Je veux savoir à propos de…

35012

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis The following paragraphs describe the specific changes of this proposed rule:
Section 52.11, Information collection requirements: Office of Management and Budget OMB approval.
In 52.11, this proposed rule would add new appendix G to 10 CFR part 52
to the list of information collection requirements in paragraph b of this section.
Appendix G to Part 52Design Certification Rule for the NuScale Standard Design This proposed rule would add appendix G to 10 CFR part 52 to incorporate the NuScale standard design into the NRCs regulations. Applicants intending to construct and operate a plant using NuScale may do so by referencing the design certification rule.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605b, the NRC certifies that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC 2.810.
VIII. Regulatory Analysis The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this proposed rule. The NRC prepares regulatory analyses for rulemakings that establish generic regulatory requirements applicable to all licensees. Design certifications are not generic rulemakings in the sense that design certifications do not establish standards or requirements with which all licensees must comply. Rather, design certifications are NRC approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking, which then may be voluntarily referenced by applicants for combined licenses. Furthermore, design certification rules are requested by an applicant for a design certification, rather than the NRC. Preparation of a regulatory analysis in this circumstance would not be useful because the design to be certified is proposed by the applicant rather than the NRC. For these reasons, the NRC concludes that preparation of a regulatory analysis is neither required nor appropriate.
IX. Backfitting and Issue Finality The NRC has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:17 Jun 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

backfit as defined in the backfit rule 50.109, and that it is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52.
This initial design certification rule does not constitute backfitting as defined in the backfit rule 50.109
because there are no operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50 referencing this design certification proposed rule.
This initial design certification rule is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52 because it does not impose new or changed requirements on existing design certification rules in appendices A through F to 10 CFR part 52, and no combined licenses, construction permits, or manufacturing licenses issued by the NRC at this time reference this design certification proposed rule.
For these reasons, neither a backfit analysis nor a discussion addressing the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 was prepared for this proposed rule.
X. Plain Writing The Plain Writing Act of 2010 Pub.
L. 111274 requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, 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 31883.
The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
XI. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC conducted an environmental assessment ADAMS Accession No.
ML19303C179 and has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NEPA, and the NRCs regulations in subpart A
of 10 CFR part 51, that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRCs generic determination in this regard is reflected in 51.32b1. The Commission has determined in 51.32
that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the issuance of a standard design certification or a design certification amendment, as applicable. Comments on the environmental assessment will be limited to the consideration of severe accident mitigation design alternatives as required by 51.30d.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

The basis for the NRCs categorical exclusion in this regard, as discussed in the 2007 final rule amending 10 CFR
parts 51 and 52 72 FR 49352; August 28, 2007, is based upon consideration that a design certification rule does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a facility referencing any particular design; it only codifies the NuScale design in a rule. The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue an environmental impact statement as appropriate under NEPA as part of the application for the construction and operation of a facility referencing any particular DC rule.
Consistent with 51.30d and 51.32b, the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment ADAMS
Accession No. ML19303C179 for the NuScale design addressing various design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents. The environmental assessment is based, in part, upon the NRCs review of NuScale Powers evaluation of various design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents in Revision 5 of the DCA Part 3, Application Applicants Environmental ReportStandard Design Certification ADAMS
Accession No. ML20224A512. Based on a review of NuScale Powers evaluation, the NRC concludes that: 1 NuScale Power identified a reasonably complete set of potential design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe accidents for the NuScale design and 2 none of the potential design alternatives appropriate at the design certification stage are justified on the basis of costbenefit considerations. These issues are considered resolved for the NuScale design.
Based on its own independent evaluation, the NRC concluded that none of the possible candidate design alternatives appropriate at this design certification stage are potentially cost beneficial for NuScale for accident events. This independent evaluation was based on reasonable treatment of costs, benefits, and sensitivities. The NRCs conclusion is applicable for sites with site characteristics that fall within those site parameters specified in the NuScale environmental report. The NRC
concludes that NuScale Power has adequately identified areas appropriate at this design certification stage where risk potentially could be reduced in a cost beneficial manner and that NuScale Power has adequately assessed whether the implementation of the identified potential severe accident mitigation design alternatives SAMDAs or candidate design alternatives would be cost beneficial for the given site parameters. Site-specific SAMDAs,
E:FRFM01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1