Text

Draft LAR to Remove Tier 1 and Tier 2 Star Requirements
	ML23039A167
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	02/08/2023
From:	; Southern Nuclear Operating Co
To:	; NRC/NRR/VPOB
References
	NL-23-0000
	Download: ML23039A167 (1)
	v • d • e

ENCLOSURE 1 License Amendment Request:

Remove Tier 1 and Tier 2* Requirements

1.

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION

2.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION 2.1 System Design and Operation 2.2 Current Requirements 2.3 Reason for Proposed Change 2.4 Description of Proposed Change

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

4. REGULATORY EVALUATION 4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria 4.2 Precedent 4.3 Significant Hazards Consideration 4.4 Conclusions

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-1

1.

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) requests an amendment to the combined license (COL) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4 (License Numbers NPF-91 and NPF-92). The proposed change would remove the Tier 1 document from the licensing basis documents for Units 3 and 4, revert the Tier 2* information to Tier 2 for Units 3 and 4, and revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accordingly.

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION 2.1 System Design and Operation System design and operation information is provided in the UFSAR (which includes the Tier 2 and Tier 2* information) and much of the UFSAR high-level information, and considerable detail, is repeated in the required and maintained plant-specific Tier 1 document.

2.2 Current Requirements 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section II, defines Tier 1 as the portion of the design-related information contained in the generic design control document (DCD) that is approved and certified by Appendix D and identifies that the Tier 1 information includes:

1. Definitions and general provisions;

2. Design descriptions;

3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC);

4. Significant site parameters; and

5. Significant interface requirements.

The definition of Tier 1 also indicates that the design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2 information.

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section X.A.2 requires that the licensee maintain a Tier 1 document that reflects generic and plant-specific changes made to the Tier 1 information.

Currently, SNC maintains a separate plant-specific Tier 1 information document for both Unit 3 and Unit 4 that includes the generic and plant-specific departures. This Tier 1 document is updated and changes to the document are reported in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section X.B. Compliance with this document is required as identified 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section III.B where it states in part An applicant or licensee referencing this appendix shall incorporate by reference and comply with the requirements of this appendix, including Tier 1.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-2 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section II, defines Tier 2* as the portion of the Tier 2 information, designated as such in the generic DCD, which is subject to the change process in Section VIII.B.6.Section VIII.B.6 identifies the specifics of the twenty-four matters that were specifically designated as Tier 2*. Eight items are identified as permanent Tier 2* matters. These are:

(1)

Maximum fuel rod average burn-up.

(2)

Fuel principal design requirements.

(3)

Fuel criteria evaluation process.

(4)

Fire areas. ((This matter removed by Amendment No. 44.))

(5)

Reactor coolant pump type.

(6)

Small-break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis methodology.

(7)

Screen design criteria.

(8)

Heat sink data for containment pressure analysis.

The remaining sixteen Tier 2* items are identified as matters that revert to Tier 2 information once the unit first achieves full power operation following the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g). These are:

(1)

Nuclear Island structural dimensions.

(2)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code ASME Code) piping design and welding restrictions, and ASME Code Cases.

(3)

Design Summary of Critical Sections.

(4)

American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318, ACI 349, American National Standards Institute/American Institute of Steel Construction (ANSI/AISC)

N-690, and American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), "Specification for the Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Members, Part 1 and 2," 1996 Edition and 2000 Supplement.

(5)

Definition of critical locations and thicknesses.

(6)

Seismic qualification methods and standards.

(7)

Nuclear design of fuel and reactivity control system, except burn-up limit.

(8)

Motor-operated and power-operated valves.

(9)

Instrumentation and control system design processes, methods, and standards.

(10) Passive residual heat removal (PRHR) natural circulation test (first plant only).

(11) Automatic depressurization system (ADS) and core make-up tank (CMT) verification tests (first three plants only).

(12) Polar crane parked orientation.

(13) Piping design acceptance criteria.

(14) Containment vessel design parameters, including ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NE.

(15) Human factors engineering.

(16) Steel composite structural module details.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-3 The UFSAR incorporates the plant-specific DCD, which includes some information designated as Tier 2*. Amendment No. 44 to the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 COLs reclassified the above Tier 2* fire area matter as Tier 2 information. The remaining Tier 2* matters are subject to the change process in Section VIII.B.6 of 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, as modified by the criteria-based departure process approved by the NRC in License Amendment Nos. 142 and 141 for VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4, respectively. This Appendix D change process requires that the licensee not depart from information included in the Tier 2* material without prior NRC approval, and the modified process in Amendments 142 and 141 allows the application of the Tier 2 change process in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, paragraph VIII.B.5, provided the specific criteria in License Condition 2.D.(13) are not present.

