Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

52594

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 22, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Comments received after October 22, 2021, will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Comments received on this direct final rule also will be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.
II. Rulemaking Procedure Because the NRC anticipates that this action will be non-controversial, the NRC is using the direct final rule procedure for this rule. The rule will become effective on December 6, 2021.
However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by October 22, 2021, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received in any final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.
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the NRC does not intend to initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:04 Sep 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the ADDRESSES
section in the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules 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 allows 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 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 aligns 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 duration extension, the AP1000 DC remains 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 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.

E:FRFM22SER1.SGM

22SER1