Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

7514

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 18 / Friday, January 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules
impacted entities includes applicants for designs and facilities similar to large light water reactors operating today, new, large light water reactors e.g., similar to the KHNP APR1400 and Westinghouse AP1000, small modular reactors e.g., similar to NuScale small modular reactor, and non-light water reactors e.g., high temperature gas reactor, fast reactors, and molten salt reactors On January 15, 2019, the NRC held a Category 3 public meeting to obtain feedback from external stakeholders on the scope of the development of the regulatory basis for this proposed rule.
Representatives of the commercial nuclear power industry presented 18
suggested changes at the meeting and submitted a list of 20 additional suggested changes.
On September 20, 2019, the NRC met with individual members of the Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ACRS. The purpose of the meeting was to receive the ACRS members observations on the implementation of the 10 CFR part 52 process based on their individual perspectives from their reviews of early site permit ESP, design certification DC, and combined license applications.
On November 21, 2019, and April 29, 2020, the NRC held Category 3 public meetings with members of the public to provide updates on the agencys efforts since the January 15, 2019, public meeting. In these meetings, the NRC
provided updates on progress including an overview of the scope of the regulatory basis. At both meetings, the NRC conducted question and answer sessions. Consistent with the NRCs rulemaking process, the NRC has prepared a regulatory basis to describe and document the results of assessments performed by the NRC in support of the proposed rule. This regulatory basis and the meeting summaries, including transcripts, are listed in the Availability of Documents section of this document.
In the regulatory basis, the NRC
concludes that there is sufficient basis to proceed with rulemaking to address the alignment of regulatory requirements associated with 10 CFR
parts 50 and 52 and the incorporation of lessons learned from new reactor licensing reviews. However, through development of its regulatory basis, the NRC has determined that some areas within the scope previously discussed could be addressed using other regulatory alternatives.
The Commission has not approved any specific recommendation in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:44 Jan 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

regulatory basis at this time, and as such, any conclusions regarding the elements of the alignment of licensing processes and lessons learned from new reactor licensing process rulemaking are subject to change.
III. Specific Requests for Comments The NRC is requesting comment on the regulatory basis titled Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing.
As you prepare your comments, consider the following general questions:
1. Is the NRC considering appropriate options for each regulatory area described in the regulatory basis?
2. Are there additional factors that the NRC should consider in each regulatory area? What are these factors?
3. Are there any additional options that the NRC should consider during development of the proposed rule?
4. Is there additional information concerning regulatory impacts that the NRC should include in its regulatory analysis for this rulemaking?
Specific Regulatory Issues In addition to the general questions, the NRC has identified additional areas of consideration that could either be included in the scope of the alignment of licensing processes and lessons learned from new reactor licensing rulemaking or addressed through other actions. The NRC may include additional discussion of these issues in the proposed rule, and if included, will use any public comments received regarding these issues to inform the development of the proposed rule. The NRC requests that members of the public answer the following specific questions regarding these additional regulatory issues.
Emergency Planning Significant Impediments to Development of Emergency Plans As required by 52.17b1, the site safety analysis report for an ESP
application must include an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the proposed site, such as egress limitations from the area surrounding the site, that could pose a significant impediment to the development of emergency plans.
1. The NRC is considering revising the guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, and NUREG
0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Chapter 13, Conduct of Operations, on how to meet the requirements of
PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

52.17b1 and the siting criteria in 10
CFR part 100, Reactor site criteria, as it relates to siting and emergency planning for ESP reviews. The NRC is seeking comment on the appropriate distance within which to perform the analysis to demonstrate compliance with the siting criteria for identifying site characteristics that could pose significant impediments to the development of emergency plans. Please provide a basis for your response.
Part 52 Process Standard Design Approvals Duration, Manufacturing License Renewal and Manufacturing License Expiration Date As described in 52.147, standard design approvals SDAs are valid for 15
years from the date of issuance and may not be renewed. For manufacturing licenses MLs, 52.173 specifies that a license authorizing manufacture of nuclear power reactors is valid for no more than 15 years from the date of issuance. As part of this rulemaking, the NRC is considering the removal of the 15-year duration for DCs established in 52.55 and DC renewal requirements in 52.57, 52.59, and 52.61 and 10 CFR
part 52 DC appendices. This would result in DCs that never expire and, therefore, do not need to be renewed every 15 years. The 2007 10 CFR part 52
final rule provided the term of an SDA
to be for 15 years and the term of an ML
to be for no less than 5, or no more than 15 years from the date of issuance. The Commission established the 15-year maximum term for SDAs and MLs to be consistent with the maximum term for a standard design certification. The 5year minimum term was established by the Commission to encourage the use of an ML for the manufacture of more than one nuclear power reactor.
2. If the NRC eliminates the renewal requirements for DCs, should the NRC
consider eliminating or changing duration requirements for MLs?
3. If the NRC eliminates the renewal requirements for DCs, should the NRC
consider eliminating or changing the duration requirements for SDAs?
Expired Design Certifications in 10 CFR
Part 52
As part of the proposed rule, the NRC
is considering the removal of the 15year duration for DCs established in 52.55 and DC renewal requirements in 52.57, 52.59, and 52.61 and 10 CFR
part 52 DC appendices. This would result in DCs that never expire and, therefore, do not need to be renewed every 15 years. However, there are presently two DCs contained in the appendices to 10 CFR part 52 AP600

E:FRFM29JAP1.SGM

29JAP1