ML20246M747

Responds to 890321 Comments on 890202 Draft Final Rule Re Standardization of Nuclear Power Plant Designs & Early Resolution of Licensing Issues.Hearings Held After Const Limited to Whether Plant Conforms to Acceptance Criteria

ML20246M747
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/10/1989
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Pashayan C HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20246M751	List: ML20246M747
References
NUDOCS 8905190240
Download: ML20246M747 (31)

Text

._. __ _ _ _

UNITED STATES -

y 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, f E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%,,,,,# May 10, 1989 CH AIRMAN -

l l

The Honorable Charles Pashayan, Jr.

United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Pashayan:

I am responding to your letter of March 21, 1989, in which you comment on the February 2, 1989 draft of the final rule on standardi1ation of nuclear power plant designs and early resolu-tion of licensing issues. The Commission appreciates your thoughtful analysis of this issue and your support for the concept of combined construction and operating licenses for standardized plants.

We have carefully considered your comments on the provisions in the draft for a limited opportunity for a hearing after construc-tion under a combined construction permit and operating license.

The final rule, published on April 18, 1989 (a copy is enclosed),

retains those provisions. We believe, however, that they should not be cause for concern. Any hearing held after construction would be limited to the question of whether the constructed plant conforms to the acceptance criteria incorporated in the combined license. Thus, if the plant clearly conforms to the criteria, there should be no hearing. The' Commission has taken care in the final rule to ensure that a satisfactory inspection program is established by each holder of a combined license and that construction is closely monitored and approved in stages in a' timely manner by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.

Under these circumstances, we are justified in expecting that ,

plants built under combined licenses will satisfy the acceptance criteria in the licenses and therefore that hearings would be unlikely.

Even if a constructed plant does not fully conform to the license criteria, a hearing will be held only if the specific issue of nonconformity is not exempted from adjudication by the Adminis-trative Procedure Act and if the issue cannot be resolved by means other than a hearing. In most cases, we would expect i the licensee to readily agree to correct any deficiencies. In any case, the Commission itself will determine whether a hearing needs to be held, and on what specific issues. In such a hearing, informal procedures would be used to the maximum extent 8905190240 890510 ,1/I PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC

.,' s' ,

o ,

possible, and no design or site issue resolved in earlier stages

'of the proceeding would be reopened. Under these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that a hearing would hold up operation.

The Commission is confident that the final rule rests on a solid

, legal foundation and provides the necessary assurances that the system.for review and licensing of new nuclear power plants of enhanced safety will be efficient and effective.

Sincerely,

^

(N. ~

Lando W. I h, J

Enclosure:

As stated

I 5372 ' Federal Register / Vol. S4. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and R:gulations

' Pas. rwork Red etion Act of1980(44 Fon Funrwen tNPORMATIoM CoWTacn publjC workshop, this time on the text of U.S.C. L501 et seq.). Steven Crockett. Attorney.OfSce of the the proposed rule.5 '

, Executive Order 12372 General Counsel, telephone (301) 492- During the second. 75-day comment 1600. on procedural matters. or Jerry period. the Commission received over 70 This program / activity is listed in the Wilson. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance sets of comments, ranging from one.page Research, telephone (301) 492-3729. on letters to multi paged documents one of under No.10.025 and is subject to technical matters. U.S. Nuclear which included an annotated rewnte of Ex:cutive Order 12372, which requires Regulatory Commf seion. Washington, the whole rule.The commenters interg:vernmental consultation with DC 20555. included the Department of Energy state and local efficials. (See 7 CFR Part suPPt.rugw?Any iNronsaAnow: (DOE), agencies and offices in the states 3015. Subpart V.) of Connecticut. Indiana. New York, and list cf Subjects in 9 CFR Part 77 L Backsmand North Carolina. the Nuclear Utility ,

The Commission has long sought Management and Resources Council Animal diseases. Bison. Cattle

• nuclear power plant standardizauon (NUMARC), the American Nuclear Transportation. Tuberculosis.

and the enhanced safety and licensing Energy Council. Westinghouse. General Accordingly, we are adopting as a reform which standardization could Electnc. Combustion Engineering. Stone final rule, without change the interim make possible. For more than a decade, a Webster, the U.S. Chamber of rule that amended 9 CFR Part 77 and the Commission has been adding Commerce. the Union of Concerned that was published at 54 FR 1145-1146 provisions to 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 2 Scientists (UCS), the Nuclear on January 12.1989. that allow for limited degrees of Information and Resource Service Authority: 21 U.S.C. U1.114. U 4a.115-u7 standardization, and for as many years. (NIRS). the Ohio Citizens for 120.121.134b.134f; 7 CML 2.17. 2.51 and the Commission has been proposing Responsible Energy (OCRE). the art.2(d). legislation to Congress on the subject. Maryland Nuclear Safety Coalition. and Done at Washington. DC. this 12th day of The Commission was frequently asked several utilities, corporations. public Apn11989. by Members of Congress to what extent interest groups and individuals. All the James W. Gloseer. legis!ation on the subject was necessary, comments may be viewed in the Ac'n:inistmror. AnimalendPlearHealth and in doing the analysis necessary to agency's public document room.

/nyectan Semce. reply to these questions. the The Commission has carefully (FR Doc. 89-9199 Hled 4-17-8& 8 45 am) Commission came ta believe thst much censidered all the comments and wishes

• "'**"******* of what it sought could be accomphshed to express its sincere appreciation of the within its current statutory authonry. often considerable efforts of the Thus the Commission embarked on commenters. While the broad outlines, standardization rulemaking. and even many of the details, of the i HUCLEAR REGULATORY The rulemaking process has been proposed rule remained unchanged in '

COMMIS$10N the final rule, few sections of the lengthy and highly public. A year and a 10 CFR Parts 2,50,51,52, and 170 ball ago. the Commission announced its proposed rule have escaped revision in l intent to pursue standardization light of the comments. and some have -

CIN 31$0 AC01 Tulemaking in its Policy Statement on been thoroughly revised. In the .

Nuclear Power Plant Standardization (52 remainder of this section of this final [

Earty Site Permits; Standard Design FR 34884: September 15.1987). The rule preamble, the Comminion makes -

Certifications; and Combined Licenses Policy Statement set forth the pnneiples two general responses to comments and ,

for Nucl:ar Power Reactors that would guide the rulemaking and then summanzes both the comments -

provided for a forty five-day comment and its responses to them. In Section H -

A!ENcw Nuclear Regulatory pened on the Poli Statement. On of this final rule preamble, the Commission. Commission responds to comments on October 20.1987. a out mid way Acnose Final rule. through the comment period the NRC the chiefissues raised by the comments. i CUut4A;.t The Nuclear Regulatory staff held a public workshop on the While Section II often touches on the Policy Statement. During the Workshop broad policies which be behind the rule.

Commission is now adding a new part the staff presented a detailed outhne of' readers wishing to know more about the proposed rule and answered those broad policies may consult the seu n e fe y permi . sta da-d design certifications, and combined prehminary questions about it. A statement of considerations which was construction permita and operating transcript of the workshop may be found published with the proposed rule. In in the Commission's public document Section Ill, which proceeds sect)on.by.

Licenses with conditions for nuclear room. Celman Building. 2120 L Street, section through the finalrule the power reactors. The new part sets out NW. Washington, DC. After a lengthy Commission actes minor changes and the revi;w procedures and licensing internal consideration of the comments offers some minor clarifications of the requMments for applications for these meaning of some provisions. For a received on the Policy Statement and

[g d y the outline of the rule presented at the complete record of the differences sarly res lution oflicensing issues and . En ah" pMc Wmgs of the Commission and the Advisory a cann ttua teneer and pubbe process the cnhance the safety and rehabihtY of comannion w unproueded try monuneniere on the nuclear power planta. Committee on Reactor Safeguards prep =ed r* wbe claun asi es puw =H nm (ACRS). the Commission issued a EFFE.CTIVE Dart:May 18.1989. proposed rule (53 FR 32000: Auguest 23 .s7,aeoygm7 g g ,,Seg,e] s,,m, pg s ,

ADDRESS: Documents rt!stive to this 1988) and provided for a sixty-day (N:R$l uye est g!nn es unportance of me re.

final rule may be examined and copied comment period. The comment period one woujd an* est ce NRC would encourap the for a f;e at the NRC Public Document was extended to 75 days on October 24. mdn' p HMe puW parcopson on Woule.

Rrom. 2120 L Street NW. Washington. 1988 (53 FR 41609). Mid.way through ",[,$"[Yb Its fNu'rw r w\a e D C. that period the NRC staff again held a comnuu on did.

,'j '

Fed:ral Regiat:r / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15373 between the' proposed rule and the final States. On the one hand the scope only in highly restricted rule, naders may consult the Commission is vigorously accused of comparative text of the final rule, which circumstances.

promotmg the nuclear industry and As to how designs should be cernfied.

is available in the agency's public shutting local governments and document room. most commenters think the Commission individual citaens out of ths licensing has authonty to certfy either by rule or Twa Genern/Reeponses to Comments process. On the other hand the by bcense. However some commenters Before summing up the comments and Commission is told that the beensing see advantages in ceruncation by the Commission's responses to them, the process is "the reason" for "the loss of Ucense. OCRE. for instance. ssys that the nuclear option", and that reform of certhcation by beense is more Commission wishes to male clear what that process is the " sine qua non" of the it his not tried to do in this rulemaking. viabthty of that option, appropnste, and some industry First, although this is an ireportant commenters think that more projections rulemaking, it does not resolve all the Certamly, the Commission hopes that are available to the bolder of a design safety. environmental. and pobtical this rule will have a beneficial effect on tjeense than are available to the the licensing process. In other words.

issuis facing nuclear power.The the Commission hopes that effort has

" bolder" of a design rule. Some Commission received urgmas to commenters prefer certification by undertake deep reforms before issuing not been wasted on a rule which will bcense because they believe that a this final rule. The Commission was, for never be used. But the Commission is beanns on a li.:ense has to be a formal Instance, urged to streac21ine the hearingviabtlity not outof tothe secure, single-bandedly, adjudication.

industry or to shut the the procedures in 10 CFR Part 2. Subpart C. general public out. The future of nuclear The final rule reflects the restructure the utilities liabilities under Commission's long standmg preference the Price Anderson Act. decide once power depends not only on the licensing for certification by rulernaking (see the process but also on economic innds and cnd for all what safe cnteria chall be eventa, the safety and reliabitty of the old to CFR Part 50. Appendix 0.

applied to all future p7 ants, seh e the aragraph 7 and for cerufication problem of nuclear waste, turn all health The plants, pobticalintent Commasjon's fortunes, and much else. [eanng proc)e, dures which.

with this while they and safety regulation-not just the rulemskmg is only to have a sensible penmt formal procedures when needed, NRC e-over to the states, reconsider do not anume that formal procedures and stable procedural framework in whether economic considerations place for the consideration of future are the best means for resohmg every should ever enter into safety decisions. *

• f,,

designs, and to make it possible to conduct local runrung referenda on resolve safety end environmentalissues Fm 1 .t deepest differences among whether a given nuclear power plant before plants are built rather than after. ***'"""*"*""th' should be built, and brve Congress consequences of standardnation and directly review designs. In sum. the Summary of the Comments andthe other devices for early resolution of 3

Comm;ssion was urged to do everything Commission s Responses licensing issues for the licensmg before it did anything. The comments on the proposed rule pr cess. One commenter behens est.

However, the Commission has stuck are characterced both by their broad once a plant is built under a combmed to the simple aim in this rulemaking of agreement that standardaation and beense, there need be no heanng at all providing procedures for the before opersbon begms. Several of these early resoluton of licensing issues are standmhzation of nuclear power plants desirable. and by their often deep com,menters characterne the proposed end more generally for the early differences on what kinds of designs rule e provision for an opportunity for a resolution of safety and environmental should be certified. bow they abould be hesnns just before operation as the old issu:s in licensing proceedings. The certfied. and what consequences f*0-step licensmg process under a Comrnission has declined to ne the fate certification should have for the different name. Othere believe not only of this rulemaking to the progress of the licensmg process. that there should be such a heanns but agency's many other ongoing efforts. As to what kinds of designs abodd be slao that resolution ofissues in earher such as revision of the agency's beanng cert 6ed, except for the very few who proceedmgs does not entail any procedures, implementation of the opposed any licensing of any nuclest restncuon on the issues which may be policy Statement on Safety Goals (51 FR power plant, no commenter opposes the raised m the bearing after construction.

300:& August 21.198a), development of cert 2fication of designs which differ Many of these commenters attnbute to trehniques of analysis of risk and cost, significantly from the designs which the Commission an mtent to do away and preparation for the licensms of a have been built thus far. but some: UCS, with public participation in the licensing high level waste repository. The fmal for instance, say that only " advanced" process.

rule necessarily touches on substance designs abould be certi$ed, and many. The Commission has given more whenever it sets forth requirements for the technical content of applications for including UCS. DOE. and Westmghouse, considerst on to this issue than to any say that only designs for whole plants other procedural question raised by the early site permita. design certifications, should be cernfied.

or c:mbined licenaea, or discusses the proposed rule. As a result, the proposed While not withholding certificanon rule's provisions on beenngs just before applicability of existing standards to fmm incomplete designs or designs operation have been revised in the fmal new designs and new situations. But which are not advanced, the final rule rule (the revised provisions are sven here, the Commission has evolded has moved a long way from the position Gstabhshing new safety or discussed in more detail below).

the Commission took in the legislative However, the final rule still provides for environmental standards, although the proposalit made shortly before this an opportunity for a heanns on lenited Commission may choose to adopt rulemaking began.There, certification issues before operation under a additional safety standards appbcable was held out only for evolutionary light to n1w designa prior to the advent of combined license. But the mere fact of disign certifications, water designs. but was permitted for the this opportunity does not mean that the i Second. many saw this rule as the design of any" major portion"of a plant. rule is hiding the old two-step process The fmal rule provides for ceruficanon under a different name. By far the cccasion for arguments over the future of advanced designs and permits greater part of the issues which in the viabihty of nuclear power in the United certificate of designs ofless than full past hose been considered in operating

15 74 . ftd:rd Rsglater / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations license hearmgs would. under the new As i, noted above, the rule unhke the is already secured. See 10 CFR 50300 rule, be considered at the combined legislative proposals which preceded it, and UCS v.NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir.

license stage or in a certification provides for cernficaton of advanced 1987). However. initial certification does procteding. including the bulk of designs. However. it also provides for not myolve backfitteg. Designers will.

amergency planning tesues. Similuly, cernfication of evolutionary hght.wster of course, stnve for a cost-effective the mere fact that any hearing pner to designs ne Commission's legalative design, but the Commission declines to operation would be limited does not proposals on standardization have incorporate a cost bencfit test in the mean that the Commission is attempting always focused on these designs. on the standards for cemficaton.

to remove the public from the licensing grounds that the bght. water designe now I

process. ne rule does not prevent the c. Requirements on Scope of Design and in operation provide a high degree of public from parucipating in the protection to pubbe health and safety. on Proto w n resolution of any cperstmg license issue. Moreover, the Commission does not in the statement of considerst2ons It simply moves the bulk of the issues up bebeve that the requirement in some accompanying the proposed rule. the front in the licensing process to the esses for a prototype is such a burden. Commission noted that the proposed design certficaton. early site permit. Whatever burden havmg to test a rule permitted cemfication of and combined bcense parts of the prototype may be, the burden may be incon:plete designs only in limited cases.

process. Jessened by agreements of cost.sharmg while the legislation the Commission am ng n and other organizations, had proposed to the tooth Congress had IL no PrincipalIssues and by 1.censms the prototype for been less etnngent about scope of J. Requirements for Applications for commercial operabon. It is well to design. De Commission invited i Design Ceroficocon remember also that. under the rule, comment on whether the feal rule pr totype tesung is required only for should return to the policy reflected in Because design certification is the key cemnced n r an une ndstonal Anal procedural device in part 52 for bnngmg the proposed legislation. DOE.

cbout enhanced safety and early design a preval. if at all. A fir;al design Westinghouse, and UCS. among others.

approv under 10 CFR part 5- argue that only designs of complete resolution of licensing issues, the Appenda 0 (fonnerly in part 50) can be power plants-excluding site specific Commission begms its discussion of the g anted subket to cond2tions reqmnng elements of course-should be cernfied.

pnncipalissues with res onses to pr t type inung. Sn to CTR part 52.

comments on the propos d rule's NUMARC.however, advocates a return APP 8D 3 P&f8Sf8Ph *N8 to the pohey of the legislation proposed requirernents for appbcations for hcensed prototype may be repbcated.

,g to the 100th Congress. One engmeenng

b. Requirement to Address Unresolved firm argues that reqmrmg complete

c. " Advanced" Designe Safety issues and Safety Goals designs would hmit market forces that ne proposed rule provided for Several commenters object tc the e uld contnbute to standardization.

crrtfication both of evolutionary light- proposed rule's requirement that ne final rule is even mm stnnFent .

water designs, that is. improved applicants for certficaton propose about completeness of design tha versions of the hght. water designs now technicalruolutions of Unresolved proposed rule was. De feel a rule,c the m opera tion, and of " advanced" designs. Safety Issues and high e.nd medium, prosisions on scope, see i 52.47. reflect that is. designs which differ significantly prionty Genenc Safety Issues. nis a policy that certain designs, especia!!y ,

from the evolutionary light-water requirement, and similar ones relating to desy;ns which are evolutons of Epht.

designs. or which incorporate. to a probabilistic risk assessments and the water designe now in operston. should greater extent than evolutionary light- Commission's nree Mile Island not be cerufled unless they mclude all of

• water designe do. simph$ed, inherent. requirements for new plants.10 CFR a plant which can affect safe operation passive, or other innovatve means to 50.34(f), were announced in the cf the plant except its site specific accompbah their safety functons (the Commission's Severe Accident policy elements. See i 52.47(b). hamples of distmetion between evolutionary light. Statement (50 FR 32138: AuFust 8.1985) designs which are evolutons of ,

water designs and advanced designs is and in the Commission's pobey currently operetng hght water designs d2seussed at greater length below). ne are General Dectne's ABWR, Statement on Standardaaton (52 FR proposed rule required that some 34884: September 15.1987). Some Westinghouse's Sp/90. and Cornbustion advanced designs could not be certified commenters callit " inappropriate" to Enginewgs System 80+, Full scope until full-scale prototypes of them were impose this burden on apphcants. may also be required of certam built and tested. While sgreeing with the Others say that no resolution of one of ads anced designs. namely, the requirement for prototype testing of these issues should be imposed on a " passive" bght water designs such as some advanced designs, several design unless the resolution had passed General Cectric's SBWR and commenters. UCS prominent among a cost-benefit test. Westingho6se's Ap000.Considerscons them. say that certification should be ne Commission believes that it is riot of safety, not market forces, consttute held out only to advanced designs. UCS inappropriate to require that an the basis for the final rule's requirement cigues that without such a limitation on applicant 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 operstmg Lght-f:r certification. the proposed rule the design proffered in the appbcation. wster designe more than adequately would discriminate against the or that the applicant bas 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 greator safe , because, given the rhoice (the applicant is of course not required can heve on the nuclear island. Given betw:en see ' certficauon of a to propose a genenc resolution of the this expenence. cernfication of these familist design and seeking certification issue). As to cost. benefit tests.the designs must be based on a of a design which the Commission might Commission will of course apply them to consideration of the whole plant. or else ,

require to be tested in a full +cale the resolution of safety issues where the the certifications of those designs will prototype, an applicant would chocoe to resolutions are being tmposed on lack that degree of finahty which should avoid having to budd a prototype. existmg plants and adequate protecuan be the mark of certification.

Tederal Regist:r / Vol. S4. No. 73 / Tussday, April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15375 However, the Commission has not functions, such as passive decay best provisions in to CFR Part 50 for transfer

, cdopted UCS's position that no design of removal and reactivity control, which or revocation of a license. See to CFR incomplete scope could ever be have not been licensed and operated in 50.80 and 50.130. Howes er, a rule certified. There is no resson to conclude the United States. See id. certifying a design does not. stnctly that there could never be a design which speaking, belong to the designer.

protects the nuclear falar a agamet d. Certification by Rulemaking nerefore. such a rule cannot be edverse effects caused by events in the The proposed rule provided for design transferred or revoked by adjudicatory bel:nce of plant.The final rule therefore certification by rulernsking. Here the enforcement. Applymg i 50.80 in provides the opportunity for certification preposed rule was in accord with the particular, to a rule certifying a design cf designs ofless than complete scope if old to CPR part 50. Appendix 0. would be akin to giving the vendor of they belong to the class of advanced paragraph 7 (this paragraph is now the design a patent. but the Commission designs. See i 52.47(b). Examples of being replaced by Subpart B of Part 52). has no authority to issue patents.

designs in this class include the passive However. in the notice of proposed Nonetheless, the vendor whose design light. water designs mentioned above rulemaxing, the Commission inytted is cernfled by rule b not without end non. light wster designs such as comments on whether cernficaton protection. Section 52.63(a), the General Electnc's PRISM. Rockwell's should be by license rether than rule. Administrative Procedure Act, and.

