requirements of this paragraph, that ,'*j', {p gu Nres and final environmental impact statement u ea d poorulated alte parameters. ne related draft the lesues raised by the petition an not d exempt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. asumbled and constructed on the site et prepared by the Comtnission's regulatory j 554(a)(3). that genuine issues of material wtuch it is to be opereted. in thou stelf will be similarly &rected. fact are reised, and that settlement or circumstances, both facility design and site-4de) Sechne sato (b) and (c). 30.12(bl. cther informal reeclution of the (seues is mlated luun can be couldmd in the initial. 30.23. so.30(d). 60.Mle)(10). BaMalcl. 50.35 le) not possible, then the genuine issues of construction permit stage of the beeneing and (c) 90 40(e). 80 45. 30.S$(d). 80.Se of this pfo##, chapter and Appendix 1 of part to do not snaterial fact raised by the petition must However, under the Atomic Energy Act, a apply to manufactunna bcenen. Appen&cco be resolved in accordance with the licenu may be sought and tesued authonang E and H of Part is0 apply to manufactune.g provisions in 5 U.S.C. 554. 556. and 557 the manufacture of facibtin but not their licenses only to the extent that the which are applicable to determining coutrucuan and tutausuon et the alta on requirements of thue appeneces involve cpphcations for initial licenses. In such which the facilluu em to be operated. pner factif ty dalen featurn. to the

• commencement of construction", as (b)The financialinformation submitted cases. the notice of beenng from the C$mrcission must specify the defined in i 80.10(c) of this chapter of a procedures to be fcllowed. Mattere facility (essnufactured pursuant to such a pursuant to 6 80.33(f) of this chapter and Commission licanu) on the site at which it le Appendix C of part so shall be directed at a exempt frorn adjudication under 5 U.S.C.

to opereie-thatle preparation of the ette and demonstration of the financial quehficauona of the applicant for the manu!.ctunns beense 554(a)(3) may be decided by the lataueUn oHhe facihty* construction to cany out ee manufactunns acum for Commission solely on the basis of the pennu est. among een 61 age. mDuts wMeh et beenu is souglit showing of good cause and any approval of the site on which the facility le to responsive pleadings-be operated. must be inued by the 6 The Commission may issue a b'.ense to (11) A petition to modify the terme and Commiselon nfo appendix sets out the manufacture one or nom nuclear power 8 reactore to be operated at sites not ident:f ed ccnditions of the combined license will partteuler requiremente and provutone in the beenu apphcotion if the Comnau.co opphcable to euch situeuone where nuclear finds that: 1 ~

183 3 . Fedeyal Register / Vol. M. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rul:s and Regulatnne -mmr (e)m oppbeast bee deeanbed the power resetone) manufactwed pwoment to Appeedia hbetandardise6ee of poposed dreign of and the site p.rometersthle oppenda from the manufactweg lecihty Nuclear Powar Plant Designo: IJcensee $wruleted for the reactoNs).nacau ns but to the site et whia the,eettor(s) wW be To Cometruct and Opstate Nutlur p@nited to. the pracgdesagr6 and has architectwel and tutaUed and opereted b sedition. such ynnedng Power Reactore of Duplicate Design at i t ntJM,.entene for mucJear power mettone) obau not be e mejor futwee of soeponera removed tros the manufacturnas siw anut the bluldple the 4 j inwpmA therGn for the protectos of the Anal design of the mactor(s) bw bwa kdtr. M mstp of the pubbc. opproved by the Commise6os in eteerdance lection tot of the Atomic EneI Act of (b) Euch harther technical or design SgM. es amended, and 6 80.10 of this chapter 1 i 1 womeuo. amy be a i. com,ieie ,4, A, Lpg y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, m, e.C.ommesha b ones .e fer - l i .e test,n,o,a od a ca bealifo,ie. c oi*,euo ,easo wy ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,),.,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, dues..ansfe,. ea,..,, s se. e .e,.ie . m.woowe. ) u be u supa i. e puniemeno a neign.o,-i. in,o,t e, en,o,, a,,,.oumon e eun ,450,'g==,ee3eigaro", ',egr-so. eua wo,meoe - eneyees as 6eet astr.m -.*u=

• r i a ma
• i

>=.uar wei rubmiiiod io ibe C amissie. * * = d a'*as'=e**= *- =" *r *e se.ebe..ee.nba b mee,,a aw e e,,aani bse t.u m oo = # u = = *

• bes a nfore c.== *awi= - id i

e.www e,oose, nol ew oro wm be 1 sw *nio eni -nese.n.g b-e. be en br

=a= d a >=* a- - aa

l rog,am,eesonewy neigna io,r,o*e., ii mu(eita musa m as fe a rr. - -, w ad m i m m ei d i s u e,,,ues one e - eta u. a e m ent wo c o.ie a m m.. esse = *e,.. aw e w--.f an -ung s,s es a..om,oo.e: ew one.n wwa.e.e meonone to be e,e,.d b.ense boo.,s.e -on a u l,aety. 4 idio. e basis w. Ias.. ,os iw one,a,mm.,o no com me. ewe seaw oe.e fo,ogome. e,e o geso.nsa u a .e ei n) eua es. e,ema in ae,emni mowocot, e.a s,.,i,ean,,,e se,a,uce s,,seve, .,,,o fo, e i .vesuo. mu be sensie orar

