Je veux savoir à propos de…

35024

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

comments on this proposed rule or environment assessment by August 2, 2021, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC would address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in any subsequent final rule. Absent significant 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the NRC does not intend to initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.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 General Electric Company GE
submitted the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor U.S. ABWR standard design certification initial application on September 29, 1987. The NRC
initially docketed the application Docket No. STN 50605 on February 22, 1988, but later changed the docket number to 52001 on March 20, 1992
57 FR 9749 to reflect GEs request or the applicants request to review the application under part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:17 Jun 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

The NRC documented its review in NUREG1503, Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, in July 1994 ADAMS
Accession No. ML080670592, and NUREG1503, Supplement 1, Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, in May 1997
ADAMS Accession No. ML080710134.
The NRC issued the agencys first design certification DC rule, for the U.S.
ABWR, in the Federal Register 62 FR
25800, effective June 11, 1997. In 2007, GE and Hitachi Nuclear Energy formed an alliance, and General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, GEH
became the entity retaining the U.S.
ABWR design from GE.
On December 7, 2010, GEH submitted its application to renew the certification of the U.S. ABWR standard design to the NRC under subpart B, Standard design certifications, to 10 CFR part 52. The NRC published a notice of receipt of the application in the Federal Register on January 27, 2011 76 FR 4948. On February 18, 2011, the NRC formally accepted the design certification renewal application for docketing 76
FR 9612. The preapplication information submitted before the NRC
formally accepted the application for docketing can be found in ADAMS
under Docket No. PROJ0774.
Subpart B to 10 CFR part 52 presents the process for obtaining standard design certifications. Under 52.57a, an application for DC renewal must contain all information necessary to bring the information and data contained in the previous application up to date. Updates under 52.57a include clarifications consistent with the original understanding of the design information, and changes to correct known errors, typographical errors, or defects, as defined in 21.3. For the NRC to issue a rule granting the DC
renewal under 52.59a, the design, either as originally certified or as modified during the rulemaking on renewal, must comply with 1 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended AEA, 2 the NRC regulations applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued, and 3 the applicable requirements of 50.150, Aircraft impact assessment. 1
1 The requirement for modifications in DC
renewals to address 50.150 was added to 52.59a by a rule published June 12, 2009, requiring applicants for new nuclear power reactors to perform a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft 74 FR 28111. This requirement is applicable to the U.S. ABWR DC renewal because this is its first renewal and the U.S. ABWR DC was in effect on July 13, 2009.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

A DC renewal applicant may propose to amend the design under 52.59c.
An amendment is an applicantproposed change that is not an update under 52.57a or a change to meet the renewal standards in 52.59a.
Amendments must comply with the AEA and the NRCs regulations applicable and in effect at the time of renewal rather than the 52.29a standards. If the amendment request entails such an extensive change to the certified design that an essentially new standard design is being proposed, a new DC application must be submitted.
In addition, NRC regulations at 52.59b state that the Commission may impose other requirements if it determines any of the following:
1. They are necessary for adequate protection to public health and safety or common defense and security;
2. They are necessary for compliance with the NRCs regulations and orders applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued; or 3. There is a substantial increase in overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the new requirements, and the direct and indirect costs of implementing those requirements are justified in view of this increased protection.
The final U.S. ABWR DC rule for the original certification, SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION, Section II.A.1, Finality, stated that the NRC does not plan or expect to be able to conduct a de novo review of the entire design if a certification renewal application is filed under 52.59, Criteria for renewal 62 FR 25800, 25805. Instead, the NRC
stated that it expects that the focus of the review would be on changes to the design that are proposed by the applicant and insights from relevant operating experience with the certified design or other designs, or other material new information arising after the NRC staffs review of the design certification. Furthermore, the standards in 52.59b control the imposition of new requirements during the review of applications for renewal. When GEH
applied to renew the U.S. ABWR DC, the NRC affirmed this position, reviewed only those aspects of the design that were amended or modified, and determined whether operating experience or other material new information indicated that additional changes to the design were necessary.
The staff reviewed GEHs proposed amendments and modifications to the design; the staff did not impose changes under 10 CFR 52.59b.
On June 12, 2009, the NRC published a rule requiring applicants for new
E:FRFM01JYP1.SGM

01JYP1