SAFR. and General Atomic's MHTCR. Although the Commission exprened ultimately, judicial review protect the But here too the rule sets a high some doubts on the matter, commenters vendor against arbitrary amendment or st:ndard: Cernfication of an advanced geneally agne that the Commitsion has recission of the certification rule and design of incomplete scope will be given the authority to license designs. Some the law of patents and trade secrets only after a showing, using a full. scale industry commenters and some public protects the vendor against unlawful use prototype, that the balance of plant interest groups alike go further and of the design. In order to give the vendor cannot significantly affect the safe argue Gat cemncation by beem is more opportunity to treat elements of operation of the plant. preferable. Industry commenters arguirut the design as trade secrets, the final rule Stendardaation along these lines may tMs positia behm Gat de rights anc provides that proprietary information indeed limit some market forces, bligations which attach to a bcense are contained in an application for design dearer than those which attach to a certification shall be given the same kartir.nlarly those which encourage ahly rule. Fordifferentiated instance a bcenserange of products.

is possessed treatment that such information would by some entry and. under Cocumssion However, the final rule's requirements be given in a proceeding on an Ia " '

on scope in no way limit innovauve application for a construccon permit or arrangements among vendors and

,ntty's con nt an operating license under to CFR Part erchitect-engineers for bringmg new fecaunuPsyprefer cem, ncebon by 50. See i 52.51. Moreover. an oppbcant license drsigns before the Commission. m est 6e beanng on referencing a design certification and

' u d han to be a formal seeking to use a designer other than the The final rule is clearer than the u t n proposed rule was in identifying those designer whir.b achieved the The Commission continues to believe cemncoun wouM hm to comWy d designs which cannot be certfied that certification by rule is preferable to without a program of testing. For certification by license. As DOE says, a il 52.63(c) and 52.73, and the other purposes of determming which designs design cemficabon will, like a rule, have designer would have to pay a porton of must undergo a testing program to be genene application. Mormn, the cost of review of the apphcation for certified, the rule disunguisbes between certification by rulemaki % !=r.vn the cemficetion See 10 CFR 170.12 (d) and all advanced designe-be they passive Commission fme to adapt haanng (e) as amended in this document.

bght. water or non. light water-and procedures to the requirements of the ' e. Applicability of Existing Standards evolutionary light water designs. Some subject matter. rather than rely testing may be required of all advanced With one exception. the proposed rule exclusively on formal adjudicatory designa. Passive light.wster designs are devices evsn when they are not useful did not say what safety standards to some extent also evolutions of the (bearing procedures are more fully would be applied to a design proffered light water designs now licensed. but discussed below). Finally, cernfication for cuhncau n or mn pacinh dat they have design features which are not by rulemaking permits the Commission existing information requiremen,ts present on plants licensed and operstmg to consider reactor designs submitted by appbcants would have to meet. In its in the United States.nerefore the rule foreign corporations. However, the lengthy and highly detailed comments.

requires that the matunty of the passive Commission will give priority to designs fCMARC 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 State;.ne references to Part 50, and a statement appropriate tests, or analyses, but most Commission will review other designs that no other portions of Part 50 apply.

likely not through prototype testing. See as resources permit. The final rule provides that the i 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 50 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 adding provisions for certification those standards are technically relevant experience or to justify the acceptability by license, leaving it to the applicant to to the design proposed for the facility.

of a scale model test,it is very unhkely chocse between certification by license See new i 52.48. Application of parts 20.

that an advanced design would be and certification by rulemaking.De 50. 73, and 100 to the cemfication of new certified solely on the basis of analyses. Commission, however, prefers Prototype testmg is likely to be required rulemaking and sees no advantage to ' N propoe d nde d2d e4w tht ampime for certficaton of advanced non bght- providing such an option. fw cerwoom would tave to demor.s:rsie uset the water desi bne because these revolubonary designs use innovative PCMAftC. while supporting d"g7]i"M1NQ(('6

, 3 certification by rule, suggests adding ,,qmeu n, fore in to cn smr) See means to accompbsb their safety provisions analogous te existing i smcet sa rR STHproposed rule) o e

'153%6 ' Taderal Eegist:r / Val. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1980 / Rules and Regulations

• designa, aa resected in i 52.48, should must be a formal adjudication. However. portion of the costs incurred in so o icng way toward establishing the this conclusion is clearly not the law; regulation. Deferral of fees is more m

. r:gulatory standard that new designs therefore. the facts in a coruscation line mth the policies behmd those must meet. and thereby provide the proceeding are not whoDy adjudicatory. statutes dan as puttmg the burden of regulatory stabibty thatis an essential Moreover,if such facts must be anoertainty on the public.

prerequisite to realicing the beneSis nf categonzed at all. they are tnere k MnaMy standardization.The Commission " legislative" than "adjudicabye", as }

recognizes that new designe may UCS defines those terms.for while they Standardization has the double aim of incorporate new features not addressed are "related to activibes of the parties", enhancing safety and making it possible by the current standards in Parts 20,50, they are not uniquely so, and they are to resolve design issues before 73 or 100 and that. accordingly.new facts about "mdustry practices, co astruction. Of these two aims, '

st:ndsrds may be required to address scienc5c data", engmeenng principlea. enhanced safety is the chief, because any such new design features. and the like. preenstructioc resolution of design

%erefore the NRC staff shall. as soon Seseralcommenters also argue that issues could be achieved simply through l as practicable, advise the Commission the certification proceedmg should be a combir.ed construccon permits and of the need for criteria for judging the formal edgud cauon because cross- operatug licenses with con 6tions. f ssfety of designs offered for certWestion examinst on is an unsurpassed means Adrievement of the enhanced safety that are different from or supplementary foe discovering the truth. Again. the which standardtration makes possible to current standards in 10 CFR Parts 20 argument proves too much. namely that will be frustrated if too frequent changes

50. 73. and 100. The Commission shad every rulemaking indeed every species to either a certMed design or the plants ,

consider the NRC staffs views and oflawmamF obould be formal referencing it are permitted.

determme whether add!tional adju6 cation. Part 52 does not assume The proposed rule put forward rulemaking is r.seded or appropriate to the supenonty, or even the usefulness. pnne' pally thr+e means of preventing a r7 solve generic ques tions that are of formal procedures for resolnns every contmual regression from epplicable to multiple designs.The issue; but it does provide for their use standardizauon. First. the proposed rule objectve of such rulemahng would be where they am the only means available required that any amendment proffered to incorporate any new standards in for resolving an issue properly. by de " holder" of a cernfication be

g. Fees for Review of Applications considered in a nouce and comment ra e tan de elop su and rdsin rulemaking and granted tf the ,

the context of the Commission's review The final rule adheres to the fee policy amedmerit comphed mth de you. t and approval of indindaal appbcations embod;ed in the pmposed rule. An Energy Act and the Commission a for design certficatons. On the other appbcant for design cernfication does reFulabons. Second. the proposed rule not have to pay an appbcation fee, but hand new design features that are proh2bited the bcensee of a plant built uruque to a parucular destgn would be the apphcant mil have to pay the fu!j according to a cernSed design imm addnswd in the context of a rulemaking cost of the NRC review of the making any change to any part of the proceedmg for that particular design, appbcation, although not until the plant which was descnbed in the e

. cerufication is referenced in an cerufication unless the licensee had

, Hearings on Applications for Design applicabon for a construction permit or Ceruncanons been g* anted an exemption under 10 g combmed license, or, faibr p that, not Cm m2 fmm the mie cernfy6g h  ;

Ilke the proposed rule the final mle until the certification expires.The design. Third, the proposed rule stated provides for notice and comment detatla of the scheme of deferralof the fees appear in conformmg amendments that the Comm:ssion would not backfit a rulemaking on an appbcanon for a certfied destgn or the plants built .

design coruscation. together with an to the recently amended to CFR Part 170 accordmg to it unless a bacW wm opportunity for an informal heanng on (53 FR 52632; December 29,1968). necessary to assure compliance with the an application for a design oeruficeben. UCS asserts that the pronsion for applicable regulations or to assure .

The rule also permits the use of more deferral of fees for NRC review is adequate protecton of public health and l formal procedures where they are the "uncocacionable".To the contrary, the safery. See 152.83 of the proposed rule.

only procedures available for resolnng Commission bebeves that there is f.3 FR 32074. col. 3. to 32075, col 2. The a given issue properly. See l 52.51. UCS nothmg " unconscionable" about defenal ,

Commiss;on invited comment on and others tryue that any hesnrig on of fees for a propcm whose aim is to whether the amendment and exemption cern6 cation should be a formal enhanca safety.

ediu6 cation. In parucular, UCS arFues Some industry commenters assert that standards were etnngent enough and on the requirement for payment of the full whether the backnttmg standard gave that the cernhea tion proceedmg will be certifications a reasonable degree of deahng with adjudicative, as opposed to cost of NRC review presents an finahty. See 63 FR 32067, col. 2.

legislauve. f acts and therefore should be " insurmountable disincentive" to the fully a diodica tory. UCS characteAzes development of cerufied designs.Some ne comments focus on the standard '

industry commn.ters propose purung a of amen 6ng the cernfication. one group ad;u6cative facts as "unignely related of comments wantmg to make it harder to ceuvaties of the parties that are at ceiling on fees for cernficauca review.

in order to help vendors better esumate for the " holder" of a cernficanon to get issue" and legislauve facts as "facta an amendment, and another gmup cbout industry practices, economic the costs of developing and cernfying a imp:ct, scienu6c data, and other design. The Commission fully recoFntzes wanting to make it easier. Several information about which the partes that it will be difficult for a vendor to commenters say that the proposed rule hava no specialinformauen." enumste the costs of taking a design wrongly makes it easier for the designer to amend the ceruned design than it is UCS' argument proves too much. If the through to cerunestion. However, a facts to be considered in a certification ceihng on fees only displaces the burden for the Commiasion to backht the proceeding are wholly adjudicative, of that uncertainty from the vendor to design.To co, rect this perceived the public. In recent years, the NRC has imoalance. UCS, among others, proposes then. because those facts are like the that no amendment be granted unless it facts considered in any rulemaking on been obbged by statute to charge fees which return to the Federal Treasury a constitutes a :afety enhancement, and safety isenes, every such rule. making

Fed:ral Register / Vel. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 153 7 thit cqy amen [iment granted be regulations.The Atomic Energy Act features that i 50.59 prohibits changmg backfitted on all plants built according allows the Commission to consider costs without prior NRC approval. Moreover.

to th) design being amended. OCRE only in decidmg whether to establieb or the level of design detailin certifications prop;ses that, at a minimum, no whether to enforce through backfitting should afford licensees an opportunity c.mendment should be granted which safety requirements that are not to take advantage ofimprovements in w:uld entall a decrease in safety. On necessary to provide adequate equipment.

the cther side. NUMARC proposes protection. See UCS v.NRC. 824 F.2d The comments on the proposed rule virtually the same s andard as a 108.120 (1987). raise two other important finahty issues.

miximum: Any amendment which has The final rule. like the proposed rule, both connected with backfitting The no safety impset abould be granted. permits applicants for combined first bears on the entena for renewal of DOE in effect argues that the licenses issued under the rule, and a design certification.The proposed rule Commission does not have authority to licensees of a plant built according to a provided that the Commission would csk frr more than OCRE's mirumum. certified design, to request an exemption grant a request for renewal of a design because this type of amendment would under to CR 50.12 from a rule cerufying certification if the design cornplied with be proposed for economic. plant a design. Among the comments on the regulations in effect at renewal and any cfficiency. or other business reasons end appropriateness of using I 50.12 in the more strmgent safety requireroents the NRC has no expertse or authority in standardization context were NIRS' which would brmg about a substantial creas involving business judgments. The comment that i 50.12 permitted increase in safety at a cost justified by law firm of Bishop. Cook. Purcell, and exemptions at a "whim" and DOE's the increase (stnetly speaking. the Reyn Ids, representmg several utibties. suggestion that no exemptions should be backfit rule would not apply st renewal.

proposes a backfitting standard more granted at all. Out of respect for the but the proposal nonetheless stnng:nt 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 ftnal rule benefit standards). See i 52.59(a). 53 m backfits on a design for the sake of does require that, before an exemption 32074. col. 3. Bishop. Cook. among comphance with applicable regulations can be granted, the effect which the others, proposes that the standard for unless the lack of comphance has an exempton might have on renewal be comphance with regulations advzrse impact on safety. Going even standardastion and its safety benefits in effect not at renewal but rather at the further in the came vein. the U.S. must be considered, time the certification was ongmally Chamber of Commerce proposes that As a further guard against a loss of issued. together with any other more ev:n where the lack of cornphance has standardaat on, the final rule. again like stnngent requirements which are an adverse impact on safety. the backfit the proposed rule, slso prohibits a justified under the backfit rule. The should have to pass muster under a licensee of a plant built accordmg to a proposed ruWs critena were in fact cross-benefit analysis. certified design from making any change equivalent to Bishop. Cook's in their The final rule places a designer on the to any part of the plant which is impact on a given design certification.

tams footing as the Commission or any desenbed in the certification unless the but they differed in thetr impact on the other interested member of the public. Licensee has been granted an exemption timing of some backfit analyses, the No matter who proposes it, a change under 10 CR 50.12 from the rule proposed rule providing that some will ntt be made to a design certfying the design. Because the would be done in rulemakings while the certification while it is in effect unless certification is a rule. 20 CG 50.12. not given certification was in effect.

the change is necessary to bring the 50.59. is the standard for determirung However, the final rulc adopts Bishop.

cerufication into compliance with whether the beensee may make changes Cook's proposal because it more clearly Commission regulations appbcable and to the certified portion of the design of says that imposition of more stnngent in effret when the certification ws: the plant without prior approval from requirements on a design dunng a issued, or to assure adequate protection the NRC. NUMARC says that given the renewal proceeding will be govemed by of pubbe health and safety. See pra:t:ahties of construction and the backfit standards.

I i 52.63(a)(1). Thus. the fmal rule cannot hmited resources of the NRC staff. The second of the other importar i be a:id to rtake it easier for a designer licensees need the flexibility afforded by fmahty issues raised by the comments to amend a certification than for the 150.59. However. the Commission concerns the finality of to CR Part 52.

Commission to backfit the design. But believes that the certifications Appendix 0 (formerly in Part 50) final i moie important, the final rule thus themselves and l 50.12 will provide the design approvals (FDAs) already in provides greater assurance that necessary flexibility with respect to the effect on the effective date of this rule.

standard.r.ation and the concomitant certified portion of the plant (or at least Sectori 52.47(s)(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 adopting achievtng the safety benefits of the effective date of the rule might has e Eishop. Cook's suggeston that standardization). while 150.59 will to submit more information to the staff c:mphance be required only when non- continue to apply to the uncertified in cortnection 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 will provide depends in large part on a " grandfather" clause which would rehef from a design certdication, who how much detailis present in a design prohibit the Cornmission from imposing.

believ2 that non compliance would have certification. arid just how much is dunng the cerufication proceedmg. any no adverse impact on safety, should present will b: an issue which will have change on that part of the design which request an exemption under 10 Cm to be resolved in each certification is covered by an aheady effective FDA 501,2. Neither is the Commission rulemaking.The Commission does unless the change meets the entena of cdopting the suggestion of the U.S. expect. however, that there will be less the backfit rule.

Chamber of Commerce that cost benefit detailin a certification than in an Adoption of NUMARC's proposal cnalysis be used to deterrmne whether application for certification. and that a would not only entail a significant to impose backfits on designs to bring rule certifying a design is likely to change in the force of an FDA. it would them into compliance with spplicable encompass roughly the same design also extend the rartge of appbcation of

15378 federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations _

the backfit rule.Under -istmg NRC 10 CG 226 and 10 CG Part 52. applicants for early site permits. See

~ regulauona. an FDA biuns the staffin a Appen6x Q (formerly in Part 50). I 52r(a).

paragraph 5. He Connecticut Siting Last, although the Commission bcelsing proceedmg but not in a certthcauon procwimr and even in a Council strongly suggests that the State acknowledges the possibihty that non-of Connectx:nt would be unable to nuclear development of a site would be lic:nsmg proceedag, the staf.f may,on the grounds of sigruficant new participate in an NRC heanng on an postponed when a site is reserved for a

• informauon or other good cause. apphcation for an early site pemtit nuclear plant and then a plant never built there, the Commission believes riconsider an carber determination. See unless the appbcanon proposed a to CFR part 52. Appendix O. paragraph "speciSc" nuclear power plant. Final!v. that such a possibility does not loom

5. Moreover, the FDA does not bind the one commenter is concerned that land very large. Persons are not hkely to go to Co=mussion or the Commission's approved under an early site penmt the expense of applying for en early site e ditidicatery panels. Id. at paragra,ph 6. might never be used for a nuclear power permit unless there is a good prospect The backSt rule apphes 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 FDA to meet a new sta.ndard in ceder to needlessly delayed. many of the sites for which eerfy site remain m possessino cf the TDA. aee 10 The Commission bebeves that early permite uught be sought are already set site permits can usefully serve as aside for use by utihnes: thus, even CFR 511DJ(s)(1). but the backSt rule does not change the force an FDA has in vehicles for resolvmg most site issues though non-nuclear development of the e licensing proceeding or certification before large mmmitments of resources site might be postponed.non. utility uses proceeira. are made. Moreover, the Commission of the site would not be. Lost. even NUMARC's procesal. however, would believes that a term of ten to twenty during the period in which an early site bind both the staff and the Commintion years for early site permits wdl make permt is in effect, non. nuclear uses of in a certification proceedmg and wodd early site permits more useful for early the site are not prohibited altogether.

add a cost. benefit test to the tests which resolution of site issues than would the See 152.35 must be met before a determination five. year term in to CFR 1606 and to The comments on the proposed rule rnade m an FDA codd be reconsidered. CG Part 52. App. Q. because the longer raise two other important iseues NUMARC's proposal thus would term wdl require less frequent concerning the rule's previsions en early affectively amend both the backfit rde reassessments of issues than would the site permits. The first issue concerns the and the cited paragraphs of Appenda shorter term. The fae. year tenn is a division of authenty between the O: It would. in effect. turn any existt:8 function not of the rehabdity of the Federal government and local FDA into a partial certification. Here the infor=stion avatlable to make the governments over the sitr s of nut! ear Commission would rather adhere to the decisions. but rather of the fact that the power facihties The New York State f:nabty provisions in the existm8 decisions made under these provisions Energy Office is concerned that the regulations. including Appendix 0 and may only resolve isolated site tseues 8 proposed rule leaves the impression that ,

the backfit rule.%e Commission and anucipe te site utdaataon in the very only an early site permit frem the NRC beheves that. in this struation, these near term. The Commission is confident is necessary to set aside land for a provisions adequately ba!ance the need that there will be informatroc adequate nuclear power plant.To the contra y.

for finabty with the need for flexibility to support alte approvals lastmg up to 20 the rule does not,indeed, could not, to deal with unforeseen safe y advances years After all.the Commtasion beenses change the division of authon*y er ks. plants and their sites for opersuon for between the Federal Fovernment and penods of up to twice tweny years. the states over the sitmg of nuclear

2. Early Site Pennha Where adequate information is not plants. An early site permit consttutes What design cernfication is to the avatlable, early site permits wdl not be approval of a site on!y under the Federal early resolution of design isroes. the statutes and regulauens admirustered by early site permit is to the early I"'d'Cornmission The is also confident that the Commission. net under any other resolution of site related issues Both the enough informa non on reactor design applicable la ws.

certificanon and the permit make it wdl be available in an early site permit De last important issue raised by the possible to resolve important boensing proceedmg to permit sound judgments comments on early site permits concerns issues before a construccon permit about environmentalimpacts and thus the p oposed rule's reputrement that the proceedmg Theyin effect make poseible to enable state and local agencies such application contain a plan for red ess of the banking of designs and sites, thereby as the Connecticut Sincg Council to the site in the event that the site making the beensing of a green plant partcipate effectively in an early site preparation work and similar work and more efficient. However, some similar work allowed by to CFR remut proceeong. The Council says con menters queston whether the that for it to meanmgfully partcipate in 50.10(e)(1)is pe?ormed and the site Commission should iseue early site a decision on an application for an early permit expires be.Ne it is referenced in pernuts.The Attornry General of New site permit, the appbcation would beve an application for a construenon permit York, for instance. sees no need for easy nte permits and questions whether to cantam projected emission. or combined license osued under the discharges, site irnpacts. safety factors, rule. The proposed rule required that the j there could be grounds edequate to and exact operational parameters * *

• plan provide reasonable assurance that sappert approval of a arte for twenty redren carried out under the plan would proposed for a site". It is just such

> ears. the tenn of early af te perndts information which both the proposed achieve a self-maintaming, under the proposed rule (the fmal rule rule and the ftnal rule would require of environment,Ily stable. 6nd provides that permrts will beve terms of aesthetically acceptable site" which j

between ten and tweary years). He conformed to local torung laws. Re points out that under the NRC's current

• Tw ce common d et.n to fee

• monon d the **naams fna d kee e only important difference between the regulations. NRC early decisions an arte proposed and final rules on this subjeet suitability issues raised in connection with a construction peruut generally j'[,$,'M*Tlf,M",$,",ih cou24 t., ts, de,,, g e % . wen . perwi is that the fmal rule requices such a plan 1..uns mo tw.uy rw. rw tv.. only of applicants who wish t'a perform remain effedive for only Ove years. See o

- .- - - - - - - ~ - - -

~ > ~ ~ ~__

4 5 f*ederal Register / Vol. 54. No. '/3 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Rentations 15379 the activices allowed by to CTR (for the text of section 185 see belcw). shaU thereopen insas e I cense to the 50.10(e)(1) NUMARC says that this They often cite Power Aeoccor erpbcant. . . .

rIquir:mant is " inherently unworkable" Developrnent Co. v. International Union 42 U.S.C. 2235. To be sure, the section cud wruld involve ther emission in ofElectrical Workers 567 U.S. 396 speaks in terms of a construction I

I m2tching redreas against a vanety of (1981) as support for this interpretsuon permit's being issued first. and then a loc 1 zininglawa. of section 185. To these arguments, license (presumably an operating l To the contrary, the rule's provisions those who bebeve that there should be on site redresa. includmg the provision license). However, the contrast between )

no heanag, or else only a highly the two licenses is not fundamental to en zomng. are modeled on the redress restricted heartr,g. after construction is  !

the section.The substance of the section j requirements irnposed oc the FM cc:cplete reply that section leth of the is clearly indicated by the utle of the i RJver Breeder Reactor project. See In the Atomic Energy Act g:ves the section and by the list of findmgs the Matter of the U.S. Department of Energy. Commission authonty to combine a Commission must make. The section et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor construction permit and an operaun8 may be paraphrased thus: A Pirnt). I.DP-85-7,21 NRC 507 (1985). license in a smgle beense (for the text of constnscuon permit is not a grant of Morzover, the Commission has long section 161h. see below). authoney to operate once construccon is tsquirsd that applicants' environmental A closerlook at section leth and 185 complete; before operation begms. thz reports discuss compliance with local shows that section 1eth clearly gives the onginal application must be brought up la ws. includ.n3 zoning la ws. See to CTR Commission authonty to combme a to date, and the Commission must make 51.45(d). Apparently.NUMARCis not construccon permit and operatin certain affirmative findings. hus the oppestd to redress per se, for gbcecse in a smgle license and that critical matter is not the separation of NUMARC's preposed revision of I 52.25 cecton 185 is not inconsistent with the two licenses, but the need for  !"

of the preposed rule speaks of the section telh. Section 18th says,in specific findmss before operston. With possibility that redress of adserse pertinent part. that the Commission has this substance, both the proposed rule environmen'a! impacts might be the authonty to " consider in a single and the final rule are enttrely in accord a nzeessity.The Commission is only application one or more of the acovities (the pernnent provisions of the fmal rule i r:quinns that such redress follow the for which a beense is requtred by this precedent established at C!mch River will be desenbed in more detatl below).