Thus, potential Tier 1 information impact and potential Tier 2* information impact are considered when any design change is proposed.

2.3 Reason for Proposed Change VEGP Units 3 and 4 have completed the requirements in the tables that provide the specific ITAAC identified in both Tier 1 and in the COL Appendix C and thus, as identified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section IX.B.3, the ITAAC tables no longer constitute regulatory requirements, either for licensees or for renewal of the license; except for specific ITAAC, which are the subject of a §52.103(a) hearing, their expiration will occur upon final Commission action in such a proceeding. No specific ITAAC are the subject of a §52.103(a) hearing. Thus, the specific tables of ITAAC in the Tier 1 document may be removed. Since the Tier 1 document ITAAC tables no longer reflect requirements for VEGP Units 3 and 4, this portion of the requested amendment is an administrative change.

The rest of the Tier 1 document (beyond the specific ITAAC tables) is required to be maintained, as discussed above, and required to be considered for design changes. As indicated above, the Tier 1 design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2 information. As explained below in the Technical Evaluation, SNC believes that the Tier 1 information and the Tier 2* designations have fulfilled their purpose and the additional considerations for proposed changes are no longer warranted.

Note that Enclosure 2 requests the required exemption from the Tier 1 information document requirements and references the Significant Hazards Consideration provided in Section 4.3 below.

2.4 Description of Proposed Change The proposed change would remove the Tier 1 document from the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 licensing basis, modify the COLs to include permanent exemptions from the Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements, revert the remaining Tier 2* information to Tier 2 information, and remove the existing exemption in the COL Section 2.D.(13) related to departures from plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-4 Markups showing these changes are provided in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also includes associated UFSAR changes to be implemented along with the amendment/exemption. These associated UFSAR changes are shown for information.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION The proposed change would remove the Tier 1 document from the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 licensing basis, modify the COLs to include permanent exemptions from the Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements, revert the remaining Tier 2* information to Tier 2 information, and remove the existing exemption in COL Section 2.D.(13) related to departures from plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.

Tier 1 requirements are defined by 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section II.D, as:

the portion of the design-related information contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this appendix (Tier 1 information).

The design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2 information. Tier 1 information includes:

1. Definitions and general provisions;

2. Design descriptions;

3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC);

4. Significant site parameters; and

5. Significant interface requirements.

On August 3, 2022, the NRC issued the 10 CFR 52.103(g) letter to VEGP Unit 3, recognizing that the ITAAC had been satisfied [ADAMS Accession No. ML20290A284]. On Month #, 2023, the NRC issued the 10 CFR 52.103(g) letter to VEGP Unit 4, recognizing that the ITAAC had been satisfied [ADAMS Accession No. ML#####A###].

As identified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section IX.B.3, After the Commission has made the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion within the DCD, constitute regulatory requirements either for licensees or for renewal of the license; except for specific ITAAC, which are the subject of a

§52.103(a) hearing, their expiration will occur upon final Commission action in such a proceeding. No specific ITAAC are the subject of a §52.103(a) hearing. Thus, the specific tables identified in the plant-specific Tier 1 information as ITAAC are no longer requirements for VEGP Unit 3 or Unit 4.

The remaining portion of the plant-specific Tier 1 information required to be maintained by the regulations in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section X.A.1 and Section X.A.2, includes design descriptions (including descriptive information provided in non-ITAAC tables and figures), significant site parameters, significant interface requirements, and the associated definitions and general provisions.

However, as noted in the Tier 1 information definition above, this Tier 1 information DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-5 is derived from Tier 2 information. It follows from the regulations that removal of the Tier 1 requirements would not change the design, nor remove any design information from the licensing basis. The only impact would be to the criteria used for evaluation of changes to determine if prior NRC approval is required.

During the construction of VEGP Unit 3, it was recognized that some changes required prior NRC approval only because the information was designated as Tier 1, i.e., some of the changes required to be reviewed and approved by the NRC had no impact to the health and safety of the public, and the change would not have met the Tier 2 change evaluation criteria that would have otherwise led to prior NRC review and approval. Some of these were simply editorial changes or changes to correct mislabeled equipment identification, or other similar changes that do not change the meaning or substance of the safety information presented. The purpose of the Tier 1 regulations is not served by requiring prior NRC approval of an exemption for this type of change.

