ML20154D705

Forwards Draft Regulations Intended to Implement Commission Revised Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization & Extent Permitted by Present Statutory Law, Licensing Reform Proposed to Congress

ML20154D705
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/19/1988
From:	Parler W NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
Shared Package
ML20153B009	List: ML20153B006 ML20154D688 ML20154D705 ML20154L078 ML20155B400
References
NUDOCS 8809160070
Download: ML20154D705 (77)

Text

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(p1 e

o,, UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 L j

% * * * * * .d April 19, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward L. Jordan Director, OAEOD FROM: tw William C. Parler)

General Counsel J

~ ~ "

SUBJECT:

CRGR REVIEW OF PROPOSED RULES ON SITE PERMITS, DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS, AND COMBINED LICENSES Attached for review by the CRGR are draft regulations intended to implement both the Commission's revised Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization, 52 Fed. Reg. 34,884 (September 15, 1987), and, to the extent permitted by present statutory law, the licensing reform legislation the Commission has proposed to Congress.

The draft regulations involve neither backfitting nor relaxation of requirements. However, many of the most important of them depend ultimately on substantive, generic, criteria either already developed or being developed by the staff. For instance, the draft rules incorporate many of the criteria set forth in the draft Commission paper on advanced reactor standardization submitted to the CRGR on April 13, 1988 by RES; the draft rule thus raises many of the issues the draft paper raises. Therefore, we are aubmitting the draft regulations for review by the CRGR.

This draft of the regulations incorporates comments the Advanced Reactor Generic Issues Branch in RES and the Standard and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate in NRR made on an earlier draft. Also, the preamble to the regulations responds to detailed public comments submitted after the public workshop on standardization held last October in Bethesda. We are currently seeking formal concurrence in this draft from both RES and NRR.

The attached regulations should be classified asfcategory_.2j ~

requirements under Section III.D of the CRGR Charter (August 1987). Nevertheless, your prompt attention to the attached package will be appreciated. In testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee, Chairman Zech said that a proposed

Contact:

Steven Crockett, OGC 21600 0809160070 000617 PDR REVCP NRQCRCR MEETIN0137 PNV J

Edward L. Jordan 2 rule on standardization and licensing reform would be issued before this coming summer.

A regulatory analysis for the proposed rules appears in the draft Federal Register notice after the preamble to the rules.

Attachments:

1. Policy Statement on standardization

2. Draft Federal Register Notice of proposed rulemaking i

l l

i i

I l

~

Attachment 1 i

i i

1 I

l' I'

l.

L I.

I I

[

l t

i I

l I l

4 l

34N4 Federal Regletar / Vol. St. No.17s / Tuesday. September 15, 1987 / Rules and Regulations IRACLEAR RESULATORY of the Commission no later thaa October reduce the complexity e.sd uncertainty j

0000101001000 341ger, of the regulatory procese,

• To identify the leaves that are g ,gg,,,,g important to theimplementation of 10 CPR Part 30 he Nuclear Regulatory Comadeelen skadensauon and 2 suu h leustone Power Plant Standeremetiesi believes that standardisation of neelear ra--i.. ion *e latent to develop Aeme0T:Nucleat Regulatory $auvt i men and I"""3**la" the safety, reliabili and evallabibly of

• To ex press the Commiselon's intent 1 ASTiesa policy statement. nuclear plante.He =laalaa heande to make resources avausble on a j

I suennaam he Nuclear Regulatory Commiselon is leeuing a revised policy

[ nuel.e, kend M<M

'F*"" Wachaw heP****

• • IP **I **'I'" mfmnce I

l statement on the standardisation of the rhcompiot A; N , *UI ,"gY,,,po, tuclear poww plant deelps. De policy and O toTk1 to, part to oIf the Code of ,,,g,[, go, ,g.,ci 8 statement encourages the use of FederalRegulations (to CFR part 30) e m owdA standard plant deelps and pmidee establish vr.rious options and has &at se .,one-information concerning the certlAcetion procedures for the e alof apPmach to mem duisn,

cf plant deoips that are essenticfly standardised plant ips. A praetsien condmedon, opweden W W M I

complete la scope and level of deiall. for a==taalaa approval of a reference 8e 8Pmung mackr populeum of smt De intent of these actions are to ' ' le miabui and dimei.y ma among l design included in in a rulemaking[----

Appendiz Mie hae'hoon macte

improve the licensing process and to sesame wndor N e reauce the complexity and uncertainty termed Reference System Design variabuity le introduced when utilities in the story process for Certincation and le the focus et the and dwigne lacorPomW cuskene standa d plante. Commhelon's standardisation policy, featum ink esir dwigns den mying DAfe

Effective on September 15,1987. his policy statement revises the Construc' ion practices am used; and Workshop to be held October 30, toer. Standardisatien policy Statement of l Aem Submit comuments to:he left (August 31,19r8: 43 FR accedi.

De Purpose of this policy stateinent tgb[d t nisations' l Secretary of the Commission U.S, is to encourage standardisation and to M Nuclear Regulatory Comadoolon. bW{ W W M ting and public

's e perten one a or worksho will be held on October ao, to another,in technical specincations,in e which:

" cert

• ^1Acation

= of plant deelPSS ta bo*

En'c"y 32e'. dan"setIAia"f. '",28 co L*.**d""e, e and in backAt ing i Center, Bethwda, Maryland. 'CQ **ga'M,' r,,*f=3y dud heconstruedon, CorJaiselon believes that the use Pei PWImSR IIIPealaatteel agerfasT: and unlity assursace programs: el certined standardised designe can Jerry N. Wueon, Omce of Noelear . htisfy regulatory requirement, benefit the public health and safety by l Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear concentreting resources on specific

, before construction begins: and j Regulatory Commiselon, Washington, . Can be referenced for individual design approaches without stiflina DC 306S5, telephone (301) 402-4727, plant applications, inseculty; by stimulating standardised l SUPPL 4asserf$8ry lesPenetafleet: Use og certined reference deelpein ame of construction practice, a

i future Deense applicationa should q ty assurance, and personnel W w shop enhamos plant esfety,incmase the training: and by fostering mon effective De NRC staff will conduct a efRelency of the NRC review process, malatenance and improved operetion.

i workshop to inform the public of etaff and reshsce complexity and uncenalaty Standardination should result in I efforts to develop an 1:nplementirig in the regulatory process. A regulatory eipincent econondes of scalg in I rulemaking on standardisation and to fras ework which provides for learning and sharing operating i provide a forwn for public discuselon of certincation of refmace deoips by experience, in malateining qualifred

! the revised policy statement and means of rule will alleviate the vendor support, and la maintaining en relevant leaves that need to be need to reconsider ip imuse la adeguate inventory of long lead. time.

eddressed in the rulemaking packase. Individuallicensing F: _: t en high cost opere parts that osa be shared j ne workshop willbe held on October future license apphostions which by a number of units.Deee concepts an.1987 at the Hyatt Regency Betheeds, reimace the certined doelps. Areas are embodied in foreige experknee with One Bethoeda Metro Center, Betheda, included within the scope of the the standardisatica of nuclear power

! etfon.

Maryload 30s14 in the Cabinet Room. refwence eyotem dester certinoation plant design, costruction, and i

I he workebop will start at too a.m.De rulemaklag would requim no further Standardisation le expected to er NRC star wiu pment sa ovrview of review by tbs staff, the Advisory improw the safety performance of l

the revloed statement and the Cosamittee on Rector Safeguanie futum plants. Standardimetion wdl allow 1

yr;:::f package et the for a more expeditious and otBcient

{ (ACRSI. or the buttes boards.

4 w hooe mesebore of the public De ba==laataa's primary objectivos review process and a now thorough who to snake a presentation at the inissu a policy stateuneet on aslear understanding of the designs by the I

workebop should nottfy the contact power t standardisation are ladustry and the NRC statt. In otrongly

! anderadog the concept of

14ted above so that they can be added threef

. Anyone who wishes to e To encourage the use of standard standardlestion, the ca==4elon to the plant deelpe in future license acknowledges that them een be cad cosamente to the record or who cannot attend the workshop should applicatione in order to enhance plant drewbacks. De most eigo'ncent le that send written coanments to the flecretary safety, improve the efficiency and specinc probleme may potentially erfect i

I

Fedemi Register / Vol 52. No. Us / Tweeday. September 15, 1887 / Rules and Pt Jations , $4485 a Iarp number of reactors. However, on accompliebed mader its existing in the reference eystem design I balance the Coenadesion believes thet statetory sothertty. in addition, there is certification prooeos, the final deciolon the enhanced of remotor opereuen a need for regulations to implement the will be snade by the Commiselon itself should far outw any dsaadvantages. Commisalon's standard 1:auon policy following review by the ACRS. b Commisalon for plant safety la more effeceively. For these resoons, the issuance of a final design approval by articulated in its Poucy Statsament on thh is developing i proposed the staff, and the completion of a rule.

Safety Coals (August 4.18ER: 51 FR regula t6ons that will addtves licensing making proceedmg. De reference 2a044. August 21.1ses; 31 FR 3e028).Th reform and standardiestloa. With regard system concept means that an entire Standardisation Policy also is consistent to standardtsation. the proposed rulee nuclear power plant design or a major with the standardised plant provisions will provide a regulatory framework for portion of the design is acceptable for of the Commiselon's complesnentary Commlaneos certificauon of standard incorporation by reference in individual Severe Accident Policy Statement designs by rulemaking. as set forth in licenn applications.%e design (August 8,leM; 30 FR 32238). Many of paragraph 7 of Appendia O to to Olt certi3 cation concept focune on the the desirable safety charassertstics Part so. no M rules will address certification of a reference system listed in the Advanood Reactor Pohey the following sul4ects: Relationship of design through rulemakiniae provided Statement Ouly 8.1988G 32 FR 34643) are the new regulatory framework to the for by Appendix 0 to 10 Cnt Part 50. The equeuy desirable for evoletionary light existing provisions of Appendfoes M, N. tules being developed to implement this water reactor standardised designs and O to Part 30t fding requirement

• pobey win addrus the criteria and he Cosemlaalon believes that contenta of applications:dulgn procedures for issuance and renewal of Congress should promote mucJeur safety certification and renewal fees; design design certifications, as well ae the by pursuing legislative initiatives to certification rulemaking procedures: durst'on of the cartification and further encourage the standardisation referral of applicaticas to the Adyteory renswals. De certified design must be concept.no proposed Noclear Power Committee se Reactor Safeguarda use3 and relied upon by the staff, the Plant Standardisation and Licenalng Act (ACRS) duration and renewal of deelge ACRS the hearing boards and the of 1987, which the Coar. mission certifications; changes to certified Commission in their consideration of forwarded to Congan in January of this standard designa; and prodelons for applications that reference the certified i year,includn the following three plant specifnc eartances. De design. %e issue of relttigauon of issues legislative proposais: Commission's general approach to conside*ed and decided in the design

• lesuance of a combined standard design certificauon under its certification rulemaking will be construction permit and operstmg esisting rules is outhaed in this pobey addressed in the proposed rules.

license: statement.ne issues important to 7g, commission believes that W W

• lassance of a alte permit prior to execution of the Commission's submission of an application for a stanu rdis.ation policy will be addressed beefita rocus construction permit or ocabined which wiuwid be enhance not only reellaedsain this7ety, but more hdy it, the proposed rules, should also contribute added stability c n PennH aM opna%

he '

. Statement of Policy on Nuclear Power and predictabihty to the regulatory

• Istuance of a facility design Plant 5tandardination proceu The rulemaking wiu certify the approval (Reference Syaasun Design The purpose of this standardaation acceptability of the design.The certified l

Certification) prior to submission of an policy la to provide the regulatory design will be referenced in the appilcation for a construction permit or framewyk for reference system design oppheaun for a Construcun Pennu or combined construction permit and certificauon of nuclear power plant Opusung Ucense. De rulemaking to operating license. designs which are eseentituy complete obtain the dHign cwuncaun wW covn The Commission bellews that these in both scope and level of detail; covet the criteria necusary for design and legislattve changes are important to plant design, construction, and quality construction of a plant; the quality achieving the full benefits of assurance programa: satisfy regulatory assurance program; and whatever tests, reqvirements before construction begins: analyses, and inspection crtteria are standard aation. The one-r,tep licensing I

process would give licensees greater and can be referenced in indMdual neceuary to assure that the plant is assurance that if the facibty is plant applications. built within the certified design constructed in accordance with the The reference s) stem designs, at least specifications, terms of the application / permit,it will initially, are expected to be evolutions The Commission espects to

, be permitted to operate once of existing proven LWR designs. implement the foUowing policies with l

construction is complete.ne issuance Detailed information consisting of regard to design certification review. An of site permits and facility design design and procurement specifications, app!! cant for a design certification must

, approvals,in advance of specific performance requirements, and first obtain a Fmal Design Approval applications for their use, would allow acceptance and inspection requirements (FDA) pursuant to Appendix 0 to Pert subsequent facility applications to will be substituted for name plate data. Sa If the applicant intends to seek a reference the permita and/or approvals For those systems, structures and design certification, the l'DA application without further regulatory action unless component designs which represent must indicate that intent. As set forth in there is a substantial reason not to do significant deviations from previously. Appendix 0, the II)A appbcation must so. nis process would also facilitate approved LWR designs, prototge include information on scepe and design I

early identification and resolution of site testing and/or empincal information detail which is esuntlauy equivalent to and deelen taeues after affording an may also be required. Advanced design that required by to CDt Sa3Hb). as well opportunity for public participation, concepts should be developed according as any other information customarily f no Commission continues to bebeve to the guideltnes of the Advanced required by the staff to perform a Fmal that nuclear standardtastion and Reactor Policy Statement. When an Safety Analysis Report review,in licensing legislation abould be enacted. advanced design concept is sufficiently addidon. it must address the following Tne Commisalon recognises, however, mature, e.g through comprehensive, four licensing criteria for new plant that much ofits legislative pro I with prototypical testing. an application for designs set forth in the Commission's respect to standardination co be design certificatfor. could be made. Sesere Accident Pohey Statement:

34888 Fedoest Register / Vol. 52. No.178 / Tuesday. September 15, 1987 / Rules and Regulations (1) Demonstration of compliance with the daigner defino a ut of site variances in limited circumstances at the requimments of the current enveloping parameters (seismic evente, the request of the facility licensee.