• a utensee,,bceo,,,

bo, e i befIre any of the proposed nuclear power 10.ne Communion y ey leone a permit to seppewly from onber leaves involved in i j nectone) are mmoved from the sonstruct e nuclear powet toector(s) which le bearings in bee sing proceedings (i L' ele. raanufactunne ette and (u) tams into the publeet of an opphceuen for e Appendia A sectee 1(c)), and for the i considrebon the site entene contained in manufactunne bconee pwount to a touchdoton of adjudiestory p,oceedmgo e tean70 Appenda M if the Comaussion (a) Ande that

• ""e a -w* *e=== a a w -ad and o.f the prmateuene of partwo in ct t el c be to t enes hanng amnenem aai fe.u eted at r

wiu = w proce w =ce su a se bc - me =

• ene,mmeio,,

mia f. e us, fas ** *e Pa'='e'd eia P.'.=eiere Elthe noctorte) wt ut undue nok to the ePecified in the relevant appbceuon for e ,roceedings(iitriin.tri.). l beekh and safety of the pubbc. manufacunna bcom and N maku h Th4 appendin sets out the particular 4 (e)ne oppbcant le techsucally and findings othermee required by Part 10. Li no requimente end previolone oppbcable to financially quiaed to duisn and enot wG e omtrucuon permit be leased WMhm h M ':b ert cebonc are filed by h mwa ppbem fw hmm u c the proposed nuclear power umul vant manufactunne beenee hoe j j (f)ne keuence of a beense to the

11. An operating beenu for a soclear

'I"natidy the same design to be located power reactor (s) that has been manufactured e4ffmat aime.: appbcent wiu act be inimic.al to the octamon under e Commission bcense 6eesed pwevent

1. F.noept se otherwise specined in this defecw and secunty or to e heehb and salary tf the pubbc, to thle Appendit M may be isoned by the oppendia er se the sentext obemse (g)On the posis of the enipuono and Commission p.ronnt to l 30.67 and Subput indicates, the provisions of part to, i

analyue of b environmental effects of the A o! Pert $1 of thle chapter encept that the ePphoeble to construction permite and proposed action required by Subpart A of tummiselrin sha find. pwomant to operating bconsee. includmg the requirement Port 51 of thle chapter and peregrenh 3 of 'his I to.5?(e)tt). that constructim of the in i 80.ns of thle chapter for mynew of the Ap;wndtn. the scuon telled for le %v mector(s)in been substanueUy completed application by the Advimy Committee on l inuace of the beenu. la conformity with both h manufacturing hvector Safeguarde and the bolding of pubhc Nite:When an opphcent boo supphed bconee and the toneWetion permit and ik bearings, t.pply se conettvetion permite and tatuaUy all of the technicalinformouon oppbcebone brefor, as amended, evt the opereting beense evbject to this Appendam N. retuimd to complete the opphceuen. provisions of the Act,and h rules and includmg the final daign of the ructor(s). ,,guleum M h CmakWon. & Appbceuona for sonstruction rmite 4 the f#ange mquimd for the luvance of the Notwitbetanding the other provisions of this '^ beente wW be appropnetely modaned to h ' I"'"""*" "9'A" NN l mfket es! fact. pangsfor. no apphceuon for en operstmg "II* " NI*I'*d "'N'I*I'*d M 8 1 Scense e ounlear power roectorte) that s Each manufactunna nicewe tuved hee bun manalectwed under a Commission chapte'r, and be subaltted u specified in punuent to this appendia (G epecify the beenn innd pursuant to thle Appendia M l 804 of this chapter.The opphcent shall else sunkt of nuclearpand the latest skte for the w1U be dockey J until b oppbcoues for am submit the taformouos mquired by i St.no of wer ructore authonsed to be trenufactwo sorpleuon of the manufacture of aU auch scendment to the mlevant manufsetetag this shapte. eesctore Upo ood cane abown, the licam mquired by puegreph 7 bu been For the techance) informauen mquired by

docketed, il to.Mle) (1) through (6) and (8) and to.Me dii O'?'oem'C$td oT*lf"**

sz in =ame s ad= maad br *w m ad m d a *eP'er a'eronee =er 6e i 7.De bolder of a manufactanns bcome part for &e luvance of a conet-ucten permit made to e single prelirninary eefety onelysis fund pu ouant to this Appenda M shall w an opmtmg beem fer a nuclear pown W the designawhich, fw the purpone of submit to the Commin;on the Aul duign of modorN Get b.e bun manufschamd under the Euclear power roector(s) covered by the a Commission bcom luud purouant to h Lcense as soc,o se such design bte been appendis. or an amendment to euch e in,N eo dwWe ne www tmurpipeoped 8 p,uedaroppbestes h am seen m l w me cupleted ;4pcb submittal shsU be in the manufacturing bconte, construction peral1. or onom. est oppbuties may em be preseewd under form of ab applicebo's for amendment of the ePweting beene, the Commleelen wW treet thae oppendia and Subteri D of pen 4 of this manufacturms bconse. Se resolved those mettere which beve been shapin. 6.ne protubiuen in 16010(c) of this resolved et an eerber stage of the beenems ' A8 **ed is this appendia. Se en