The above concern is supported by Commission expectations as provided in the Statements of Consideration for the initial issuance of Part 52 (54FR15372) which states:

How much flexibility § 50.12 will provide depends in large part on how much detail is present in a design certification, and just how much is present will be an issue which will have to be resolved in each certification rulemaking. The Commission does expect, however, that there will be less detail in a certification than in an application for certification, and that a rule certifying a design is likely to encompass roughly the same design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval. Moreover, the level of design detail in certifications should afford licensees an opportunity to take advantage of improvements in equipment.

The latter portion of the highlighted expectation is not consistent with the level of detail included in the AP1000 Tier 1 requirements. Further, if the expectation and intent was that the certified information would encompass roughly the same design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval, then the Tier 1 change criteria should be adequately addressed by the change criteria of § 50.59, and thus, additional Tier 1 change criteria is unnecessary. The level of detail included in the AP1000 Tier 1 requirements, however, goes well beyond the level of detail of design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval, adding significant regulatory burden to the licensee and to the NRC Staff.

Even without the Tier 1 requirements, every change would continue to be evaluated for potential impact in accordance with § 50.59, the Tier 2 change criteria in 10 CFR Part 52 Appendix D, and for continued compliance with the applicable regulations.

Thus, changes would continue to be submitted for NRC review and approval prior to implementation consistent with the change processes allowed for the Part 50 licensees, as modified by the 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, paragraph VIII.B.5 change criteria.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-6 The statements of consideration discussion of the AP1000 Design Certification Final Rule (71FR04464) included the following similar information pertinent to the appropriate change processes.

In an earlier rulemaking (64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999), the Commission revised 10 CFR § 50.59 to incorporate new thresholds for permitting changes to a plant as described in the FSAR without NRC approval. For consistency and clarity, the Commission proposes to use these new thresholds in the proposed AP1000 DCR. Inasmuch as § 50.59 is the primary change mechanism for operating nuclear plants, the Commission believes that future plants referencing the AP1000 DCR should utilize thresholds as close to § 50.59 as is practicable and appropriate.

SNC agrees with the Commission belief that future plants referencing the AP1000 DCR should utilize thresholds as close to § 50.59 as is practicable and appropriate, and this is precisely the criteria that SNC requests be applied to future VEGP changes; i.e., those identified in 10 CFR 52 Appendix D Section VIII.B subsections 1 through 5 for Tier 2 information and § 50.59 for plant-specific final safety analysis report information.

As noted in the statements of consideration for the 1999 revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 (64FR53582), The intent of the § 50.59 process is to permit licensees to make changes to the facility, provided the changes maintain acceptable levels of safety as documented in the SAR. The process was thus structured around the licensing approach of design basis events (anticipated operational occurrences and accidents), safety-related mitigation systems, and consequence calculations for the design basis accidents. However, the design certification rulemakings have gone beyond this process to maintain acceptable levels of safety as documented in the SAR without any apparent significant benefits. On the contrary, as noted above, the additional requirements have, on several occasions, led to expenditure of licensee and NRC Staff resources with little or no impact on the safety of the plant or the public. Further, the additional requirements have, on several occasions, led to expenditure of licensee and NRC Staff resources when the change could have been sufficiently addressed by considering the impact in accordance with the 50.59-like process included in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52, again with little or no impact on the safety of the plant or the public. The continued expenditure of these significant additional resources without a corresponding significant increase in safety are not warranted and should be eliminated as identified in this exemption request.

The statements of consideration discussion of the AP1000 Design Certification Final Rule (at 70FR20062) included the following information pertinent to the Tier 1 designation.

The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as design commitments for the lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification.

[S]ubsequent modifications to the facility must comply with the design descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are made in accordance with the change process in Section VIII of this appendix.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-7 The Tier 1 interface requirements are the most significant of the interface requirements for systems that are wholly or partially outside the scope of the standard design, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(vii) and must be met by the site-specific design features of a facility that references this appendix.

The Tier 1 site parameters are the most significant site parameters, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(iii). An application that references this appendix must demonstrate that the site parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) are met at the proposed site (refer to III.D of this SOC).

Each of these points is considered below.

The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as design commitments for the lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification.

The Tier 1 design descriptions are based on the more detailed Tier 2 design descriptions which also serve as design commitments for the lifetime of a facility.