Commlulon regulations, including the rainfall, flood, etc.) which are used in All applications forlicenses and Thrn Mile leland requirements for new the design of the plant.nese approvals for standard designs are at plants as reflected in the construction parameters usually are selected to present subject to the fees and the fee permit rule.10 CML 30.34(f); envelop a large portion of the potential recovery re.es identified in to CFR Part (2) Demonstration of technical sitee in the U.S. Once the design le 170. De Commiselon has authortred a resolution of all applicable Unresolved certified by the Commluton, mvision of to CHL Part 170 to include a Safety luues and the medium and high. conformance of actual sites with the new provision for the refennee systm priority Generic Safety issues, including established site ennlope must be design certification process, nis a special focus on ensuring the demonstrated by the applicant and revision would permit the phased reliability of decay heat removal verified by the staff at the time en actual recovery of design certification costs systems and the reliability of both AC plant application is reviewed. Other through collection of fees from the cnd DC electrical supply systems; features of the design which are holder of the dulgn certi!1 cation, se the (3) Completion of a probabilletic risk dependent on the site (i.e cooling water design is referenced. lf the design is not assessment (PRA) and conalderation of supply, emergency preparedness plans, referenced or if all the costs are not the sever, accident vulnerabiltun that etc.) are also reviewed for acceptability recovered within ten years, the holder of the PRA exposes, along with the insights and compatibility with the pre

• the design certification will be that it may add to the assurance that approved / certified design at the time of there is no undue risk to public health ruponalble for any amounts still due at an actual applicction. the end of the ten year period, and safety; and Curnntly. NRC initiated changes to (4)Com l the des Albush the Commlulon strong j y design wita$etion of staff conclusion review of the of safety require unless

[i certification rule will not beencouregn the use of certified designs the Commlulon acceptability using an approach that determines that these modificetions are f r b entire plant in all future license stresses deterministic engineering in accord with the bacMit rule specified applications, the regulations also allow analyais and judgment complemented in to CD4 50.100. ne subject of for other standardization options by Pr c modifications to berequired after the including the duplicate plant, the ne oesign certification application design certification is granted, as well as replicate plant, and the manufacturing amendmente at the request of the design license concepts. While these options sh:uld also probse, and approval, for etaff t tests, analy ses,review certification holder and variances at the may be used in the interim, they are ins'>ections and acceptance criteria that request of a utility, will be addressed in discouraged for the longer term. The arv considered necessary to provide the proposed rules.In developing those Commission also recognizes that review, reasonable assurance that a plant which rules. the Commission will consider the approval and certification of maior ref.rences the certified design is built appropriateness of employing the Portions of complete plants may be and operated within the specifications backfitting standard set forth in the usetulin the interim. However.

(f the finaldesign. Additional proposed standardtration and licensing applications for essentially complete information beyond that required for an reform legislation. De Commisalon designs are preferred and will be given WA may be necessary to support the espects ihat backfita to the design priority in allocation of resources to design certification rulemaking. Further certification rule would be applied support review and approval.

detailed guidance in this area will be uniformly to all plaats referencing the Dated et Washington. DC, this eth day of developed by the staff,if necessary as a certified design. Sirallarly, amendments Sepember,1987.

r:sult of esperience with the first few to the desip certification rule initiated For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

mA/ design certification reviews, by the holder of the design certification Features of the design which can only would also be applied uniformly to all I, g b determined when a specific slie is plants referencing the standard design. &cm o@ Comnussa ,

chosen generally are not included in the in addition, procedures will be im Doc. sms Ned S-16-e? e o em) design approval or certification Rather. developed to allow for plant specific sea cous ?***-aw

4 1

Attachment 2 I

r I

e

+

~ - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - , . - - - , - - - , - - - - - - , - - -

Nuclear Regulatory Ocamissfon 10 CrR Part 52 Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and C a bined 7.icenses for Nuclear Power Reactors AGNCY: Nuclear Regulatory Camissicn.

MrICH: Proposed rule.

StMm: no Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission is considering adding a new Part to its regulations which would prwide for issuance of early site pemits, standard design certifications, and cmbined constructico permits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear power reactors. Part 52 sets out the review procedures and licensing requirements for applications for these new licenses and certifications.

D.TES : We ccament period expires 60 days after publication in the IMPAL RDGISER. Ctruents received after will be considered if practical to do so, but only those n=nants received on or before this date can be assured of consideration.

ADORISSFS Ccaments may be sent to the Secretary of the Ctamission, Attantion: Docketing and Service Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Camissien, Washington, D.C. 20555, or may be hand-delivered to One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Ibckville, MD 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - 1

weekdays. Copies of ocuments remived may be examined at the ccmmission's l

Public Doctment Rxrn at 1717 H St. N.W., Washington, D.C., between the hours of 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

FOR PURniER DGutRTICN CCNTET: Steven Crockett, Attorney, Office of the General Ctesel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone: (301) 492-1600.

SUPPLDENIARY DECINATICN:

I. Backgrcund

'Ihe thselear IMgulatory Ccrtnission has long believed that standardized nuclear pcwer plant designs and other means of achieving early resolution of 11 nsing issues oculd significantly enhance the safety and reliability of

nuclear plants, and ccat1d likewise enhance public participaticn in the licensing process wht'.e reducing tim ccmplexity and uncertainty of that process. 'Ihe cousiuerable variaticn in the design, construction, operation  ;

and maintenance of nuclear plants has led to an operating reactor population of great variability and diversity, even anong reactors frcan the see vendor.

While giving ocepe to innovation during the early lears of the industry, wren innovation was most needed, the "cne-of-a-kind" approach may also have i hindered the growth of significant econcunies of scale of benefit to safety and to the efficiency and predictability of regulatic.n. Standardizaticri of reactor designs should result in greater acctmulaticn of construction and

operating experience with a given design, easier transfer of that experience fran one reactor to another, and more easily maintained qualified undor support, all of which should advance safe and reliable operation. Moreover, by pemitting early identification and resolution of safety issues, standaniization and other means of achieving early resolution of licensing issues should afford public participants in the licensing process an earlier entry into that prooces, greatly reduce the number and importance of safety issues which are decided late in the process, and permit a speedy, yet thorough, NBC staff review whenever an application incorporates a standardized design. 'Ihus, early resolution of issues should lead to a sinpler and more predictable licensing process.

'Ihrough such devices as early site reviews, final design approvals, and reviews of duplicate and replicate plants, the NBC has for sme time offered aplicants the means to achieve a degree of standardization and to reach early resolution of issues. 'Ihe NhC Will continue to offer these means.

Hc3ewr, it is the cpinion of the Camission that the nuclear power industr/

is now sufficiently advanced in technology and organizatim to enable aplicants to subnit essentially caplete designs or major portions thereof for certification by ru1 making before construction and thus to secure the benefits of a areater degree of standardization and early resolution of issues. Moreover, the NRC now has under review several designs which are amenable to standan112ation, and the industry is showing increasing interest in such designs. For the past several years, the Cmmission has pursued Congressicaal affirmation of the goals of standaniizatim in the form of a I

i

Nuclear Power Plant Standaniization and Licensing Act. However, nuch of what this proposed legislation would provide can be put into effect now, under the Omnission's uisting statutory authority. 'Ihe cmmission therefore proposes to add to its regulations a new Part, which is described in Sections II-V below.

'1he ccumission announced its intention to pursue rulernaking on standart112ation in its recent Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Standan112ation, 52 Fed. Reg. 34,084 (Septenber 15, 1987). 'Ibe Policy Statment described the Ccmnission's experience with standardization, set out the Ccmnission's reasons for pursuing a g1 eater degree of standardization, and outlined some of the crucial elernents "he ccmnission would seek to snbody in a rule. 'Ihe Policy Statement provided far a sixty-day ccreent period and gave notice that a public workshop would te wid during the ocrment period so that the NBC and 1 iterested parties could have a nore thorcugh discussion of the Statement and the pending rulemaking than written cmmente alone would pennit. 'Ihe workshop was held in Bethesda on October 20, 1987, with representatives of the NIC staff, the Department of Energy, and the industry participating. During the Workshop, the NPC cutlined the proposed rule and answered prelini.ary questions about it. A transcript of the workshop may te found in the Cmmission's public dccumnt roce,1717 H Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

During the ocenent period, the Ccanission received cxmments frun six organizations and two individuals. Chief anong the crrments were the highly detailed ones sulmitted by the Nuclear Management and Resources

. 5 --

Council (NG9JC), which were endorsed, or at least reflected to a large degree, by the cmments hulznitted by the other organizations, among them two engineering fims and three reactor nanufacturers. 'Ihese ccrments also may be found in the Ccunission's Public Doceent Rxzn in Washington, D.C. 'the gwd rule set out below incorporates sany of the suggestions made in the emments. For instance, the rule provides for certification of "advanced" i

decigns (the term "advanced reactor" is defined in S 52.3 of the rule),

1 i establishes a rulemaking process kttich goes beyond notice and camnt, l

l provides for backfits which go beyond adequate protection, affords the holder of a design certification due protection during the renewal process, and &es l not nake the granting of a cmbined license dependent upon State and local goverment certification of willingness to participate in mergency planning, although it does seek the earliest possible resolution of erwrgency planning issues. It is in sme of these areas that the prriesed rule differs nest frcun the various licensing reform legislation the ccmission has proposed to the Congress.

In many cases, the proposed rule does not incorporate material suggestions made in the omments. 'these suggestions are discussed in the apropriate places in Sections III, IV, and V belcw. In Section VI we raise certain questions on which we would appreciate ccment. See of these questions have to do with suggestions we have not incorporated in the prcposed rule.

?

Although many intervenors haw long supported standardization, even to the point of arguing that the Camission should make standardization mandatory, scana of the caments on the Policy Statassant opposed standardization. In particular, one individual claimed that standardization will stifle engineering ingenuity, close the public out of the licensing process, spread the safety problens of a given design to a large ntsnber of  ;

reactors, and eventually meet defeat at the hands of a nultitude of site-specific changes to a certified design. ':his individual also claimed that it uns not the proper rule of the ccanission to "enhance the availability of nuclear plants", as the ccatission had put it in its Policy Statement on Standardization, or to "give priority" to standardization, that  ;

the safety problesna of present plants should be giwn the priority.

'Ib the contrary, the Ccrtnissien helieves that ccarpetitico among designars will more than adequately encourage ingenuity, that the public will be better able to participate in the licensing process if it is given an  !

essentially otrplete design even before any plant of that design is built, j that good design, thorough regulatory review, arx! long experience with [

nuclerJ. power should together go a long way to preclude significant safety l problems in certified designs, and that the proposed rule's restrictions on i changes in certified designs should assure a lasting and high degree of  !

standardization. Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the ccannission i

is not permitted to develcp nuclaw power plants and then regulate what it has dewic5ed, tut it may nonetheless do what it can 17/ way of sound procedural mechanisas and a;propriate distribution of resources to encourage 1

and enable others to develop and build better designs. 'the principal aim in such "enhanoament" is, as always, public health and safety. In the light of l this overarching aim, the Ccamission's statement that it intssids to give priority to standardized designs and the like must not be misread to mean that the safety of the presently cperating plants will becene less important j i

than the review of standardized designs, such is not the case now and will i not became so. 'Ihe Caenission means only to give priority among aplicants  ;

to those proffering or referencing standardized designs and early sito pemits.  !

i l

l II. General Scope and St2Veture l Part 52 is intended to inprove the licensing of nuclear power plants by the use of three procedural innovations, tw of which have been in partial (

I use by the ccanission for several years. 'the first of these is the early l site pemit or site-bank concept, already in partial use through the procedures of Appendix Q to 10 CPR Part 50. Subpart A of Part 52 fomalizes the early site approval process, allowing a prc.iMive applicant to obtain a pomit for one or more pre-approved sites on which future noclear power stations can be located, subpart B carries forward the standard design aproval prvv=== of Amendix 0 to Part 50 in auch the see way, allowing r.

pr&dw applicant, vendor, or other interested party to obtain Ccanission aproval of a ccuplete nuclear power plant design or a major portion thereof.