• -e"~~ **** = "+ fan of a nudeer as,ie, agemai ommemmeni a prum imine een eesis owncani.ew

~~ *r l construcuon of a produtbon of ut?lastion informabon theI subetentieUy affects the FE",'g*," "*p,", y$ g'[, facihty pnot to leeuence of a construcUon concluelon(s) reached at the perher stege or bede ud eefety ed Se somseos defense en,d t pernut opphee to the t.ensport of a nuclear other good cene. eeeunty. e ~

- - - _ - _ - __ ~ _ 1 } Federal Register / Vcl. Sd. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regrulautns 15307 i I 80.hte)!!)includu one set of alte meter porton themet m nbastial obey to the Comaluion's Sten forits renew parsmesm putuleud for the dungn of the reactore. and as analyste and evah.eben of also todude taformauen pertatrung to doigo separately trem and pnor to en opphcetaon j the reactors in terms of ourJi postule ted alte futurve that affect plane for coping with for e monetNeuen permit for a facahty. Such a emergencan in & opeteban of et ructor or 1 puenetere. Such etn6 e prehamar) esfety mMor porton thereof. submittel obeU be secomparped by any fee 1 i analyene aball eleo incivos information 4 Once ne regu! story staff bn trdt sted a requimd by part 170 of thne ahepter and aball consist of the porton of the tnformaton pertattung to design feetune of the papposed technical renew of a submittal under thne required of apphcaste for sometruction i resetors that affect plans for septag with appendAA. the submittal wn! be referred to pered a by ll to.H (eHc) and (e) of th2e i emergencaes to the operation of the reactors. b Adneory Committee on Ructor and obeU deseibe the quahry ensuramoe Esfeguards (ACRS) for a renew and nport chapter. and. Insolet es it relates to the program with respect to espects of de6igr6 64'pon completion of their revtew of a toew(e) of eine suitabihty for wiur.h early febncebert procurement and sometrueben subauttel under ttua appendia, the regulc tory renew to sought by ll 40.M(el(1)and that are sommes to an of the reactors. steff sheU pubheb in the Federal Regleur e to.40(f) of this chapter, eteept that 3 Applicetiene for opereting boensee i submitted pureuent to this Apper. dam N ebeu determinetion as to whether or oot the informauan with reepest to opereuen of the j int.lude h triformenom reguved by ll 30.H. prehminary or heal desten to esseptable, facibty at the presocied selbel power level subject to such condauene es may be osed not be supphet to.M (b) and (c), and 90.Meft) of thle abepter. apprepnote. and make evellable ut b pubbe 4 m substrallet early tenew of site De oppbcont abou also suball the informouos required by I 8148 of due Document Room en analysis of the doelen in suitabluty loopele) must be made in the same theptor. For the techrucal taforseben the form of a report. An approved deelp manne and in the same number of espn se theU be uuhud by and rebed upon by the provided la il to 4 and 40.30 of this chapter j i tequired by ll to.M(b) lt) erough 15) and regulatory eteff and the ACRs in her revtew lor bcease appliceboes. De ubmittel awt 'i d to.Me(c). reference may be modo to a single of anyind;vidualfecihtybcense a usabon taclude sufficient talormaues eencoreung Anal ufety onelysis of the design. tange of postulated lockhty design and { which incorporates by referenes e ign er roved in accordance with thle paragreph opwebon parametere to enable the Staff to Appendia 0--Steoderdisation of Deelge: '" * * '""'l8"$'"'8'" perform b requeewd renew of alte Staff Review of Standard Designs infonnuon wNch eubetaeneUy eHects $e nnebthey tones. m submittal must contain eerber deternmoton or onbet good cause, suagw48 conclusions se the luwe W sia nie appendta een out procedurve for the 6 m determmenon and report by the euttebibty submitted for tewew and must be fthng. etaff renew and refwral to &e regulatory staff heu oot consatute e accomporued by a statement of the bases or i coma:anent to inue e peraut or beenu, or in the reasons for thou senclwinne. De Admory Commuttee on Reactor Safeguarde any way effect the outbonry of the subanalawt aln bn 2 h enant I of standard designs for a neckar power reactor of the type desenbed to i 60.12 of due Communiorc Atomic lafety and Ucensing possible, any long range ob}ecuves for chapter or mejor porubne thereof. Appeal pene!. Atorruc Safety and ucenoms ulumste development of the este. state J (

t. Any person may submit a propond Board panel, and other presidar.g omcere in whether enI ette selecuon procese mee wed any proceedmg under Subpart C of Port 2 of [I' F"8 '"

prehaanery of Anal standard desip for o this chepter. uoe Pto ew o ap wb riuclear power teactor of ee type desenbod ?.informouon nqueste to the apprevel