Thus, these design commitments are not removed by the proposed exemption from the Tier 1 requirements.

[S]ubsequent modifications to the facility must comply with the design descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are made in accordance with the change process in Section VIII of this appendix.

Subsequent modifications to the facility must still comply with the design descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are made in accordance with the change process in Section VIII applicable for the more detailed Tier 2 design descriptions. Similarly, plant-specific final safety analysis report design descriptions changes are made in accordance with the change process in

§ 50.59. Thus, the review requirements for subsequent modifications are not removed by the proposed exemption from the Tier 1 requirements.

With regard to standardization, there are several pertinent points provided in the Statements of Consideration for the initial issuance of Part 52 (54FR15372) many of which indicate an intent of early resolution of issues:

In the Two General Responses to Comments discussion, However, the Commission has stuck to the simple aim in this rulemaking of providing procedures for the standardization of nuclear power plants and more generally for the early resolution of safety and environmental issues in licensing proceedings.

Under the Applicability of Existing Standards discussion, Application of Parts 20, 50, 73, and 100 to the certification of new designs, as reflected in

§ 52.48, should go a long way toward establishing the regulatory standard that new designs must meet, and thereby provide the regulatory stability that is an essential prerequisite to realizing the benefits of standardization.

More particularly, under the Finality discussion, Standardization has the double aim of enhancing safety and making it possible to resolve design issues before construction. Of these two aims, enhanced safety is the chief, because pre-construction resolution of design issues could be achieved simply through combined construction permits and operating licenses with DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-8 conditions. Achievement of the enhanced safety which standardization makes possible will be frustrated if too frequent changes to either a certified design or the plants referencing it are permitted.

The rule put forward principally three means of preventing a continual regression from standardization. First, the rule required that any amendment proffered by the holder of a certification be considered in a notice and comment rulemaking and granted if the amendment complied with the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations. Second, the rule prohibited the licensee of a plant built according to a certified design from making any change to any part of the plant which was described in the certification unless the licensee had been granted an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 from the rule certifying the design.

Third, the rule stated that the Commission would not backfit a certified design or the plants built according to it unless a backfit were necessary to assure compliance with the applicable regulations or to assure adequate protection of public health and safety. See § 52.63 of the proposed rule, 53 FR 32074, col. 3, to 32075, col. 2.

The first of these three means of preventing a continual regression from standardization is not applicable to combined license holders. The second and third means are pertinent to the exemption request.

To-date, approvals have been granted for more than one hundred Tier 1 exemptions, more than fifty Tier 2* changes, and more than 40 changes to the Technical Specifications. For completeness, there have also been 14 changes that affected only the COL three changes for approval based on a change to a method of evaluation, and a few other changes related to emergency planning and security topics.

Of note is that for the over one hundred Tier 1 exemption approvals and the over fifty Tier 2* departure approvals, the NRC Staff has not taken any action related to imposing the change via rulemaking pursuant to § 52.63 for either the certified design or to the other combined license holders. For each exemption approved, the 52.63(a)(4)(ii) special circumstances were justified to outweigh any decrease in safety from the reduction in standardization. As such, the divergence from standardization was not deemed to be a significant reduction in safety.

To the extent that increased standardization of the certification information is desired, the Commission can still implement the modification on the design certification rule under 52.63(a)(1) and apply the modification to all plants referencing the certified design per 52.63(a)(3).

To envision the utilization of the 52.63(a)(4)(ii) special circumstances hurdle to enforce greater standardization (where reduction in safety is not present) inappropriately delegates the responsibility for achieving the standardization goal to the combined license holder. The exemption should not be withheld on this basis.

Should this requested exemption be approved, the maintenance of standardization would continue to be advantageous to the future combined license holders (as it was deemed to be for VEGP Units 3 and 4) and the vast majority of these changes would be expected to be requested and approved by DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-9 the combined license holders. Similarly, there are often other Tier 2 or other licensing basis document changes that are associated with the amendments, and numerous other changes to licensing basis documents (~1400 non-LAR changes made for VEGP Units 3 and 4 to date), that will also be advantageous to be implemented by the combined license holders in order to maintain standardization.

Finally, approval of the exemption may actually promote standardization by reducing the cost and delay of implementation by each of the combined license holders through simplification of the process for evaluation and acceptance of many of the changes. Non-trivial cost and burden for non-safety significant license amendment and exemptions may actually deter from standardization in that licensees may attempt to avoid subjecting themselves to the license amendment and exemption processes. Thus, simpler internal process under Part 52 Appendix D,Section VIII 50.59-like criteria could actually improve maintenance of standardization.