Subpart C establishes procedures for the issuance of a ocabined construction pemit and conditional c5= rating license (hereafter referred to as a ccabined

license) for a nuclear power plant. Se ocnbined license is essentially a construction permit which also requires consideration and resolution of many  !

of the issues currently considered at tJa operating license stage. It does not authorize operation, but may be converted to an operating license after certain conditions are met, anmg them an oportunity for a hearing on carefully-defined issues. Although a pre-apprrwed sito and certified standard design need not be referenced for the cabined license, rmxirtun efficiency will reruit if site-related issues, as well as design-related issues, have been resolved before carencement of the certird license proceeding.

'Ihis structure reveals the overall purpose of Part 52: to inprove ,

reactor safety and to stresnline the licensing process by encouraging the use of standard designs and by pemitting early resolution of environmental and safety issues related to the reactor site and design. As a result, the l l

licensing proceeding for a facility can be far core limited in scge than is l currently the case. In additien, issuance of a etabined license will ensure that tr>st issues are resolved prior to the cperating license proceeding Wtich, in turn, vill also be far nore limited in scope than currently.

All three subparts of the proposed Part 52 draw heavily cn existinct l

I prcwisions in 10 Cm Part 50 and its arTendices. Reference to pre-existing sections, especially with regard to contents of applications, obviates the need to repeat identical provisions. In addition, nost of the provisions of .

Part 50 ham teen in use for many years and are emnonly understood by

.g-applicants, intazvenors, and the Comnission staff. Finally, these provisions should be retained because licensing under the existing procedures of Part 50 inny be expected to continue for scue time in parallel with that under the improved gw.dures of Part 52. If, in the future, all licensing is conducted under Part 52, the two parts can be ccabined into a single part containing all pruvisions applicable to the licensing of production and utilitation facilities.

III. Definitions - Section 52.3

'Ihis section ecntains largely self-explanatory definitions of "ocnbined it. cense," "early site permit," "standard design," and "ctandard design certificatico". 'Ihe phrase "advanced reactor" is also defined and certain i

Ccamission docmonts which contain guidance on its use cited. 'Ihe canibus provision in paragraph (f) incorporates other useful definitions fran Part 50 and the Atcaic Energy Act.

IV. Sulpart A - Early Site Permits

'Ihis sulpart allows any prospective applicant for a ccustruction permit or a ocabined license under Sulpart C to apply for an early site permit, notwithstanding the fact that an application for a ocmstruction permit or ccabined license for a facility has not been filed. Filing requirements are net out in SS 52.15 and 52.17. 'Ibe application shculd describe, among other thinge, the nunber, type, and thermal power level of the facilities for which l

f L

the site may be used. The application ranst also show that the area surreurding the site is ananable to emergency planning which would provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a radiological ame'.m at the site. The applicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain certifications by the responsible local and State goverranental agencies that such agencies will participate in developing energency plans.

Section 52.19, along with confoming aman & rents to 10 CFR Part 170 which are currently being mnde as part of a general revision of Part 170, establish a new procedure for collection of fees asscciated with the review of an amlication for an early site pemit or a renewal thereof. The applicant for the pemit will be assessed these fees only when an application referencing the early si:e remit is filed while the remit is valid. If no aplication I referencing the early site pemit is filed, the permit holder rmist pay these i

fees at the end of the initial ten-year pried. Fees for a renewed permit j will be assessed in the r m manner. However, if an application for an early site pemit or renewal is denied or withdrawn, any cutstanding fees will be imandiately due and payable by the applicant for the pomit or renewul, section 52.21 states that an early site pemit is a Ccemission license, and is subject to the a plicable procedural requirm ents of 10 C7R Part 2.

In particular, hearings are governed by the provisions of subparts A and G of l Part 2. Sulpart A sets forth procedures for the issuance, amen &nant,

\

l

0 1

transfer, or renewal of licenses, and Sukpart G contains the Camission's rules of practice for adjudicatory licensing proceedings.

The issues presented in an early site pemit proceeding are to a considerable extant envircr rental, but since they also involve significant safety issues, a report by the Advisory Cmmittee on Reactor Safaguards (10s) on the pemit application is required by S 52.23.

Section 52.25 provides that issuance of an early site permit allows an applicant for a facility licerze referencing the approved site to conduct site preparation activities after the facility licenso applicaticn is docketed without having to seek prior tac approval. The applicant possesres '

what is emmonly referred to as an "IJa-1" for the site and may perfom such activities as are permitted in 10 CFR S 50.10(e) (1) .

An early site pemit is valid for an initial period of ten years (S 52.27) and may, upon application, he exten5ed for periods of up to ten years each ($ 52.29), provided certain criteria are met (S 52.31) . Section ,

52.29 provides that any persco whose interests may be affected by renewal of the parait may request a hearing on certain restricted bases.

An early site permit for which an application for renewal has been I tirrely filed remains in effect until the Cmmission has detemined whether to renew the permit. If an early site permit is not rermed, it contir.oes to te valid in any proceeding on an applicaticn for a construction pemit or a l l.

ocabined license which references the early site pamit and was docketed prior to the expiration of the early site pemit (S 52.29(b)). An amlication for renewal mst be filed not less than twelve nor more than thirty-six acnths prior to the expiration date (S 52.29(a)).

An approved site may be used for purposes not rulated to the construction of a nuclear power facility (for exanple, a fossil-fueled station or a park) previded that the ccrimissicn is informed of all significant non-nuclear uses prior to actual construction or site nodification activities (S 52.35) . A pemit may be revoked if a non-nuclear j

use would interfere with a nuclear use, or would so alter the site that 3Jtportant asstmptions underlying issuance of the pemit were called into question.  !

l Section 52.39(a) provides that after the issuance of an early site f l [

pemit under this subpart, the Ccenission shall not impose more stringent l

safety requirements on the early site pemit except in ac:ordance with the I Ctainission's backfit rule. Sectico 52.39(b) provides that an applicant for a construction pemit, c5erating license, or canbined license, or an amerxhent r to such a license, who has filed an application referencing an early site 1 i

pemit any request a variance frm one or nore elements of the permit.

I

V. Subpart B - Certified Standard Designs The Ccanission's existing rules regarding standard designs are found in Appendices M, N, and O, to 10 CFR Part 50. Apperdix M concerns licenses to manufacture one or nere nuclear power reactors to be installed ard cperated at sites not identified in the license application. Appendix N concerns licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of duplicate design at nultiple sites. Appendix o governs the staff review and approval of standard designs for an entire nuclear power reactor or a major portion thereof, and includes a prwision for Ccmission approval of a standard design in a rulanaking proceeding. This Sulpart concerns only the latter provisian of Appendix o. It is intended to set forth the procedures and

! requirements for Ccmission approval of standard designs by rvlanaking. The term "certification" is used for this approval to distinguish it frcn the 2

preliminary and final staff approval of standard designs as set forth in Appendix 0.

Section 52.43 addrwsses the relationship of Sulpart B to Amendices M, N, and O of 10 cm Port 50, as described above. These Appendices represent I different a@ roaches to standardization and will remair, in effect, as vill the replicate plant approach to standardization. Appendices M and N may be used independently of Sukpart B unless the applicant also wishes to use a certified standard design. A final design approval under Appendix 0 is a prerequisite for an application for certification of a standard design under 4

this subpert. However, an application for a final design approval should state whether the applicant intends to seek certification of the design.

Sections 52.45 through 52.47 contain the requirements for filing and  !

contents of a p lications. Particularly igortant are the requirements in S 52.47 that the application include a denonstration of technical resolution of all applicable Unresolmd Safety Issues, a design-specific probabilistic risk assessent, prereced means for assuring that a plant referencing the design is built to its specifications, and information on design features that wculd affect mergency planning. Eventually S 52.47 will be amended to ,

require that applications for certification of a design demonstrate L

ccrpliance with severe accident regulations. 'Ibe Camiscicn is anbarking l scen on ru1 making for severe accident requircnnts for future plants. 'Ihose requiramnts will ombine deterministic and probabilistic acceptance criteria and will cover three main areas prevention of severe accidents, contaiment performance under sewre accident ceniitions and accident mitigation, and the rvquired content and secte of a design-specific plant PPA. J Persons seeking certificaticn of an advanced reactor design shall dewlop the desian in accordance with the guidelines set out in the l i

C%munission's Myanced Asactor Policy Staterient, 51 Fed. Reg. 24,643 (July 8, I 1986) and iglesmenting docusants. 'Ihe NIC staff is currently developing [

safety criteria for application in the review of advanced zwacter desigr.s. l i

'Ihese criteria will define minisun safety requruentt for sxh reactors and I

will provide for assessment and docus e of th mhanctr<* ufety the [

I

,, e---. we,, -n, ,- -

O ctrsnissico avects such reactor designs to embody. Part 52 deals only with procedural anpoets of the certification of advanced reactor designs.

Applicaticms for certification of Nivanced reactor designs may be made only after the design has been shaun to be sufficiently mature through, it is presmed, ca prehensive prototypical testina. Section 52.47 of the proposed rule below sets forth the ciremstances in which the presterption deer not hold.

Ideally, designs for which certification is sought will be for an entire plant. Such designs would make more straight-forward the preparation of a PRA and safety at.alysis and would help minimize the extent of the staff's review of the license applications which reference a single design. Such designs would also help assure that no two plants of the same design would vary significantly frun each other. Homer, the hT will antertain applications for certificatico of a major portion of a plant if those applications moet certain criteria set forth in S 52.47 below.

Similarly, arplications for certificatico of any design, advanced or not, should contain a level of detail emparable to that centained in a Final Safety Analysis Report and sufficient to enable the staff to judge the aplicant's ppm anans of assuring that constzuction confoms to design, and to issue a safety Evaluatica Deport that has no c5en itana. However, under criteria likewise set forth in S 52.47, the staff will accept less than final design infomation.

i

Section 52.49 parallels S 52.19 with regard to fees, and confoming amen &ments are being made to Part 170 as part of the general revision of that Part. One engineering fim argued that fees would he a subetantial disincentive to potential applicants for ocrtification. And, of ocurse, any fee the NRC chazyes is to scre degree a disinoontiw. However, the agency is now legally round to charge fees dich acomnt for a substantial part of its budget. Design review will require substantial resources which, under a series of statutes going back to the Independent Offices Apprcpriations Act, the agency mat recoup at least in part.

Howewr, the Ccrvnissico is free under current law to lessen the disincentive effect of the fees it mst charge for review of standardized designs. 'Iherefore, although the application fee mat te paid at the time the applicatien for a standard design certificatico is filed, any fees associated with review of the application will be deferred peniing the filing of applications for construction remits or ccabined licenses referencing the certified standard design. Any outstanding fees will toccme due and payable by the holder of the design certificaticn at the and of the initial period of the certification. Fees for the renewal of a standard design certification will be assessed in the sans manner.

Section 52.51 provides that a standard design certificatico is a rule that will be iasued in accordance with the provisions of suhpart H of 10 CTR Part 2. 'Ihe applicatien will be in the fem of a petition for rulernaking filed by the party seeking the design certificatico.

t I

1 Subpart H impleants Section 553 of the A&ninistrative Procedure Act for POC ruismaking pir- "4rns. Section 2.805(b) provides that the ccanission my hold informal hearings and may structure thrus as the ccanission determines will best serve the purposes of the g vc ding. In addition to retice of an application for a design certification, and an opportunity to i provide written ocessants on the application, the Ccamission will provide an oggortunity to request an informal hearing on the application before an Atcanic Safety and Licensing Board. Any hearing held will provide an l

opportunity for written presentations made under oath or affirmation, and for oral presentations and questioning if the Board firds then either necessary e l

for the creation of an adequate record, or the most expeditious way to '

resolve controversies. Ordinarliy, the questioning will be done by rvrters of the Board, using the Board's quest: ions or questions suhnitted to the Board .

(

by the parties. '!he Board may also request authority to use additional  !

procedures, such as discovery, or may request that the Ccmission convene a ,

forwd, adjudication. 'the staff will be a party in any informal hearing, and l l

the decisicn in such a hearing will be Moed cnly on information on which all {

i parties to the hearing haw had an opportunity to otmanent. t i

i

'the major issues associated with the reviet of an arplicaticn for a j certified standard design concern the safety features of the design.

Section 52.53 thereform provides for undatory ACRS review of the arplication. Review by the ACRS will be limited to issues cc which the ACRS has not made firdings ard rm.. ndaticns in any earlier proceeding on the I

(

i l

l

is ..

design. 'the Caunission ruy, of course, ask the N3S to report on any atter within its expertise.