• • "'I8"'UIII'" " 8''I**"*'

in i 60 2 to the regulatory staff for 6te i renew. Such a subauttal may constet of holder regardmg en approved duign sheU be eihr the prehminary or final duign for the es oluntec pnor to teouence to enoun that the '\\','g,gg gg) pg,,, g l enure reactor facibty or the prebuur.ar burden to be laposed on tospondente le docketmg of the subauttal to the Fods433 j final duign of major porcono thmol y or jueuf.ed in view of h potenual ufety NT*eter, and shall und a copy of the mouce R g N subridttal for weew of the standard signittence of the tuve to be edernud in

• A'""84
• O'"*""'*"

design must be mede in the eetne manner and the neuested information. Each such appropnote ometal of the Siete in which the it. the same number of copin as prended in evalueuen performed by the hTC staff el. ell one to locawd he nouce sheU ldentify de l1504 and 30.30 of this cAspter for bconsi be in accordance with to Cnt MM(f) and location of h elle, briefly ducnbe the site eppliceuona. obM1 be approved by the F.neeuuve Director eutubility leavele) under review, and innte for Operations or his or het destynee prior to a:ommente trem Federal. State, and local i 3.De cubraittal for review of the standard duign sheU include the informauen inm.e of the coquet agencin and interveted persons withm 120 days of publicehon or such o&et *>me se may desenbed m II E33 (e) through (d) of tius APPendia P [Rourvall be spectfied for consideretion by the etefrin i chapter and the appliceple techrucal Appen&x Q Pro A plication I;erly connection with the Ardushon or outcome of informouon required by Il EM (el and (b). Review of Elle & liebty leeuos e mmW en spP$ek by he ACRE 4 as opp!cpnete, and to.He of tlue chapter l lother he that requind by II EM(e)(4) This append:a wie out procedures for the tonew. ne rerson requesung renew ehell la tormechen with the outcome of the:t and (101 no.M(b)(1). [3](1). (U). (iv). and (v) fihng. Saff nview, and nferral to b eerve e copy of the subatttel on the Govemor and EM(b) (7) and (6)). De oubenittal ehell eleo include e desenpuon, analyste and Admory Committee on Reactor Sefeguarde or other appropnote ometal of the State in i evolustion of the interfaces between the (ACRS) of requeste for early nnew of one or which b site to located and on the chief subautted dulgn and the belance of the more site suitebibty leeuw reletmg to the esecutive of W mu.76cipabty in which the i nuclear power plant. With nopect to the cor.strucuen and operation of eartean elle le located or,if b site to not located in a mquiremente of ll EM(e)(t) of this chepter. utibuton facthties eeparately from and plot murdcipality, on the chief emeruuve of the to the ubiaittal of appbestione for county.h portion of the submittel the submittal for renew of a standard design construction permite for the fecibbee.he contekning informabon requested of r shallinclude the alte parametere poorulated. appendia eleo sete out procedures for b ePPlicante for construeuen permite by for the dulgn. and an analysis and evaluetion of the design in terms of such prepareuen and losuance of Staff lite Il 60.33 (*He) and (e) and so.Mtelti) of this postuleled alte parameters. N informauen Reporte and for their incorporoton by chapter wiu be referred to the ACRS for e l submitted pursuant to O to.M[e)(7)of this refenace in applications for the construction renew and spoet Nre will be no mfertel and operation of cortete stilisation factbues. chapter, shall be hated to 5he quabty he stihution facilities an thoes which are to the ACRS unlese early nWew of the ette I desigrL procurement and fabriceuen of the subject to l St.30(b) of thle chapter and are of oefety leoves undSt I to.M(e)(1) te nquested. escurence program to be opphed to the

4. Upon completion of renew by the eleff etructures. erstems, and componente for the type spechd in i to.tt(b)(1) or (3) or and if appropnete by the ACRS. of a i to 22 of this chapter or an testma foetutWo.

submittel under this appendia. the eteff shall J Much design reHew has been reqonted and This appendia does not opply to proceedese prepare e Stab Site Report which ebeu the informabon submitted pursuant to conducted pursuant to Subpart F or part 3 o 160.M(e)(9) of this chapter shall be hmited to thle chapter, identify b laceuen of the site, state the olte r the quahficebone of the person subautung the

1. Any person may subtalt inforrection sultebthty tesues reviewed explain the etendard design to design the reactor or regardmg one or mon site suhebiluy teoun metun and scope of the review, state the conclusione of the staff regardag the toepes

Ajibils. Federal Register / Vcl. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 16, 1989 / Rules and ReFulttions nnewei and'eten the repone frr then concrsesone Upon inevance of e Staff site PART t--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR PART 60-00MESTIC UCENSING OF Report the staff obaU pubheb e motsoe of the DOMESTIC UCENSING PROCEEDINot PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION pggggyggg cieilabWry of the report tri the Federel Register and abau place cepies of the report g ne authonty citaten for Part 2 (a the Comauseipn's Pubbc Docuroent at 2120 continute to read in part as follows-

13. De outbonty staton for Part 60 L Etreet NW Lewer Level (Roorn LL,41_

Authority bec. tel. 66 Stat Bet so cantinute to read a part as follows: I Wuhmrton DC aco3r. and in a Local Pubbc amended (42 U.S C 2W sec. 3D1 80 Stat. Authertry bu 101.et $tet Mt. se Derunnent Roomle) located meat the e2te 1241 es amended (42 U.S C 6441) atnended (42 U $ C 22011. pt 301. te Stat-i 6deritled an the Staff Este Repoa The staff 1841 as emended (42 USC 6641F obeu eleo send a copy of the report to the lL119 (Ameinsed] Gosemor or other appropnote offtmal of the g gg,,,, gg,,,,,gy State an which the site to located and to the