SNC also notes that in SECY-22-0052, which proposes Part 52 revisions, the NRC is proposing to remove the Part 52 requirement to consider standardization as a criterion for justification for making changes in a combined license.

Accordingly, based on actions to-date, standardization maintenance may be best addressed by the NRC Staff as a § 52.63 modification of the certification information through a determination for each previously approved change that the change contributes to increased standardization of the certification information.

The Tier 1 interface requirements are the most significant of the interface requirements for systems that are wholly or partially outside the scope of the standard design, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(vii) and must be met by the site-specific design features of a facility that references this appendix.

The Tier 1 interface requirements were addressed during the COL application review and shown to be met by the site-specific design features of the facility in the safety analysis report which incorporates the plant-specific and more detailed Tier 2 design descriptions. Thus, the interface requirements and their relationship to the site-specific design features of the facility are not removed by the proposed exemption from the Tier 1 requirements.

The Tier 1 site parameters are the most significant site parameters, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(iii). An application that references this appendix must demonstrate that the site parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) are met at the proposed site (refer to III.D of this SOC).

The Tier 1 site parameters were addressed during the COL application review and shown to be met by the facility site in the safety analysis report which incorporates the plant-specific and more detailed Tier 2 design descriptions.

Thus, the site parameters and their relationship to the facility site are not removed by the proposed exemption from the Tier 1 requirements.

Because the NRC has also identified in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52 that some Tier 2 information (designated as Tier 2*) must also be reviewed by NRC prior to implementing changes to that information, the above discussions regarding prior DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-10 approval of Tier 1 information would also be generally applicable to Tier 2*

information.

Similar to the above Tier 1 discussion, the statements of consideration discussion of the AP1000 Design Certification Final Rule included the following information pertinent to the Tier 2* designation.

Certain Tier 2 information has been designated in the generic DCD with brackets and italicized text as Tier 2* information and, as discussed in greater detail in the section-by-section explanation for paragraph VIII.B, a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information requires prior NRC approval.

The Tier 2* design description information also continues to serve as design commitments for the lifetime of a facility. Thus, the Tier 2* design commitments are not removed by the proposed exemption from the Tier 2* requirements but would continue to be treated as Tier 2 design commitments.

Thus, as noted above, approval of the proposed exemptions from the Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements would not remove design information from the licensing basis, and subsequent changes to the facility design would continue to maintain acceptable levels of safety through evaluations in accordance with the 50.59-like criteria provided in Section VIII of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52.

SNC previously requested via LAR 17-037 (and was granted) a site-specific permanent exemption and license amendment that allows use of new criteria to determine whether a proposed Tier 2* departure can be treated as a departure from Tier 2 information under 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, paragraph VIII.B.5, or whether the departure requires prior NRC approval under Appendix D, paragraph VIII.B.6.1. In addition, the amendment applied the same license condition criteria to departures from Tier 2 information that involve changes to or departures from certain Tier 2* information. The safety evaluation for the amendment states The staff focused on whether the proposed exemption and new license condition would assure that departures from Tier 2* information would be governed by regulatory controls commensurate with the safety significance of the information. As noted above, SNC agrees with The intent of the § 50.59 process is to permit licensees to make changes to the facility, provided the changes maintain acceptable levels of safety as documented in the SAR. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that if the § 50.59 process maintains acceptable levels of safety for Part 50 plants, that the § 50.59 process would also be appropriate regulatory controls commensurate with the safety significance of the information and that the additional Tier 2* designations and change controls are, therefore, unnecessary.

SNC is aware of the proposal in SECY-22-0052 to change Commission regulations to add a definition that contains two general principles for Tier 1 information content:

(1) Tier 1 information should be described at a qualitative and functional level of detail, and (2) Tier 1 information should not include detail that could necessitate NRC approval for departures from the certified design that have minimal safety significance, and that the NRC is proposing the same refinements to the definition of Tier 2* information. However, the proposed rule changes would provide no relief from the burdens imposed by the current 10 CFR Part 52 Appendix D requirements applicable to combined license holders who reference the AP1000 certified design.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-11 Accordingly, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the Licensee) is requesting a permanent exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 52, Appendix D, to maintain, and to evaluate and document departures and further exemptions from, the plant-specific Tier 1 and Tier 2* information applicable to the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 COLs. With approval of the requested exemption, SNC would no longer maintain or consider any Tier 1 information, and all Tier 2* information would revert to Tier 2 information for future considerations.