As with early site po sits, the certified standard design will initially Le valid for ten yecxp ($ 52.55), but it my be renewed, upon aplication, for periods of an additional five to ten years each (5 52.57). '!he Ocamission shall specify the procedures to be used for a rulemaking proceeding on the application for renewal. A design certification for which an aplication for renewal has been timely filed reains in effect until the Camission has determined whether to runsw the certification. If the certificatien is not rensed, it centinues to be valid in any gc-:::iing ultimately based on an application which references the certified design and was docketed prior to the expiratico of the certification ($ 52.57(h)) .

Section 52.59 contains the critaria for evaluating an application for renewal. 'Ihe initial burden is cm the applicant to show that the design still cxmplies with the Atraic Energy Act and all the Ccomissico's regulations other than the design certification itself. If the NRC staff ecncludes that the applicant has made the requisite shcwing, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may grant the renewal. If the staff disagrees with the aplicant's shcwing, however, further gc-- :3Lngs will be necessary before the reewal sany be granted. If a renewal aplicaticm is denied, the applicant my revise the design and file a new aplicatica for a standard design oortification ($ 52.59(b)) .

f l

I:

We stability of a certified standarti design, or the absence of frequent "backfitting" for facnities incorporating the design, is essential to the  :

concept of standardization. For this purpose, 5 52.63 (a) providea that the Camission will not require design changes unless the changes are imposed by a rulernking which in accordance with the ccrmission's backfit rule,10 TR S 50.109. Backfits to a design certification rule will be applied to all plants referencing the ec.tified design.

One reactor designer urged that the backfit rule be applied to any rcre stringent safety requirements the agency might impow in connection with its review of an applicant's proposed technical resolution of Unresolved Safety Issues and other generic issues. However, the NaC has not incorporated this ccrnmt into the proposed rule. Such an application of the backfit rule J,

j would carry the rule beyond its original pirpose, which was sinply to provide discipline to the prwess by which the age:x:y imposes nore stringent safety l t

requirenants on an existing approval, permit, or license. W e s me cementer i also urged, along with N(NJC, that when a@ lying the cost-justification standard in 5 (a)(3) of the backfit rule to plants built accortling to a giwn certifimi design, the agency should perform the cret analysis on the first -  !

l and therefore the sont expensiw - plant luilt in conformity with a given i design. 'the NRC has also not incorporated this cxpent into the prgesed ,

I rule. 'the cost analysis required by 5 (c) of the rule does not take into  :

account the cost of constructing a plant tut rather sinply the costs of I

inplementing and snaintaining a uniification of a plant, tecause these are the

.1 l

f i.

- 20 ~

only costs which are irposed cn the licensee by the Nckfit. Moreover, these costs do not vary according to the costs of constructing the original plant.

MerMrs of the public my challenge a design certification rule by means of petiticca for rulemaking and, during licensing proceedings on aplications which reference a standardized design, by maans of 10 CFR S 2.758. NtMMC urged tMt a design certification rule be subject to challence by a niinber of the ptblic only in a rulumking proceeding. Itsmur, S 7 of Amendix 0 to 10 CITt Part 50, stich the bulk of the proposed rule is intended to expird upon, provides for challenge thrcugh S 2.758. Morecemr, the Ccruission sees no reason right ncw to treat a design certificatien rule differently in a licensing proceeding frem any other rule shich my to aplicable in the sane prteceding.

Section 52.63(b) provides that the !nider of a design certification my twpest an arethent to the design by way of rulcraking; the Cconission will grant the anerhent if it emplies with the Atenic Energy Ac. and the Ctanission's regulaticns. 7mminents to a design certificatico initiated by the holder of the certification will also le aglied to all plants referencing the design.

Iast, S 52.63(c) prmides that an aplicant for a facility license or acerhent which references a curtified standard design my ropest a variarco for that facility. The Carmissicn will grant the ruquest if it ctrplies with the requintents of 10 CP11 S 50.12(a) . huwe suggested that a lesser

standard be applied to a request for a variance, namely, that it sinply meet the ccanissico's regulations (exoopt, of course, for the particular design certification regulation itself) . Hownwr, the 0:mnission beliews that the benefits of standardination will not be fully achieved unless significant site-specific variation among plants referencing a given certified design is kept to an irreducible minisun. Nonethelesa, utilities operating plants built according to standardized designs will have the som flexibility which utilities operating non-standardized plants have to make the changes pe mitted by 10 CPR S 50.59.

V. Sukpart C - Otabined Cbnstruction Pemits and Coralitional Operating Licenses

'Ihe provisions of this sukpart have no precedent in previous ccanission rules. Sectico 161h of the Atcmic Energy A:t and 10 cfR S 50.52 provide that the Ctanission may issue a single license for several activities which could otherwise be licensed separately. }kwver, this provicion has not been aglied to constzuction perstits and cierating licenses for nuclear F*er plants. Indeed, the current licensing process has not changed substantially since it was originally er. acted. 'that procsas was a prudent ocurse to folicw in the, early years of the nuclear power industry. 'there were many first-time nuclear plant aplicants, designars, and censultants, and many novel design cranoopts. Accordingly, the process was stzuctured to allcw licensing decisions to be made while design work was still in progress and to fe;cus en case-specific reviews of in11vidual plant and site censideraticos.

e Constructico permits wre ccranly issued with the understandig that cien safety issues sculd be addressed and resolved during ccustructim, and that issuance of a constructico permit did not constitute Ccrmission approval of any design feature. Consegently, the cSeratim licenso review was very broad in scope. Ncv that the nuclear industry has sturtd, it is possible to descrite and evaluate plant designs on a generic Msis, to have designs essentially ccrplete in secte and level of detail prior to constructico, and to propose and evaluate plant sites without plant design details. '1hese circurstances m*e it possible to cabine the constructicn permit proceedim with mch of the cierating licenso proceedir r.to a single proceedirn for the isstance of a cmbina! construction rert.. ad conditional c5 crating license. 'the ombined licence can then be converted to an cperating license folicwiry an cnortunity for a hearing, if neccesary, on a store limited set of carefully-defined issues, trder this approach, the accSe of the cpeJating license procealing can be limited virtually to mter!al issues not previcusly considered.

'!he applicatico fer a ctrnbincd licenso my, but need not, reference a stands design which has been certified under Subpart B, or a site for Shich an early site termit has toen issual urder Sutp<ut A (5 52.73) . If the facility is to te of a design Shich has tum certificd, the secte of the proemding en an application for a facility license is nanwed, the mjor ,

safety questions having teen resolwd early on. Similarly, if the facility is to te located co a site for which an early site permit has teen issued, the secte of the facility license rxtceeding is further ruuTowed. If an

early site mImit is not referenced, the early site review procedures of 10 CFR Part 2 remain available to expedite the enviconmental review.

Obviously, the efficiency and effectiveness of the combined licensing prccess is maximized if both a certified standard design and a pre-approved site are used. Ibr this reeson, the Ccanission anticipates that this will be the preferred approach, particularly with regard to standard designs. In order to encourage standardization, the Ccanission will give priority among applications to those which reference certified standard designs and pm-approved sites.

Sections 52.75 through 52.79 contain the requirments for filing and contents of applications. It should be noted that an envirorrental report is not required if a pre-apprcr.ed site is proposed for the facility (S 52.77) .

Either the applicant nust obtain certifications fran responsible State and 1ccal.goverranental agencies that the proposed merg:::ncy plans are practicable l and that the responsible agencies are ccanitted to execution of their responsibilities under the plans, or the applicant nust dmonstrate that the proposed plans nonetheless confom with the Ccrmission's mergency planning standards. The antitrust review will be conducted as it has been done in the past for construction permit applications. Because antitrust review can proceed in parallel with technical review, it should not affect the efficiency of the ccabined license proceeding.

Sections 52.81 and 52.83 incorporate, usere appropriate, the technical standards and requirments of Part 50 as they would be applied to power plant

license applicants and licensees under the existing system. h t is, applications for a cmbined li nse will be reviewed according to the Part 50 standards for construction permits and operating licenses (S 52.81), where appropriate, and holders of Part 52 ocabined licenses will be held to the appropriate Part 50 standards for plants under construction or, upon conversion to an operating license, in operation (S 52.83) . Applications witich include advanced reactor designs will be reviewed according to the guidelines of the Advanced Reactor Policy Statment, 51 Fed. Reg. 24,643 (July 8,1986) and inplementing doceents. All limitations contained in the Part 50 provisions (for exanple, requirunents for plants receiving operatina licenses after a certain date) carry forward to Part 52.

h ccnbined license proceeding will be adjudicatory and will be governed by the appropriate sections of 10 CFR Part 2 (S 52.85). ACRS review of the application is mandatory (S 52.87), although the scope of the report l

will be auch narrower if the application references a certified standan!

I design or a pre-approve:1 site that the ACRS has previously reviewed. Section l 52.89 provides that, if the application references an approved site or a certified standard design, the envirorinental ruview shall focus on the suitability of the site for the design and any other significant enviramental issue not considered in any previous proceeding cc the site or

! the design. It should be noted that since both the early site permit and the standard design certification require the preparation of an enviromental inpact statement, only an envirurental assessamt need be prepared in ocnnection with the application for a ocmbined license. If the application l

l

r does not reference a pre-approved sita, the usual Part 51 procedures must be followed for review of the envircrunental part of the application.

As noted above in the discussion of Subpart A, once the application for a cabined license has been docketed, an applicant who plans to use a site for which an early site pamit has been issued may perform "I3m-1" activities (see S 50.10(e) (1)) without prior NRC appt m'. If the application does not reference an approwd site, the applicant nust request such authorization (S 52.91). All applicants must seek authorization fra the licensing boani to obtain an "IJa-2" under S 50.10(c) (3) (1), which allows further construction activities at the site prior to issuance of a construction pemit or cmbined license.

Sections 52.93 and 52.95 govern the e.xtent to stlich a certified standard design my be modified during a proceeding on an application for a cmbined license. As provided in S 52.93, the applicant may request a variance frm one or nore elernents of the design for that particular facility. 'Ihe Ccmnission will grant the request if it ccrrplies with the requirments of 10 CFR S 50.12(a) . If the application for the cmbined license references an early site permit, the applicant may also request a variance frm smo elanent of the permit. As provided in S 52.95, if the staff or any other party to the p. % other than the applicant proposes a significant change to the certified design, the party must moet the requir mants of 10 CFR S 2.750.

Section 52.97 provides that the Camission may issue a cmbined license for a facility if the requirments of SS 50.40, 50.42, 50.43 ana 50.50 have been met and there is reasonable assurance that the facility will be constructed and operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Atcmic Energy Act, and the Camission's regulations. In addition to technical specifications, the license will include the inspections, tests, and analyses that the licensee shall perform and the acceptance criteria therefor which will provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in accordance with those requirments. The Camission will wrify the licensee's ccmpliance through its inspection program (S 52.99) .

Section 105c. of the Atcmic Energy Act requires that the Cmmission deternine whether "significs.nt changes" have taken place with respect to the antitrust situation during the review of an application for an operatino license. 'Ihis is done because the capetitive circumstances could alter markedly betwen the issuance of the construction permit and the empletion of the facility.

i l

The ombined license proceeding includes consideration of the antitrust situation, but still requires conversion to an operating license. Hence, S 52.101 provides for possible further antitrust review at the operating l

license stage, if required, pursuant to S 50.42(b). If significant changes

have occurred since issuance of the ocmbined license, the statutory antitrust I

review rust precede ccomercial operation of the facility ard could result in l

l l

l

. I

the imposition of additicnal license ccoditions. However, because most issues will be decided prior to issuance of a ccabined license and because the scope of the operating license proceeding will be correspondingly narrowed, the time between issuance of the cx:nbined license and conversion to an operating license shcx2 be shortened. As a result, the likelihood that significant changes may occur should be reduced.

Before the facility may operate, the homer of the cmbined license rust apply for conversion of the cmbined license to an operating license. 'Ihe Ccmnission will publish a notice of the proposed conversion in the Federal Register ptrsuant to 10 CFR S 2.105. Within 30 days, any p rson whose interests may be affected may request a hearing on the basis (1) that there Las been a nonconformance with the license, the licensee's written ccrmitments, the Atcznic Energy Act, or the Ccmnission's regulations and orders, which has not been corrected and which could materially and adversely affect the safe operation of the facility; (2) that an issue necessar/ for the Ccmnission's decision on the conversion, and material, has not been rusolved in any prior Ccanission proceeding involving the facility, its site, or its design; or (3) that an issue necessar/ for the ccumission's decision, and material, which has been resolved in a prior Ccmnission proceeding was wrongly decidod. If the issue involved was decided in a design certification proceeding, the request is, in effect, a challenge to a Ccanission regulation and therefore nust otmply with 10 CPR S 2.758. 'Ihe petitioner nust set forth with reasonable specificity the facts and argunents which form the basis for the request. 'Itese provisions are designed to accord finality to the

Camission's earlier decisions regarding the facility and to assure that the operating license proceeding is focused on significant safety issues.