Act (and) combme m a smgfe license Moreover. in differencatmg between a and proceed according to a plan ene or more of such setviues . . ." 42 " construction permit" ard a later incorporated in the early site permit. U.S C. 2201. The plain language of this "bcense", sect;on 185 is not taking Containing a redress plan, the permit section clearly applies to the combining exception to secoon leth. Secuen 18L5 -

its:lf will consttute assurance that,if of construcbon permits and operating does not say, for instance, ade preparation activities are carried licenaea for both construction and "Notwithstandmg anything in section out but the site never used for a nuclear operauon of nuclear power facilities are 181b to the contrary, appbcants aball be power plant the site will not be left in " activities for which a license is granted init; ally only a construction cn unacceptable condition, required by this Act", namely by pemut."By speakmg of a separate I CombinedIjcenses sections 101 and 185 of the Act. see 42 issuance of a license after completion of U.S.C. 2231 and 2235, and section 103a construction. section 185 simply

a. fhe Commission's Authenty to issue of the Act makes any license to operate conforms itself to the simplest case,in Cornbined I.icenses a commercial nuclear power facility which the licenses are in their There are two important questions in " subject to such conditions as the elementary, uncombined ststes, and connection with the proposed rule's Commission may by rule or regulat,on avoids havirig to make an already long provisions on combined construction establish . . ." See 4: U.S.C. 2233. Ha d secbon longer in order to acknowledge permits and operating beenses with Congress intended that constriction the case which section 161b makes conditions.The firstis whether the permits and opereting licenses for possible. Moreover, section 185 Commistion has the authonty to issue comroercial nuclear power plants be acknowledges seccon telb impbcitly combined licenses. The second is excluded from the language of section when it speaks not of a separate whether. in cases where all design 101h. surely Congress would have,said appbcadon for an operstmg beense but issure tre resolved before construction so nght in that section, for the plam simply of an updating of the onginal begins. there should be a bearing after language of that section invites their a ppbca tion. Therefore. neither the construction is complete, and if so, what inclusion, and they are the most proposed rule nor the final rule can be issues abould be considered at the important licenses issued under the Act. faulted for not providing for a separate l bearing. Section 185 is not to the contrary. issuance of an operating bcense.

l Comments on whether the Section 185 ssys, in putinent part. This interpretation of section 185 is Commission bas the authority to issue CONSTRtJCTION PERMITS-.All confirmed by the legislative history of combin:d licenses tend to mirror the appbcants for beenses to construct . . . the section. In 1954, when Cong ess was commenters' views on what kind of untaanon facihties shall . . . be trutf ally considering proposed amendments to hearing should be held after granad a catmedon pennit. . . . % the the Atomic Energy Act of1H6.

construction is complete. In other words, t EtNag*fy"s'ddita nl representatives of the industry the discussion of this issue tends to be informanon needed to brtng the ong:naj complained that the proposed secu,on result oriented. Thus, many who believe appucation up to date. and upon Eruians that 165 required that construction of a that there should be a beanns after the facihty authonzad has been constructed facihty be completed "under a mere construction, and that it should be as and will operate in confornury with the construction permit, without any full a hearing as operating license opphesuon as amended and in corJormirY assurance at that stage that there will be hearings often are, argue that the Commission has no autbonty to issue

'['*y&%^{""d I0

, :ssioc and issued any license to . . . operate it after it has met all the speciScaboos of the to the absence of any good cause bems I

combined licenses. They claim that shown no the Commuon wby the granting of construction permst." Atomic Energy Act section185 of the Atomic Energy Act a heense would not be in secordance with of 1954: Hearings on S. 5323 and H.R.

mindates a two-step licensing process 6e proviair.a of this Act. the Comcussion 8882 before the joint Committee on I

15730 Fed:r.1 Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations At$mic Energy 83rd Congress. 2d Administrative Procedure Act(APA) bearing also believes that an issue in the Session.113 (May 10.1954). Rese which says,in effect. that adjudication heanng should be whether construction representatives proposed instead that is not required in cases in which the has been completed in accord with the ,

power facility applicants should be able agency decision rests " solely on terms of the combined license, and the to cbtain a single license covering all inspections, tests, or elections". See 5 final rule so provides. Also, under tspects of their activitiet-construction. U.S.C. 554(a)(3). Under Part 52's section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, possession of fuel, and operation-and provisions of combined licenses, a the Commission must find. pnor to

~

that the license should contain the combined license will contain the tests. 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 enteria therefor, which are conformity with the application and the facility could begin. Id. at 113 and 118. necessary and sufficient to provide rules and regulations of the Commission.

On this proposal. the following colloquy reasonable assurance that the facility This statutory findmg. in the context of i to:k place: bas been constructed and will operate in Subpart C of this rule translates into i conformity with the license and the Act. two separate but related regulatory Reptssentauve HINSHAW.%st seems to me to be reasonable. that you should put alj See i 52.97. DOE's argument amounta to findings: that compliance with the th2 conditions into l license that can be put the claim that the kind of tests and acceptance critena in the combined into s beense. Dat would be fair enough, inspections spoken of in Part 52 is the license will provide reasonable Chairman COLE Would you nund my same as the kmd of tests and assurance that the facility has been int 2rrupcon? Why carmot that be done under inspections spoken ofin the APA. constructed and will operate in the terms of the bill as it is now? The Commission agrees that findings Mr. McQUII.LEN [representmg Detroit which rest solely on the results of tests acc rdance d & Commish.s Edison).1 thirk it undoubtedly would be so requirements, and that the acceptance and inspections should not be criteria have in fact been satisfied. The operated. ,

Cha2rman C0110f course it would. a ca a d the final e so former finding will be made prior to H issusnee of the combined license, and Id. at 119. Chairman Cole said this even every finding the Commission must though neither of the draft bille before wiH necessa% W & s@ct of any make before operation begms under a the Committee contained the text of combined license will necessanly c mbined license beanns under section what is now section telh. Twelve days 189a of the Act.&lattdning always be based on wholly self- cann t by its nature be made untillater.

later, as if to put the matter beyond all implementing acceptance cnteria and doubt. the Comnuttee incorporated the therefore encompassed within the APA after construedon h subandab present text of section 10th into both complete and therefore cannot by its exception. The Commission does not nature be de suNect of any heanns bills. The final rule provides for just bebeve that it is prudent to decide now, such a single license, with cond:tions. as before the Commission has even once pri r to issuance of 6e comMned was discussed in this colloquy. bcense. Thus, to de extent 6at an gone through the process of judging Power Reactor Dere/Opment Co. v. opportunity for bearing should be whether a plant built under a combined afforded prior to operation. it should be E'ectrical WotAers. 367 U.S. 396 (1981). license is ready to operate, that every is not to the contrary. The issue in that confined to the single issue that cannot finding the Commission will have to beve been litigated earber-whether the case was not whether the Commission make at that point will be cut and-had the authority to combine a acceptance enteria are satisfied. No dried-proceedmg according to highly commenter has offered any legal construction permit with an operating detailed " objective enteria" er. tailing license with conditions. but whether the bttle judgment and discretion in their argument to the contrary.*

Commission could postpone the ultimate appbeation. and not involving questions Commenters disagree greatly on safety findmgs until construction was of " credibility. conflicts. and whether any other issue should be complete. The Court ruled that the sufficiency". questions which the Court considered in a beanng. The proposed Co nrnission could. and found support in UCS v. NRC. 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir, rule provided that interveners could

'or its conclusion in section 185. which 1984). held were roarks of issues which contend that significant new information showed. the Court said, that " Congress should be litigated at least under the showed .'et some modification to the contemplated a step by step procedure." facts of that case. Indeed. trying to site or the design was necessary to 567 U.S. at 405. But the Court did not asnre that the tests, inspections, and assure adequate protection. To this.

s:y. "section 185 mandates a separate related acceptance criteria in the NUMARC responds that "no one could l

i issuance of an operating license. combmed license are wholly self. seriously consider ordenng a new plant notwithstanding section 16th." The implernenting may well only succeed in with the licensing uncertainties it would interpretation of section16th of the Act introducing inordinate delay into the face."NUMARC proposes a complete was not at issue. heanng on the application for a rewrite of I 52.103, elements of which combined license. are discussed below. Severel indastry

b. Hearings After Construction Is Thus, the question becomes whether commenters point to the "added Complete the rule should provide an opportunity burdens" that applicants would be Tbc first issue concerning hearings for a post-construction bearing on the assuming under the proposed rule as i efter 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 International, for should be auch hearings at all. Most Commission could or should go further instance, claims that, with the hearing commenters, whatever their affiliation, under its governing statutes we leave to

-believe that there should be the future consideration and experience;

• See its also py. mat. pnor to opere uos opportunity for such bearings. They this rule adopts an approach within the tbn me t= arsbunce of sood c= bems bounds of our legal authonry which sets shown to the commma why se smatma of me disag ee only over how limited the '

hearmas should be. DOE argues that reasonable limits on any post-there should be no such beanngs at all. construction bearing. In this regard. lQ,,, *,o$.dgM.po"d y ..s,.

cano, uu.ried b As the pnneipal support for its every commenter who believes there .uordas an orpomuy for beanc.a on au nodms.

should be such an opportunity for tr.si mu te a.ade pnor to f.ccey epmuon atrgument. DOE cit.es the section of the

. Yederal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15381 under i 52.103, there will be four public To the extent that these commenters CFR 2.205. This approach to issues hearmas for each plant. offer any precucal arguments in favor of concerning the inadequacy of the Pubhc interest groups also take e dim this approach, they are not persuasive, combined bcense is well-founded in the view cf the proposed rule's limitations Rockwell Interna tional may engage in discretion anorded the Comnussion on the baarms. though their reasons are some double.countmg when it asserts under section 185 of the Act to

- not the industry's. UCS says that a that there are four public heanngs for determine wbst conettutes " good I heensms procee&.ag without uncertainty each plant. but wben the Mary and cause" for not permittmg operation. and is a abam. OCRE goes further and Nuclear Safety Coahtion says that the in the analogy which this approach has asserts that the uncertainty should be public can debate beensing tasues only with the way construction permits are d stnbuted equally:"In a perfectly fair in an early site penmt hearing and after treated in operstmg license proceedings.

proceedmg. Ithe] chance [of winninfl construccon. and therefore needs Contentions alleging inadequacies in a would be 50%."The Maryland Nuclear another heanns on design issues. it construction pernut are not now Safety Coalition counts only two inexpbcably simply ignores the admissible in an operstmg license hearings for each plant. NIRS says that mandatory pubhc beanng on the proceeding. Similarly. under the final many problems with the current apphcation for the combined license and rule, contentions allegtog inadequacies grnerston of reactors were cured under the opportunity for a public hearing on in a combined license are not admissible the full two-step bcensing process. an applicanon for a design certification. in a post-construction heanng.

This latter group of commenters Moreover, contrary to NIRS. Moreover, as we noted. this approach appears to be opposed to any limitation shortcommgs in certain plants were not fully satisfies spplicable law.

on the post construction hearing, for not discovered because the licensing E " I"""

one of them alternatne proposes to the proposed arule concret?a proceedings consisted of two steps but rather because design issues had to be These are taken up section by section.

provisions on the hearing. UCS does say resolved and construction mede to Not discussed are most of the many a ' " 8 'ho d co as a a a, p

, au conform to design before operation changes made to the proposed rule for u

began. Part 52 provides for no less. the sake of clanty, brevity, consistency, an . tbta The final rule adopts a straight. 8pecificity, and the hke. Worth notmg.

nt is eit a however. is that this Federal Retpetar general as to be just another way to put forward approach to hmitmg the issues the question of whatissues should be m any post-constmetion beanng on a nonce movn Appen6ces M.N a and encompassed. or it is the claim that* combined license. As a matter oflogic. Q of Part 50 to Part 52. so that, except when it comes time to determine every conceivable contention which for Subpart F of to Cm Part 2. all of the whether the plant has been built in could be raised at that stage would Commission's regulacons on confonruty with the terms of the necessanly take ene of two general standar& ration and early resolution of combined license, all the operating forms. It would a!!ege either that bcensing issues will be in one part of to license issues resolved before construction had not been completed- CFR Chapter I. Readers are reminded construction should be tested as if they and the plant would not operate-in that a comparative text showmg all conformity with the terms of the deletions from, and additior.s to, the had never been resolved. Many 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 m themselves not in conformity with pubife document room.

against any hmits on the post. the Atomic Fnergy Act and pertnent J. Early Site Permits construction hearing at the same time Commission requirements. The final rule that they support the ides that design makes tasues of conformity with the At the suggeston of NUMARC and issues should be resolved befor, terms of the combined license part of others. I 52.17 now g:ves applicants for construccon. any post-construction heanng. unless early site permits the option of There have to be substantiallimits on those issues are excepted from submstting partial or complete the issues that can be raised after adjudication by the APA exception for emergency plans. for final approval.

construction. A licensmg proceeding fmdings which are based solely on the Also the section requires a redress plan without any uncertainty in result inay be results of tests and inspecuana.The only of applicants who wish to be able a sharn. but the bulk of the uncertamry final rule does not attempt to say in to perform the site preparation work and should be addressed and resolved prior advance what issues might fall under sinular work allowed under 10 CFR to, not after, construction, Part 52 does that exception. The comments are 50.10(e)(1).1.ast. incorporating not remove uncertainty. it simply nearly unanimous in the opmion that suggesuons by UCS and others. the reallocates it to the begmnmg of the issues of confonrury with the combined secuon says what factors should be licensing process.The alternative license are properly encompassed in any considered in determirung whether the apparently offered by opponents of post. construction heanng. Moreover. area surrounding the site is " amenable, hmits on the post-construction heanns this limited opportunity for beanns is to emergency planning.To avoid is. in affect to double the uncertainty by consistent with the Cc: > e mn's belief ruggestmg that the Comnussion is considering every design issue twice.s that even if section 1&5 : J c ' speak at adopttng tiew emergency p!w.m.g all to the need for a conforca udmg. standards. I 52.17 abandons the en ,een,desseocareemisec,r prsey the Commission itself would need to prepo ed language of"amensbibty to far procaeus m wtuch perf.et Mrness coud be make such a fmdmg pnor to opersbon in emergency plannmg in favor of

• ctuand by rep!acins ludsee ='th to**** of cana. order to conclude,in the language of language drewn from eusung deeton eens aboutd not be resolved emce tf esey regulations on emergency plannmg.

section 103, that operstion is not MYefp,,

,r ,, inimical to the health and safety of the Section 52.18 cow reakes clear that d1 sign leeusa Sat two nwen chances are ogwesient public. 'De fmal rule also peovides that need for power is not a consideration at to a rn chance enrail te s. the chariae of comms issues of whether the terms of the the ear!y site penrut stage, ad [a"ane parey ss combined hoense are themselves in a number of places-l) 52.23,52.53.  !

chenae of mneme is eat. nawaiians to ocu.- inadequate are to be brought before the 52.87, and portions of other sections-

• perfer ht". Conurussion under the provisions of 10 the rule prendes explicitl) fcr ACRS

g82 Federal R2gistir / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations reWew of is' sues to make clest that. even original permit can be fixed at a term performance requirements and include thrugh the Atonue EnerTy Act does not. shorter than twenty years. See the necessary codes, standards, and in terms. give the ACRS a role in the i 52.27(a). other acceptance and performance grrnting of early site permits, design In its comment on i 52.31. LeBoeuf. cnteria to which the equipment and certifications. or combined licenses, the Lamb suggesta that at renewal. the materials will be fabricated and tested.

burden should be on the Commission to Construction and installation l ACRS is to have the same role with respect to these devices that it does with show why an early site permit should specifications would have to identify the respect to construction permits, not be renewed, but that a given permit criteria and methods by which systems.

operating licenses. and the like. should be renewed only once. and for structures and components are erected Wherever the ACRS is spoken of in Part not more than ten years.The final rule or installed in the facility and include 52, the intention is that the ACRS review retains the provisions of the proposed a cceptance, performance. inspection.

the pertinent issues according to the rule because they provide more and testing requirements and criteria. ,

standards specified therein. Dexibility to both the Commission and In i 52.47, the provisions on testing of -

l As in the proposed rule. I 52.25 holders of permits. prototypes have been reworded to avoid l provides that the holder of an early site Much of the d2scussion in Sections suggesting a presumption that designs of II.1.f. and II.3.b. above on the finality of the affected class could be certified only permit which contains a site redress plan, or the applicant for a construction design certifications and hearings after after successful testmg of a proto:)pe.

permit or combined license which constnaction is relevant to the One individual and the U.S. Metric r:ferences such an early site permit, provisions in i 52.39 on the finality of Association urged that the rule require may perform the activities at the site early site permits. Section 52.39 now that technicalinformation in ellowed by to CFR 50.10(e)(1) without states that, except in certain limited applications be in metric units.The NRC first obtaining the separate circumstances. issues resolved in a staff believes there is much merit in this authonzation required by i 50.10.The Procenling on an early site permit shall proposal. but because the pubhc has not De treated as resolved in any later had an opportunity to comment on it. it New York State Energy Office appears pr ceeding on an application which is not incorporated in the final rule. The to take this to mean that the holder of references the early site permit. One of the permit may perform the work NRC staff is considenng proposmg an the circumstances involves petitions amendment to Part 52 on the subject for without NRC approval.To the contrary.

under 10 CFR 2.206 that the terms of the Commission review.

the early site permit which contains a early site permit should be modified:

redress plan is itself NRC approval.The On il 52.53,52.55, and 52.63, see the law firm of LeBoeuf. lamb. Leiby & i 52.39(a)(2)(iii) assumes that the remarks in Section 1111. above on Commission shall resolve the issues Il 52.23. 52.27. and 52.39 respectively-MacRae, representing several utilitie s. raised by the petition in accordance argues that recent case law. especially Also. ! $2.55 of the proposed rule set ten with the standard in paragraph (a)(1) of years as the duration of certifications.

NRDC v. EPA. 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Ctr. e same sec n.

1988). calls into question the The final rule extends the duretion to Commission's limitations on non safety 2. Design Cert /hcotions fifteen years, to permit more operating related construction before issuance of a In the proposed rule. ! 52.45 contained experience with a given design to permit. LeBoeuf. Lamb concludes that material on scope of design and testing accumulate before the certification i 52.25 and related portions of Part 52 of prototypes.This matenalnow comes up for renewal or ceases to be should be deleted and the limitations in appears,in modified form,in i 52.47, available to applicants for combined i 50.10 reviewed in the light of the case licenses. In addition, i 52.63(a)(3) now The phrase " essentially complete law.The Office of the General Counsel nuclear power plant." which is used in limits Commission. ordered is undertaking a review and will 52.45. is defined as a design which modifications of design certified recommend to the Commission if any includes all structures systems, and elements of a specific plant to situations changes to these sections are warranted- components which can effect safe in which the modification is necessary In the meantime, the Commission has operation of the plant except for site. for adequate protection and special oecided to keep Part 52's provisions on specific elements such as the service circumstances as dermed in to CTR site work intact and consistent with the water intake structure and the ultimate 50.12(a) are present. This double related provisions m Part 50. beat sink.Therefore. those portions of requirement does not mean that if a Section 52.27 now contains some of the design that are either site specific specific plant presents an undue risk but the t..aterial which appeared in i 52.29 no special circume'r.nces are present the (such as the service water intake of the proposed rule. OCRE objects to structure or 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 carly site permit as valid beyond the components which do not affect the safe modification of the certified design date of expiration in proceedings based operation of the facility (such as itself. as provided for elsewhere m the en 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 a pplicant whose application to avoid new site requirements by essentially complete der,ign is a design stferenced a cert fied design to select referencing an early site permit just that has been finalind to the point that designer (s) other than the designer (s) before it expires. At bottom. this is procurement specifications and which had achieved cernfication of the nelly an argument that esirly site construction and installation atar.dard design. Section 52.63(c) makes permits should have aburser durations. specifications can be completed 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 agency will be able to make site determined that they are required for normally contained in procurement judgments which will retain their Commission review in accordance with specifications and construction 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 cernfied design and does provide that the duration of an to identify the equipment and material available for audit by the NRC staff.