3. In paragraph (t)(1), the reference to 14 In b (e)(1)(tv). the Appenda O of Part 60 is amended to referene to Appen&ces M. N and O of refer to Appendra O of Part 82 and in e o ted or aft ei no I d

to e inunicipebty to the etuelemecunve of the parapoph (a)(2) the reference to Part to are amended to refer to ,,,n,y. Appendix Q of Part 80le amended to Appendices M. N and O of Part $2. & Ariy 6taH Sne Repo t prepared and refer to Appendix Q of pan 51. PART 81-ENVIRONMENTAL l t toeved in occordance with thie apper da may PROTECTION REOULATIONS FOR le incorporated by reference. se oppropnete. IL*80 lA*88888) in en oppbcenon for a terstrueuen permit for DOMESTIC LICENSLNG AND RELATED a atus. econ facthey whier to subject to

4. The reference to Appendtx N of Part REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 9 61.aoib) of thus chaptet wed 6e of the type 60 is amended to refer to Appendix N of pan 81.

15. he avtbonty citation for Part 81 specthe to i to.2)(b) (2) et 13) et i 30.22 of cor tiriues to read in part as follows:

this chapter or to a teetme facthty The g3.401 (Amenced) g conclusions of the Steft Site Repon will be Authority: Secton 191. to Stat. M& se reemeruned t y the staff where hve years or 8 In the beedmg and pararapb (a). amended 142 U.S C 2201) occ. 301. as Eta t I mire have elopeed between the neeverice of the references to Appendtx N of Part 60 1241. as amended (42 USC 6841). the leaff $ite Deport and its inc.orpcreuen by are amended to refer to Appendtx N of i 81.30 ( Amenced) nference in a construcuan permit Part 52

16. In parapaph (a)(6). the reference 1 ance of e Staff Site Report shaU not i La02 ( Ameneed) to Appendix M of Part 60 to amended to i

constitute e colnnutment to nesue e pennat or heense to pernut op elle work under

8. In parapaph (a). the reference to i to10te) of this chapter. or nn ari) we) affect Appenda N of Part 50 is amended to I St.H (Amenose) i the authonry of the Comnupiott Atonut refer to Appen&x N of Part 52 Safety and Licensas Appeal Panel. Atorn6c 17.The reference to A pen &x M of Sefet) and Liceraing Board panel. and other

$ 3.a03 (Amenced) Part 60is amended to re er to Appenrha M of Part 11 presidmg otLcars an ari) proceedmg under

7. In the beedmg and parapaph (a).

g Subpart F and/or C of Part 2 of tlue chapter the refererces to Appendix N of Part 60 l 85 (Amenose)

7. The steB wiu not conduct mon than one are amenued to refer to Appendix N of

18. In paragraph (b). the reference to teuew of site suitabCity issun with regard to Part 52 Appenda M of Part 50!s amended to a comesiar site pnot to the full construcuan refer to Appen&x M of Part 52.

permit renew requued b) Subpart A of Part $ L404 !Amense6) I 81if tha chapter The staff may dochne to prepare and issue e Staff Site Report in 8'In the beading and text of the l 61.78 (Amonced) 4 neponse to e subauttal under he appenda section, the references to Appendix N of 19.The reference to A pen &x M of where 61 oppears that. (a)in eene where no Part 60 are amended to refer to Part Sois amended to re er to Append.x renew of the releuve sente of the subnuned Appenda N of Part $2. M of pan 52' ette and altemeuve ettes under Subpan A of Part 81 of this chaptst to regunted. there to e l L408 (Amented) $ $1.77 [Amonged) e oul dn n so referable Appen aN Ap dx a e de o f o ahtrneuve situ and the staff renew of one no is amended to refer to Appen&x N of Cnt Part 51 Appendtx M. b$e and eYebEe auee sf neources pnor to the subauttal of the 0 0 I ***8881 PART 170-FEES FOR FACILITIES ent AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND c.nalyse of shemeuve sites a the

10. The reference to Appendix M of OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES Laironmental P.eport that would preludace Part 50 le amended to refer to Appen&x UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF the later renew and deosion on themeuve M of Part $2.

esta under Subpen F and/or C of Part 2 and 1984. AS AMENDED Subpart A of part 61 of We chapter. orJb)in $ 1901 (Amenced) caen wum in the Ndgment of the etsE The authonty citetion for Part 170 carts renew of aay este suitabihty teaue or

11. In the bending and paragraph (a).

contmues to read as follows: the references to A penda M of pan 50 Authority: 31 U.S C et0L es stat lost. eec. iseves would not to to the pubbe interest. P considenns (1) the degru of hbhhood that are amended to refer to Appendix M of 301. Pub L 82-314. 86 Stet 222 (42 U.S C cny early find.ngs on thou suues would Part $2. 2201w). sec 201. as Stat 1242. as enanded Mitn their sehdify in later mviews. (2) the (42 U.S C. 5641) abiections. tf any. of cogrutant state or locaj lL602 (Ameneed! goserement opencies to the conduct of an