VI. Ccamtission Questions The conmissicn will, of course, appreciate receiving cmment on any aspect of this proposed rule. 'Ihe Cmmission will be particularly appreciative, however, of ocument on the following questions:

1. In inplementing by rulanaking the Cmmission's lcgislative proposals on standardization, does this proposed rule take full advantage of the Camission's authority under the Atcmic Energy Act? Does it in any way exceed the ccnmission's authority?

2. Should the Cctrmission require as part of a certified standard design the standardization of construction practices, quality assurance, and personnel traininc?

3. Should a design certification take the form of a license rather than a rule? Would t'Se camissicn be authorized to license a design under existing law? NtHARC believes that the rights and obligations which attach to a license may be nore clearly understood than those which would attach to a certification which took the form of a rule. The prcposed rule accords with S 7 of Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50 in treating the certification as a rule. Rulemaking may provide greater procedural flexibility than a license

gc-:='ing does, and certification by rule would be open to a wider pool of applicants than certification by license (see 10 CFR S 50.38) .

4. What procedures are appropriate for design certification by rulemaking?

5. What are the appropriate standards to apply to a request by a holder of a design certification to amend the certification? If the amendment is granted, abould plants which reference the certification be required, as they would be required by the proposed rule, to backfit in order to ccmply with the amended certification?

l

6. khat are the appropriate standards to apply to a request by the applicant for a permit or license referencing a certified decign for a variance frczn the design rule?

7. How shculd the backfit rule,10 CFR S 50.109, be applied in the conte):t of s+Mzation? 1.re there other provisions the Ccanission should enact to assure a ruasonable degree of finality to design certifications and I the like?

l

8. How might the proposed rule provide for a "sign-as-you-go" process j

of NRC inspection of a plant being cmstructed accortling to a certified design? NLNARC suggested instituting such a process in order to secure tim l earliest possible resolution of quality assurance and design conforman m l

l L

questions. 'Ibe NIC encourages the earliest possible resolution of such questions. To this end, the rule requires applications for design certifications and ocnbined licenses to propose for inclusion in the certification or license inspections, tests, analyses, and related acceptan critaria which will help provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been well constructed. See SS 52.47 and 52.79 of the proposed rule.

Wreover, the NIC would, during construction authorized by this part, devote the resources necessary to achieve the earliest possible staff-level identification and resolution of quality assurance and design conformance questions. However, the NBC does not see how Ccmmission-level finality can be afforded the resolution of such questions without risking an almost continual hearing on the construction of the plant.

9. 'Ihe National Govemors' Association adopted the following Reccmmendation, anong others, at its 79th annual n.eting, July 26-28, 1987:

"In the future, anergency plans should be approved by the NPC before it issues the construction permit for any new nuclear power plant." 'Ib what extent should approval of energency plans be required before an early site permit or a atmbined license is issued?

10. Is this proposed rule covered by the backfit rule, 10 CFR S 59.1097

'Ihe section below entitled "Backfit Analysis" argues that the backfit rule does not a wly to this prcsosed rule.

DWIPCN4 ENTAL IMPACT - CATEGORICAL EXCLUSICH The proposed rules would amend the gocedures currently found in Part 50 and its appendices for the filing and reviewing of applications for construction permits, operating licenses, early site reviews, and standard design approvals. As such they meet the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR S 51.22(c) (3) . That section applies to "(a]mendments to . .. Part() 50 ... which relate to (i) procedures for filing and reviewing applications for licenses or construction permits or other forms of permissico ... ." As the Ccmission explained in pratu1 gating this exclusion, "(a11though amendments of this type affect substantive parts of the Ccmission's regulations, the amendments therselves relate solely to matters of procedure. (They] ... do not have an effect on the envirorment."

49 Fed. Peg. 9352, 9371, col 3 (March 12,1984) (final envirernental protection regulations).1 Accordingly, pirsuant to 10 CFR S 51.22(b), rn envirorcental impact statenent or envirorcental assessment med be prepared in connection with these proposed rules.2 I

It makes no substantive difference for the purpose of the categorical exclusion that the proposed amendments will be placed in Part 52 rather than in Part 50. The amendments are, in fact, sacrahats to the Part 50 crocedures and could have been placed in that Part.

2 1he requirunents concerning testing of full-size prototypes of advanced reactors, see S 52.45(c) of the proposed rule, ray appnr not to fit into the category excluded by S 51.22(c) (3), since to comply with the requiranent, an applicant cost likely will have to build and test a prototype plant, an act clearly with an envirornental impact. Nonetheless, S 52.45(c) is eligible for exclusion under S 51.22(c) (3) . Unlike, for inatance, the prcmulgation of (Fcotnote Continued)

PAPERWORK IU:DUCTICN ACT STATDENT

%e proposed rule contains infonnation requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. S 3501 et seq.) . his rule has been sulznitted to the Office of Managenent and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirunents.

BACKPIT ANALYSIS If this proposed rule beccanes final, it will not miify or add to the systens, structures, cxxtponents, or design of a facility; or the design approval or inanufacturing license for a facility; or the precedures or organization required to construct or operate a facility. However, it could j be argued that this rule will nrelify and add to the procedures or i

organization required to design a facility, since the rule muld a&1 to the requiranents for applicants for design certifications. bbreover, the rule, l

l (Footnote Continued) a safety rule which applies to operating plants, the fonnal action of prmulgating S 52.45(c) will have cnly a potential inpact on the envircrrnent.

l 2at impact beccanes actual coly if a designer chooses to pursue certification l of an advarced design. Under the present ciretznstances, no meaningful t envircrrnental assessnent or inpact statement can be made. Cf. 49 Fed. Reg.

at 9372, cols. 2-3 (entering into an agroanent with a State under Section 274 of the Atcmic Energy Act has no inmediate or measurable environmental inpact l

and therefore warrants a categorical exclusion) . %e issuance of the i canstruction permit and operating license for a prototype plant wculd, of

! course, be a major federal acticm with a significant inpact on the envircranent, and w:uld entail the preparation of an envirorsnental inpact l

statenent. Cf. id. , col. 3 (the States must prepare detailed envircrimental I analyses before they license certain activities) .

i

if made final, will, at the very least, substantially m:dify the expectations of anycne who had hoped to apply for a design certification under the existing sectico 7 of Appendix 0, particularly of any such who presently hold preliminary or final design approvals under that Apperdix.

Nontheless, the Comission believes that the backfit rule does not apply to this proposed rule and, therefore, that no backfit analysis pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.109(c) is required for this proposed rule. 'Ihe backfit rule was not intended to apply to every action which substantially changes settled expectations. Clearly, the backfit rule does not apply to a rule which would be wholly prospective in its effect, or to a rule which would irpose nore stringent requirsamts on all future apolicants for construction permits, even though the latter hypothetical rule arguably might have an adverse impact on a person who was considering applying for a permit but had not done so yet. In this latter case, the backfit rule protects the construction permit holder, not the prospective applicant, or even the present applicant.

'Ihe proposed rule below is of the character of such a hypothetical rule. The proposed rule arguably imposes nore stringent requirenents for design certification and thereby may have an adverse inpact on scne persons.

Hcnever, the effects of any final rule based cn this proposed rule will be largely prospective, and such a final rule will not require any present holder of a design approval (no person holds a design certification) to neet new standards in order to ranin in possession of such an approval.

0 RBGUIRORY FLEXIBILITY ET CERTIFICATION

%e proposed rule will not have a significant inpact on a substantial ntster of sna11 entities. %e proposed rule will reduce the procedural burden on NRC licensees by fpproving the reactor licensing process. Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small businesses in cection 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. S 632, the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administration in 13 CPR Part 121, or the Camission's Size Standards published at 50 FR 50241 (Dec. 9,1985) . Se inpact on intervenors or pacential intervunore will be neutral. For the nest part, the proposed rules will affect the timing of hearings rather than the scope of issues to be heard. For exanple, any site and design issues will be considered earlier, in corm ction with the issuance of an early site permit or standard design certification; rather than later, in connection with a facility licensing proceeding. Similarly, a ccurbined license proceeding will include consideration of many of the issues that wxid l

ordinarily be deferred until the operating license proceeding. Sus, the l

timing rather than the cost of participating in NE licensing pro edings will be affected. Intervenors may experience scme increased preparation oosts if they seek to to reopen previously decided issues because of the increased showing that will be required. Once an adjudicatory hearing ommences, however, an intervenor's costs should be decreased because the issues will be more clearly defined than under existing practice. %erefore, l

in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. S 505(b),

l the Camission hereby certifies that the propsed rule, if pruulgated, will l

not have a significant econcmic inpact on a substantial nirnber of small

r entities and that, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis need not be Prepared.

REGULA M ANALYSIS As presently ocmstituted, the American population of nuclear power reactors consists lartyely of orw.-of-a-kind designs. Experience has shown that the highly individualistic character of this population has consumed enomous resources in the processes of design, construction, and safety review. Since, typically, design of a plant was not emplete when mnstruction of it began, many safety questions were not resolved until inte in the licensing proceeding for that plant. Such late resolution of questions introduced great uncertainty into proceedings, since tbc process of 1

resolution often entailed lengthy safoty reviews, construction delays, and matly backfits. 11oreover, the low incidence of duplicaticn among designs has ruant that experience gained in the construction and operation of a given i

plant has often not been useful in the construction and cperation of any other pisnt, and has made the generic resolution of continuing safety issues t

more ccmplicated.

In the face of this experience with a population of unique plants, there have long been fundamentally only three alternatives for Ccamission acticn, the last two of them not mtually exclusive: either make no effort to bring about an increased degree of standardization, or prctose legislation on standardization, or enact by rulemaking as mch of a schane for prcaroting standardization as the Ccamission's current statutory authority permits. h l

l l

t

p Cannissicm has for scue time concluded against the first alternative, having decided that a substantial increase in standardization would enhance the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants and require fewer resources in safety reviews of plants, and that the Cannission should have in place provisions for the review of standardized designs and other devices for assuring early resolution of safety questions. %e Camission has therefore pursued standardization both by proposing legislation - without suooess -

and by prea11 gating rules, in particular Appendices M, N, and O to Part 50 of 10 CFR. Iacking legislation on standardization, the Ccanission believes that the most suitable alternative for encouraging further standardization is to fill out and expand the Ca mistion's regulatory scheme for standardization and early resolution of safety issues.

%erefore, the Ccenission now prcposes to prmulgate a new set of regulations, to be p1wed in a new Part in 10 CFR, Part 52. his new Part

! facilitates the early resolution of safety issues by providing for l pre-construction-permit approval of power plant sites, Cannission i

certification of standardized designs, and the issuance of licenses which i

combine permicsion to construct a plant with a conditional permission to l

! operate it once constructice of it has been successfully empleted. Ideally, f a future applicant will reference an approved site and a certified design in I

an applicatico for a cabined license, thus obviating the need for an extensive review of the application and construction. Se provision in Part i 52 for Cceanission certification of designs has the additieral objective of encouraging the use of a single design for several plants, tjereby addina to the benefits of early resolutica the safety benefits of acewulated 4

}

l l

experience and the acoranic benefits of ecorxinies of scale and transferable experience.

Quantification of the costs and benefits of this rulemaking is probably not possible. Mix:h depends on the extent to which the industry pursues standardization. Clearly, if the cr==4asion and the industry spend the resources ne saary to certify a score of designs and then no applicant references any of then, those resources will have been largely wasted. On the other hand, it is just as clear that if a score of plants uses a single certified design, there will have been a greot saving of the resources of the industry, the agency, and the interested public alike. To be added to the uncertainties surrounding the industry's response, there are also uncertainties concerning the costs of the c etification process, and the costs of developing the designs thenrelves, especially the advanced designs, l

which, it its presumed, will require testing of prototypes. However, if the industry finds it in its interest to proceed with the developnent of nuclear

, power, there is every reason to expect that the safety and econcnic benefits  ;

1

( of standardization will far outwigh the upfront costs of design and l

Ccanission certification: Review tbne for applications for licenses will be l

i drastically reduced, the public brcmght in to the process before I

cmstructico, construction times shortened, econcnies of scale created, i

reliability of plant performance increased, maintenance made easier, qualified vendor sugert made easier to maintain, and, nest inportant, safety i enhanced.

nus, the rationale for proceeding with this rulanaking: mere is scne risk to opening the door further to standardization, since there may end up i

s being no buyers of designs, and thus the efforts of designers and reviewers will haw been wasted; howver, it is certain that if the reasonably expected benefits of standardization are to be gained, then the ccanission aust have the procedural mechanians in place for review of applications for early site aWs, design certifications, and o:rnbined licenses. h nest fundanental choice is, of course, the industry's, to proceed or not with standardization, according to its own weighing of costs and benefits. But the Ccmission rust be ready to perfonn its review responsibilities if the industry chooses standardization.