10 CFR 52.98(c) requires NRC approval for any modification to, addition to, or deletion from the terms and conditions of a COL. This request involves changes to a license condition related to exemptions. Therefore, this activity requires NRC approval of the proposed amendment to the COL.

4 REGULATORY EVALUATION 4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria The AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 information is defined, considered, and controlled in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, as regulation. The DCD Tier 2* information is also considered and controlled as incorporated into the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).

4.2 Precedent None.

4.3 Significant Hazards Consideration Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) is requesting an amendment to Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 3 and Unit 4. The license amendment request (LAR) proposes to revise the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 combined licenses (COLs) to include a permanent exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 52, Appendix D, to maintain, and to evaluate and document departures and further exemptions from, the plant-specific Tier 1 and Tier 2* information applicable to the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 COLs. With approval of the requested exemption, SNC would no longer maintain or consider any Tier 1 information, and all Tier 2* information would revert to Tier 2 information for future considerations.

An evaluation to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment was completed by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), Issuance of amendment, as discussed below.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-12

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed changes do not affect accident evaluations since there are no changes to the plant, no changes to analysis of the plant, and no changes to testing of the plant. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design or operation of any structures, systems, or components (SSCs) associated with an accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes continue to maintain the initial conditions and operating limits assumed during normal operation, assumed by the accident analysis, and assumed in anticipated operational occurrences. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in any increase in probability of an analyzed accident occurring.

The proposed changes do not involve a change to any mitigation sequence or the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions.

Thus, the consequences of the accidents previously evaluated are not adversely affected.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed changes have been found to continue to provide the required functional capability of the safety systems for previously evaluated accidents and anticipated operational occurrences. The proposed revisions do not change the function of the related systems, and thus, the changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could adversely affect safety or safety-related equipment.

Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed changes continue to provide the required functional capability of the safety systems for previously evaluated accidents and anticipated operational occurrences. The proposed changes do not change the function of the related systems nor significantly affect the margins provided by the systems. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-13 Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

4.4 Conclusions Based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Therefore, it is concluded that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION A review has determined that the proposed changes require an amendment to the COL. A review of the anticipated construction and operational effects of the requested amendment has determined that the requested amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), in that:

(i)

There is no significant hazards consideration.

As documented in Section 4.3, Significant Hazards Consideration, of this license amendment request, an evaluation was completed to determine whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, Issuance of amendment. The Significant Hazards Consideration evaluation determined that (1) the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; and (3) the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

(ii) There is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

The proposed changes are unrelated to any aspect of plant construction or operation that would introduce any change to effluent types (e.g., effluents DRAFT to NL-23-0000 License Amendment Request E1-14 containing chemicals or biocides, sanitary system effluents, and other effluents) or affect any plant radiological or non-radiological effluent release quantities.

Furthermore, the proposed changes do not affect any effluent release path or diminish the functionality of any design or operational features that are credited with controlling the release of effluents during plant operation. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

(iii) There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The proposed change in the requested amendment does not affect the shielding capability of, or alter any walls, floors, or other structures that provide shielding.

Plant radiation zones and controls under 10 CFR 20 preclude a significant increase in occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Based on the above review of the proposed amendment, it has been determined that anticipated construction and operational effects of the proposed amendment does not involve (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in the individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.

DRAFT

ENCLOSURE 2 Exemption Request:

Exemption from Tier 1 and Tier 2* Requirements 1.0 PURPOSE

2.0 BACKGROUND

3.0 TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION OF ACCEPTABILITY 4.0 JUSTIFICATION OF EXEMPTION 5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 6.0 PRECEDENT EXEMPTIONS

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

8.0 CONCLUSION

ATTACHMENT:

Licensing Basis Document Mark-ups DRAFT to NL-23-0000 Exemption Request E2-1 1.0 Purpose Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the Licensee) requests a permanent exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 52, Appendix D, to maintain, and to evaluate and document departures and further exemptions from, the plant-specific Tier 1 and Tier 2* information applicable to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 3 and Unit 4 combined licenses (COLs). With approval of the requested exemption, SNC would no longer maintain or consider any Tier 1 information, and all Tier 2* information would revert to Tier 2 information for future considerations.

