Quiero saber acerca de...

52620

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC does not intend to initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.
A significant adverse comment is a comment in which the commenter explains why the rule including the environmental assessment would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rules underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A
comment is adverse and significant if it meets the following criteria:
1 The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-andcomment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:
a The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate or reconsider its position or conduct additional analysis;
b The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or c The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.
2 The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.
3 The comment causes the NRC to make a change other than editorial to the rule.
For additional information, including procedural information, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.
III. Background The NRC is amending the design certification DC for the AP1000
standard plant design to extend the duration of the DC for 5 years, as proposed by the NRC staff in SECY20
0082, Rulemaking Plan to Extend the Duration of the AP1000 Design Certification, dated September 8, 2020
rulemaking plan, and approved by the Commission in SRMSECY20
0082, dated November 17, 2020. To issue this extension, the NRC must conclude that the standard design continues to meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended the AEA, and the Commissions regulations. This action would allow an applicant to reference the AP1000
design certification while the Commission considers potential changes to the duration and renewal of future and currently valid design certifications more broadly in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Sep 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

separate, ongoing rulemaking Alignment of Licensing Processes and Lessons Learned from New Reactor Licensing NRC20090196; RIN 3150
AI66. The NRC also is updating the DC
to reflect changes provided by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
Westinghouse, by letter dated March 19, 2021 ADAMS Accession No.
ML21081A023.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend by 5 years the period that the AP1000 DC is valid for referencing by an applicant and to include design changes previously approved by the NRC in multiple combined license proceedings. The extended duration would align with the extended renewal period previously granted by the NRC to Westinghouse for the AP1000 DC in its exemption issued by letter dated February 14, 2018 ADAMS Accession No. ML17265A099. With this proposed duration extension, the AP1000 DC
would remain valid for referencing until February 27, 2026.
The AP1000 DC in appendix D, Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design, to part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR
expired on February 27, 2021. By letter dated June 26, 2020, Westinghouse requested that the NRC extend the duration of the AP1000 DC by 5 years, retroactive to the expiration date.
IV. Discussion In the rulemaking plan, the NRC staff acknowledged that there were known design issues that it would need to assess in the rulemaking to determine their impact on the necessary safety and environmental findings. The following five aspects of the design were discovered to have issues after the NRC
updated the design certification rule to incorporate Revision 19 of the AP1000
design control document DCD
ADAMS Accession No. ML11171A500
on December 30, 2011: 1 Passive core cooling system containment condensate return, 2 main control room dose, 3
main control room heatup, 4 hydrogen vent inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria ITAAC, and 5
neutron flux logic operating bypass.
Combined license holders and applicants have previously referenced and resolved these five design issues, and the NRC has approved the same changes to address the issues in multiple combined license applications and amendments.
After the NRC staff began assessing the known design issues for the rulemaking, Westinghouse indicated its preference to update the design to
PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

reflect the changes made in the previous applications referencing the AP1000
design. By letter dated March 19, 2021
ADAMS Accession No. ML21081A023, Westinghouse submitted applicable AP1000 DCD markups and references that illustrate how: 1 The five issues have been corrected based on construction of the current AP1000
reactors for Southern Nuclear Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3
and 4, and 2 Westinghouse has marked up the referenced DCD in accordance with those changes. The NRC staff used these references to verify the Westinghouse submitted DCD markups are the same as the design changes the NRC has previously reviewed and approved to address the design issues.
The NRC staff verified, as documented in the NRC staffs Verification Evaluation Report, that the corrected information provided in the markups is the same as has been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC for various combined license and license amendment applications. In reviewing those applications, the NRC
staff determined that the design changes resolved the identified design issues, met the applicable regulations, and that the design as modified met the applicable requirements of the AEA and the NRCs regulations. Neither the applicable provisions of the AEA nor the NRCs regulations have changed since those applications were approved.
Therefore, the NRC concludes that the relevant safety findings reached in the NRC staff reviews of those prior applications apply to the AP1000 design changes incorporated by the direct final rule and that the standard design, as modified by those changes, meets the applicable standards of the AEA and the NRCs regulations.
V. Plain Writing The Plain Writing Act of 2010 Pub.
L. 111274 requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, Plain Language in Government Writing, published June 10, 1998 63 FR 31885.
The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
VI. Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NEPA, and the
E:FRFM22SEP1.SGM

22SEP1