LIST OF SUaECIS IN 10 CFR PART 52 Antitrust, classificd infouration, I' ire protection, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and ncordkeeping regairements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atmic Finrgy Act of 1954, as anended, the Energy aeoraanization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. S 553, the Ccmnission is proposing to add a new 10 CFR Part 52:

1. A new Part 52 is aMad to 10 CFR Chapter 1 to read as follows:

PART 52 - EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CER'IIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED IJCENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS General Provisions Sec.

52.1 Scope.

52.3 DefLnitions.

Subpart A - Early Site Parmits i

52.1* Scope of Subpart.

52.1J Relationship to Subpart F of 10 CPR Part 2.

52.15 Filing of AppHem@ns, i 52.17 Contents of Applicatdons.

52.19 Permit and Renewal Fees.

52.21 Hearings.

52.23 Referral to the ACRS.

52.25 Extent of Activities Permitted.

52.27 Duration of Permit.

52.29 Application for Renewal.

52.31 Criteria for Renewal.

52.33 Duration of Renewal.

52.35 Use of Sito for Other Purposes.

32.37 Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance; Revocntdon, Suspension, Modifdcation of Permits For Cause.

52.39 Finality of Early Site Permit Deterninations.

Subpart B - Standard Design Certifications 52.41 Scope of Subpart.

52.43 Relationship to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices N, N, and O.

52.45 Filing of Appifcations. l 52.47 Contents of Applicatdons.  !"

52.49 Design Certification and Renewal Fees.

! 52.51 Administrative Review of Appilcations.

! 52.53 Referral to the ACRS. .

52.55 Duration of Certificatdon. i

, 52.57 Application for Renewal. ,

! 52.59 Criteria fbr Renewal. 1 52.63 Finality of Standard Design Certhtdons.

Subpart C - Combined Licenses '

52.71 Scope of Subpart. '

l 52.73 Rehtdonship to Subparts A and B.

l l

52.75 Filing of. Applications.

52.77 Contents of Applicat:fons; General Information.

52.79 Contents of Applications; TechnicalInformation.

52.81 Standards for Review of Applications.

52.83 Applicability of Part 50 Provisions.

52.85 Administrative Review of Applications.

52.87 Refierral to the ACRS.

52.89 Environmental Review.

52.91 Authorization to Conduct Site Activities.

52.93 Exemptions.

52.95 Changes to certif5ed Standard Designs.

52.97 Issuance of Combined Licenses.

52.99 Inspection During Construction.

52.101 Pre-Operational Andtrust Review.

52.103 Conversion of Combined License to operating License.

Authority: Secs. 103, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat.

1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846) .

GENEPAL FPOVISICES S 52.1 Scope.

'Ihis Part govems the issuance of early site pemits, standard design i certifications, and cambined construction permits and conditional operating l

, licenses for nuclear power facilities under the Atcnic Energy Act of 1954, as amnded (68 Stat. 919), and Title II of the Energy Beorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat.1242) .

S 52.3 Definitions.

As used in this Part,

! (a) "Advanced reactor" neans any reactor sich is significantly l

different fran the generation of light water reactors in operation or under construction in 1988, and which provides enhanced margins of safety or uses simplified, inherent, passive, or other innovative means to acccmplish its safety functions. Under this definition, reactor designs which are evolved frun the designs of the generation of light water reactors current in 1988 are not advanced reactor designs, whereas high teperature gas-cooled reactor designs, liquid retal reactor designs, and certain innovative light water reactor designs are advanced reactor designs. Whether a given reactor design is "advanced" nust be determined case-by-case in accordance with this definition. For further discussion of the meaning of "advanced reactor", see NUREG-1226, "Developnent and Utilization of the NBC Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants", (month} 1988, Section b l.

(b) "Cmbined license" means a embined construction permit and conditional operating license for a nuclear power facility issved pursuant to Subpart C of this Part.

(c) "Farly site pennit" means a Ccmnission approval, issued pursuant to Subpart A of this Part, for a site or sites for one or acre nuclear powr facilities.

(d) "Standard design" means a design which is sufficies a , letailed and ccmplete to support licensing of a nuclear power facility or approval of a major portion of such a facility when referenced in an application for a constructico permit, ccabined construction and operating license, or standard design certification, as afpropriate, and which is usable for a multiple nunber of units or at a nultiple nutber of sites without reoponing or repeating the review.

(e) "Standard design certification" means a Ccenission approval, issued pursuant to Subpart B of this Part, of a standarti design for a nuclear power facility, or a major subsystan which represents a discrete elemsnt of such a facility. A design so approved may be referred to as a "certified standard design".

(f) All other terms in this Part have the meaning set cut in 10 CFR S 50.2, or Section 11 of the Atcmic Energy Act, as applicable.

SUBPART A - EARLY SITE PEIMITS S 52.11 Scope of Se part.

t l

4

' Itis sulport sets out the requirements and procedures applicable to i ccmnission issuance of early site permits for approval of a site or sites for cce or more nuclear power facilities separate frem and prior to the filing of an applicatico for a construction permit or ccrnbined license for such a facility.

f

! $ 52.13 Relationship to Sutvart r of 10 CFR Part 2.

'Ihe procedures of this sutpart do not replace those set out in Subpart F

of 10 CFR Part 2. Subpart F applies only when early review of site suitability issues is souaht in connecticn with a forthecming application for l

a permit to construct certain po w r facilities. 'Ihis subpart applies when any person which may apply for a construction permit under Part 50 of 10 cm, l

1 1.

or for a conbined license under Part 52 of 10 CFR, seeks an early site permit separately frun and prior to an application for a construction permit for a facility; this subpart may not be used once an application has been docketed pursuant to S 2.603.

S 52.15 Filing of Amlications.

(a) Any person which my apply for a construction pemit under Part 50 of 10 CFR, or for a cmbined licente under Part 52 of 30 CFR, may file with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regul'ttion an app',1 cation for an Early Site Pemit. Such an application may be filrd notwithstanding the fact that no application for a construction permit or a canbined license has been filed in connecticn with the site or sites for 5hich a pemit is sought.

(b) The application shall ocrrply with the filing requiremnts of 10 CPR S 50.30(a), (b) , and (f) .

S 52.17 Contents of Amlications.

(a) 'Ihe awlication shall contain the information required by 10 CFR 55 50.33(a)-(d) and 50.34 fa) (1) . In particular, the application should describe the folicwing: (1) the nmber, type, and thermal power level of the facilities for which the site may be used; (2) the bcnndaries of the site; (3) the prt: posed general location of each facility on the sites (4) the witicipated maximm levels of radiological and thermal effluents each such facility will pzrduces (5) the type of cooling systerns, intakes, and outflown

that may be associated with each facility; (6) the seismic, meteorological, hydrologic, and geologic characteristics of the proposed site (see Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100); ard (7) the pop 11ation profile of the area surrounding the site. A ccuplete enviramental report as required by 10 CFR SS 51.45 and 51.50 shall be included in the a @lication.

(b) 'Ihe aplicatico nust also show that the area surreurding the site is amenable to energency planning which would provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures could be taken in the event of a radiological energency at the site. 'Ihe aFplication shall identify the local, State, and Federal govermental agencies which have responsibility for coping with unergencies, shal? dencribe contacts made with those agencies, ard shall doctment arrangarents made with then. The applicant shall make gocd faith efforts to obtain certificctions by the responsible 1ccal and Stato goverrmental agencies that the area currounding the site is amenable to l adequats energency planning ard that such agencies will participate in developing storgency plans. 'lin application chall contain any such i

certifications obtainnt.

l l

S 52.19 Permit and Pancval Fees.

1

'Ihe fees associated with the filina and review of an application for the initial issuance or renewal of an early site permit are those for special

! projects, as defined in 10 CFR S 170.3 and set forth in 10 Cm S 170.21. An applicant for an early site permit or renewal shall pay the required

application fee at the time the pemit or renewal application is filed. All other applicable fees shall be deferred as follows:

(a) If an applicatico is filed for a construction pemit or cmbined license for a facility to be located at a site for which an early site pemit has been issued, the pemit holder shall pay the applicable fees for the pemit at the time the facility application referencing the early site pemit is flied. If, at the end of the initial pericd of the pemit, no facility application referencing the early site permit has been docketed, the remit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the pemit.

(b) If the pemit is renewed, the remit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the renewal at the time a facility application i

referencing the early site pemit is filed. If, at the end of the renwal pericd, no facility application referencing the pemit has been filed, the pemit holder shall pay any outstanding fees for the renewal.

(c) If an application for the issuance or renewal of an early site pemit is denied or withdrawn, any outstanding fees associated with the review of the application shall be irnx11ately due and payehic by the applicant for the pemit or renewal.

I, I

S 52.21 tharings.

An early site pemit is a partial construction permit and is therefore  ;

subject to all proculural requirments in 10 CFR Part 2 which are applicable to construction pemits, including the requirments for dccheting in S 2.101(a) (1)-(4), and the requirments for issuance of a notice of hearing i

(

in S 2.104(a), (b) (1) (iv) and (v), (b)(2) to the extent it runs parallel to (b) (1) (iv) and (v) , and (b) (3) . All hearings conducted on applications for early site permits filed pursuant to this part will be governed by the picc+dares contained in Part 2, Subparts A and G.

S 52.23 Referral to the ACRS.

i A copy of the application shall be referred to the Advisory Cmmittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) . We ACPS shall report on those portions of the awlication vttich concern safety.

S 52.25 Extent of Activities Pemitted.

After docketing of an application for a construction pemit or cambined license which references an early site pemit, the applicant may perfom the activities at the site alicwed by 10 CFP S 50.10(e)(1) prior to issuance of the constzvetion permit or cmbined license, without first obtaining the t

) separate autMri::ation required by that section. Hcuaver, no such activitics may be perfomed unless the staff has capleted a final envirormental inpact I statement on the issuance of the construction pemit as required by Subpart A of Part 51 of this chapter.

l a

(

__.._____._._________..______-___._9--_--_- w

S 52.27 Duratim of Pemit.

An early site pemit issued pursuant to this subpart shall be valid for ten years fzun the date of issuance. An applicant for a construction pemit or ombined license may, at its own risk, reference in its application a site for which an early site pemit application has been docketed but not granted.

S 52.29 A mlication for Renewal.

(a) Not less than twelve nor more than thirty-six months prior to the expiration of the initial ten-year pericd, or any later renewal period, the pemit holder may apply for a renewal of the pemit. An application for renewal shall contain all infomation necessary to bring up to date the 1

infomation and data centained in the previous application.

(b) Any person whose interests may be affected by renewal of the po mit may request a hearing on the basis (1) that there has been a nonconformance with the pemit, the pemit holder's written ocrnitents, the Atmic Energy

.v:t, or the Ccanission's regulations and orders, which has not been corrected and which could materially and adversely affect the suitability of the site for the putroses described in the pcmit; or (2) that a material issue d

necessary for the Canission's decision on the cxmversico has not been resolved in the prior proceeding on the site; or (3) that a material issue necessary for the ccmaission's decision which has teen rnsolved in a prior canaission proceeding on the site was wrongly decided.

L

(c) An early site pemit, either original or renewed, for Wich an aplicaticn for renewal has been timely filed rmains in effect until the Camtission has determined Wether to renew the pemit. If the permit is not renewd, it continues to be valid in proceedings on an application for a construction permit or ocabined license referencing the permit and docketed prior to expiration of the permit or renewal. An un w d permit also continues to be valid in proceedings on an application for an operating license Wich is based on a construction permit referencing the permit and docketod prior to expiration of the pemit or renewal.

S $2.31 Criteria for Renewal.

(a) %c Camission shall grant the renewal only if the Ccmmission detemines that the sito still ccmplies with the Atcnic Energy Act and the Ccomission's regulations.

(b) A denial of renewal on this basis does not bar the pcmit holder or another applicant frrm filing a new application for the site which proposes changes to tho site or the way in W ich it is used which correct the deficiencies cited in the denial of the renewal.

j $ 52.33 Duration of Renewal.

Each renewal of an early site permit shall be for not 1 css than five nor more than ten years.

l l

l l

l t

S 52.25 Use of site for other Purposes.

A site for which an early site pemit has been issued under this subpart may be used for purposes other than those described in the pemit, including the location of other types of energy fac:llities. 'Ihe pemit holder shall infom the Director of Nuclear bactor Regulation of any significant non-nuclear activities for which the cite is to be used. 'Ihe infomation about such actjvities shall be given to the Oirector in advance of any actual construction or site modification for suen activities. If the Director finds that a particular nco-nuelear use may have a significant adverse effect on the suitability of the site for the purposen described in the early site remit, the Director may issue an order to show cause why the pemit should not be revoked or modified.

S 52.37 Reporting of Defects and Nonocrpliance; Revocation, Suspension, Modification of Permits For Caune i

l l

For purposes of Part 21 and S 50.100 of 10 cm, an early site pemit is  ;

a construction pe mit. ,

S 52.39 Finality of Early Site Pemit teteminations.