With construction and ITAAC complete and confirmed to comply with the certified design (as amended and exempted), SNC believes the applicable controls for Tier 2 and plant-specific final safety analysis report information are sufficient to evaluate changes to the design that should be submitted to the NRC for prior review and approval.

This request for exemption provides the technical and regulatory basis to demonstrate that 10 CFR 52.63, §52.7, and §50.12 requirements are met and applies the requirements of 10 CFR 52, Appendix D, Section VIII.A.4 to allow departures from generic Tier 1 Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) information and the requirements of 10 CFR 52, Appendix D, Section VIII.B.6 to allow departures from Tier 2* information for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 3 and Unit 4.

2.0 Background

The Licensee is the holder of Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, which authorizes construction and operation of a Westinghouse Electric Company AP1000 nuclear plants named VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) notified the NRC on July 29, 2022, that all the Unit 3 acceptance criteria for the inspections, tests, and analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) are met [ADAMS Accession No. ML22210A090]. On August 3, 2022, the NRC issued their 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met [ADAMS Accession No. ML20290A284].

Similarly, SNC notified the NRC on July ##, 2023, that all the Unit 4 acceptance criteria for the ITAAC are met [ADAMS Accession No. ML#########]. On August ##, 2023, the NRC issued their 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding that the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are met [ADAMS Accession No. ML#########].

As noted in SECY-22-0052 providing proposed rule revisions based on reviews of lessons learned from new reactor licensing, requiring licensees subject to the DC change process to obtain NRC approval before making certain physical changes, while allowing part 50 licensees to proceed with the physical changes before asking for NRC approval may impose an unnecessary burden on those licensees subject to the DC change process.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 Exemption Request E2-2 3.0 Technical Justification of Acceptability The proposed change would remove the Tier 1 document from the VEGP Unit 3 and Unit 4 licensing basis, modify the COLs to include permanent exemptions from the Tier 1 and Tier 2* requirements, revert the remaining Tier 2* information to Tier 2 information, and remove the existing exemption in COL Section 2.D.(13) related to departures from plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.

Tier 1 requirements are defined by 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section II.D, as:

the portion of the design-related information contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this appendix (Tier 1 information).

The design descriptions, interface requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2 information. Tier 1 information includes:

1. Definitions and general provisions;

2. Design descriptions;

3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC);

4. Significant site parameters; and

5. Significant interface requirements.

On August 3, 2022, the NRC issued the 10 CFR 52.103(g) letter to VEGP Unit 3, recognizing that the ITAAC had been satisfied [ADAMS Accession No. ML20290A284]. On August #, 2022, the NRC issued the 10 CFR 52.103(g) letter to VEGP Unit 4, recognizing that the ITAAC had been satisfied [ADAMS Accession No. ML#########].

As identified in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section IX.B.3, After the Commission has made the finding required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), the ITAAC do not, by virtue of their inclusion within the DCD, constitute regulatory requirements either for licensees or for renewal of the license; except for specific ITAAC, which are the subject of a

§52.103(a) hearing, their expiration will occur upon final Commission action in such a proceeding. No specific ITAAC are the subject of a §52.103(a) hearing. Thus, the specific tables identified in the plant-specific Tier 1 information as ITAAC are no longer requirements for VEGP Unit 3 or Unit 4.

The remaining portion of the plant-specific Tier 1 information required to be maintained by the regulations in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section X.A.1 and Section X.A.2, includes design descriptions (including descriptive information provided in non-ITAAC tables and figures), significant site parameters, significant interface requirements, and the associated definitions and general provisions.

However, as noted in the Tier 1 information definition above, this Tier 1 information is derived from Tier 2 information. It follows from the regulations that removal of the Tier 1 requirements would not change the design, nor remove any design information from the licensing basis. The only impact would be to the criteria used for evaluation of changes to determine if prior NRC approval is required.

DRAFT to NL-23-0000 Exemption Request E2-3 During the construction of VEGP Units 3 and 4, it was recognized that some changes required prior NRC approval only because the information was designated as Tier 1; i.e., some of the changes required to be reviewed and approved by the NRC had no impact to the health and safety of the public, and the change would not have met the Tier 2 change evaluation criteria that would have led to prior NRC review and approval. Some of these were simply editorial changes or changes to correct mislabeled equipment identification, or other similar changes that do not change the meaning or substance of the safety information presented. The purpose of the Tier 1 regulations is not served by requiring prior NRC approval of an exemption for this type of change.