21. Section 170.2 is amended by early renen on those issues. and (3) the 12.1n the headmg and text of the revising paragraphs (g) and (k) to read ossible effect on the pubhc mterest of section the references to Appen&x M of se follows:

genne an esti). if not necunn13 conclusive. Part 50 are amended to refer to resoluuon of thoet noeues Appendix M of part $2 g g ro'a g,,,,'

Todotal Regiator / Vcl 64. N3. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 18390 t l

• (g) An applicant for or holder of a payable upon notification by the St ne fut cost of umw for a producuon ce utdtsation facility Commission.Dere le oc fee for an standardtted duip approval et i

construction permit, opere ting license, application for renewal of an early site cert $ cation nuet be paid by the holder or manufacturtr a beense inued permit or a standard deelp certification of the dulgn approval, the applicant for pursuant to Part to of this chapter, or an Inued undet to CHL Part 62. Each certification, or other entity supplying early elle permit standard design applicant othat than an appbcont for the design to an appbcant for a certaca uen. or combined license inued renewal of en early alte permit or a construction peruut combined license purevant to Part 12 of this chapter; etendard design cert $cetion will be billed at six. month intervale for au inued under Part SL of operating (k) Applying for or altesdy has accumulated costs on each application licanu, se appropriate. in five (5) equal opphed for review,urder to CFR Part that the applicant has on fue for review installments. An installment is payable $2. Appendia Q. of a facihty elle prior to by the Commjealon until the review is pch of h first five timu b the submission of an applicauon for a completed.Each billmustideau the approved / certified deoip is referenced construcuen permit ePplications and the coste relate to in an appheation for a construction uch. permit, combined license inued under at Section170J le amended b (2) Fue for nyiew of an appbcauon 10 Cm Part $1 or opereting beenee.In reming,a,a,aph o)io med as j,oliows:,,mnygof,a,e,tgd,agt the case of a standard dest, for nn o,,tifica uon. the,,,iicant 1178.8 gieawsona, foUows:ne full cost of review for a cerunceuen shaU pay ee instaPmmt nnewed standard desip certificauen unine another entity is supplying the 0) Manufacturing licenn means a must be paid by the applicant for dulgn to the applicant for the license pureuent to Appendix M of Part renewel or other entity supplying the construction permit. combined license. 62 of this chapter to manuf6cture a design to en applicant for a construction or operating license,in which case the riuclear power ructorie) to be operated permit, cettbtned license toeved under other enuty evall pay the installment. at sites not identifiedin the licenn Part $2. or operetmg license as (ii)(A)1n the can of a design whir.h cpplication, appropriate,in five (5) equal has been approved but not certified and installmente: an installment le payable for which no application for certification

23. $ection 170.12 is amended by each of the first five times the renewed revising parapephs (b). (d). and (e)(2) to cerufication is nferenced in an is pending if the design is t.ot referenced, et if au costs are not read as foDow e:

application for a construction permit. combined license, or operstma license, ncovered,wilin five years after the 6 170.13 Peywnt of toes. ne applaant for tenewal shall pay the date of the preliminary design approval installment. urtlen anohr entity le (PDA) or the final dni8" approval (b) License fees. Fees for applicet;ons supplying the design to the apphcant for Ad' ,P c P g' he o te.et dst U'$ for permits and beenns that are subject the construction permit. combined to fees based on the tuu cost of the licenn, or operstma license, in which been) approved and for which an(B 1n the case of review are payable upon notificauon by case the other entity shaU pay the the Commleolon. Except as provided installment.1f the designle not application for certification is pending. below,each apphcant wiu be billed at referenced, or if all costs are not no fees are due until after the sta. month intervals for au accumulated recovered, within ten yure after the cerufication is panted.1f the design la coste for enth application the oppbcant date of renewalof the cerufication,the not uferenced or if all coste are not has on file for revsew by et applicant for tenewal shall pay the costo recovered, within ten years s'ter the Commiselon until the review is for the review of the application for date of certification, the applicant shall completed. nere is no application fee nnewal, or remainder of those costs, at pay the costa, or remainder of those for early elle permita leaved under 10 that time. costs, at the! time. Cm part 61 Fees for the review of an (3) Fees for the review of en application for en early ette permit are application for renewal of an early ette (C)In h can of a doign for which a defernd se foUcws:The ermit holder ermit shall be de'ernd as follows:De ceru!) cation has been Eanted. if the shall pay the appbcable ete for the older of the renewed permit thsU pay d"t " I' "'I I'I'"*'d' lI 'll l' I permit at the time en oppheation for a the applicable fees for the renewed an not ncound, wibn ten yurs afict construction permit of combinedlicense permit at the time an applicatian fut a the date of the cerufication, the referencing the early alte permit is filed. construcuon permit or combined license applicant aball pay the costa for the if, at the end of the initial period of the referencing the permit is filed.1f, at the mview of the application, or remainder permit, no facility apphcauon end of the renewalperiod of the permit, of those costs, at that time. referencing the early site permit has no facility applicauon referencing the been docketed. the permit holder shall early site permit has been docketed. the pay any outstandma fees for the permit, permit holder shaU pay any outstanding