Tederal Register / Vol. 54 No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / B'iles and Regulations 15383 Also, I 52.73 requires a demonstration Section 52.83 now provides that the that it would be acceptable for that the new designeris quahhed to initial term of a combined license shall interested persons to wait until notice is supply the design. Last. the new not exceed forty years from the date on received before they examine the record disigner would have to pay a portion of which the Commission makes the of construction.These time periods a*e thi coet of the review of the apphcation findings required by I 52.103(c). Itke the sixty. day limit in the Hobbs Act, for certificanon. See to CFR 170.12(d) On i 52.87, see the discussion in 28 U.S.C. 2344. for petitions for direct cnd (e), as amended in this document. It Section 111.1. on i 52.23. Judicialreview of an agency rule.These is expected. as a practical matter, that NUORC proposed removing from hmits assume that the petitioner is cpplicants referencing a certified design i 52.89 an/ reference to design familiar with the fundamentals of the wruld select the designer which had cernficatior s. on the grounds that . record before the limited period begins.

schi2ved certification of the standard environmeraalimpact etstements should The limited period is then provided for design. not be prepared in connection with consideration of options. consultanon 3 Combinedlicenses .

certification rulemakings. The with other interested persons, and references in this section to design drafting of pleadings. In any event. the 5:ction 52.73 now provides that the entity that obtained certification for a certifications are not meant to imply final rule providea sixty days,in that evironmentalimpset statements consideration of the pleadtng standard

's ppbes must be prepared in connection with I 52.103 imposes on petitioners.

e a to an appI ca t or a design certifications. Moreover, as noted above, to assist d li d .8*

Section 52.99 bas been rew~o rded to interested persons in becoming familiar e i is de on trat t anoth entity is quahfied to supply the design. nhet mon cleath that the, inspection we th construchon neod i 52m This provision was added because an carned out during construction under a now provides that notice of staff combined h,eense will be based on the approvals of construction will be the d houldb*

quhfieNo! do so: the e y which tests inspections, analyses, and related pubbsbed penodically in the Federal acceptance enteria proposed by the Register. An) heanns held under obtained the cernfication will have demonstrated its quahfications by appbcant, approved by the staff, and i 52.103(b)(2)(1) will use mformal cbtaining the certification. incorporated in the combined license. procedures to the maximum extent Several industry commenters proposed practicable and permissible under law.

The last sentence of I 52.75 of the proposed rule now appears in i 52.79 of adding to this section a requirement that in particular, the Commission intends to the final rule. the staff prepare a nview 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 application for a However, such a requirement would be determining applications for mitial combined license be considered unless largely duplicative of a long. standing licenses. Under i 52.103(b)(2)(ii). the it references a certif;ed design. The final staff practice under which the staff NRC staff will review the i 2.206 rule does not contain this restnetion prepares an annualinspection plan petition and make appropnate because there may be circumstances in which allocates resources according to recommendations to the Commisson which a combined license would the prionties among all pending concernmg the petition. The properly utilize a non. standard design, inspection tasks. The annual plan Commission itself willissue a decisio, and because such a restriction would thould assure the timeliness of staff granting or denying the petition in whose mean. among other things, that every review of construction under a or in part.

prototype would have to be licensed in a combined license. Section 52.99 Finally Urenco.Inc.,is concemed that fully two step process. In connection envisions a " sign as you go" process in the last subsection of I 52.103 not be with I $2.79's provisions on submission which the staff signs off en inspection taken to suggest that the Commission of complete emergency plans. NIRS units and notice of the staffa sign-offis would have to m the separate fmdir.as somehow concludes that Subpart C's published in the Federal Register. UCS for each of the numerous " modules" of a provisions on emergency plaruung says that it is " totally inappropnate" for gaseous diffusion facility. The issue of

" extend", to the detriment of state and the Commission, while construction is how the modules of a gaseous diffusion local governments, the " realism" going on. to sign off on inspections and facility should be licensed is beyond the doctnne set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and thus put matters beyond dispute which scope of this rulemaking: I E2.103 ,

recently affirmed in Commonwealth of might otherwise be raised after therefore cannot suggest that the Massachusetts v. NRC. 856 F.2d 378 (1st construction is complete. However. UCS Commission would have to make Cir.1988). Apparently, NIRS believes has misunderstood the Commission's separate findings for each of the l that to settle emeregency planning role in the inspection process. While modules of such a facility. 1 issues before construction is to " extend" construction is going on, only the stcff signs off on inspections.The IV. Replicate Plant Concept the doctnne. To the contrary, although 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 respect to construction until the Commission published a rev' sed not extend it.The doctnne re nains constnntion is complete. Section 52.99 policy statement on replication of plants precisely wha t it is in 150.47. Moreover, hse been mor'.ified to aske this peint and invited comment on the revised the Commission'a atm in drafting rnore clearly, policy. See 53 FR 32067, col. 3. to 32068.

Subpart C's provisions on emergency UCS and other cummenters object to col 1. Severalindustry commenters planning has been to follow to the the section in t 52.103 of the proposed remarked that the statement's maximum feasible extent the National rule which provided interested percons requirement that the application for Governers' Association's thirty days after notice of proposed replication be submitted withm five Recommendation. at its 79th annual authonzation of operation in which to years of the date ofissuance of the staff meeting,in 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 constr action permit was drawn from section 189a of the Act. unavailable for the short term. They for any new nuclear power plant." Neither tha Act nor part 52 imagmes recommended removmg the restnct.on.

1 l

\

e .

1 .

l !!5384 Faderal Regist:r / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18, 1989 / Rules end Regulations l

rr at in silengthening it.The subsequently identified by the ACRS or Paperwork Reduction Act Statement t Commission has decided to rett n this dunng the public hearings on the base restncten. The five-year figure is in fact plant application as requiring later This e llect,onfinal rule amends requirements that areinformation subject ciready a lengthening of the analogus resoluton; figure in the immediately preceding (5) Identification of the major to the Paperwork Reducuon Act of 1980 version of the policy statement.The contractors, with justification for the (44 U.S.C. 3501 et see). These ,

restriction is a reflection of the requirements have been submitted to the acceptability of any that are different ,

Commission's bebef that applications than those used by the base plant Omce of Management and Budget which reach back further than a given applicant and (OMB) for any review appropriate under g number years probably ought to be (6) A discussion of how the replicate the Act. The effective date of this rule I considered as custom-plant plant design will conform to any provides for the ninety days required for cpplicat ons. changes to the Commission's regulations OMB mew eMe Wannadon which have become effective since the collection requirements contained in the Policy on Replication rule.

issuance of the license for the base The repbcate plant conceptinvolves plant. Public reporting burden for this an application by a utility for a license collection of information is estimated to to construct or operate one or more EnytroamentalImpact-Categorical average 22.000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> per response, nucle:r power plants of essentially the Exclusion includmg the time for reviewing same d: sign as one already licensed. The final rule an. ends the procedures instructions. searching existing data The d:stgn of the plant already currently found in Part 50 and its sources, gathering and maintaining the heens:d (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, reviewmg the collection of information.

construcuon permit and operating operstmg licenses, early site reviews. Send comments regardag this burden lic:nse stages, and in applications for and standard design approvals. As such estimate or any other aspect of this combm, :d construcuon permits and they meet the eligibility criteria for the collection of information. including operating licenses in a ona-step suggestions for reducing this burden. to cateFoncal exclusion set forth in 10 CFR acensmg process. Replication of an 51.22(c)(3).That section applies to the Records and Reports Management cpproved base plant design at the Branch. Division of Information construction permit stage is a "[almendments to . . . Part [] 50. . .

which relate to (i) procedures for filing Suppport Services. Office of Information prerequisite 'or its repbcation at the and reviewmg applications for Lcenses and Resources Management. U.S.

cperating license stage. Although or construction permits or other forms of Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

replic: tion of the base plant design at permission. . . ." As the Commission Washington. DC 20555; and to the the operating beense stage is not i explained in promulgating this Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-mandattry that is, the operstmg license exclus on. "[a]!though amendments of 0000). Office of Management and this type affect substantive parts of the Budget. Washington. DC 205c3.

st m apcto ti s n8 Y I Commission's regulations, the I

rec mmmded. amendments themselves relate solely to Reguistory Analysis An application for a repbcate plant matters of procedure. [They) . . . do not snust demonstrate compliance with the As presently constituted, the four bcensing requirements for new have an effect on the environment. 49 Amencan population of nuclear power phat designs as set forth in the FR 9352. 9371. col. 3 (March 12.1984) reactors consists largely of one-of-a.

Commission's Severe Accident Pobey (finalavir nmentalprotection kind designs. Experience has shown that regulations).s Accordingly, pursuant to the highly individualistic character of Statement (50 FR 32138: August 8.1985).

Each cppbcation proposing to 10 CFR 51.24b). no environmental this population has consumed enormous raphcate a previously bcsensed plant impact statement or environmental resources in the processes of design, assessment need be prepared in construction. and safety review.

will be subjected to a quahfication review to determine the acceptability of emetien with these final rulesJ Because, typically, design of a plant was the b:se plant for replication and to not complete when construction of it define specific matters that must be e It mahe no nbetanun cLHmoce for the began. tnany safety questions were not cddressed in the application for the P***'"*'""I"*'u****t*'

N.'m".*o"im,

' " '" u e Net " "s'ne d[. uIot$ resolved untillate in the beensingproce rephc:ta plant. A further requirement ior quahfication is that the application Pari so procedures and could han been pieoed in tesolution of questions introduced greai for a replicate plant must be submitted that part uncertainty into proceedings, because within five years of the date ofissuance ' N miuneenu caumns tutas

• Huh 28 the process of resolution often entailed af the staff safety evaluation report for $ *,$ *N 7,'$,"l1 $ " ) [ h *'Y lengthy safety reviews, construction tha b:sa plant. The quahfication review I suzicm etsce to meply wie the requiremen s. delays, and backfits. breover, the , low will consider the fo). lowing information: an appbcant marun to inuld and test a protonw incidence of duplication among cesigns (M The arrangement made with the et hes meact thet experience gained in the P'**'*****3****'****"*"*""'*1"d" developers of the bane plant design for NeM"i[7)['),"",N" n$ o 2

construction and operanon of a given piemt has often not been usefulin the its replication: of e safen rule wbe appuu to operatins ptesta (2)The compatibility of the ban plant ti romai nen of pnnmaissens t up bu och a cort.ruction and operation of any other design with the charactenstica af the '** **h* >* c' ** *"*"'' hausmat phnt. and bas made the genenc bewme.unaleni site proposed for the replicate plant; .r.remesom of eruta e rkind tf aofdes 4:ner oesiss.

advsoced ebnoen to pw.w (3) A description of any charges to the Under the pr ant circumstances no maantr.sM constnrt on permst and opernuns horn ** for a base phnt design, w2th justification for enenmenta2 a,.e.ement or unpaci etatement can prowr.pe eetaan ,it aplant woult tap.c seruscant of rmurn to arr.rooment cm it.e e matar fedent the chrnges. be made c as ra e sort cok s-s (astunna teto an asreement with a State ander Secton 2"4 of the and weald entail (ne preparsbos of an (4)The etstus of any matters Aiorme sar y Act has ao immedtete or ineneesbte environmentalimp.ct utemer.t ciid out:tihe idIntifi;d for the base plant design in enmamental usput and thanfort warrants a Stee. mui paran deaBed en vtromnenul the saf2ty evaluation report. or uteromai ncJumon) ne tsaanc= at the anah m befor, eer bonnu unam nome *1 l

l l

Tod:ral R: gist:r / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 1538E reso'lution of continuing safety issues standardization. Clearly,if the (Dec. 9.1985). The impact on interveno s more compheated. Commission and the industry spend the or potentialintervenors will be neutral.

In the face of this experience with a resources necessary to certify a score of For the most part. the final rule will population of unique plants, there have designs and then no applicant aliect the timing of hearings rather than long been fundamentally only three references any of them, those resources the scope ofissues to be heard. For i citernauves for Commission action, the will have been largely wasted. On the example, many site and design issues 1:st two of them not mutually exclusive: l other hand. It is just as clear that if a will be considered earlier in connection f either make no effort to bring about an score of plants uses a single certified with the issuance of an early site permit increased degree of standardizadon, or design, there will have been a great or standard design certification, rather propose legislation on standardization, saving of the resourets of the industry, than later. in connection with a facility ersnact by rulemaking as much of a the agency, and the interested public licensing proceeding. Similarly, a scheme for promoting standardization alike.To be added to the uncertainties combined licensed proceeding will es the Commission's current statutory surrounding the industry's response, include consideration of many of the authonty permits. The Commission has there are also uncertainties concerning issues that would ordinarily be deferred for some time concluded against the first the costs of the certification process, until the operating license proceedmg.

alternative, having decided that a and the costs of developing the designs Thus, the timing rather than the cost cf substantial increase in standardization themselves, especially the advanced participating in NRC licensing would enhance the safety and reliability designs, which mav require testing of proceedings will be affected. Interveners of nuclear power plants and require Prototypes. However. if the industry may expenence some increased fewer resources in safety reviews of finds it in its interest to proceed with the preparation costs if they seek to reopen plznts, and that the Commission should development of nuclear power. there is previously decided issues because of the have in place provisions for the review every reason to expect that the safety increased showing that will be requircJ.

of standardized designs and other and economic benehts of Once a hearing commences. howes er.

devices for assuring early resolution of standardization wiu far outweigh the an intervenor's costs should be safety questions. The Commission has upfront costs of design and Commission decreased because the issues will be therefore pursued standardization both certification: Review time for more clearly defined than under exts:mg by propoems legislation-without applications for licenses will be practice.Therefore. in accordance with sucesss-and by promulgating rules,in drasticaUy reduced. the public brought the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 particular Appendices M. N. and O to into the process before construcu,en. , U.S.C. 605(b). the Commission hereby Part 50 (now Part 52) of to CFR. Lacking construction umes shortened. economies certifies that the final rule will not has e legislation on standardization, the of scale created. reliabihty of plant a significant economic impact on a Commission believes that the most performance increased. maintenance substantial number of small entities and suitsble alternative for encouraging made easier. quahfied vendor support that, therefore, a regulatory flexibih y further standardization is to fill out and made easier to maintain, and, most analysis need not be prepared.

expand the Commission's regulatory important. safety enhanced.

scheme for standardization and early Thus, the rationale for proceeding Back. fit Analys.ts rssolution of safetyissues. with this rulemaking: There is n This rule does not modify or add to l Therefore, the Commission now absolute assurance that cernfied designs willin act be used by the utilities; the systems. structures. components. or promulgates a new set of regulations. to design of a facility: or the design be placed in a new part in 10 CFR. Part however. it is certain that if the approval or manufactunng bcense for a

52. This new part facilitates the early ' P' facility; r the procedures or

,a s$a auon s ga resolution of safety issues by providmg , then. organizauon required to construct or for pre-construction-permit approval of the Commission must have the h s operate a facility. Howeser,it could be procedura1 F1 f argued that this rule modifies and adds power plant sites. Commission , ,5yw o{ appbanonj ea ly sife certification of standardized designs, to the procedur,es or organization approvals. design certifications, and and the issusnee oflicenses which required to design a facihty, since the combine permission to construct a plant combined lic~ises.The most fundamental choice is, of course. the rule adds to, or else at least spells out.

with perrnission to operate it once the requirements for apphcants for industry's. to proceed or not with construcuan of it has been successfully standardization, according to its own design cerufications. Moreover, the rde, completed. Ideauy, a future applicant weighing of costs and benefits. But the at the very least, substantially mod.fics will reference an approved site and a the expectations of anyone who had Commission must be ready to perform cerufied design in an application for a its review responsibilities if the ir dustry hoped to apply for a design certification combined license, thus obviating the under the previously exioung section 7 chooses standardization.

need for an extensive review of the of Appendix 0. particularly of any such application and construction. The Regulatory flexibility Act Certification who presently hold prehminary or final provision in Part 52 for Commission The final rule wiu not have e. design appicals under that Appendix.

cerufication of designs has the - significant impact on a substantial Nonetheless, the Commission bel. eves additional objective of encouraging the number of small entitles. Tne final rule that the backfit rule does not apply to use of standardized designs, thereby will reduce the procedural burden on this rule and, therefore. that no backht adding to the benefits of early resolutien NRC licensees by improving the reactor analysis pursuant to to CFR 50.109(c)!s the safety bene 3te of accumulated licensing process. Nuc! car power plant required for this rule.The backfit rde  ;

esperience and the econoinic benefits of licensees do not fall within the was not intended to apply to ever)  ;

tecnomies of scale and transferable definition of small businesses in section action which substanually changes experience. 1 3 of the Small Business Act 15 U=S.C. settled expectations. Clearly, the b4f:t .

Quanufication of the costs and 632, the Small Business Size Standards rule would not apply to a rux which benefits of this rulemaking is probably of the Smau Business Administration in would impose more stnngent not possible. Much depends on the 13 CFR Part 121. or the Commission's requirements on all future applican., rer extent to which the industry pursues Size Standards published at 50 FR 50241 construction perrmts, even though sah a

, 15386 .Tod:ral Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1980 / Rules and Regulations rule crguably might have an adverse the Energy Reorganization Act of1974. Sec. .

impact on a person who was as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, 52.as Envirofunentalreview. l c:nsidering applying for a permit but the Commission is adding to 10 CFR 52.71 Authonuuon to conduct site had not done so yet. In this latter case. Chapter I a new Part 52 and adopting acunties.

the backfit rule protects the construction amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2. 50,51. 5193 Exemptions and variances.

52.97 luuance of combined ucenses.

pirmit holder not the prospective and 170: '"

cppucant, or even the present applicant. 1. Part 52 la added to read as follows: 52 FrNp "a o"nE t tru tIeNw.

The final rule below is of the character

• mbined Iicanu.

ci such a hypothetical rule.The final PART 52-EARLY SITE PERMITS: lt e 8[2"n AI rule arguably imposes more stnngent STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS: Aphndim M- Standudaabon of Desmu r:quirements for design certification and AND COMBINED UCENSES FOR Manufacture of Nuclear Power Heactors:

thsreby may have an adverse impact on NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Construccon and Opersbon of Nuclear come persona. However, the effects of c ,o.,,gp,,yi,5,,, Pown Reacton Manufactund Punuant the final rule will be largely prospective. to Comnussion License end the rule does not require any Sec- Appen&x N-Standardaation of Nuclear

'[

present holder of a design ap'p roval(no oguons. ta 'u Pown l p:rson holds a design certification) to miet new standards in order to remain

g. erpretations. Reactoro of Dupheate Design at Muluple g"

in possession of such an approval. Su Inf ruau n c Hecuon miuinments: .

OMB approval Appen&x P-[ Reserved) l Ust af Subjects subpart A-Earty site Permita Append 2.x O-Standar&zauon of Design; Sill Scope of subpart. Staff Review of Standard Designs 10 CTR Tart 2 52.13 Relabonsh2p to Subpart F of to CFR Appendix Q-Pre Apphcatien Early Review Administrative practice and Part 2 and Appendix Q of this part. of Site Suitsbihty Issues procedure. Antitrust. Byproduct 5115 Fihng of appbcatons. Authority: Sees.103.104.161.18: 183.186.

matenal. Classified information- 5M7 Contents of appucauens. 109. 68 Stat. 936. 948. 953,954. 955. 956. as Environmental protecton, Nudear sua Standards for renew of appbcauens. amended. ecc. 234. 83 Stat.1244. as amended Materials. Nuclear power plants and 52.19 Permit and renewal fees. (42 U.EC. 2133. 22ot. 223122312236. 2239.

roaetors. Pena 1ty. Sex dasenmination, 52.21 Heannss. 22a21: ucs. 201. 20120s as Stat 1242.1244.

Source material. Special nuclear 52.23 Referral to the ACRS. 1248.1246. as amended 142 U.S.C. Sa41. 5M2.

material. Waste treat =ent and disposal. 52.24 luuance of early sita permit. 5646).

52.25 Extent of acunces per=2tted.

Jo CTR Part 50 52.27 Duraton of permit. General ProMons 52.29 Appbcanon for renewat i s2.1 scope.

Antitrust. Classified information. Fire '*

protection. Incorporation by reference. ,$o'e'g"n"3,j This part governs the issuance of f 33 ,

intergovernm ental rela tions. Nuclear 52.35 Un of site for other purposes.

early site pernuts, standard design powsr plants and reactors. Penalty. 52.37 Repornns of defects and ceruficauons, and combined licenses for Radiation protection. Reactor sitmg noncomphance. revocat on. suspension, nuclear power facihties beensed under criteria. Reporting and recordkeepmg mo&ficanon of permits for cause. section 103 or 104b of the Atomic Energy requirements. 52.39 Finahty of early site permit Act of 1954 as amended (68 Stat. 919).

detummauers. and Tit;e II of the Energy Reorganization Subpart B-Standart! Dealen Certifications Act of 1974 (88 Stat.1242).

Admirustrative practice and 5141 Scope of subprt. I513 Dennitions.

procedure. Environmentalimpact 52 43 Relat onship to Appendices M. N. and As used in this part, statement. Nuclear matenals. Nuclear o of th s part.

t power plants and reactors. Reporting 5245 Fihng of apphcations. (a) " Combined license.. means a g I

52 47 contents of appbcanons. combined construction permit and .

cnd recordkeeping requirements.

$148 Standards for review of appbcauons. operating license with conditions for s ,

Jo CFR Porf 51 52 49 Fees for review of apphcanons. nuclear power facihty issued pursuant Administrative practice and 52.51 Adnurustraeva renew of apphcanons. to Subpart C of this part.

procedure. Antitrust.Backfittmg. Su3 Refural to the ACRS. (b)"Early site permit" means a Combined license. Early site permit. 88 3',, Commission approvsl. lasued pursuant d'I 8t'"d"'d dt8" to Subpart A of this part.for a site or Emergency planning. Feep. Inspection. 52.55 Dursuon of certification.