The above concern is supported by Commission expectations as provided in the Statements of Consideration for the initial issuance of Part 52 (54FR15372), which states:

How much flexibility § 50.12 will provide depends in large part on how much detail is present in a design certification, and just how much is present will be an issue which will have to be resolved in each certification rulemaking. The Commission does expect, however, that there will be less detail in a certification than in an application for certification, and that a rule certifying a design is likely to encompass roughly the same design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval. Moreover, the level of design detail in certifications should afford licensees an opportunity to take advantage of improvements in equipment.

The latter portion of the highlighted expectation is not consistent with the level of detail included in the AP1000 Tier 1 requirements. Further, if the expectation and intent was that the certified information would encompass roughly the same design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval, then the Tier 1 change criteria should be adequately addressed by the change criteria of § 50.59, and thus, additional Tier 1 change criteria is unnecessary. The level of detail included in the AP1000 Tier 1 requirements, however, goes well beyond the level of detail of design features that § 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval, adding significant regulatory burden to the licensee and to the NRC Staff.

Even without the Tier 1 requirements, every change would continue to be evaluated for potential impact in accordance with § 50.59, the Tier 2 change criteria in 10 CFR Part 52 Appendix D, and for continued compliance with the applicable regulations.

Thus, changes would continue to be submitted for NRC review and approval prior to implementation consistent with the change processes allowed for the Part 50 licensees, as modified by the 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, paragraph VIII.B.5 change criteria.

The statements of consideration discussion of the AP1000 Design Certification Final Rule (71FR04464) included the following similar information pertinent to the appropriate change processes.

In an earlier rulemaking (64 FR 53582; October 4, 1999), the Commission revised 10 CFR § 50.59 to incorporate new thresholds for permitting changes to a plant as described in the FSAR without NRC approval. For consistency and DRAFT to NL-23-0000 Exemption Request E2-4 clarity, the Commission proposes to use these new thresholds in the proposed AP1000 DCR. Inasmuch as § 50.59 is the primary change mechanism for operating nuclear plants, the Commission believes that future plants referencing the AP1000 DCR should utilize thresholds as close to § 50.59 as is practicable and appropriate.

SNC agrees with the Commission belief that future plants referencing the AP1000 DCR should utilize thresholds as close to § 50.59 as is practicable and appropriate, and this is precisely the criteria that SNC requests be applied to future VEGP changes; i.e., those identified in 10 CFR 52 Appendix D Section VIII.B subsection 1 through 5 for Tier 2 information and §50.59 for plant-specific final safety analysis report information.

As noted in the statements of consideration for the 1999 revisions to 10 CFR 50.59 (64FR53582), The intent of the § 50.59 process is to permit licensees to make changes to the facility, provided the changes maintain acceptable levels of safety as documented in the SAR. The process was thus structured around the licensing approach of design basis events (anticipated operational occurrences and accidents), safety-related mitigation systems, and consequence calculations for the design basis accidents. However, the design certification rulemakings have gone beyond this process to maintain acceptable levels of safety as documented in the SAR without any apparent significant benefits. On the contrary, as noted above, the additional requirements have, on several occasions, led to expenditure of licensee and NRC Staff resources with little or no impact on the safety of the plant or the public. Further, the additional requirements have, on several occasions, led to expenditure of licensee and NRC Staff resources when the change could have been sufficiently addressed by considering the impact in accordance with the 50.59-like process included in Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52, again with little or no impact on the safety of the plant or the public. The continued expenditure of these significant additional resources without a corresponding significant increase in safety are not warranted and should be eliminated as identified in this exemption request.

The statements of consideration discussion of the AP1000 Design Certification Final Rule (at 70FR20062) included the following information pertinent to the Tier 1 designation.

The Tier 1 design descriptions serve as design commitments for the lifetime of a facility referencing the design certification.

[S]ubsequent modifications to the facility must comply with the design descriptions in the plant-specific DCD unless changes are made in accordance with the change process in Section VIII of this appendix.

The Tier 1 interface requirements are the most significant of the interface requirements for systems that are wholly or partially outside the scope of the standard design, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(vii) and must be met by the site-specific design features of a facility that references this appendix.

The Tier 1 site parameters are the most significant site parameters, which were submitted in response to 10 CFR 52.47(a)(1)(iii). An application that references DRAFT to NL-23-0000 Exemption Request E2-5 this appendix must demonstrate that the site parameters (both Tier 1 and Tier 2) are met at the proposed site (refer to III.D of this SOC).