23. Section 170.211e amended by Each blU must idenufy the applications fees for the permit amending the Schedule of Facility Fees Ond costa nieted to each. Fees for (4) Renewal fees for materiale licenses by revising Part A. Nuclear power lications for materiale licenses not and approvale not subject to fuU cost ucion, n

!oot note & and erbject to fuU cost recovery must review must accompany the application adding a new peond entry to Port F. su Ned. pany the application when it is accom when it is filed. Ads enc ed Ructors to read as follows,. (e) Approralfees. g 3 7,,,, %,,,,,,,,, g y,n (d)Renewoffees. (1) Fen for (2)(1)nere is no application fee for .n.. su.on fac e,e...teian.e,. reference uten approvels, special oppbcations for renewale that are standardaed design approvale or projects, and inapeesene. subject to full cost of the review are terufications (seued under 10 Cm Part

f 1 l i Federal Regislar / Vol. 54. No. F3 / Tuesday. April St.1968 / Rules and Regulatirne usc >= = = eswo. e-se =*t e =.7EU a e..._ _e.e...d _,yeung a numbn o l N6 sees tusemen a we w mean o**** swe oen e ae Boares eqmer.nsk investment

• "eYm*7E$U'e8TlJ*g reguleuon.

i ras, ennewee we im e esse rese * * .us ?,lW4 o*c"."e 7e5 *!*=*.e'l,", a "es,;lllt s==5 *** ^Pr(125* e,ve..sess,e es ko year sesar's pree a seierises e to,es.o POR Puerrtega sup0RasAfstet 80 err &CT: ~ NcE peres"wD s# "se"eenTe*ie"g Richard M. Sc.bwarta. Attorney. (202) one e se pomet ca ores usensa ones. me unwee' esaps a werwuse m ein wem en u esse are 90He97; Deborab Dokin. Regulatory "" '*****8 h - ** * *e assume es** Counsel (202) 90H646; Karen Solomon. A*"*'*"L N-Ed C"' sYeeO $**' * ,YE"*e7en"en Aosociate Genert! Coun6el (302) 9CS-preams, eeswwee e@r ve wic. pw swo en se e N#"EDY e*a.eI F240. Reguletions and Lagislation p owe. we v n a erness,eE wR Division. Office of General Conneet _ d cast a see ettroir FederalHome 14an Bank Board.1700 C F.asenses meanwe gt&. a*ne&".,8,,8),8,,88,,"g"*g *,,,"*g'w** Street N.W., Woohington. DC 30552: aseesenen ser censowenen Dww tistoso wie se sees owi seriemeen a vie Robert Fishman. Senior Polley Analyst. terv sas Pwast cerevvenen pd cent (302) 331-4891 Office of Regu'atory me us,me Deted at Rockville MD. thle 7th day of Activities. Federal Home than Bank Aprilltes. System, e0117th Street. NW., For the Nuclear Reguletory casentesten. Washington. DC 80008. irees se as to way ow arewe meses av U N W ve's*wviM S EaI*eE*el"n Samud ). Cth, supptassastrany supeassaviset On comem weera rees w w versee ear eerw. Secrosarye/de Coeuniselon. December 23.1984 the Board propo6ed en nause pwom a e esseec ee-ema wwe" [m Dec. ap assa hied 6 tr-es a os am) to amend its equity risk investmant E."c*esN.'me"* one mar see ser**e,jeere aU 6Na.'t U ""' **" rule.8 Board Res. No. 86-1393 (Dec.12. r** * *maer e eas 1988). 64 FR IM Osa. 4.19as). ne Board i geu e eieciar ce epwove o e w israi e" proposed to extend the current equity. 8,,,,,,* %s ",,"* 7,,*,"." "J/;*J FEDIRAL HotAt LOAN BANK 90ARD hgulet[on wee sched$ed to o k in ' rule f 120 d an oo.or7eYEen*ee*MS" *e'"U,"seY 12 CFR Part 963 April 16.1989. See it CF1t 663.H(b) l eten doe =er e swee e w sc-or hones a (1988) f7 INo. 991319] 7%, s'e,.e.ff,*,,,,f,1',*;",.',,',*7, D",8 rw e en one un u so ere siesessem. De Board received lit comments in gg,,j m,e,==,,a,,yig gag,e,enn,s,e Equtty Risk investmenta response toits proposal.Three of the p ne we m e w wee verwen vei e-os "** comments were from insured Date M pre 12.taas ineutuuona, two wm from trade

• %e* 5*1".EaTE"v.*en*EI[v"ve.

w n Aeteocy:Federsl Home Loan Bank war incs tv wimme he essa van icn anwswee te u owwie Eof u rues =. ser. Board' government 8Ponsored corpersuon. Of i s,e,y=,,;f,e,ysi

• Q,6c,e y,e,* g sp ye ACTient Final rule.