Limited work authorizaten. Nudear $157 Apphcation fo* nnewsL sites for one or more nuclear power power plants and reactors. Probabilistic 52.59 Cntene for renewst facilities.

risk asnsemeni. Pro'otype Reactor stel Daration of renewat (c)" Standard design" means a design riting enteria. Redress of site Reporting $163 Finahry of standard duign which is sufficiency detailed and end recordkeeping regaintents, cernficabons. complete to support certfacation in Standard design. Standard design subpart C-combined ueenaea accordance with Subpart B of this part,

• certification. 52.71 Scope of subpart. and which is usable for a muhipla A2.73 Reladonship to Subperts A and B. number of t.nf ts or at t multiple number 20 CTR Parf 170 rd eites without rec pening or repeating 52.75 Filing of eppbca'aone.

i

_Eyproduct material. Nuclear 52.77 cenients of appbeatiorm general the review.

tr atarials. Nuclear power plants and informsuon. (d)

• Standard design certification".

resctors. Penalty. Source material. 52.79 contents of apphcat' ens; to:hnical l

.. design certifi:a tion". or " certification" Specia, nt. clear tuterit' Infgrmaty.s for nnew of apphons. means a Comminiem approval issued pursuant to Subpart B of this part of a f .

For the nasona set out in the 5:.a3 App'acabiuty af Part 50 provistens.

preamble and utvler the authority of the 52.ts Adinin:straove review pf appbcanoes standard design for a nuclear power ,

l Atemic Energy Act of1954. as amended. 52.8r Referts,i to the ACRS facility. A design so approved may be

l i

Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. A0ril 18,1989 / Rules and Regulations 15387 referred to as a "certfied standard frem the Comminaion separately from an need not include an assessment of the d sign". application for a construction permit or bene 6ts (for example, need for power) l (s) All other terms in this part have a combined bcense far a facthry. of the proposed accon. but rnust mclude '

the mIanmg set out in 10 CFR 50.2. or 9 $2.15 FIEng of appucanons. an evaluation of alternauve sites to sIction 11 of the Atomic Energy Act.as determine whether there is any cpphcable. (s) Any person who may apply for a obviously superior attemetwe to the site construction permit under 10 CFR part I 523 Intepmtahna. ed

50. or for a combined license under 10 ) 1)The application musi'dentify Exc:pt as specificaUy authorized by CFR Part 52. may file with the Director the Cornm(amioriin wntmg. no physical charactenstics unique to tS of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an proposed site, such as egress hmitations mt:rpretation of the meanmg of the application for an early site permit. An rcgul: tens in this part by any of5cer or from the area surroundmg the site, that employee of the Commission other than application for an early site permit may could pose a significant unpediment to be filed notwithstandmg the fact that an the development of emergency plans.

c wntien interpretation by the General appucation for a construction permit or Counsel wiu be recognized to he bindmg a combined license has not been filed in (2) The appbeation may also either:

upon the Comnussion. (i) Propose major features of the connection with the site or sites for emergency plans. such as the exact sizes I 52.8 information ooseem which a permit is sought.

of the emergency plannmg zones, that reproments: OwB approvsL (b) The appbcation must comply with the Mng mquinmuts M 10 CG Sa30 can be reviewed and approved by NRC (a) The Nuclear Regulatory in consultation with FEMA in the Commission has submitted the b), and ould apply absence of complete and integrated mformation coUecuon requirements I'}'a(PP

,n I P emergency plans; or contained in this part to the Office of ne fou wmg ponions d i 504 which is referenced by I 50.30(s)(1) are (ii) Propose complete and integrated Management and f3udget (OhG) for plans for review and approval as required by the Paperwork appbcable: paragraphs (a). (b) (1)-(3), etnergen]y the NRC. in consultation approval Reducton Act of1980(44 U.S.C.3501.et (c). (d) and (e). with the Federal Emergency seq.). OMB has approved the $ 52.17 Contenta of appnestions. Management Agency, m accord with the information collection requirements appbcable pasions of10 CFR 50.47.

contain;d in this part under control (a)(1) The application must contain the information required by to CFR 50.33 (3) Under parag'spbs (b)(1) and (2)(i) number 316 (aHd), the first three sentences of d this section, the apphcation must (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in thi' i 50.34(a)(1), and. to the extent approval include a descnption of contacts and of emergency plans is sought under arrangements made with local. state.

pIrt appear in ii 52.15,52.17,52.29.

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. the and federal genrnmental agencies with 52.45. 52.47. 52.57. 52.75. EU'7 and 52.79. emergency planning nsportsibilices.

information required by l 50.33 (g) and Subpart A--Earty S&te Permits U), and i 50.34{b)(6)(v). In particular, the Under the option set forth in paragraph apphescon should desenbe the (b)(2)(ii) of this section. the appbcant t $2.11 Scope of aut>part. abau make good faith efforts to obtain This subpart sets out the requirements followmgbumber, (i) The type, and thermaj from the same governmental agencies cnd procedures applicable to power level of the facilities for which cernfications that: (i) The proposed Commission issuance of early site the site may be used: emergency plans are precucable: (Li) permits for approval of a site or sites for (ii)The boundaries of the site: nese agencies are committed to one or more nuclear power facilities (iii) ne proposed general location of participating in any further development sepriate from the filing of an application each facibty on the site: of the plana, meludmg any required field for a construction pennit or combined (iv) The anticipated maximum levels demonstratona and (iii) that these hcense for such a facility. of radiological and thermal effluents agencies are committed to executmg each facibty will produce: their responsibiuties under the plans in 1 52.13 Metationahlp to Subpert F of 10 the event of an emergency.The CFR Part 2 and Appendts Q of this part.

(v) De type of cooling ryste=s.

intakes. and outflows that may be application must contain any The procedures of this subpart do not associated with each facility; certificatiorts that have been obtained, if replace those set out in Subpart F of 10 (vi) The seismic, meteorological, these certification cannot be obtained.

CFR Pzrt 2 or Appendix Q of this part. bydrologic, and geologic characteristics the application must contain Subpart F applies only when early of the proposed site (see Appendix A to information incJudmg a utility plan, review of ante suitabihty innes is sought 10 CFR Part 200); sufficient to show that the proposed in connection with an appliction for a (vti) The loca tion and description of plans nonethelen provide reas.onable permit to construct certain power any nearby industrial mibtary, or aJsurance that adequate pretective faciliti:s. Appendix Q applies on'y when transportation facilities and recten: and measures can and wiu be taken. in the NRC staff review of one or more alta (viii) The existhig and projected future ever.t of a of.iologial emergency et the suitab'lity issues it sJu6ht Separately population profde of the area site.

from end priot t-> the cubmittal of a surrounding the site. (c;1f the applicant wishes t4 be able construction permit. A Stsff 5tte Report (2) A complete environmental report to parform, af;er great of the early site issued under Appendix Q in no way as required by 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50 permit. the activioes at the sits. auowed cffects the authonty of the Comr 2ssion must be included in the appbcatiora by to CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first

! or the presidmg officer in any provided, however, that ruch obtaining the separate authorization l proceeding under Subpart F or G of to environmental report must focus on the required by that section, the apphcant CFR Part 2. Subpart A applies when any erwironmental effects of cesstruction shaU propose in the early site percut, s  : I person who may apply for a construction permit under 10 CFR Part and cperation of c resetor, or reactors, plen for redress cf the site in the event i {

which have characteristics that fall that the activities are perforced and the

) to or for a combined license under to within the postulated site parameters, site permit expires before it is l CFR P rt 52 seeks an early alte permit and provided further that the report

{

referenced in an applica'.jon for a t_________-__ _ _ _ _

15588 Tederal Regist:r / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations l c ruitruction permit or a combined requirements for docketing in (b)If the activities permitted by lic:nse issued under Subpart C of this II 2.101(a)(1)-(4), and the requirements paragraph (a) of this section are i part. The application must demonstrate forissuance of a notice of heanng in performed at any site for which an early I that there is reasonable assurance that il 2.104(a) (b)(1)(iv) and (v). (b)(2) to sue permit has been granted. and the {

redress carned out under the plan will the extent it runs parallel to (b)(1)(iv) site is not referenced m an application cchi;ve an environmentally stable and and (v). and (b)(3). provided that the for a construction permit or a combined aesthetically acceptable site suitable for designated sectirna may not be license issued under Subpart C of this whitever non nuclear use may conform construed to require that the part while the permit remains valid. then with local zoning laws. environmental report or draft or final the early site permit must remain in environmental impact sta tement include effect solely for the purpose of site 152.1s standartis foe revtew of an assessment of the benefits of the redress. and the holder of the pemut appocanona, prop sed action. In the heanng. the shall redress the site in accordance with Appbcations filed under this subpart presiding officer shall also determine the terms of the site redress plan will be reviewed according to the whether, taking into consideration the required by I 52.17(c).1f. before redress cpplicable standards set out in 10 CFR site criteria contained in to CFR part is complete, a use not envisaged in the Part 50 and its appendices and Part 100 redress plan is found for the site or parts 100, a reactor, or reactors, having

.& I h ' f thereof, the holder of the permit shall ns etfon per i ts for nuc$ ear power characteristics that fall within the carry out the redress plan to the greatest parameters f r the site can be plants. In particular, the Commission c notructed and operated without undue extent possible consistent with the shall prepare an environmentalimpact risk to the health and safety of the attemate use.

statement during review of the public. All hearings conducted on epphcation. in accordance with the 8PPliC8ti n8 f r e8tly 8ite permits filed

, ,, g applicable provisions of to CFR part 51 under this part are govemed by the (a) Except as provided in paragraph provided. however, that the draft and (b) of this section. an early site permit procedures contained in Subpart G of final environmentalimpact statements an 2. inud uWu Ws sdpan may b vaM prepared by the Commission focus on for not less than ten nor more than the environmental effects of 152.23 Referralto trw ACRS. twenty years from the date of issuance.

construction and o eration of a reactor. The Commission shall refer a copy of (b)(11 An early site pernut contmues the appbeation to the Advisory to be vahd beyond the date of

[f,$ '[n e po ei i expiration in any proceedmg on a Committee on Reactor Safeguards parameters. and provided further that (ACRS) The ACRS shalJ report on those construction permit application or a the statements need not include an p rti ns f the application which combined license appheation which, assessment of the benefits (for example, Y ' "' E '"*" * "

need for power) of the p oP sed action. * * * * **I' @ #'I'""'"

docketed either before the date of but must include an eva untion of 152.24 lasuance of earty arte pcmrt. expiration of the early site permit. or,if

" d' whether After conducting a hearing under a timely application for renewal cf the f,'y*g's n'y' b ioun!y s permit has been fijed. before the 6 52.21 of this subpart and receiving the attemative to the site proposed.ne Commission has deterrmned whether to Commission shall determine, after rep rt to be submitted by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards under renew the pennit.

consultation with the Federal I 52 23 of this subpart, and upcn (2) An early site permit also continues Emergency Management Agency. to be valid beyond the date of determming that an applicauon for an whether the information required of the expiration in any proceedmg on an early site permit meets the appbcable apphcant by 152.17(b)(1) shows that standards and requirements of the operating license application which is there le no significant impediment to the based on a construction permit which At mic Energy Act and the development of emergency plans. references the early site permit, and m Commission's regulations, and that whether any maior features of noMeauons, d ariy, to obu agenein or any heanns held under i 52.103 of this emergency plans submitted by the bod 2es have been duly made, the part before operation begtna under a applicant under i 52.17(b)(2)(i) are Commission shallissue an early site combmed license wbich references the acceptable, and whether any emergency early she pumR plans submitted by the applicant under puma in Ge form any contaitung the conditions and limitations, as the (c) An applicant for a construccon

! 52.27tb)(2)(if} provide reasonable Commission deems sppropnate and permit or combmed license may, at its essurance that adequate protective necessary. own nsk. reference m its applicauon a measures can and will be taken in the cvent of a radiological emegency. I 52.25 Estant of settvttles permitted. 'fp $tIo ha ber do ke ed t not e

{ 52.19 Permit and renewal feta. (a)If an early site permit contairs a granted.

The fees rharged for the review of an site redress plari, tae hoider of the cppbcation for the irdtisl issuance <>r rennit, or the apphe. ant for s .

renewal of an early she permit aae set ecnrtruction permit or combined licenae (a)Not less than twelve nor morst than who references tha pernit. may perform thirty.six months prior to the end of the 6 fpth in to CFR 170.12 together with a inical twenty ynir period, or any later schedule lo? their deferred recovery. the activities at the site allowed by 10 l CFR 50.10(e)(1) without first obtaming renew al penod, the permit holder tney  !

There is tio 'a pplication fee.

the separate authorization required by apply for a renewal of the perrut. An t 152.21 Haarings- that section, provided th6t the final appbcation for renewal must contair., all An early site p6rmit is a partial environmentalimpact statement information necessary to bring up to i i

construction permit e.ed is therefore p* pared for the pernut has concluded date the inforrution and data contained eubbet to a!! procedural requirements in Gst the activities wiu not result in ey in the prev ous apphcatiott d

10 CTR Part 2 which are appheable to sigrnfict.nt adverse environmental (b) Any peisen wbose (Lterests may I constructiori pennits, inclucang the impact vtir.h cannot be red essed. be affect 7d by renewal of the permit  ;

\

. w Tod:ral Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15389 may request a hearing on the application activities. The information provided facie, that the acceptance criteria have for renewal. The request for a hearms could be the basis for imposing new must comply with 10 CTR 2514. lf a not been met.The permit holder and requirements on the permit. in NRC staff may file answers to the hearing is granted. notice of the hearing accordance with the provisions of will be published in accordance with to petition within the tune specified in 10 i 52.39. lf the permit holdar infonns the CR 2J30 for answers to motions by CTR 2.703.

(c) An early site permit eJther originalintendsDirector that the holder no longer parties and ataff. If the Commiasion,in to use the site for a aucjear its judgment, decides, on the basis of the er renewed, for whx.h a timely application for renewal has been filed, power plant, the Director shall tarrainate pettions and any an:wers thereto, that the pennit.

remains in effect until the Commission the petition meets the requirements of has determined whether to renew the f5137 Reporting of defects and thh paragraph, that the issues are not exempt from adjudicabon under 5 U.S.C.

permit. If the permit is not renewed. It continues to be valid in certain

• • Q, (Q gM"*' 554(s)(3), that genuine issues of matenal proceedings in accordance with the For purposes of Part 21 and to CFR fact are raised, and that settlement or provisions of I 52.27(b). . 50.100, an early site permit is a other informal resolution of the issues is (d) The Commission shall refer a copy construction permit. not possible, then the genuine issues of cf the application for renewal to the material fact raised by the petition must Advisory Committee on Reactor i 52.39 F1naaty of serfy saa pernWt be resolved in accordance with the Safeguards (ACRS . The ACRS shall detmensens. provisions in 554,556, and 557 which are riport en those por)tions of the (a)(1) Notwithstanding any prevision applicable to determuung appbcation for apphcstion which concern safety and in 10 CR 50.109, while an early site imtlallicenses.

shall apply the criteria set forth in permit is in effect under Il 52.27 or 52.33 (iii) A Petition which alleges that the 1 52.31. the Commission rnay not impose new terms and conditions of the early site requireroents, includmg new emergency permit should be modified will be 1 52.31 Criterta for renewal, planning requirements, on the early site processed in accord with 10 CTR 2.206.

(a) The Commission shall grant the permit of the site for which it was Before construction commences, the renewalif the Comnussion determmes issued. unless the Commission Commission shall consider the petic,on that the site ecmplies with the Atocuc determines that a modification is and determine whether any immediate Energy Act and the Commission's necessary either to brms the permit or action is required. If the petition is -

rerulatiors and orders appucable and in the site into comphance with the granted, then an appropnate order will effect at the time the site permit was Commission's regulations and orders be issued. Construccon under the ,

il ed d apphcable and in effect at the time the construction permit er combined license ements the$m sIon may wish permit was issued. or to assure to impose after s determmation that adequate protection of the public health will not beunler the petioon affect}the

. order is madeby the grantin there is a substantialincrease in overall and safety or the common defense and immediately effective.

protection of the public health and seennty. (iv) Nor to caustruccon, the safety or the common defense and (2) In making the findings required for Commission shall find that the terms of secunty to be derived from the new issuance of a constrtetion permit, the early site permit have been met.

requirements and that the direct and pera ting lit.ense, or combmed license. (b) An applicant for a construction indirect costs ofimplementation of those or the findings required by l 52.103 cf permit, operating license, or combined requirements are Justfied in view of this this part. if the app!! cation for the incr eased protection. license who has filed an appbcation Constmetion penit. opustng bcense. referencmg an early site permit issued (b) A derual of renewal on this basis or combined license references an early under this subpart may include in the does not bar the permit holder or site permit, the Commission shall treat apphcation a request for a vanance from cnother apphcant from filing a new as resolved those matters resolved in one or more elements of the permit. In application for the site which proposes the proceedmg on the application for determmmg whether to grant the changes to the site or the way in which issuance or renewal of the early site permit.unless a contention is admitted var.ance, the Comminion shall apply <

it is used which correct the deficiencies the same tednicauy relevant cntens as I cited in the denial of the renewal. that a reactor does not fit within one or were applicable to the apphcation for more of the site parameters included in  ;

I $2.33 Duration of renewal the or g.nal or renewed site permit.

the site permit. or a petition is filed Ecch renewal of an early site permit whjch sileg6s either that the site is not Issuance of the vanance must be subject may be for not less than ten not more in comphance with the terms of the to ungation durma the construction ,

th n twenty years. early site permit. or that the terms and penit. operstmg bcense, or combined j bcense proceedmg in the same msnner i 52 35 Lise of arts for othw purpe,ses. conditions of the early site perinit should be mo6fied. as other issues mattnal to these I A site for which an early s;te permit (1) A contenton that a reactor does proceedcgs. j has been 1: sued under this subpart may be used for purposes other than those not fit withh one or more of the ve Sootrt 8-Standard Doalon parameters included in th; #e pc.rmit NrtrincatWo desenbed in the pe mit,iricluding the may be Utigated la the aux manner se )'

locatien of other types of energy other issuss material to the proceeding. I 62 e w hm fecihties. The permit holder shall infonn (b) A pettion whir.b alleges that t5e  ;

the Director of % clear Resctor This s@part set out the requirements j site is not in compliance with the terms and procedures appucable to Regulation of any sigra'ficant uses for the of the early site permit must inch.de, or Commission issuance of rules granting site which have not been epproved in clearly reference, official NRC the early site permit. The information standard design cerufica tion for nuclear  ;

documents, dot'uments prepared by or power facilities separste frm %e filing about the activities must be given to the for the permit holder. or evidence Director in advance of any actual of an appl'cstion foe a consnEtiot.

admissible in a proceeding under permit el combiaed license for such construction or site modification for the Subpart G of Part 2, whJch show. prim >3 facihty.

'15390 Tediral Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 152.41 RelationaNp to Append 6ces M,N. Nuclear Reactor Regulation an be sufficiently detailed to sUow one 0 of tNs part- application for a final design approval completion of the fmal safety analysis (a) Appendix M to this part governs and certification. and design specific probabihstic nsk the issuance of licenses to manufacture (2) Any person who seeks certification assessment required by paragraph nucle:r power reactors to be instaUed but already holds or has applied for, a (s)(1)(v) of this section: ,

cnd operated at sites not identified in final design approval. also shau file with (viii) Justification that compliance I the manufacturing license applicatics. the Director of Nuclear Reactor with the interface requirements of Appendix N governa licenses to Regulation an application for paragraph (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 dupbeate design at multiple rvquire that the information before the (either in the plant or elsewhere). or sitIs. These appendices may be used staff in connection with the review for analysis. The method to be used for independently of the provisions in this the final design approval be verification of interface requirements subpart unless the applicant also wishes supplemented for the review for must be included as part of the proposed to use a cernfied standard design certification. tests inspections. analyses, and  !

cpproved under this subpart. (d) The applicant must comply with acceptance enteria required by [

(b) Appendix 0 governs the staff the filing requirements of to Cm paragraph (s)(1)(vi) of this section: and i review and approval of preliminary and 50.30(a) (1)-(4). and (0) and 50.30(b) as (lx) A representative conceptual i final standard designs. A staff approval they would apply to an application for a design for those portions of the plant for under Appendix O is no way affects the nuclear power plant construction permit. which the application does not seek authority of the Commission or the ne following portions of I 50.4. which certification, to aid the staffin its review presiding officer in any proceeding is referenced by I 50.30(a)(1), are of the final safety analysis and und:r Subpart G of to Cm Part 2. applicable to the extent technically probabilistic risk sesessment required Subpart B of Part 52 governs relevant: paragraphs (e): (b). except for by paragraph (s)(1)(v) of this section.