(a) After the issuance of an earl:t site pemit under this cubpart, in any subsequent proceeding involving the site, the ccmedssion shall not impose l

nore stringent safety requirunents on the early site pemit except in accortlance with the Ccanissicn's backfit rule,10 CPR S 50.109 (b) An applicant for a construction permit, operating t'erre, or ombined license, or any amendment to such license, who has filed an application referencing an early site pemit issued under this subpart may include in the application a request for a variance frca one or nere elements of the permit. In determining whether to grant the variance, the Ccrimission t

will be guided by the considerations set forth in 10 CETt SS 50.92(a) and 50.92(b), which gvi a its deteminations on applicaticns for amendments to constzTxtion permits.

SUBPART B - STR;DARD DESIOi CERTIFICATICHS S 52.41 Scope of Subpart.

Thir. sutsart sets out the requircraents and precedures applicable to Ccrmissicn issuance of rules granting standard design certifications for nuc1 car powr facilities, or major portions thereof, separate free and prior i to the filing of an application for a construction pemit or ccabined license for such a facility.

l r

S 52.43 Relationship to 10 CFR Part 50, Aprendices M, N and O.

(a) Appendix M to 10 CFR Part 50 goverTis the issuance of licenses to manufacture nuclear powr reactors to be installed and operated at sites rot f

identified in the manufacturing 11 enre application. Appendix N governs licenses to construct and operate nuclear power reactors of duplicate desian at nultiple sites. 'Ihese appendices may be used independently of the previsions in this subpart unless the applicant also wishes to use a ,

certified standard design apprtnw$ under this rmipart.

(b) Appendix 0 governs the staff review xv5 approval of preliminary and final standard designs. Such designs may be challenged in individual licensing proceedings. 'Ihis subpart governs Ctscmission approval, or certification, of standard designs by rulemaking, as set forth in paragraph 7 of Appendix 0. A final design approval under Appendix o is a prerequisite for an application for certification of a standard design under this subpart.

However, an application for a final design approval should state whether the j applicant intends to seek certificatico of the design. If the applicant does so intend, the application for the final design approval mst contain the informattu. required by Appendix o and staff practice under Appendix 0, and must, in addition, dronstrate ccrpliance with the requizments of the current Ccmission regulations, including the 'Ihree Mile Island requiranente for new plants as reflected in 10 CFTt S 50.34(f), and with S 52.47(b)(1) and (2) below. Certified standard designs approved urder this subpart will be

^

subject tc, challenge in licensing hearings only as provided in S 2.758 of this chapter.

S 52.45 Filing of Applications.

(a) Ar.y person sto holds a final design approval pursuant to Appendix o l

l l

i

to 10 Cm Part 50 may file with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Pogulation an

(

application fcr a standard design cutification for an essentially oceplete 4 nuclear power facility, or a major portion of a facility, although applicatims for certification of an advanced design of less dan a ocuplete facility smist meet the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of this caction.

An application for certification may be filed notwithstarding the fact that no application for a construction pcmit or ocznbined license for such a facility has been filed.

(b) 'Ihe applicant shall cryply with the filing requirements of 10 CFR S 50.30(a) and (b) as they wuld apply to an application for a nuclear pcwer plant construction pemit.

l (c) Persons seeking certification of an advanced reactor design shall develcp the design in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, 51 Fed. Peg. 24,643 (July 8,1986) , and NUP2G-1226, l "Developent and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statsnant on the Regulation of Advance 1 Nuclear Pnwer Plants", (conth) 1988. In particular, application for certification of an advanced design can be made only after the design has twen shcun to be sufficiently mature. 'Ihe maturity of an advanced design which does not provide for a conventional contairenant hailding nust be demonstrated by means of a remotely sited, full-size, gototype test reactor.

4 the maturity of any other advanced design may be deonstrated by other reans

'! the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) the perfomance of each safety feature of the der (.m has been demonstrated through either previous experience or fu11-'>S;.4 testing;

(2) System intoraction effects anang the safety features of the plant have been properly accounted for; and (3) sufficient performance and reliability data exist on the safety features of the plant to validate safety analysis analytical tools over a full range of operating and accident conditions, including plant behavior over the lifetime of the plant.

(d) W e NBC will entertain an application for nortification of a major portion of a p)t.nt if the application mets the folicwing criteria:

(1) %e application shall contain requirments to be not by those portions of the plant for Which the application does not seek certification so that those portions will have an acceptable interface with that portion of 1

the plant for which certification is being sought. mese requizwents rust be sufficiently detailed to allow ccrpletion of the final safety analysis and design-spria . 3 probabilistic risk assessnent required by 5 50.47 below.

l (2) me aplication shall dancnstrate that ca:pliance with these interface requirements is wrifiabic through inspection, testing (either in the plant or elsewhere), previous experience, or analysis. Ccerpliance with interface requiranents dealing with reliability of corponents or systers shall be verifiabic through previous experience or testing.

(3) %e application shall also contain a representative design for

those portions of the plant for which the applicatican does not seek certification. Such a representative design shall illustrate hcw the interface requirements can be met, so as to aid the staff in its zuview of i

the final safety analysis and pzrbabilistic risk assesstent required by 5 50.47.

i

S 52.47 contents et Applicetions.

Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the aplication shall contain a level of design information ecmparable to that contained in a Final Safety Analysis Report, and sufficient to enable the staff to judge the applicant's pwd mans of assuring that construction conforms to design and to reach an uncmditional conclusion or. all matters which cust decided before the certification can be granted. In particular, fa) 'Ihe application shall contain the information required by 10 CFR SS 50.33(a) through (d), and the technical information required by 10 TR SS 50.34 (a) , (b), (c), (f), and (g), as appropriate, and S 50.34a, with the following exceptions: $5 50.34 (a) (6) and (10); SS 50.34(b) (1), (6) (i) , (ii),

(iv), and (v); and SS 50.34(b) (7) and (8) . With respect to the recuirernents of S 50. A fa) (1), the aplication. thall include the site parameters postulated for the design, and an analysis ard evaluaticn of the design in terms of such parmeters. 'Ihe awlication shall describe in detail how the applicant proposes to meet the requirerents of 10 Crn SS 50.44 (carlustible gas control), 50.46 (EOCS), and 50.49 (envirormental qualification) .

(b) 'Ihe aplication shall also include (1) detonstration of technical resolution of all applicable Unresolved Safety Issues and the molum- and high-priority Generic Scfety Issues, with a special focus on ensuring the reliability of decay heat removal systerra and the reliability of both AC and DC electrical supply syst es; (2) a design-specific probabilistic risk assessment and censideration of any sewre accident vulrerabilities that the assessment exposes; (3) proposed tests, analyses, inspections and acceptance

criteria Wich are necessary to provide reascnable assurance that a plant s ich references the design is hiilt and operated within the specifications of the design; ard (4) information pertaining to design features that would affect plans for coping with ernergencies in the operation of the reactor.

(c) An application seeking certificatim of a modular reactor design shall describe the various options for the ocnfiguration of the plant and site, including variations in cmron systans, interface requirernants, and system interactions, h fia; safety analysis and the probabilistic risk assessnent chouh when necessary, take into account differences among the various options, and the analysis should set forth any restricticr.s which will be necessary during the construction and startup of a given nodule to ensure the safe operation of any nodule already on line.

(d) n e staff will advise the applicant for certification of an

advanced reactor design en whether the technical information required by the 1

listed regulations is appropriate to the staff's consideration of the a; plication, and on whether any additional information on the design is required by the Camission's Policy Statanent on the Begulaticn of Advanced >

Nucimr Power Plants, 51 Fed. Reg. 24,643 (July 8,1986), or NURDG-122C, "Developnent and Utilizaticn of the NFC Policy Statenent on the Reculatien of ,

Advanced Nuclear Power Plants", [nonth) 1988.

(e) We staff will accept an applicaticn with less than final design information if the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) he level of design detail provided is sufficient to allow ocupletion of the final safety analysis and the pzebabilistic risk assessnent for the plant; l

(2) We level of design detail provided is sufficient to support procurunent, construction, and operation of SSC that meet the performance and reliability characteristics assumed in the final safety analysis and the probabilistic risk asses.: ment; and (3)  % aid the staff in its review of the probabilistic risk assessment and final safety analysis, the application shall contain a representative design for those portions of the plant for which certification is not being sought.

S 52.49 Fees for Design Certification and Certification Renewal.

W e fees associated with the filing and review of an application for the

initial issuance or renewal of a standard design certification are set out in 10 CFR Part 170, together with a schedule fer their pL ed recowry as the certified stardard design la referenced. An applicant for a standani design certification or renewal shall pay the required aplication fee at the tima the aplication for the certification or renewal is filed. All other ap licable fees shall be deferred as follows:

(a) Sach tim) an application is filed for a construction prmit or conbined license for a facility referencing the desian for which a standard design mrtification has been issued, the holder of the design certification shall pay the specified portion of the applicable fees for the a@roval at l

the time the facility applicatier. referencing the certified standard design l

is filed. If, at the end of the initial period of the certification, no l

facility application referencing ths certified standard design has been l

filed, the holder of the design certification shall pay any outstanding fees for the certification.

(b) If the standard design certification is renewed. the holder of the design certification shall pay the specified portico of any outstanding fees for the renewal each tims a facility a@lication referoncing the certified standard design is filed. If, at the end of the renewal period, no facility application referencing the certified standard design has been filed, the hoic'.er of the design certification shall pay any outstanding fees for the renewal.

(c) If an application for the issuance or reaewal of a certified standard design is denied or withdrawn, any fees associated with the review of the application shall be innodiately due and payable by the applicant for the design certification or renewal.

S 52.51 _Administrativo Review of Applications.

A standard design certificatico is a rule that will be issued in accordance with the provisiens of Subpart H of 10 CFR Part 2. The Ccmmission shall specify in detail the procedures to be used for the rulesnaking. Such procedures shall include notice and coment coupled with an infornal hearing before an Atcaic Safety and Licensug Board. W e precedures for the hearing shall include opportunity for written presentaticas made under cath or arfirmation, and for oral presentations and questicning if the Board finds thesu either necessary for the creation of an adequate record, or the nest expeditious way to resolve contzowrsies. Ordinarily, the questicning will

be done by matters of the Board, using either the Board's questions or questions subnitted to the Board by the parties. We Board may also request authority to use additional procedures, such as discovery, or may request that the Comnission ecovene a formal adjudication. ne staff will be a party in the hearing. During the rulenaking, the treatment of proprietary information will be gowrned by 10 Crit S 2.790 and applicable ccanission case law. ne decision in such a hearing will be based only on information on which all parties have had an ggrtunity to ccrnent.

S 52.53 Referral to the ACRS.

We application shall be forwarded to the kh'isory Ccmnittee on Reactor Safeguarte (ACRS), which shall review the application and report its findings and reocrmondations to the Ccanission. % e ACRS shall linit its review to issues on which it has not made findims and reccamendations in an earlier proceeding on the design which is the subject of the application.

S 52.55 Duration of certification.

A standard design certification issued pursuant to this subpart shall be valid for ten 3 ears frun the date of issuance. An applicant for a ecostruction permit or ccabined license may, at its own risk, reference in itt; application a design for which a design certification application has been docketsi but not granted.

S 52.57 A m lication for Renewal.

(a) Not less than twelve nor nere than thirty-six nonths prior to expiration of the initial ten-year period, or any later renswel period, the holder of the design certification '.any apply for renewal of the ,

certificaticn. An application for renewal shall contain all information

, necessary to bring up to date the information and data contained in the previcus applicaticn. The Ccrnission shall specify the procedures to be used for a rulemaking proceeding on the application for renewal. l (b) A design certification, either original or renewed, for which an i

application for renewal has been timely filed renains in effect until the Ccanission has detennined whether to renew the certificatien. If the certification is not renemi, it continues to be valid in proceedings on an f applicatico for a constructico permit, ccabined licenso, or operating license '

referencing the certified design arx1 docketed prior to expiration of the certification or renewal.

S 52.59 criteria for Renewal.

(a) The Ommission shall issue a rule granting the renewal if the design, either as originally certified or as modified by the certification f holder during the rulemaking on the renewal, emplies with the Atanic EnertJy [

Act and the Ommission's regulations.

i (b) Denial of renewal does not bar the holder of the design certification or another aplicant frm filing a new application for i

t

i certificaticn of the design which proposes design changes which correct the deficiencies cited in the denial of the renew 1.

S 52.61 turation of Renewal.

Fach renewal of certification for a sta!x5ard design shall be for net i

less than five ner rore than ten years.