the four comments that saaressed the ' Q *f,,*,.*,'* 120 day extension of the equity risk t w eer..,,, w woe,,,.,,,,,,, SUMuamv:he Feders! Home Loan Berti $',',t"M",'gulation, amour supponed men wie we aswwne

• *po" **u=* "**** " "*
• oww.esai Board (the " Board"), as operating head of the Federal Savinge and Loan For the nasons seHore below, the Ec'*'

veN'" '*een"im'*e"eEEe*." e"E*e7We*d Insurance Corpora tion ("FSUC"). is Board has determined to enlarge the For vune ase**** *=,*v e ce we'necmar sea han eeenese v ve *e*v*e= bereby amending 12 CF1t 863.M. Its extmlon of ee equiWak inmtment e es ancaean e e to easewe een a v uguletion goveming investmente by reguletion, from the 120 days enginally E85EU r# UEIIEriE"eEE ' h,'$"y'h C( reposed to teo days. In its reposal the c. oard statad that it believe that an O*e';*"ar.'te,*ee " .are to. itse evie, eut a ".,",=en"* '%" in.utuuan.-) to equier neunen. m.i

• • 'ala ** **aarr b*ua

-w bonal time was needed to study the l em prene eaaissee estate a Ine7n'cDS tUtie" ewe sine 7,0, nonres. service corporations, operating subeldiaries, certein land loans, and

1. 2pirical evidence accompanytng r* to ta'*e is we anon ant Any erwesear*' har idantal construction loans teleled Board activity. Since the g

c '#t."*u"eE.. fe U*el*efe* rue."It,'v t

• • y

(" equity risk invutmente"). ProPo el Proposed legislauon has been o we tre se ew-ee one '*'*****' * ** * ** *****es..m emaar a The heat rale amends the equity rlek investment regulstion b 'eeT*e"e*e**IdenE e amee' ve'er.E regulation for 180 dayo. y eutending thee m ama,d so br om se meussem as u P es,e,$$, o,,eo',",is smes,,.O g. o until October 13, ,,',C po,y,g,=,v ga g,,y a y f,,; g 3e lose. This teguletion w..cheduied to ete,, ,e,a =.n.a e o or

==,e. e, e e,. e e e,ene, eree .unni on Aprii teaom n. Boare a.e - e .i.e,ea er.ee-u se.,e e i =ene.e-- -e-w owei--..es -.way. emot - beun n a.i the.6dieonal teo de s m,,s aa====i =* = c=,se,u=a m. = =- ee c w eee we ne ve new w es seen is, ce willallowit to evoluste more care ,,ei m ue -.,,,, s,.e,n,,e y tw+5 eenes ,,'/**Q" g* $ '*

• the ampirical evidence teoulting from

',** one E:*mee my eM.s,er,T, gh% the Board's recent proposal to p,e,en.t e m seerd slee weni te wrou er regulatory capital requirements and the a Join from um brope ed w neine ne e or a k wn o w nt essee-

• eo d *Me'4 weer"r* in iwee e rie.n eietv. euire ye kine ao pervmee vrag i tonn se me report on equity risk investment sent to 3 8 N88 N18" " ""*d br ** '***'8 weierew eewisse we the Congrese on February 10.1980.

Non,os,al M, engage Amostw 0,7prH WH') and tow cwome e a:wnance e m to ater'ac g,,,,, goe, g,,, y,,3,,, ce,,,,i,,, pursuant to the Competitive Equabty $T/ n[E 6:enne em rosere omosewe eenew " *f, " *My*,",,'f%",*,," BarMag Aet of 1987 ("CEBA"). Pub.1. 07:346. Mec4 twcame by taeures inantvuor.: es or eher Decenter a tema er eene char gg,,**'" "'+*'4 "'*9'*"* ** "*' ** No.10H6.101 Stat. 552. 881. 61303 'fP'*P'58* 88 ' *r "P'*Peetl ubbabed 'e,,t,"N d,E,'#'/e N nY M.$e N P (1987).Moreover the Board anbcipatee that within the 180 day period, rnee wee seeue.

o o ,e i ENCLOSURE 2 _NRC REVIEW OF ADVANCED REACTOR DESIGNS NRC Estimated Evolutionary LWR Designs Requested Action Completion Date o Electric Power Research Institute Generic Guidance 3/91 - Advanced Light Water Reactor Approval Requirements Document for Evolutionary Designs o General Electric Advanced Final Design Approval 12/90 Boiling Water Reactor and Design Certification 3/92 o Westinghouse Standard Plant - 90 Preliminary Design Approval 6/90 Combustion Engineering System 80* Final Design Approval - 12/91 o and Design Certification 3/93 a k Advanced LWR Designs o Westinghouse Advanced Passive - 600 Preapplication Review 6/90 o Asea Brown Boveri - Process Preapplication Review Currently being Inherent Ultimate Safety developed Advanced Non-LWR Designs o General Atomic Modular High Preapplication Review One year after Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor receipt from DOE of requested info, on containment o General Electric Power Reactor Preapplication Revieu One year after Inherently Safe Module receipt from DOE of requested info, on containment o Atomic Energy of Canada Final Design Approval - 4/94 Limited - CANDU-3 and Design Certification - 4/95 (AECL has indicated their intent to request this.) 1 I 4}}