Commission approval. or certification. paragraphs (6): (c); and (e). and to permit assessment of the i 52.47 contents of applications. adequacy of the interface requirements (c) f I des gn app a called for by paragraph (a)(1)(vii) cf this Appendix 0 is a prerequisite for (a)The requaements of this paragraph apply to su appbcations for design su section.

certification of a standard design under this subpart. An application for a fmal certification. level{2)ne appbcation of design information must comain sufficient to a d: sign approval must state whether the (1) An application for design enable the Commission to judge the cpplicent intends to seek certiScation of certification must contain: applicant s proposed means of assunns .

the design. lf the applicant does so (i) The technical informa tion which is that construction conforms to the design Intend. the applicanon for the final required of applicants for construction permits and operating bcenses by to and to reach a final conclusion on all design approval must. in addition to safety questions associated with the containing the information required by CE Part 20. Part 50 and its appendices. .

design before the cerufication is Appendix O, comply with the applicable and Parts 73 and 100. and which is granted.The information submitted for a requirements of Part 52. Subpart B. technically relevant to the design and ,

not site specific: design certification must include l parucularly ll 52.45 and 52.47. .

puf rmance requirements and design (ii) Demonstration of compliance with 5 52.45 FHing of appucations. any technicaUy relevant portions of the information sufficiently detailed to  ;

(a)(1) Any person may seek a Three Mile Island requirements set forth perm:t the preparation of acceptance g standard design certification for an and inspection requirements by the in 10 CR 50.34(f):

essentially complete nuclear power (iii)The site parameters postulated for NRC. and procurement 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 appucant. The  ;

of plants which have been licensed and parameters: Commission will require, prior to des,gn i

in commercial operation before the (iv) Proposed technical resolutions of certification, that information normally effective date of this rule. those Unresolved Safety Issues and contained in certain procurement (2) Any person may also seek a medium and high-prionty Generic specificauons and construction and standard design certification for a Safety Issues wttich are identified in the installation specifications be completed nuclear power plant design which version of NUREG-0933 current on the and available for audit if such differs significantly from the light water date six months prior to application and information is necessary for the ,

reactor designs described in paragraph whir.h are technicaUy relevant to the Commission to make its safety (a)(1)cf this section of utilius design: determination. i simplified. Inheren!. pssive. or other (v) A design-specific probabihstic risk (3) The staff shall advise the appbcant t innovsuve means to accomplish its atseesment on whether any technicalinformation sefety functions. (vi) Proposed tests, inspections, beyond that required by this secoon (b) An application. far certification analyses, and acceptance criteria which must be submitted. '

j may be ftied notwithstanding the' fact are necessary cod saircient to provide (b) This paragraph applMs. secord2ng i

that an application for a construt. don reasonable sseurance that.if the fests, to its provisions, to particular penrJt or combined license for such a inspe:tions and analyses are performed applications:

facility has not been filed. and the acuptance criteria met. a plant (1)The spflication for certification of (c)(1) Because a final design approval which references the design is built and e nuclear powe r plant design which is urider Appendix 0 of this partis a will operate in accordance with the an evolutionary change from light water prerequisite for certi$cetton of a design certification. reactor designs of plants v hich have standard design, a person who seeks (vii) The interface requirements to be been licensed and in commercial such a cerufication and does not hold, met by those portions of the plant for operation before the effecute date of et has noi upp'.ied fer, a firirl design which the application does rot seek tais rule must provide en essentially appo tal, shall fue with the Director of certi.fication. nese requirert.ents must complete nuclear power plant design

-- .. - .x

=n Tehral Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15391 axcept for site specific elements such as various options. including any in a formal heanng. The staff will be a the serw w N mtske structure and restrictions which will be necessary party in the hearmg.

the ultimate heat sink. during the construction and startup of a (c) The decision in such a hearing will (2)(i) Certification of a standard given module to ensure the safe be based only on information on which design which differs significantly from operation of any module already all parties have had an opportunity to the bght water reactor designe described optrating. comment, either in response to the I m paragraph (b)(1) of this section or f otice of proposed rulemaking or in the unlizes simphfied, inherent. passive. or I 52.4e standards for review of J appuceoons. informal heanng. Notwithstanding ]

othtr innovanve meana to accomplish s asisty funcuens will be granted only I Applications filed under this subpart oprietary inf rmati 11 be (A)(2) The rformance of each safety th E* '# *******""""'

sn ari et o t fo F p rt 20 "***#E" ** **

feature of the design has been part 50 and its appendices, and parts N demonstrated through either analysis. * * " ' "

appropriate test programs, experience. and 100 as they apply to applications for ap%cadas for conMmeum penne-construction permits and cperating ""*" "I or a combination thereof; licenses for nuclear power plants and

"" E"'

(2)1 interdependent effects among the part 50. provided that the design as those standards are technically certificate n shall be published in safzty features of the design have been relevant to the design proposed for the found acceptable by analysis, facility.

Chaptu I oms Title. 1 appropriate test programs, experience.  !

or a combination thereof; I 52.49 Fees for review of appncations. I5L53 Referralto the ACR$'

(3) Sufficient data exist on the safety The Commission shall refer a copy of e I tia ssuj e or feetcres of the design to assess the , ;,'n fo the application to the Advisory enalytical tools used for safety analyses

,p Comnuttee on Reactor Safeguards

of dd over a sufficient range of normal ,"' eg fn$'10 CFR 170.12*(ACRS).The ACRS shall report on those c rt am are operating conditions. transient together with a schedule for their p rtions ithe application which conditions. and specified accident cucun safety.

sequences, including equilibrium core deferred recoveTY.There is no appbcanon fee. 1 52.54 seauance of standard design conditions: and (4) The scope of the design is **

l E2.51 Adminlettative review of complete except for site-specific appucations. After conducting a rulemaking elements such as the service water cerufication is a proceeding under i 52.51 on an int ke structure and the ultimate heat (a) A standard des application for a standard design rule that will be issue in accordance the provisions of Sub rt H f to " d e ng he upon to (B)There has been acce table testmg p, .as pp em t y e [ I8C d by of an cppropnately sited. !! size. Committee on Reactor Safeguards under  !

prototype of the design over a sufficient o 'u

{rog 0 i on sha llnitiate the i 52.53, and upon determinmg that the

"*' application meets the applicable tra sient co io an spe e rulemaking after an $pheation has standards and requirements of the accident sequences,includmg been filed under i 52.45 and shall equilibrium core conditions. If the specify the procedures to be used for the Atomic Energy Act and the niemaking. Ces6n) regulaha. b criterim in paragraph (b)(2)(i)( A)(f) of Commission shallissue a standard this section is not met. the testmg of the (b) The rulemaking procedures must provide for notice and comment and an design certification in the form of a rule prototype must demonstrate that the for the design which is the subject of the non-cernfied portion of the plant cannot opportunity for en informal hearing befcre an Atomic Safety and Licensing application.

significantly afSct the safe operation of the plant. Board.The procedures for the informal I 52.55 Duration of certtftcation.

(ii) The application for fmal design heanng must include the opportunity for approval of a standard design of the written presentations made under oath (a) Except as provided in parafraph type dtscribed in this subsection must or affirmation and for oral presentations (b) of this section, a standard design propose the specific testing necessary to and questioning if the Board finds them certification issued pursuant to this support certification of the design. either necessary for the creation of an subpart is valid for fifteen years frorn whether the testing be prototype testing adequate record or the most expeditious the date oficsuance.

of the testing required in the altems tive way to resolve controversies. (b) A standan! design cenification by pitsgraph (b)(2)(1)(A) of this section. Ordinarily, the questioning in the continues to be valid t.eyond the date of l

l The Appendix 0 final design approval informal beanng will be done by expiration in any praetedsg on an I cf auch a design must ider tify the members of the Board, using either the application for a corenined license or specific testing required for certification Board's questions or questions operatir.g license which re'erences the of the c'esign. submitted to the Board by the parties standard design certification and is (3) An application seeking The Board mity also request authority docketed either before the date of i

certificatimt of a modular design must from the Commission to use additional expiration of the certification or. if a j describe the various options for the procedures, such as direct and cress timely application for renewal of the configuration of the plant and site, examination by the parties, or may certification has been filed, befort the l

I including variations in, or sharing of. request that the Commission convene a Comtnissio.) has dnennined whether to common systems, interface fonnal heanng under Subpart G of 10 renew the c.erufice tion. A design requirements. and system interactions. CFR Part 2 on specific and Substantial certification also continues to be valid The fmal safety analysis and the dispute of fact, necessary for the beyond the date of expiration in any probsbilistic risk easessment should Commission's decision, that cannot be hearing held under I 52.103 before clso account for differences among the resolved with sufficient accuracy except operation berins under a combmsi l

)

Federal R: gist:r / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rulzs and Regulations

. ' .15_3Pt ,

l.ic'nse e which references the design requirements are justiSed in view of this to assure adequate protection of the l certification. increased protection,in addition, the public health and safety or the common I I

{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. circumstances as defined in to CFR l own risk, reference in its application a ne Commission shall grant the 50.12(a) are present the Commission I design for which a design cenification amendment request if it determines that may not impose new requirements by l application has been docketed but not the amendment wiu comply with the plant. specific order on any part of the i granted. Atomic Energy Act and the design of a specific plant referencing the Commission's regulations in effect at the design certification if that part was i 51.57 WMm tw msL time or renewal. If the amendment approved in the design certification. In (a) Not less than twelve nor more than amisest entails such an extensive change addition to the factors listed in thirty.six months prior to expirstion of to the design certdication that an 150.12(a), the Commission shall the initial fifteen year penod, or any essentially new standard design is being consider whether the special 12ttr renewal penod, any person may proposed, an application fo a design circumstances which I 50.12(a)(2) certdication p icat on for newY1 mus on sin with I 52.45 and 52.47 of this part.shall be filed in accordance requires to be present outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from U Mf b the reduction in standardization caused (b) Denial of renewal does not bar the ciste g t inf r tion . c sta n ined applicant, or another applicant, from by the plant. spec;fic order.

fihng a new application for certification (4) Except as provided in 10 CFR omm sai n ihre ui n to f the design.which proposes design 2.758. In making the findings required for renewal of certdication, that information char:ses which correct the deficiencies

. issuance of a combined license or

!! d cited in the denial of the renewal. operating license, or for any heanng c efn s cificati and under l 52.103, the Commission shall construction and installation f 52.st Duration of renewal treat n resow hse manen ruoM specifications be completed and Each renewal of certification for a *I " *"** "

I"*"'#U "

available for audit if such informaton is standard design will be for not less than renewal f a design certification.

necessary for the Commission to make ten not more than fifteen years. (b)(1) An appbcant or licensee who Its safety determination. Notice and references a standard design comment procedures must be used for a i 52.ss Finanty of standard deegn certincat)ona. certification may request an exemption rulemaking proceeding on the from one or more elements of the design application for renewal.The (a)(1) Notwithstanding any provision in to CFR 50.109 while a standard certification. He Commission may grant Commission,in its discretion. may such a request only ifit determines that require the use of additional procedures design cernficaton is in effect under I 52.55 or 52.61, the Commission may the exemption will comply with the in individual renewal proceedings. requirements of to CFR 50.12(a). In (b) A design certification. either not moddy, rescind. or impose new original or renewed, for which a timely requirements on the cerufication, addition to the factors listed in application for renewal has been filed whether on its own motion or in i 50.12(a). the Cornmission shall response to a petition from any person, consider whether the special remains in effect until the Commission unless the Com:mssion determines in a circumstances which I 50.12(a)(2) has determined whether to renew the requires to be present outweigh any certMca' ion, if the certScation is not rulemaking that a Inodification is necessary either to bring the decrease in safety that may result from ,

renewed. it continues to be valid in i certain proceedings. In accordance with certdication or the referencing plants the reduction m standard 2zation caused into compliance with the Commission's by the exemption.The granting of an sie provisions of l 52.55.

(c) The Commission shall refer a copy regulations appbcable and in effect at exeroption on request of an applicant the Ume the certification was issued. or must be subject to htigation in the same of the application for renewal to the manner as other issues m the operstmg Advisory Committee on Reactor to assure adequate protection of the pubbe health and safety or the common license or combined bcense heanng.

Safeguards (ACRS).The ACRS shall report on those portions of the defense and security.The rulemaking (2) Sut;ect i 50.59, a heensee who ,

procedures must provide for notice and references a standard design j application which concern safety and comment and an opportunity for the certification may make chanses to the shall apply the cnteria set forth in party which applied for the certdication design of the nuclear power facihty, 1 52.59.

to request an informal bearing which without prior Commission approval.

I 52.5s Crtterta for renewal uses the procedures desenbed in i 52.51 unless the proposed change involves a i (a)The Commission shallissue a rie of this subpart. change to the design as desenbed in the granting the rent.walif the design, either (2) Any moddication the NRCimposes rule certdeng the design The bcensee as originally certified o? us moddled on a design f.ertiricetion rule under shell mair.tain records of all channes to ,

duririg the tvleruckfrg on the renewn!. paragraF# (W1) of th's sect;ct willbe the facility and ther,e recordt must be complies with the Atomic Enersp; Act apped to at plante referencing the maintnasJ and available for audit until cnd the Corrmission's regulations certled design, exce':t thoe t tc which the date of termination of tbt licer.pe.

cpplicable and in effect at the time the the nr.odificeuen has been rendered (c) The Commisaion mil require pnor certMration was issued, and any other technically inelevant by acton taken to grsating a conscuction permit.

requirements the Commiss!on riay wish under paragraphs (a)(3) (a)(4), or (b) of combined license or operst ng beense

.to impese after a detennhation that this section. which references a standard design there is a substantialincrekse m overall (3) While a design certification la in certScabon. that information norms!!y protection of the public bealth aad effect under i 52.55 or i 52.61. unlese (i) contained in certain procurement safety or the common defense and a modification is necessary to secure specifications and construction and security to be derived frorn the new compliance with the Commission's installation specificattora be completed requirennents and that the direct sed re$tiore applicable and in effect at and available for audit if such in1 rect ecsts ofimplementation of thosa the time the certification ws a issued. or informs. tion is necessary for te +

l t .

, Fed

ral Registir / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 1539 ,3 Commission to make its safety Commission in connection with the references a certified standard design. I determinations, including the early site permit. but must contain. In the test. inspections, analyses and I

determination that the appbcation is addtuon to the information and analyses acceptance entena contamed in the consistent with the certified design. This otherwise requind,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 4

appropnate arrangements with the of the facility falls within the parameters covered by the design certification.

design certification applicant. specified in the early site permit. and to (d) The op lication must contain Subpart C--Combined Uconses . fn nmenta iss e o cYnsideredin ss nabYe asYce th7e unte i s2.71 Scope of subpart. anyfnrevious proceeding on the site or protective measures can and will be the taken in the event of a radiological This subpart sets out the requirements and procedures applicable to (2)If e' application does not emergency at the site. j Commission issuance of combined "f"mce an early she pennit the (1)1f the application references an 1 licenses for nuclear power facilities. E *' *

$q early site permit, the applicaton may f10 50 30 incorporate by nfennes emergscy I s2.73 ptelationaNp to Subparts A and s, - including with the application an An application for a combined license under this subpart ma but need not.

environmental report prepared in accordance with the provisions of

[pp"

,'d in issuance of the permit.

c nw

'8 b

. reference a standard [esign certification Subpart A of to Cm part St.

(3)1f the application does not (2)1f the application does not issutd under Subpart B of this part or an reference an early site permit. or if no early site permit issued under Subpart A uference an early site permit which .

of this part, or both. In the absence of a contains a site redress plan as described emergency plans were approved in demonstration that an entity other than in i 52.17(c). and if the applicant wishes connecton with,the issuance of the the one origmally sponsoring and to be able to perform the activities at the permit. the appheant shall make good obtaining a design certification is site allowed by to Cm 50.10(e)(1). then faith efforts to obtem certifications from the appbestion must contain the the local and State governmental quahfied to supply such design, the agencies with emergency plannmg Commission will entertain an ini rmation required by i 52.17(c).

(b) The application must contain the nsponsibilities (i) that the proposed application for a combined license technicaUy relevant information emergency plans are practicable. (ii) which references a standard design that these agencies are committed to certification issued under Subpart B required of appbcants for an operating beense by to CR 50.34.The final safety participating in any further development only if the entity that sponsored and of the plans.m, eluding any required field obtained the certification supplies the an81F ai8 report and other required ini rmstion may incorporate by, demonstrations, and (iii) that these certified design for the applicant's use' reference the final safety analysis report agencies are committed to executing I 52.75 F1ung of appucations. for a cernfied standard design. In their responsibilities under the plans in Any person except one excluded by particular, an application referencing a the event of an emergency.The 10 CR 50.38 may file an application 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 facility with the Director of Nuclear specific. such as the service water these certifications cannot be obtained.

Reactor Regulation. The applicant shall intake structure and the ultimate heat the application must contain comply witti the filing requirements of sink. An application referencing a information, including a utility plan.

10 CR 50.4 and 50.30 (a) and (b). except certified 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 reasonable 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 wtU be taken in the The fees associated with the filing and for audit procurement specifications and event of a radiological emergency at the review of the application are set out in construction and installation site.

10 CG Part 170' specifications in accordance with l 52.47(s)(2). If the application does not j $2.81 starH!artis for redew of f 62.77 Contents of appHestions; general reference a certified design. the *PP"*"**

WIma#84 application must comply with the Applications fued under this subpart The application must contain all of the requirements of 6 52.47(a)(2) for level of will be reviewed according to the information required by to CFR 50.33 as design information, and shall contain standards set out in 10 Cm parts 20. 50.

that section would apply to applicants the technicalinformation required by 51. 55. 73, and 100 as they apply to for constructi0n permite and operating iI 52.47(a)(1)(1). (ii),(iv) and (v) and applications for construction permits licenn a, and 10 CR 60.33a. as that (3), and,if the design is modular, and operating licenses for nuclear power section would apply to an applicant for

• I 52.47(b)(3). plants, and as those standards are a nuclear power p!snt construction (c) The application for a combined technically relevant to the design permit. In particular, the applicant i, hall license must include the proposed test, proposed for the facility.

comply with the ter,uirercent rif inspections, and analyses which the licensee shall perform and the j 52.83 App 5 cat 2ty of Part 80 proWalona.

i S33a(b) regarding the submission of entitrust information. acceptance enteria therefor which are Unless otherwae specifically necessary and sufficient to provide provided in this subpart, all provisions 1 52.79 Contenta of application technical reasensble aesurance that,if the teetc. Of to CFR Part 50 and its appendices Wmataos inspections and analyses are performed applicable to holders of construction

,ta)(1)In general. if the opplii.etion and the acceptance criteria met, the permits far nuclear power reactors also rezetencee an early site permit, the facility has been constructed and will apply to holders of cornbined licennes application need not contain operate in conformity with the combined issued under this subpart. Similarly. ell Inforn.ation or analyses submitted to the license. Where the application provisions of 10 CG Part 50 and its

15354

. Federal Register / Vcl. 54. Na. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations _-

activities allowed by 10 CFR 5010(e)(1) I 52.57 laauenos of oomedned scenaea. f

- cppendices applicable to holders of without first submitting a site redress (a)The Commission shallissue a cperating licenses also apply to holders combined license for a nuclear power cf cambined licenses issued under this plan in accord with I 52.79(a)(3) and obtaining the separate authorization facility upon finding that the apphenble subpart, once the Commission has made required by to Cm 50.10(e)(1). requirements of to CR 50.40. 50.42.

the findings required under i 52.103, 50.43. 50.47, and 50.50 have been met. l provided that, as apphed to a combined Authorization must be granted only after  ;

bcense.10 CFR 50.51 must require that the presiding officer in the proceeding and that there is reasonable assurance tha initial duration of the license may on the appbcation has made the findmgs that the facility wdl be constructed and t and determination required by to CFR operated in conformity with the license.

net exceed 40 years from the date on the provisions of the AtomicEnergy Act.

which the Comnussion makes the 50.10(e)(2) and has determined that the and the Commission's regulations.

~

site redreas plan meets the enteria in g ow ver atso tained in (b) The Commission shallidenufy in 152.17(c). the beanse the tests, inspections, and I Part 50 regarding applicability of the (3) Authorir.ation to conduct the provisions to certain classes of facilities analyses that the licensee shall perform activities desenbed in to CFR and the acceptance entens therefor j continue to apply. 50.10(e)(3)(i) may be granted only after which are necessary and sufficient to ,

the presiding officer m the combined provide reasonable assurance that.if the

$ 52.85 Administrettve review of W license proceedmg males the additional tests, inspections, and analyses are A proceeding on a combined bcense is fmding required by10 Cm Performed and the acceptance enteria subject to all appbcable procedural 50.10(e)(3)(ii). met, the facility has been constructed requirernents contained m 10 CFR Part 2. b and will be operated in conformity with including the requirements for docketing combined bcense perio d the the bcense, the provisions of the , Atomic (l 2.101) and issuance of a notice of activities permitted by paregrapb (a) of Energy Act. and Qe Commission a becring (l 2.104). All heanngs on We section, the applications for the regulations. Any modification to.

combined licenses are governed by the license is withdrawn or denied. and the add 2 tion to or deletion from the terms of procedures contained in Part 2. Subpart early site permit referenced by the a combined license,includmg any G. appbcation expires. then the applicant modification to. addition to, or deletion shall redress the site in accord with the from the tests. inspections, analyses, or j 52.87 Referral to the ACRS. related acceptance enteria contained to terms of the site redress plan. !f.before The Commission shall refer a copy of such license. is a proposed amendment redress is complete, a use not emisaged the apphcation to the Advisory in the redress plan is found for the site to such license.There shall be an Committee on Reactor SafeFuards opportunity for a hearing on the (ACRS).The ACRS shall report on those or parts thereof, the apphcant shall >

partions of the application which carry out the redress plan to the greatest [ eld reposed amendments, and any! hean extent possible consistent with the must be completed before cencern safety and shall apply the alternate use. operation of the facility, critene set forth in i 52.61, tn .,

cccordance with the finahty provisions I 52.99 inspoetion during construction.

I 52.63 Exemptkna and variances.

cf this part. After issuance of a combined license.