S 52.63 Finality of standard Desian Certificaticos. l (a) After the issuance of a standard derign certification under this subpart, the Ccmnission shall not impose rnore rtringent requirencnts on the design certificatien unless those rn;uirements are inpesed by a rulemaking which canplies with the Ccmnission's backfit rule,10 CITt S 50.109, and, scre applicable (see S 52.103 belcw), the Ccanissico's regulation on consideration of Ccanission rules and regulaticns in adjudicator /

prcceedings, 10 CFR S 2.758. Modificaticns of a design certification rule will be applied to all plants referencing the certified design, i

(b) 'The holder of a standard design certificaticn issued under this sutpart nal' file a request for an amerdent to the design certification by way of rulmaking. The Ccanissien shall grant the we-J cnt request if it determines that the arerdent will ccrply with the Atcznic Erercy Act and the Ccruissicn's regulaticns. Mer@ents to a design rtificatico initiated by I i

the holder of the certification will be applied to all plants referencing the ,

I I design. [

l l

(c) An applicant for a construction pemit, operating license, or ocabined license, or any amanchnt to such license, who has filed an application referencing a certified standard design issued under this subpart may include in the application a request for a variance from one or more elesnents of the design certification. We Ccanission shall grant such a roguest if it determines that the variance will oca. ply with the Atanic Energy Act, the Cctrtission's regulations, and the requirenente et 10 CFR S 50.12(a) .

Any varianco issued under this section will apply only to the li nse for which the variance was requested.

SUBPART C - CCt:BDED LICDEF:S S 52.71 Scope of Suhpart.

This subf art seu out the requirunents and procedures applicable to Ccruission issuan of ecnbined construction pennits and conditional cperating licenses (hereafter referred to as "ctrbined licenses") for nuclear power facilities.

S 52.73 Reistionship to Subparts A and B.

An applicatico for a ecnbined license under this subpart may, but need not, refermee a standard design certification issued under Sulpart B of this l

l part or an early site pemit issued under Subpart A of this part.

t

)

S 52.75 Filing of 4 plicatier.s.

Any person except one excluded by 10 c m 5 50.38 may file with the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation an applicaticn for a ambined license for a nuclear power facility. 'Ihe applicant shall ocuply with the filing requirements of 10 cm $$ 50.4 and 50.30(a) and (b) as they would agply to an application for a nuclear power plant construction pemit. The fees associate with the filing and review of the application are set out in 10 CFP Part 170. 'Ihe applicant shall include an enviremental report with the a! .. cation if it does not reference an early site pemit. Any person applying for a cmbined license for an uncertified advanced reactor design chall haw developed the design in accordance with the guidelines of the Ccruission's Advanced Heactor Policy Statment, 51 Fed. Fec. 24,643 (July 8, ,

1986), and NUREG-1226, Davelotrent and Utilizaticn of the NRC Policy Statement on the Pequlation of Advanced Nuclear Pcwer Plants", (month) 1988. l S 52.77 centents of 4plicationst General Infonnation.

l

'the application shall cxmtain all of the infomaticm required by 10 CfR

$$ 50.33 and 50.33a as those sect. ions wculd asply to an applicant for a nuclear power plant construction pemit. In particular, the atplicant shall l omply with the requirement of S 50.33a(b) reganiing the sulstission of antitrust infomation.

I i

S 52.79 Contants of Applications; 'hM:fmical Information.

(a) We application shan ocntain the final safety analysis report required by 10 CFR S 50.34(b) . We report may incorporate by reference the final safety analysis report for a certified standard design, but est be supplcunanted to include, as appropriate, the infomation required by SS 50.34 (a) (6) and (10), SS 50.34 (b) (1), (6) (i) , (ii), (iv) , and (v) , (7),

and (8), and SS 50.34(c), (d), (f) , and (g) . Se application shall also include proposed technical specifications prepared in accordance with the requireinants o' 10 OR SS 50.36 and 50.36a. %e application shall describe in detail how the applicant prrposes to meat the requirments of 10 CFR SS 50.44 (cmbustibic gas control), 50.46 (ECS), 50.48 (fire protection),

and 50.49 (envircmental qualification) . We staff will advise the applicant for a cmbined license for an advanced reactor design on whether the technical information required by the listed regulations is appropriate to the staff's consideration of the application, ard on whether any additional infonratim on the design is zwquired by the Ccmmission's Mvanced Peactor Policy Statement, 51 Fed. RaJ. 24,643 (July 8,1986), or MJREG-1226, "Dewicpnent and Utilization of the NBC Policy Statssent on the Regulaticn of Mvanced Nuclear Power Plants", (nonth) 1988.

(b) he application shall contain emergency plans which provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the event of a radiological evnertyency at the site, in accordance with 10 CFR S 50.47. %e applicatien shall identify the 1ccal, State, and Federal gcNermental agencies which have respcasibility for ccping with mergencies,

shall describe c m tacts made with those agencies, and shall doc eent arrangements made with then. The aplicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain certifications by the responsible local and State goverrmantal agencies (1) that the proposed emergency plans are practicable, (2) that these agencies are oarmdtted to participating in any further developnent of the plana, including any required field danonstraticos, and 3) that these agencies are ccamitted to executing their responsibilities under the plans in the event of an evnergency. 'Ihe aplication shall contain any such certifications obtained. If any such certifications cannot be obtainad, the aplication shall dernstrato that the prcposed plans recetheless provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective neasures can be taken in the emnt of a radiological anergency at the site.

(c) 'Ihe application for a cmbined license shall include the pap 4 inspections, tests, and analyses which the licensee shall perform and the acceptance criteria therefer which will provide reasonable assurancxn that the i facility has teen constructed and will operate in confomity with the aplication, the provisions of the Atenic Energy tct, aM the Ocruission's i

regulations.

! 5 52.81 standards for Review of Applications, i

Amlications filed under this subpart will be reviewed according to, as amropriate, (1) the pertinent staMards set out in 10 CTR Part 50 and its aprendices as they apply to applications for construction pemits and operating licenses for nuclear power plants, er (2) the quiCalines of the

t Afvanced Reactor Policy Statement, 51 Fed. Reg. 24,643 (July 8,1986), and NUREG-1226, "Developnent and Utilization of the NRC Policy Statsmant on the )

Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Pcuer Plants", (nonth) 1988.

l 5 52.83 Amlicability of Part 50 Provisions.

l t

tAtless otherwise specifically provided in this subpart, all provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices applicable to holders of constnietion permits for rmelear power reactors also agly to holders of ccanbined licenses issued under this sulpart. Similarly, all provisions of 10 CPR Part 50 and its appendices applicable to holders of orerating licenses also amly to holders of ccinbined licunoes issued under this subpart who have received I written authorization for full-power operation under S 52.103. However, any limitations contained in Part 50 regardirq aplicability of the provisions to certain classes of facilities continue to a wly. ,

r

$ 52.05 k W nistrative Review of Applications.

A ccanbined license is subject to all aplicable procedural requirements ;

contained in 10 CIR Part 2, including the requizments for docketing (5 2.101) l and issuance of a notice of hearing ($ 2.104). All hearirqs on ccatined  ;

licenses will be governed by the precedures otetained in Part 2, Sulparts A f and G. f 1

1 h

6 1

i

S 52.87 Referral to the ACRS.

Se application shall be forverded to the Advisory ccanittee on Reactor safeguards (ACRS), which shall review the application ard report its findings and r-x - .3ations to the Ccamission. Se ACRS shall limit its review to issues on which it has not made firdings and roccamandatims in an earlier proceeding on the site or the design which is the subject of the application.

S 52.89 Dtvirorinental kview.  !

i l

If the aplication references an early site pemit or a certified stardard design, the enviremental review shall focus on the suitability of (

the tite for the design end any other significant enviremental issue not considered in any previous p W _ing on the site or the design. Se results of this limited review shall be presented at the hearirs on the application.

Howuwr, the oxinission will not modify any final determinatien on an issue that has been emsidered and decided in such earlier proceedings except as provided in $5 52.39 and 52.63 reganiinq finality of early site toimit i

detcartinations and finality of stan5ard design certificatices, respectively, If the application does not reference an early site pernit or a certified standard design, all of the enviremental review w dires set out in 10 CFR Part 51 shall be followed, including issunnou of a final envirersnental impact I statament.

I t

S 52.91 Authorization to cordet site Activities.

If the aplication references an early site pemit, the aplicant may perfom the site preparation activities authorized in S 52.25 after the application for a ambined license has been docketed. Otherwise, the applicant nust zwquest authorfration to conduct site preparation activities pursuant to 10 OR SS 50.10(e) (1) and (2) . In either case, authorization to conduct the activities described in 10 OR S 50.10(e)(3)(i) may be granted only after t.he presiding officer in the cmbined license proceeding makes the additional finding rapired by 10 OR S 50.10(e)(3) (ii).

S 52.93 Exervtiens and variances.

(a) Applicants for a cabined liecnse urder this surpart, or any anen&nnnt to such license, may include in the aplication a request, ptrauant to 10 OR S 50.12, for an emmpticn frun one or more of the Ctamission's regulations, incitding any part of a design certification. '!he ccrnissien aball grant such a request if it detamines that the enrption will caply with the Atcaic Energy Act, the Ccamissicn's rytlations, and the requirsements of 10 OR S 50.12(a) .

(b) An applicant for a cabined license, or any aman &nant to such license, @ has filed an aplicatien referencing an early site pemit issued under this subpart may incites in the aplication a request for a variance fra one or more eleennts of the permit. In detezmining whether to erant the

f

> variance, the Ctamission will be guided by the consideratiens set forth in 1

10 CFR $$ 50.92(a) and 50.92(b), which guide its deteminations on arplicatims for amendments to construction pcmits.

t S 52.95 Changes to certified standard Designs.

If the staff or any other party to the cmbined license proceeding other than the applicant proposes a significant change to the certified stantrd design referenced in the application, the change may be inposed if the requirments of 10 cfTt 5 2.758 are ut.

S 52.97 Issuanoe of cmbined Licenses.

l I i

(a) The Camission my issue a etabjned license for a nuclear pcuer facility upon finding that the requirerwnts of SS 50.40, 50.42, 50.43, 50.47 t and 50.50 haw been met and that there is reascnable assurance that the facility will le constructed and operated in cmfomity with the licente, the ,

provisicus of the Atcrtic Energy Act, and the Cmmission's regulations, i (b) '!he cmaission will identify in the license the inspections, tests, t i

and analyses that the licensee shall parfom and the acceptance criteria ,

therefor which will provide reasonable assurance that the facility has teen construc-*.ed and will be c5erated in ctnfomity with the license, the l l provisiens cf the Atanic Energy Act, and the cmrtission's regulations.

i I

j 1

i i

r-e 4

S 52.99 Inspection Durirs Construction.

After issuance of a cabined license, the Cannission shall assun through inspections, tests, and analyses that construction of the facility !s empleted in confomity with the cabined license, the prwisions of the Atanic Energy Act, and the Camission's regulations. '!he Camission shall apply to holders of embined licenses the same inspection program applied to holders of nuclear pcwer plant construction permits. Holdere of cmbined licenses shall emply with the prwisions of SS 50.70 and 50.71.

S 52.101 _Pr @ rational Antitrust Review.

Prior to conwrsion of a cmbined license to an cperating license, the NRC staff shall conduct an antitzunt review pirsuant to S 50.42(b) to determine whether significant changes in the licensee's activities or proposed activities haw occurred subsequent to the previous rwiew by the  !

Attorney General and the Comission in ccnnecticn with the issuance of the cambined license. If the ccrmissico detemines that significant changes ham occurred, the antitrust review required by Section 105c(1) of the Atanic i Fnergy Act sust be empleted prior to crsemencement of cxasearcial operation of the facility. Upon capletion of this review, and folicwing receipt of the advice of the AttorTwy General, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulaticm may impose such additional license conditions as may be needed to avoid creating er maintaining a situation inccnsistent with the antitzust laws as specified in Section 105a of the Atmic Energy Act, i

S 52.103 , conversion of cabined License to Cteratino License.

(a) Before the facility may operate, the holder of the cabined license mat apply for conwrsicn of the cmbined license to an operating license.

If the cabined license is for a moular design, each nodule will be the subject of a separate conversion. The Casaissior. will publish a notice of the proposod n:nversion in the Federal Register pursuant to 10 Cf7 $ 2.105.

Within 30 days, any person khose interests may be affected may request a hearing en the basis (1) that there has been a necconformnce with the license, the licensee's written ccumitrents, the Atcnic Energy Act, or the camissien's regulations and orders, which has not been coqected and which eculd materially and adversely affect the safe operation of the facility; or (2) that a material issue necessary for thra Ctumission's decision on the acowrsicn han not been resolved in any prior Ccanission proceeding involving the facility, its site, or its derlgn; or (3) that a material issue necessary for the camission's decision which has been resolved in a prior Otzmission proceeding was wrongly decidad. If the issue inw1ved was decided in a design certification proceeding, the request is, in effect, a challenge to a ccuenission regulation and therefore mat conply with 10 CFR S 2.758, the petitionar mat set forth with reasonable specificity the facts and argwnants Wtich forin the basis for the request.

(b) If no hearing is nquested, or if all requests are denied, the nr==ission may convert the ccabined license to an operating license, as i provided in S 50.56, upon making the findings in S 50.57.

l I

l

____ _ _ _ _ _ . - . __ _ - - _ - . _ _ , _ _ _ _ - , - _ _ _ . _- - - . _ _ , _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ._ _- _ _ . . _ _ , . -