(a) Applicants for a combined license a 5 52.89 Environmental review. under dus subpart. or any amendment to the NRC staff sh, ll assure that the If the application references an early a combined bcense, may include in the required inspections, tests. and analyses site permit or a certified standard are performed and that the presenbed application a request. under 10 CFR acceptance entens are met. Holders of design, the environmental review must 50.12. for an exemption from one or combined licenses shall comply with the focus on whether the design of the more of the Commission's regulations.

facility falls within the parameters provisions of 10 CFR 50.70 and 50.71. At including any part of a design appropriate intervals during specified in the early site permit and certification rule.The Commission shall any other significant environment! construction, the NRC staff shall publish ,

fesue not considered in any previous grant such a request if it determines that in the Federal Register notices of the "

the exemption will comply with the su:cessful complet2on of inspections.

proceeding on the site or the design. lf requirements of 10 CTR 50.12(a) or the application does not reference an tests, and analyses. l 52.63(b)(1)if the exemptionincludes any sarly site permit or a certified standard I 52.10t Pre-operational antitrust revkw.

dIsign, the environmental review part of the design certification rule.

procedures set out in to CFR part 51 (b) An applicant for a combined if before the Commission makes the soust be followed, including the issuance license. of any amendment to a findmgs required uner i 52.103, the cf a finalenvironmentalimpact combined license, who has filed an Commission, after consultation with the '

statement. but excluding the issuance of application referer cing en earh site Attorney General deterdnes eat signif; cant changes in the Iker.se(s l o supplement under i 51.95(4). pernait issued under th:s subpart mdy incbde in the opphcation a request for a activities or proposed activities have g 32.31 Authettatbn to tenust atte .

occurred, subsequent to the previous vanance from one or more eleinents of acttvmes, the perm?t. in determining whether to review by the Attorney General and the (s)(1)If the application references an grant the variance, tb4 Commission shall Commission in connection with me sarly site permit which contains a site apply the same technically relevant iseuence of the combinedlicense the f

_ redress plan as described in i 52.17(c) criteria as weit appbcable to the antitrust review required by section 105c(2) of the Atomb Energy Act must i I the applicant is authorized by i 52.25 to application for the onginal or renewed perform the si*.e prepara). ion activities be completed pior to r; commencement of site permit. Issuance of the variance deecribed in to CFR 210(e)(1). mest be subject to brigstion during the cemeercial operetaon of the facility.

f4 If the applicsaion does not combined licer.se proceeding in the IJpon comphtion of th:s review. the reference an early site permit which Director of Nuclear Reactor Regu'ation ,

contains a redress plan, the apphcant same manner as other issues material to may impose any wdditional heense that procee hng.

mi,y not perform the site preparation .

[

\

Federal Register / Vcl. 54. No. 73 / Tu:sday. April 18, 1989 / Rul:s and Regulations 15395

' conditions as authorhed by section 105c be processed as a request for action in power reactors to be manufactured pursuant d the Atonue Energy Act. accord with 10 CFR 1.206. The petitioner to e Commission beense and subsequently I **" # ' shall file the petition with the Secretary icetalled at the site purenant to a Commission Scense. of the Commisalon. Before the licensed constructed permit. are of the type desenbed

• • tivi'I all edly aUeted by the in 150.22 of this chapter. It thus co6fies one (a) Not less than too days before approach to the standardnation of riudear loadma of fuelinto the reactor, the petition (fu]e loading. Iow power testing, power nectors.

b:! der of the combined license shall,in etc.) commences. the Commission shall 1. Except as otherwiw specified in this writing. notify the @mmNion of the consider the petition and determine appen&a or u the context otherwin expected dates of both fuelloading and whether any inunediate action la 1 in6 cates. the provisions in Part 50 appbcable enticidity.The Comm2ssion shall required. If the petition is g anted, then to construccon permits. Includma the publiah notice cf these dates in the an appr priste order will be issued. Fuel requirement in 150.se of tha chapter for ( -

Federal Register. The Fadatal Register loading and operation under the review of the appucation by the Adnsory notice must also advise persons whose combined license wdl not be affected by Commlun on Reactor Safeguards and the interesta may be afected by facihty the grantmg of the petition unless the boldmg of a public heanng. apply in context, order ee e e tive. with respect to matters of raiologica! health operation of their rights under paragraph , f and safety, environmental protection and the (b) of this section. (c) ad 8' comrnon defense and secunty. to bcenses (b)(1) Not later than 60 days after Commission sball find that the pursuant to this Appen&x M to manufm.ture publication of the notice required by acceptance cnteria in the combined nuclear power nactors (manufactures paragrapt (s) of this section. any person license beve been met and that. Licenus) to be opereted at sites not identified whose interest may be affected by accordingly. the facility has been in the beecae appbcanon.

facility operation may file one or both of constructed and will operate in 2. An oppbcabon for a manufactunna g, foljn - in wrm conformity with the Atomic Energy Act licena* pursuant to this Appendix M must be (i) A p on which ows, Erima and the Commission'a regulations. If the submitted u spectSed in i 50 4 of this facie. that one or more of the acceptance combined license is for a modular chapter and meet all the requirements of enteria in the combmed license have not design, each reactor module may require il 50 M(s) (1Hol and so.ua (s) and (b) of a separate findmg as construccon this chapter except that the prehmmary beIn met and, as a result there is good safety analysa repon shaU be designaied as cause to modify or prohibit operatiert or proceeds. a *dutsn repen" and any requaed (ii) A petition to modify the terms and informauen or analyses relatma to site Appendices A-L[Reservedj conditions of Jie combined license. matters shall be pre 6cated on postulated site (2)(i) A good cause petition filed under Appendix M-Standardization of parameters w hich must be specified in the paragraph (b)(1)fi) of this secuan will be Design: Manufacture of Nuclear Power apphcanon. ne appbcauon must also granted by the Commission only if it Reactors: Construction and Operation of include mformacon pertaming to design includes, or clearly references, official Nuclear Power Reactors Manufactured fesrures of the proposed reactorts) that s'fect NRC documents, documenta prepared Pursuant to Commission IJcensa plans for coping with emergencies in the by or for the combined license holder. or operaton of the reactor (s).

Secton tot of the Atortue Energy Act of 3. An oppbcant for a tcanufactunna bcense cvidence admissible in a proceedmg 1954 as emended, and i 50.10 of tha chapter under Subpart G of Part 2. which abow, pursuant to this Appendix M shall submit requue e commuasion beense to transfer or with his apphcauon an environmental nport prima facie, that the acceptance enteria mceae m interstate comunerce. manufacture- as requeed of applicants for constructed have not been met. The combined produce. transfer, acquire, popesa, use, imp rt or eAp rt any producuan or permits in accordance with Subpart A of part license holder and NRC staff may file $1 of this chapter. provided. bowever. that answers to the petition within the time " 8 8 80 n8 88 A" 0 such report shall be 6tected at the spIcified in 10 CFR 2.730 for answers to require the issuance of a construebon parcut by the Comnussion before commencement of c:anufacture of the reacto-(s) et the motions by parties and staff.If the constructor of a production or ut6sation c:a nufacturing site; and. in general terms. et Commission in its bdgment decides. on factbty. and the issuance of an operstmg the construcuon and operation of the the basis of the petitions and any beenn befon operaten of the facihty.The reactor (s) et a hypothencal site or sites answers thereto, that the petition meets bevmg chsrectensicc: that fau wit)un the

{ censing rov:sions of Part 50 relating to the facihty postulated site parameters The related draft pr cess are,in general. pre 6cated the requirements of this paragraph, that and final envtroninentalimpact statement the issues raised by the petition are not P " '

bled d con d prepared by the Comrrassion's regulatory exsmpt from adjudication under 5 U.S.C. staff will be sunilarly 6tected.

which it is to be opersted. In those 354(a)(3), that genume issues of material 4. (a) Seenons 5010 (b) and (c). 5012(bl. '

creuzestances. both facthry design and site-fact are raised, and that settlement or related inues can be considered in the inical. 5023. 50.30(d). 50 54(a)(10) 50 54 ate). 5435 la) othIr informal resolution of the issues is construccon percut stage of the beensms and (c). 50 40(s). 50 45. 50 55(dl. 50.56 of this not possible, then the genuine issues of process. Ch8 P'8' 8"d ^PPU"b" I *I E8 'O d "*'

tnaterial faet raised by the petition must However, under the Atomic Energy Act, a a ply to manu'acturms beenses Appen6cce liceve nay be sot.pht and imed authonnns E and H of Part 50 apply to manufactunr.g be resolved provisions in 5inU.S accord.

f 554.ance with557 Sfe. and the the tosaufacture of facihtes but not their beer.ses only to the extent that the which ate apphcable to cetermitung constraccon and installation at the sites on tvouire:nents of these oppe;6ces envohe cpplinations for initiallicenses. la such , which the facihties are to be opmted. Ona - f8ciff 2 818t2 featurer..

to the "cornmencement of construenon", as Ib) Da fis.ancial in'cret tion eubinmed ca s.es. the riotice of hearing from the defined in i EO-10(c) of tha chapter of a pursuant to ( 53rifs eJ this chapter and Commission must speedy the facihty (manufserured pursuant te such a Appendix C of part 50 shaU be 6rected at a procedurea to be fcllowed. Matters Commas 2on bcenaa oA site et which it is demonstration of the financal quabfic.1 bons j p2mpt frous cdjvdacauon under b U.S.C. to operate-that is p*eparation of the site tac of the applicant far the manuf.ctanns becnse instanam of the facihtyw construena j 554(a)l3) msy be decided by the to carry out de manufactures acum for Cominission so1e1y on tbe basis of the perm:1 that among other things. reDects which the been6e u sought. i thewiryt of good cause and any approval of the site on which the facthty is to 5 The Commission era issue a L.ense to be operated. must be %:ued by the naau facturr one or more nuciesr po er rrsponsiva pleadmgs. Cornirussion. This apperdix sets out the reactors to be operated at sites not ident:f ed (ii) A peution to modify the tertna and particular requirements and provssions j

in the licern apptcation tf the Car +.on j c:nditions of the combined beense will appbcable to such situsuons where nucicer finds that:

1 I

1S396 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday, April 18. 1009 / Rules and Regulations .

D)The appbcant has desenbed the power reactortsi manufactured pursuant to Appendi.x N--Standardization of

. proposed design of and the site parameters this appendix from the manufactunns facihty Nuclear Power Plant Designa: Ucenses postul:ted for the reactorf s). includmg. but to the site at which the reactorfs) wiu be To Construct and Operate Nuclear I n:t hrnited to, the pnneaps! architectural and instaUed and operated. In ad6 con. auch Power Reactors of DupUcate Design at I "812" ring critene for &s design, and has nudear power reactorts) shau not be Multiple Sites identified the tnalor features of components nmoved from the manufactunna site until th, inc:rporated therein for the protection of the final design of the reactor (s) has been Secti n101 of the Atomic Energy Act of brlth and safety of the pubbc. approved by de Consmn b udme 1954, as amended, and i 50 to of this chapter fb) Such further techtdcal or design with paragraph 7. i inf;rmation as may be required to complete require a Commission heense to transfer or j

9. An appbcation for a permit to construct a g the design report and which can reasonably nudear power reactor (s) wh ch is the subject be left for later consideration wtll be of an appbcanon for a manufactunr4 Ucensa MC'* *** ' CWM" '"'

supphed in a supplement to the design report. import or expor any production or utlization (c) Safety features or componenta,if any, pursuant to this Appendix M need ret coctain such information or analyses as have facihty. ne regulations in part 50 require the which require research and development isruance of a construccon permit by the h:va bxn desenbed by the appbcant and the pmviously been submitted to the Commission Commission before commencement of cppbcant has identified. and there wiu be in connecbon with the appbeabon for a manufacturing beense. but shau by construeden of a production or utilization }

conducted a research and development

8 tis chapter, facihty, except as provided in i 50.10(e) of program reasonably designed to resolve uy ll 50.34(a) and 50?

saf:ty questions associated with auch sufficient informat. monstrate that the this et apter, and the issuance of an operating f;arures of components; and site on which the rs is to be operated license before the operscon of the facihty.

(d) On the basis of the forrgoing. there la faUs withm the postu > alte parameters ne Commission's regulations in part 2 of re: son:ble a ssurance that (i) such safety spectfied in the relevan annufactunna this cbspter specificauy provide for the quisbons will be setsfactonly resolved bcense appbcation. holding of heanngs on particular issues j bef:re tny of the proposed nuclear power to.ne Comcussion may issue a permit to separately from other issues involved in rector (s) are removed from the construct a nuclear power reactor (s) which is heanngs in Ucensing proceedmgs (l 2Jela, rnanufa ctunng site and (ii) takmg mto the suoject of ar' appbcauen for a rid 3 A. secton 1(c)), and for the manufactunne license pursusnt to this A cor(ohdation of adjudicatory proceedings t

o c$a ter pro se Appd M iMe Comminion (a) finds that and of the presentations of parues in f re:ctor(s) can be constructed and operated at the site on which the reactor is to be operated adjudicatory proceedmgs such as hcensms '

sites h:vmg charactenstes that fau within faus withm the postulated site parameters the site parameters postulated for the design proceedmga (il 2.715a. 2.716). l spectfied m the re:evant appbcation for a nis appendix sets out the particular cf the reactor (s) without undue nak to the manufactunng bcense and (b) makes the health and safety of the pubbc. requirements and provisions apphcable to findmgs otherw.se required bypart 50. In no a 6 @h ap@cabou m fued by (e) ne appbcant is technically and event wd! a constructed permit be issued financaUy quahfied to design and one or more appbcants for beenses to nufac re the proposed nuclear power untd e vant manufacrunna heense has construct and operate nuclear power teactors of essentituy the same design to be located

11. An operatmg bceese for a nuclear (f)ne l'ssuance of a beense to the power reac'or(s) that has been manufactured at ddferent sites.*

cppbcant will not be ininucal to the common 1. Except as otherw se specified in this defecer and secunty or to the health and under a Commission bcense issued pursuant to this Appendix M may be issued by the appendix or as the context otherwise safity cf the pubbc. indicates the provisions of Part 50. i (g) On the basis of the evaluations and Commisuon pursuant to I 50.57 and Subpart A of part 51 of this chapter except that the appbcable to construction permits and crJyses of the environmental effects of the propos1d seton required by Subpart A of Comm:ssion shsU find. pursuant to operating bcenses, includmg the requirement Itst 51 of this chapter and paragraph 3 of this 150.57(a)(1). that construction of the in i 50.58 of this chapter for review of the Appendix. the acton caUed for is the reactor (s) has been substa.nually completed appbcation by the Advisory Committee on {

issuance of the license. in conformity with both the manufactunng Reactor Safeguards and the boldmg of pubbe I

Nitz When an appbcant has suppbed beense and the construccon permit and the beanngs, apply to construction permits ar.d initaDy su of the technicalinformauon appbcanons therefor, as amended, and the operstmg bcense subject to ttus Appendix N. { i required to coroplete the applicauen previsions of the Act, and the rules and 1 Applications for construction permits includmg the final design of the reactor (s). regulations of the Commission. submitted Eursuant to this Appendix must f t

the findmss required for the issuanca of the Notwithstanding the other provisions of this '

lic e be appropnetely modified to paregraph. no applicauen for an opersung , 50 a b  :

' " chapter, and be subc itted as specified in e Each manufactunng bcense issued 'f(e'n u at udra an i m M tbs chapur.N spphcant shnu also pursnnt to this appendix will epectfy the bcense issued pursuant to this Appendix M admn de information required by I 51.50 of cumber of nuclear power reactors authorized wiU be docketed until the oppbeabon for an this chapter. l to be manufactured and the latest da to for the ,,,,,dment to de relnant manufactunng For the technicalinfo mation required by l cumpletion of the manufacture of all auch license reque:d by paragsph ? has been reactors Upon kor/d csuse shown,i.he ll 50.54(a)(1) through (5) and (8) and 50.34a j gicde.g

12. In making the fiadtr.gs M quired by this- (a) and (b) af tais chapter, reference sna) be {

t rar a natle o time. .part for the iseuance of a construction pertait made to a sinal, ptluninary safety analysis l 7, ne heMer of a naanufactunna be'ma e of the desigra8 wbcr.. for the purposes of or an operatag bcense for a nuclear power iesued pursuant te this Appendix M ahan submit to the Cc mnissien the final design of reactor (s) that hos been manufactured under ,

a Commission brense issued pursuant to this _ih8l de We % pc.er nectons) propond the nuclear power reactor (e) covered by the 2 a partdar appMar,rn is not idented to me license as soop as such design has been appendJ.of an amendment to such 3 manufactunng license. const uccon permit, or otres. that apptr. acon may not t>e processed under co'iipleted. hch aabmJttal shall be in the stas sppendia and Mpart D cf Part 2 of ttne jorn of an application for amendment of the operatmg bcense the Commission wdl treet cha pter Ericfsetut1.ng bcme, as resobed those matters which hcVe been th des an est

a. ne probbitbn in i 5010(c) c.f tha resobed at n.n earber stage of the beensmg jge{tnys a I t.hapter an, inst commencement of process, urhcs there exists nigrpfacant new arAys.s report means the desyp of those structures.

J constrtete a of a p'oduction or utilizatoa infMmabon that substantisfy affec'.r the systems and tonponents impor' ant to rad 20WI conclusion (s) reached at the earber stage or beahh and safety end the cernmor defenes and l ficabty pnor to issuance of e constructed other good cause. pm4 l peruut applies to the transport of a nuclear l

l FedIrel Register / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15397 i ac.34(a)(1) includes one set of alte malor poruon thereof. ne submittal shaU to the Commission's Staff for its renew  !

parameters postulated for the design of the also include information pertaining to design separately from and pnor to an opphcaton reactors, and an analysis and evaluation of features that affect plans for coping with for a construction permit for a facihty. Such a the reactors in terms of such postulated site emergeneses in the operaton of the reactor or - subriuttal abau be accorepanied by any fee parametere. Such single preliminary safety major portion thereof. required by Part 170 of th2s chapter and aball analysis shall also include information 4. Once the regulatory staff has initiated a consist of the porton of the informauon pertatruns to design features of the proposed technical review of a sutunittal under stus required of applicants for construction reactore that affect plans for coping with eppenda, the submittal will be referred to pernuts by ll 50 33 (aHel and (e) of this emergencies in the operebon of the nectore, the Adnsory Committee on Reactor chapter, and. insofar as it relates to the tnd sbau describe the quahty essurance Safeguards (ACRS) for a renew and nport. iseue(s) of site suitabthty for which early program with respect to aspects of design. 5. Upon complebon of their renew of a nnew is sought, by ll 50.34(a)(1) and fibnca'Joru procurement and construcbon submittal under this appendix the regulatory 50.30(f) of this chapter, except that th:t are common to all of the reactore. staff shsU pubbsh in the Federal Register a information with respect to operation of the

3. Applications for operating licenses determmaton as to whether or not the submitted pursuant to this Appendix N shall facihty at the projected initial power level prelumnary or final design is accepteble, need not be supphed.

include the informabon required by 15 50.33. subject to such cond2 bons ee may be 2. De submittal for early review of site 50.34 (b) and (c), and 50.34a(c) of this chapter. opprepnate, and make available in the Pubbe suitability luue(s) must be made in the same ne appbcant shaU also submit the Document Room an analys's of the design in information required by i 5153 of this manner and in the same number of copies as the form of a report. An approved design pronded in il 504 and 50.30 of this chapter ch2pter. For the technical informa tion shau be utihsed by and rehed upon by the required by ll 50.34(b) (2) through (5) and for license opphcauens. The subauttal must regulatory staff and the ACRS in their review include su!!icient information concernmg 50.34a(c). reference may be made to a single of any individual facility license application final safety analysis of the design. range of postulated facibty design and which incorporates by reference a design operation parameters to enab!e the Staff to approved in accordance with this paragraph perform the requested review of site Appendix O-Standardization of Design: unlen thm ex2sts signacant ne" suitabihty issues. The submittal must contain Staff Review of Standard Designs inf "8h0" "h!:b 88b't*8ti'U Y*If'Cl8 th earber determmauon or other good cause.' suggested conclusions on the issues of site suitabihty submitted for review and must be 6.ne determmenon and report by the accompanied by a statement of the bases or nis appendix sets out procedures for the regulatory staff shaU not consatute a fihng. staff review and referral to the the reasons for those conclusions. De comm:tment to tuue a permit or heense, or in eubmittal must also hat, to the extent Admory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 2ny way affect the authonry of the of standard designs for a nuclear power pouible. any long range objecuves for Comm:ssion. Atomic Safety and Ucensing ultimate development of the site. state reIctor of the type described in 5 50.22 of this Appea! Panel. Atomic Safety and ucensms chapter or major portions thereof. whether any site selecton process was used Board panel, and other presiding officers in L Any person may submit a proposed in preparuig the submittal. desenbe any site any proceedirag under Subpart C of Part 2 of preturanary of final standard design for a tha chapter. selecuan procees used, and explain wbst nuclear power reactor of the type desenbed consideranon. if any.was given to altemative

7. Informabon requests to the approval to i 50.22 to the relatory staff for its holder regardmg an approved des:gn shau be ' U','

review. Such a submsttal may cocaist of 3 The staff shaU pubbsh a note of evaluated pnor to issuance to ensure that the sithsr the preliminary or final design for the burden to be imposed on respondents is docketing of the subauttalin the Federal anttre reactor factbry or the preliminary or Register, and shall send a copy of the nouce justifed in view of the potential safety Enal design of major portions thereof. signiScance of the issue to be addressed m of docketmg to the Governor or other 2.ne submittal for review of the standard the requested information. Each such apptopnate officia.l of the State in which the dzsign :nust be made to the same manner and evaluauen performed by the NRC staff shall site is located. This necce shalliden fy the in the sarne number of copies as provided in location of the site.bnefly desenbe e site be in accordance with to CFR 50Mf) and ll50.4 and 50.30 of this chapter forlicense appbcations.

shall be approved by the Execuuva D6 rector for Operations or his or her designes prior to [I I]Iy",'h' 'g'h I'",'n , dl nd innte agencies and interested persons withm 120

3. The submittal for review of the standard issuance of the request,  ;

disign sbau include the information days of pubhcation er such other tme as may ]

desenbed in il 50.33 (a) through (d) of this Appendix P [ Reserved) be specified. for considerston by the staff in l Appendix Q--Pro-Application Early the$$"w a pn\te5y t e A$R o t a req y II ( ) and (b). ap 4 as appropnate, and 50.34a of this chapter 8 CISil8 SUN 8 I88M8 in connection mth the outcome of the:r lother than that required by ll 50.34(a)(6) This appendix sets out proceduns for the review. The person requesung review shall t.nd (10). 50.34(b)(1). (6) (!). (ul. (iv). and (v) flhng Staff review, and referral to the serve e copy of the subauttal on the Governor and 50.34(b) (7) and (8)).The submittal shau Advuory Comnuttee on Reactor Safeguards or other appropnete official of the State m also include e desesiption. analysis and (ACRS) of requests for early review of one or which the site is located. and on the chief syslueton of the interfaces between the more site suitabihty issues relating to the executive of the municipsbry in which the subautted design and the balance of the cocotruction and operebon of certain site is located or. if the site is not located in a nuclear power plant. With respect to the utihtsnon fecihties separately from and pnot municipahty. on the chief execuuve of the {

requirements of Il 50.34(e)(1) of thh chepter. to the subauttal of appbcations for county.The portion of the submittel ,

tha submittalfor review of a standard design construction permits for the facilities. The containing informaton reg aested of j shtllinclude the site parameters pnsaulated . appendix also sets out procedures for the ePpbcants for censtructaen permits by for the design. and an analysis and Isreparation and issuance of Staff Site il 50.33 (sHel and (e) and 50.34[elt1) of this eyelvation c.f the design in terms of such Reports and for their incorpcradon by chapter will be referred to the ACRS for e postuls ted site parameters. The informaban rvfereme in applications for the construction review and report. There will be no referral submitted pursuant to 6 50.34(a)(7) of this and operetion of certain utilizauon faciliues. to the ACRS unless early review of the site chapter shall be hated to the quabty ne stihzacon facibees are those which are safety taeues under i 50.34(a)(1)is requested.

• assuranca program to be applied to the subject to I 81J0(b) of this chapter and are of 4. Upon complation of renew by the staff

(

dJsign, procurement and fabncation of the the type speded in I 50.21Co)(2) or (3) or and,if appropnate by the ACRS of a stnactures. systems. and components for i 50.22 of this chapter or are testing factices. subralttal cadar this appeedit tSe staff shau which design review has bese requested and This append;m does not apply to processings prepare a Sta"4 Site Report whach shall the informacon submitted p vuant to conducted pureuant to Subpart F oe rart 2 of identify the location of the site. state the an,te 150.34(alf 9] of this chapter stall be hmited to this chapter. euitabibty issues reviewed explain the the quahficabons of the pereso submitting the 1. Any person may eubmit information asture and scope of the renew. sute the standard design to design the reactor or regarding one or more site suitability irtues conclusions of the staff regardeg the issues

~

15598 Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations nyiewid and state the masons for those PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF

. conclusions. Upon issuance of a Staff Site DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION RIpirt. the staff shall pubbsb a notice of the FACILITIES cveilability of the npon in the Federal 2.The authority citation for Part 2 Register and shall place copies of the mpon continues to read in part as follows: 13. The authority citation for Part 50 in the Commission's Pubbe Document at 2120 continues to read in part as follows:

L Stnet NW 14wer 1svol(Room 11-4). Avtbority: Sec. tel. Se Stat. 946. as Washington. DC aco3r. and in a local Pubbe amended (42 U.S C 2201); sec. 201, se Stat, Authority: Sec.161. 68 Stat. 948. e a amended (42 U.S.C 2201); sec. 201. Se Stat.

Document Room (s) located near the site 1242. as amended (42 U.S.C 5841).

identifi:d in the Staff Site Report.De staff 1242. as amended (42 U.S.C. 5641).

shall also send a copy of the report to the l L110 (Amended) g g,, g y Covemir or other appropnate official of the 3. In paragraph (a)(1), the reference to State in which the site is located, and to the para # @M b Appendix 0 of Part 50is aanded to references to Appendices M. N and O of chief execuuve of the municipabry in whfch nier to Appendix 0 of Part $2. and in part 50 are amended to refer to the site is located or. af the site is not located l in o reunicipahty.to the chief execuuve of the paragraph (a)(2) the reference to Appendices M. N and O of Part 52.

county. Appendix Q of Part 50 is amended to e

5. Any Staff Site Report prepared and refer to Appendix Q of Part $2. PART 51-ENVIRONMENTAL l inard in accordance with this apper. dix may PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR be incirporeted by reference, as appropriate. $1400 (Amended) DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED in en application for a construction permit for 4. The reference to Appendix N of Part REGULATORY FUNCTIONS e utilintion facility which is subject to 50 is amended to refer to Appendix N of I 51.20(b) of this chapter and is of the type 15. De sub$y chadon for Part 51 Part 52' specific in j 50.21(b) (2) or (3) or i 30.22 of continues to read in part as follows:

[

this chipter or is a testmg facibty. The i 2.401 (Amended) Authority: Section tel. 6e Stat. 948. as '

conclusions of the Staff Site Report willbe amended (42 U.S.C 2201): uc. 201, se Stat. I reemanuned by the staff where five years or 5. In the beading and paragraph (a). '

242, as amended (42 U.S.C 5841).

more have elapsed between the issuance of the references to Appendix N of Part 50 the S'aff Site Report and its incorporabon by are amended to refer to Appendix N of f 51.20 (Amended) nferenca in a construccon permit Part $2. 16. In paragraph (a)(6). the reference uance of a Staff Site Report shal! not f 2.402 [ Amended) to Appendix M of Part Sois amended to I constitute a commitment to issue a pernut or 6. In paragraph (s), the reference to lietnse. to permit on. site work under i 10 tofe) of this chapter. or in any way affect Appendix N of Part 50 is amended to i 51.54 [ Amended) the cuthority of the Comnussion. Atomic refer to Appendix N of Part 52. 17.The reference to Appendix M of, Safaty r.nd ueensing Appeal Panel. Atomic Part 50is amended to refer te Appendix Safsty and ucensing Board panel, and other 9 2.403 [ Amended) M of Part 52. g presidmg officers in any proceedmg under 7. In the heading and paragraph (s).

Subpart F and/or G of Part 2 of tius chapter. the references to Appendix N of Part 50 I 51~55 IAmended)  ;

7Mbe staff will not conduct more than one are ernended to refer to Appendix N of 18. In paragraph (b), the reference to  ;

rev.ww cf site suitability tuues with regard to Part 52. Appendix M of Part 50 is amended to  ;

e pirticular site pnor to the full construeuen refer to Appendix M of Part 52.

permit review required by Subpart A of Part i1.404 (Amended) 51 of this chapter.The staff may dechne to I 51.73 (Amended)  ;

prepare and issue a Staff Site Report in 8. In the headmg and text of the 19.The reference to Appendix M of response to a submittal under this appendix l section, the references to Appendix N of Part 5o is amended to refer to Appendix wbtre it appears that.(a)in cases where no Part 50 are amended to refer to M of Part $2' review of the relauve ments of the submitted Appendix N of Part 52.

site and attemauve sites under Subpart A of i 51.77 ( Amended)

Part 51 cf this chapter is nquested. there is a i 2.406 (Amended)

20. The reference to 10 CFR Part 50.

riastnable likelihool that further staff 9.The reference to Appendix N of Part Appendix M is amended to refer to 10 bt at we e t the staff rev?e ofojI' 50 is amended to refer to Appendix N of CFR Part 52. Appendur M.

er m:re site suitability inun would lead to Part $2.

so e nor to the sub ttaIo e i L500 (Amended) AND MATERIALS LICENSES AND analysis of shemeuve sites in the 10. The reference te Appendix M of OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES  ;

Envirofunental Report that would pejudice Part 50 le amended to refer to Appendix UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF the latir review and decision on attemative M of Part 5: 1954, AS AMENDED  ;

sit:s under Subpart F and/or G of Part 2 and Subpirt A of Part 51 of'.his chapter; orib)in 1 1501 (Amended) The authority citation for Part 170 cases when. in the judgment of the staff. " " * " ' "

11 in the heading and paregraph (a).

carly review of any site evitability toeva or Authortry: 31 U.S C exrt. se Stat.1051. sec.

IssuIs would not be in the publicinterest. the references to Appendix M of Part 50 301. Pub. L 82-314. 86 Stat.222 (42 L'.S C considmns (1) the degree of likelihood that are amended to refer to Appendix M of 220Nh on 2% 6e S'n M n acmed cay,parly findmge on then issues would Part $2.

tetem iheir vahdify in later nyiews. (2) the (42 U.S C 5641). l i

obhetions. if any, of cognizant state or local i 2.502 [Amervied) 21. Section 170.2 is amended by I givsmment egencies to the waduct of on It in the headmg and text of the revising paragraphs (g) and (k) to read er.rly review on those issues, and (3) the section, the references to Appendm M of as foHows:

possible effect on the public tnterest of , Part 50 are amended to refer to  !

having e.n early,if not necessenly conclusive.

Appendix M of Part 52. g 370.2 Scope'

. . 1 resolution of thoseissues j l

~

. Fed:ral Register / Vcl. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 15399 (g) An applicant for or holder of a payable upon notification by the 52.ne full cost of review for a production or utilization facility Commission.nere is no fee for an standardized design approval or construction permit. operating license. application for renewal of an early site certification must be paid by the holder or manufacturing license issued permit or a standard design certification af the design approval the applicant for pursuant to Part 50 of this chapter. or an issued under to CFR Part 52. Each certification, or other entity supplying early site pennit. standard design applicant other than an applicant for the design to an applicant for a certification. or combined license issued renewal of an early site permit or a construction permit, combined license pursuant to Part 52 of this chapter: standard design certification will be issued under Part 52. or operating

• * * *

• billed at six. month intervals for all license, as appropriate. in five (5) equal (k) Applying for or already has accumulated costs on each application installments. An installment is payable applied for review. under to CFR Part that the applicant has on file for review each of the first five times the

52. Appendix Q. of a facility site prior to by the Commission until the review is approved / certified design is referenced the submission of an application for a cotmpleted. Each bill must identify the in an application for a construction construction permit: applications and the costs related te permit, combined license issued under (2 Fees for review of an application art ' "8 "

22. Section 170.3 is amended by ho gsa dd 1 revising paragraph 0) to read as follows: for enew of a t nder de ign g ,pp y; g, certification shall pay the installment.

I t7tLS DefWtions. follows: The full cost of review for a unless another entity is supplying the

• * * *

• renewed standard design certification 0)" Manufacturing license" means a must be paid by the applicant for design to the applicant for the renewal or other entity supplying the construction permit, combined license.

license pursuant to Appendix M of Part 52 cf this chapter to manufacture a ciesign to an applicant for a construction or operating license. in which case the nuclear power reactor (s) to be operated permit. combined license issued under other entity shall pay the installment.

at sites not identified in the license Part 52 or operating license, as (ii)(A)In the case of a design which application. appropriate,in five (5) equal has been approved but not tertified and

• * * *

• installroents; an installment is payable for which no application for certification

23. Section 170.12 is amended by each of the first five times the renewed is pending. if the design is not revising paragraphs (b). (d). and (e)(2) to certification la referenced in an referenced. or if all costs are not read as follows: appliestion for a construction permit. recovered, within five years after the combined beense, or operating license. date of the preliminary design approval

$ 170.12 Payment of hea. The applicant for renewal shall pay the fPDA) or the final design approval

• * * *

• Installment, unless another entity is (FDA). the applicant shall pay the costs.

(b) License fees. Fees for applications supplying the design to the applicant for or remainder of those costs, at that time; for permits and licenses that are subject the construct 2on permit, combined (B)In the case of a design which has to frea based on the full cost of the license or operating license,in which review are payable upon notification by case the other entity shall pay the been approved and for which an the Commission. Except as provided installment. If the design is not application for certification is pending.

below, each applicant will be billed at referenced, or if all costs are not no fees are due until after the recovered, within ten years after the certification is granted. lf the design is six. month intervals for i3 accumulated costs for each application the applicant date of renewal of the certification, the not referenced, or if all costs are not has on file for revsew by the applicant for renewal shall pay the costs recovered, within ten years after the Commission until the review is for the review of the application for date of certification, the applicant shall completed. There is no application fee renewal or remainder of those costs, at pay the costs or remainder of those for early site pennits issued under 10 that time. costs, et that time.

CFR Part 52. Fees for the review of an (3) Tees for the review of an (C)ln the case of a design for which a application for an early site permit are application for renewal of an early site certification has been g* anted,if the deferred as follows: The permit holder permit shall be deferred as follows:The design is not referenced, or if all costs shall pay the applicable fees for the holder of the renewed permit shall pay are not recoverei within ten years siter permit at the time an application for a the applicable fees for the renewed the date of the certification the construction permit or combined license permit at the time an application for a applicant shall pay the costs for the referencing the early alte permit is filed. construction permit or combined license review of the application, or remain er If.st the end of the initial period of the referencing the permit is filed.1f. at the permit, no facility application end of the renewal period of the permit. . of thos, costa at that time.

referencing the early alte permit has no facility application referencing the been docketed, the permit holder shall early site permit has been docketed. the 23. Section 170.21 is amended by pay any outstanding fees for the permit, permit holder shall pay any outstanding amending the Schedule of Facility Fees Each bill must identify the applications fees for the permit, by revising Part A. Nuclear Power and costa related to each. Fees for (4) Renewal few for meteriala licenses Reactors, revising foot note 4. and i applications for materials licenscs not and approvals not subject to full cost adding a new second entry to Part F.

subject to full cost recovery must review must accompany the appliution Advanced Reactors to read as follows:

secompany the application when it is when it is filed.

filed. (e) Approraffees. I 170m Sedule of fue for produCUon and utfittation faciuties, review of standers (d)/tenewolfees (1) Fees for (2)(1) There is no application fee for refersoce dealen approvata, specisi applications for renewals that are standardized design opprovals of projects andinspections.

subject to full cost of the review are certifications issued ender to CFR Part . . . . .

a .

' e iE403 Federal Registae / Vcl. 54. No. 73 / Tuesday. April 18. 1989 / Rules and Regulations SCHEDUuE OF FAcn.rry FsES

• Conecton of se revts. sosas tw a grenmy legislation will be passed direttly tse toomosse a ens e meesp S Eereseien [ M *"'se' 7ow"n Ee affecting a rmmber of areas covered by yews eom ew ecorwet enome ves, e m essen e the Board's equity risk investment j Femmy assecones and type or eens Feesae '***Tw"",",8,."e

, esse '77.a,o serog ow gy.e* regulation. *

. , wee ,o.w name.r. "r.'r#' a t:=,7s:'.? e'*on.,n . *es,;::: arrect= =A= ^pril 28. 2888.

Appocason ser Corstucean Pwnst re #ve yew ee' ens penod 4 ansnoel to to years FOR PURTHER INFORMA710N C0erTACT:

$125.o0c Ewer see Pena, owwownsen Fes cost. ***

,,o, 7,M ,*,,',*n"e ,,,.e e'O'n,,",,, $ Richard M. Schwartr Attorney. (202) 8 Pwnst Coneruc unenen. Opers- e gn a rewenose. In tie www to u acem are 906-6897; Deborah Dakin, Regulatory

"* Counsel. (202) 9064445; Karen Solomon.

A merewet onenenen **5a'*a.Sie h w'E ***"8Q * * '

• w 8'o*w"e$

n Associate General Counsel. (202) 906-r1 are Tenswesc,s Fd Cast sets renst per te romenner oToone nos-

-.c 5 8'"c58'r '*can'ee or ew mc. For more on m 7240. Regulations and Legislation omer Approven.

enspaceenoe Fd Co L O n*Eo'a'a* N s'e*e 5 Q *g Division. Office of General Counsel.

• • • '" nona,and to .us or omrirteenorm. ese et iro.it Fedetal Home Loan Bank Board.1700 G F ^8'*"**e menciare "** E.-Neus Street. N.W., Washington. DC 20552:

Aapocason

• Corwoucean Pwne- stas.ooo gr*u"!2*$.A's.

ooe ana

• to tuneeanewon' compmeon er m Robert Fishman. Senior policy Analyst.

Ear'r sno Pern*, FA Cost review. (202) 331-4592. Office of Regulatory ,

Ang Lscense. Dated at Rockvills. MD. thia 7th day of Activities. Federal Home Loan Bank

...**** Aprilisee. System 80117th Street NW For the Nuclear Regulatory r%=miaa6an.

Washington. DC 20008.

ee a suPPtskENTAny INPoRetATIOsc On

[c"",7eg,ne grgp 9 ey ,m,e,us,,e,$ Samuel J. Chilk, December 23.1988, the Board proposed nor tar amenomeno resurene ensance storn sucn Secrwaryofde Coatminion.

to amend its equity risk investment N".'".*,"ee'*,"nN. [o" M e em, son *,$ (FR Doc. 09-4e32 Filed 4-17-49: 8.45 am] rule. Board Res. No. 86-1393 (D of to comnuamon's roousesons wrew ree to of orLLees cooe rsee.es.m .

ine Coos of reosrar Regussons (e o. el 50.12. r2 s) 1988). 54 FR 155 Dan. 4.1989). The Board

d

• "l,87' .*,,'***'*,,",,",',',,%"p*,'f,,*,,,',*,c' proposed to extend the current equity.

• nsk investment rule for 120 days.8 The e U se an nement wn ,os unon report n oeur survis r.nooro . utery ev FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD ser acenses e rie re8'tletion was scheduled to sunset on scrwouw w n evowy neumo ser == ran u April 18.1989. See 12 CFR 583.9-8(h) po.or are masse on reve. erouan ew esuance at 12 CFR Part 563 e u power noensge* y tJ power e oorno. (1988).

E*[ce'i$e',7e "so e io po.,"M' % (No.89-13101 The Board received six comments in rary sowas ser maa run u power one mat,emousni response to its proposal.Three of the g,'"*,*,, u po.w g,.g,g Equtty Risk Irtvestments comments were from insured institutions, two were from trade me. nee es := o.orn.we meugn w pened tumo"'y grena w u po., s"o'.*."Date April 12,1900- associations, and one was from a U.S.

pget,uesogen_ee geven _,

Act V:FederalHome loan Bank government sponsored corporation.Of i imer tecary enouse ne mee ran socs or u read 08 the four comments that addressed the t Actioec Final rule. 120 day extension of the equity risk i C ,;a"e,,7 % *," , Q l**,*j",t regulation. all four supported  ;

S*E*,"s"e e ne e.neo en e,,en,w. ,,, suuuany:The FederalHome Loan Bank $',8 r.esasens sust sme ano eneroonew conrecani Board (the " Board"), as operaung head For the nasons set forWow, b

'***'*"**H'"**'a"""'"*" of the Federal Savin s and Loan

• Board has determined to enlarge the 7 YseeYape*E*.*IcMosE'im ied Insurance Corporati n ("NLIC"). is extension of the equity-risk investment

• • n 50 F8 N" 88 hodo'* *8' *y e e hereby amending 12 CFR 583'94,its a preeseenal sta'i nour's econosou.io'r regulation rie .ra,w"governing investments by regulation. from the 120 days enginally enesomorr pr poeed to 180 da)s. In its pr posal. the a=iare toeconceton ocyn neowet = re.w ene.enonal rees mino. insututions the deposits of which are pro Board stated that it believed that an 6ensa ses cwwey var em .ture on me surroe isse ruie.cosa ecn rev. For neve r.ione eno insured ce. by the FSLIC ('* insured extension was necessary beca use i

1. additional time was needed to study the I,

• ese ruY= ou*i "* e=Ts%no "M f tat ,ese

"* mo su,' co o abo o a empirical evidence accompanying  ;

U"ne#ia'e**ieo"le" r r."" tie"ew"e bsidiaries, m' Or"nD certain land loana, and re!ated Board scuvity. Since the non = mino a m appecant any prowmorei nows nonresidential construction loars proposal, proposed kgislauon has W U""*em'e"faE"r." u (" equity-risk investments").

T'a raw .e in aenease.si[ eeumee annuar E'**"eEs'UoE se na final rule amends the equity risk 7,o "co "w'*w"re *c"* *** " Ere* investment regulation by extending the A

• g S j r**j ','" g ,""" **

regulation for 180 days, until October 13. ,,,,,,,,,,g go, ,,mm,ueu om lem man so

"** , '" 'fn,88,8g[,,,",,

merenase or secreasse ,E"g'88g si e o[' van esos year. we 1989.This regulation deyewas befe nul scheduled oct,cs to stventotir & acani to ary toeneris seeme e e onerneo eewerie eroesse puntet on AprilIB 1986.The Board risdetion Oet PrPea's te mai5m to Board e

• W'r rd **taae rsgsna czaA. tsch).

m'c^ *eees concred coromicoon owma a,nd esere. believes that the additichal180 days tot sat si sea. No cuamene .m roomes( irem vg seesscr.ierg, e a revow wein em armerrn.

amm etemsurety.

to ooms seu re sseri m will ahow it to evduste mory carefullF goes comameu rem m pecmow as, seen, nooneme ecoort the espirical evidence resulting from p,,pont

"' a the sourd else protoi d to remove 6e MTZOd, "V,Y s,er$*A*d'T the Board's we purpose recent a regulstory preposal a:apital require! to amend rents and theits saclusion from ow de%emon of "ewty securter* In l epaceans twoo or {am.rned e of .33Econeseam sne.seo.

13 CmasMWar coid tened try de reded traw are perturmed shroug*eut ins 7erm of ye report on ec*uity risk investment sent to Nationalwonsep Assocecoou,rporsoon r.ranrue Mee lead

! nconee = woure ewt tne e nnorn the Corgress on February 10.1989, se y,4,,e ne, t 3 uo,s,

• • r* conow wd in *n1ance eoiinacevees r* Atonec we pursuant to the Competitive Equality r ryedce Men purctened py inesed usotunes

$*r?

• orYt # ",o'ecanee. Banldng Ac* of 1987 ("CEBA"). Pub. L on * *Nr n, cement mess je gag r*',*"*lM','w",'.U",e.

Nemouere reuseson No. 20048,101 Stat. E52, est, i1203 'P8 'M ' 8F "'P*" P e

Tg erweg a#*Denots au not te (1987). Moreover. the board saticipates N ,'$' M h [r n'en Y Num, soye Meel that within the 180 day period. Fredce Mac me.

l - - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ ___