[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 124 (Thursday, July 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34905-34924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13801]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 34905]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 52
[NRC-2017-0090]
RIN 3150-AK04
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Design Certification
Renewal
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Direct final rule and issuance of environmental assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to renew the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor standard
design certification. Applicants or licensees intending to construct
and operate a U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor standard design may
do so by referencing this design certification rule. The applicant for
the renewal of the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor standard design
certification is General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC.
DATES: The final rule is effective September 29, 2021, unless
significant adverse comments are received by August 2, 2021. If the
direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely
notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
regulation is approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register as of September 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0090. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Dawn Forder; telephone: 301-415-3407;
email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Andrukat, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-415-3561, email:
[email protected], or James Shea, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1388, email: [email protected]. Both
are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
II. Rulemaking Procedure
III. Background
IV. Discussion
V. ABWR Final Design Approval
VI. Section-By-Section Analysis
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VIII. Regulatory Analysis
IX. Backfitting and Issue Finality
X. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XI. Plain Writing
XII. Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant
Impact
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XIV. Congressional Review Act
XV. Agreement State Compatibility
XVI. Availability of Documents
XVII. Procedures for Access to Proprietary and Safeguards
Information for Preparation of Comments on the U.S. ABWR Design
Certification Renewal Rule
XVIII. Incorporation by Reference--Reasonable Availability to
Interested Parties
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0090 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0090.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-4737,
or by email to [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the Availability of Documents section.
Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may
examine and order copies of public documents is currently closed. You
may submit your request to the PDR via email at [email protected] or
call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Attention: The Technical Library, which is located at Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, is
open by appointment only. Interested parties may make appointments to
examine documents by contacting the NRC Technical Library by email at
[email protected] between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
B. Submitting Comments
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the
Federal Rulemaking website (https://www.regulations.gov). Please
include Docket ID NRC-2017-0090 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
https://www.regulations.gov/ as well as enter the comment submissions
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for
[[Page 34906]]
submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. Comments received
after August 2, 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 September 29, 2021.
However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by August 2,
2021, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this direct
final rule and would 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 rule's 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-and-comment 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 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 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 50-605) on February 22, 1988, but later
changed the docket number to 52-001 on March 20, 1992 (57 FR 9749) to
reflect GE's request [or the applicant's 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). The NRC documented its review in NUREG-1503,
``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design,'' in July 1994 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML080670592), and NUREG-1503, 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 agency's 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 Sec. 52.57(a), 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 Sec. 52.57(a) include clarifications consistent with the
original understanding of the design information, and changes to
correct known errors, typographical errors, or defects, as defined in
Sec. 21.3. For the NRC to issue a rule granting the DC renewal under
Sec. 52.59(a), 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 Sec. 50.150, ``Aircraft impact
assessment.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The requirement for modifications in DC renewals to address
Sec. 50.150 was added to Sec. 52.59(a) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A DC renewal applicant may propose to amend the design under Sec.
52.59(c). An amendment is an applicant-proposed change that is not an
update under Sec. 52.57(a) or a change to meet the renewal standards
in Sec. 52.59(a). Amendments must comply with the AEA and the NRC's
regulations applicable and in effect at the time of renewal rather than
the Sec. 52.29(a) 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 Sec. 52.59(b) 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 NRC's 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
[[Page 34907]]
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 Sec.
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
staff's review of the design certification. Furthermore, the standards
in Sec. 52.59(b) 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
GEH's proposed amendments and modifications to the design; the staff
did not impose changes under 10 CFR 52.59(b).
On June 12, 2009, the NRC published a rule 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). By letter dated December 7, 2010, GEH submitted its application
to renew the U.S. ABWR DC to the NRC, which included Revision 5 to the
design control document. This revision includes a containment re-
analysis amendment and the necessary changes to meet the requirements
of Sec. 50.150, ``Aircraft impact assessment.'' Revision 5 of the DCD
also describes the aircraft impact assessment results and identifies
and incorporates design features and functional capabilities to show,
with reduced use of operator actions, that the reactor core remains
cooled and spent fuel pool integrity is maintained.
In a letter dated July 20, 2012, the NRC identified proposed
changes that were regulatory improvements or that could meet the
criteria in Sec. 52.59(b). The NRC suggested that GEH consider the
recommendations contained in SECY-12-0025, ``Proposed Orders and
Requests for Information in Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's
March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami,'' dated February
17, 2012, addressing Recommendations 4.2, 7.1, and 9.3 from SECY-11-
0093, ``Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions
Following the Events in Japan,'' enclosure, ``Recommendations for
Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century; The Near-Term Task Force
Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident report,'' dated
July 12, 2011. Subsequently, during the Mitigation of Beyond-Design-
Basis Events rulemaking that resulted in Sec. 50.155, ``Mitigation of
beyond-design-basis events,'' the Commission decided not to impose
mitigation strategies requirements on DCs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events proposed
rule regulatory analysis, dated October 2015, the Commission
explained that its proposal to make the Mitigation of Beyond-Design-
Basis Events rule inapplicable to existing DCs, which included the
U.S. ABWR, was based on concluding that ``[t]he issues that may be
resolved in a DC and accorded issue finality may not include
operational matters, such as the elements of the [Mitigation of
Beyond-Design-Basis Events] proposed rule.'' However, as discussed
in SECY-19-0066, ``Staff Review of NuScale Power's Mitigation
Strategy for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events,'' the design
certification can provide for finality under 10 CFR 52.63 and
Section VI of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 for the adequacy of the
SSCs to perform their mitigation strategies functions, as analyzed
in the FSAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the NRC's July 20, 2012, letter to GEH, the NRC issued
several requests for additional information to identity additional
items or clarify the items communicated in the 2012 letter. By letter
dated February 19, 2016, GEH submitted DCD, Revision 6, to incorporate
changes to the U.S. ABWR DCD made in response to NRC's 2012 letter and
to the NRC's requests for additional information. In addition, this
revision transmitted corrections of typographical errors that were
identified during document development, and other formatting changes.
These corrections represent non-substantive changes that are editorial
in nature. The NRC reviewed these typographical changes and determined
that the changes do not affect the NRC's findings in the final safety
evaluation report for original certification and are acceptable. On
December 20, 2019, the applicant submitted DCD, Revision 7, that
incorporated the remaining changes provided in earlier responses to
requests for additional information. The NRC reviewed DCD, Revision 7,
against the changes proposed in responses to requests for additional
information and noted that two short paragraphs were missing from
Chapter 5. On March 16, 2020, the applicant resubmitted DCD, Revision
7, Chapter 5, including the previously missing paragraphs. To ensure
that the public can reference a single ADAMS package for this document,
the NRC copied the original DCD, Revision 7, ADAMS package, and
replaced Chapter 5 with the corrected file. This corrected ADAMS
package is the collection of DCD, Revision 7, chapters that the NRC has
reviewed (ADAMS Accession No. ML20093K254). The NRC's review is
documented in Supplement 2 to NUREG-1503, ``Final Safety Evaluation
Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water
Reactor Design.'' This final rule certifies Revision 7 of the U.S. ABWR
DCD as provided in ADAMS Accession No. ML20093K254.
In a letter dated June 9, 2016, Toshiba Corporation Energy Systems
and Solutions Company (Toshiba) withdrew its application to renew the
original U.S. ABWR design certification with its version of the U.S.
ABWR design certification. The Toshiba ABWR was to incorporate the
Toshiba-specific aircraft impact assessment amendment of the U.S. ABWR
design certification, identified in the current appendix A to 10 CFR
part 52 as the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC)
DCD. The original U.S. ABWR design certification has expired, along
with its STPNOC DCD aircraft impact assessment amendment, and Toshiba
has withdrawn its renewal U.S. ABWR DC application; therefore,
Toshiba's STPNOC DCD with its Toshiba-specific aircraft impact
assessment amendment is not considered to be a timely renewal as
described in Sec. 52.57(b).
In a letter dated June 22, 2018, the only U.S. ABWR combined
license (COL) holder, Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, requested
NRC approval to withdraw the COLs for South Texas Project, Units 3 and
4 (COLs NPF 97 and NPF 98). The NRC approved the termination of these
COLs on July 12, 2018. Since the only COL or COL applicant who
referenced the Toshiba STPNOC DCD has terminated its licenses, and no
other license or application referenced the U.S. ABWR DC, the Toshiba
STPNOC DCD no longer meets the requirement for validity beyond the date
of expiration under Sec. 52.55(b). Finally, GEH has not requested to
renew the STPNOC amendment. For all these reasons, the NRC is not
retaining the original DCD or the STPNOC DCD option in Appendix A to 10
CFR part 52. Instead, the NRC is replacing appendix A to 10 CFR part 52
with this final rule certifying the renewed GEH U.S. ABWR design, as
explained in Section IV.
IV. Discussion
Final Safety Evaluation Report
The final safety evaluation report for the renewed U.S. ABWR
standard design consists of (1) the original final safety evaluation
report published in July 1994 (NUREG-1503, Volume 1--
[[Page 34908]]
Chapters 1 through 22 and Volume 2--Appendices); (2) NUREG-1503,
Supplement 1, published in May 1997; and (3) NUREG-1503, Supplement 2,
published in October 2020. NUREG-1503 and NUREG-1503, Supplement 1,
document the staff's review of the original certified DC.\3\ NUREG-
1503, Supplement 2, documents the NRC staff's review of Revision 7 of
the U.S. ABWR DCD. The original final safety evaluation report and its
supplements are available as indicated in Section XVI, ``Availability
of Documents,'' in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NUREG-1948, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the
Aircraft Impact Amendment to the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
(ABWR) Design Certification,'' which documents the staff evaluation
of the U.S. ABWR DC amendment to comply with requirements in Sec.
50.150, is inapplicable to this U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule because
the renewal DCD, Revision 7, incorporates a different set of changes
to comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 50.150 and 52.59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. ABWR DC Renewal Rule
The following discussion describes the purpose and key aspects of
each section of the U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule. This rule is unique
because it is the first DC renewal. In addition to the GEH U.S. ABWR
design certification, the current appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 includes
discussions related to the U.S. ABWR design certified for the STPNOC
acting together with Toshiba. As described in Section III,
``Background,'' of this document, the NRC has terminated the COLs that
relied on the U.S. ABWR design certification rule as amended, and
Toshiba has withdrawn its U.S. ABWR DC renewal application. Therefore,
the NRC believes that the best approach for this renewal is to
completely replace appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 with this final rule
certifying the renewed GEH U.S. ABWR design. There is no discussion of
the removal of STPNOC/Toshiba specific parts of the existing appendix A
to 10 CFR part 52. The U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule maintains the
structure of existing DC rules, with certain modifications where
necessary to account for differences in the U.S. ABWR design
documentation, design features, and environmental assessment (including
severe accident mitigation design alternatives). As a result, DC rules
are standardized to the extent practical.
A. Introduction (Section I)
The purpose of Section I of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to
identify the standard design approved by this U.S. ABWR DC renewal
final rule and the applicant for certification of the standard design.
Identification of the DC applicant is necessary to implement appendix A
to 10 CFR part 52 for two reasons. First, Sec. 52.63(c) identifies the
DC applicant as a potential source for an applicant for a COL to obtain
the generic DCD and supporting design information. If the COL applicant
does not obtain the design information from the DC applicant, but
instead uses a different entity, then the COL applicant must meet the
requirements in Sec. 52.73, ``Relationship to other subparts.''
Second, paragraph X.A.1 of this final rule requires that the identified
DC applicant maintain the generic DCD throughout the time that appendix
A to 10 CFR part 52 may be referenced.
B. Definitions (Section II)
The purpose of Section II of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to
define specific terminology with respect to this final DC rule. During
development of the first two DC rules, the NRC decided that there would
be both generic (master) design control documents maintained by the NRC
and the design certification applicant, as well as individual plant-
specific DCDs maintained by each applicant or licensee that references
a certified standard design. This distinction is necessary in order to
specify the relevant plant-specific requirements to applicants and
licensees referencing appendix A to 10 CFR part 52. In order to
facilitate the maintenance of the master design control documents, the
NRC requires that each application for a standard design certification
be updated to include an electronic copy of the final version of the
DCD. The final version is required to incorporate all amendments to the
DCD submitted since the original application, as well as any changes
directed by the NRC as a result of its review of the original DCD or as
a result of any public input that the staff determined was valid. In
the case of the U.S. ABWR DC renewal, there was no significant public
participation in the staff review. This final version is the master DCD
incorporated by reference in the design certification rule. The master
DCD will be revised as needed to include generic changes to the version
of the DCD that is approved in this design certification final rule.
These changes would occur as the result of generic rulemaking by the
NRC, under the change criteria in Section VIII of appendix A to 10 CFR
part 52.
The NRC also requires each applicant and licensee referencing
appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to submit and maintain a plant-specific
DCD as part of the COL final safety analysis report. This plant-
specific DCD must either include or incorporate by reference the
information in the generic DCD. The plant-specific DCD would be updated
as necessary to reflect the generic changes to the DCD that the NRC may
adopt through rulemaking, plant-specific departures from the generic
DCD that the NRC imposed on the licensee by order, and any plant-
specific departures that the licensee chooses to make in accordance
with the relevant processes in Section VIII. Therefore, the plant-
specific DCD functions similarly to an updated final safety analysis
report because it provides the most complete and accurate information
on a plant's design basis for that part of the plant that would be
within the scope of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52.
The NRC is treating the technical specifications in Chapter 16,
``Technical Specifications,'' of the generic DCD as a special category
of information and designating them as generic technical specifications
in order to facilitate the special treatment of this information under
appendix A to 10 CFR part 52. A COL applicant must submit plant-
specific technical specifications that consist of the generic technical
specifications, which may be modified as specified in paragraph VIII.C,
and the remaining site-specific information needed to complete the
technical specifications. The final safety analysis report that is
required by Sec. 52.79, ``Contents of applications; technical
information in final safety analysis report,'' will consist of the
plant-specific DCD, the site-specific final safety analysis report, and
the plant-specific technical specifications.
The terms Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 2* are defined, and the term COL
action items (COL license information) is described in appendix A to 10
CFR part 52 because these concepts were not envisioned when 10 CFR part
52 was developed. The DC applicants and the NRC use these terms in
implementing the two-tiered rule structure (the DCD is divided into
Tiers 1 and 2 to support the rule structure) that was proposed by
representatives of the nuclear industry after publication of 10 CFR
part 52. The Commission approved the use of a two-tiered rule structure
in its staff requirements memorandum, dated February 15, 1991, on SECY-
90-377, ``Requirements for Design Certification under 10 CFR part 52,''
dated November 8, 1990.
Tier 1 information means the portion of the design-related
information contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified
by this appendix. Tier 2 information means the portion of the design-
related information contained in the generic DCD that is approved but
not certified
[[Page 34909]]
by this appendix. The change process for Tier 2 information is similar
to, but not identical to, the change process set forth in Sec. 50.59,
``Changes, tests, and experiments.'' The regulations in Sec. 50.59
describe when a licensee may make changes to a plant as described in
its final safety analysis report without a license amendment. Because
the change process for Tier 2 information provided in Section VIII of
this appendix provides more specific criteria than Sec. 50.59, as
described in Sec. 50.59(c)(4), the definitions and criteria of Sec.
50.59 are not applicable to this process.
Certain Tier 2 information has been designated in the generic DCD
with brackets, italicized text, and an asterisk as ``Tier 2*''
information and a plant-specific departure from Tier 2* information
requires prior NRC approval (refer to Section IV.H of this document).
However, the Tier 2* designation expires for some of this information
when the facility first achieves full power after the finding required
by Sec. 52.103(g). The process for changing Tier 2* information and
the time at which its status at Tier 2* expires is set forth in
paragraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. Some Tier 2* requirements
concerning special preoperational tests are designated to be performed
only for the first plant or first three plants referencing the U.S.
ABWR DC renewal rule. The Tier 2* designation for these selected tests
will expire after the first plant or first three plants complete the
specified tests. However, a COL action item requires that subsequent
plants also perform the tests or justify that the results of the first-
plant-only or first-three-plants-only tests are applicable to the
subsequent plant.
The NRC is including a definition for a ``Departure from a method
of evaluation described in the plant-specific DCD used in establishing
the design bases or in the safety analyses'' in paragraph II.G of this
appendix, so that the eight criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.b will be
implemented for new reactors as intended.
C. Scope and Contents (Section III)
The purpose of Section III of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to
describe and define the scope and content of this design certification,
explain how to obtain a copy of the generic DCD, identify requirements
for incorporation by reference of the U.S. ABWR DC renewal final rule,
and set forth how documentation discrepancies or inconsistencies are to
be resolved.
Paragraph III.A is the required statement of the Office of the
Federal Register for approval of the incorporation by reference of the
U.S. ABWR DCD, Revision 7, which includes a late correction to Tier 2,
Chapter 5. In addition, this paragraph provides the information on how
to obtain a copy of the DCD.
Paragraph III.B is the requirement for COL applicants and licensees
referencing the U.S. ABWR DCD to comply with the requirements of this
appendix in order to benefit from the issue finality afforded the
certified design. The legal effect of incorporation by reference is
that the incorporated material has the same legal status as if it were
published in the Code of Federal Regulations. This material, like any
other properly issued regulation, has the force and effect of law. Tier
1 and Tier 2 information and generic technical specifications have been
combined into a single document called the generic DCD, in order to
effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation
by reference into the final rule. In addition, paragraph III.B
clarifies that the conceptual design information and GEH's evaluation
of severe accident mitigation design alternatives as described in the
``Technical Support Document for the ABWR'' are not part of appendix A
to 10 CFR part 52. As provided by Sec. 52.47(a)(24), these conceptual
designs are not part of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 and, therefore,
are not applicable to an application that references appendix A to 10
CFR part 52. Therefore, an applicant referencing appendix A to 10 CFR
part 52 would not be required to conform to the conceptual design
information that was provided by the DC applicant. The conceptual
design information, which consists of site-specific design features,
was required to facilitate the DC review. Similarly, the severe
accident mitigation design alternatives were required to facilitate the
environmental assessment.
Paragraphs III.C and III.D set forth the manner by which potential
conflicts are to be resolved and identify the controlling document.
Paragraph III.C establishes the Tier 1 description in the DCD as
controlling in the event of an inconsistency between the Tier 1 and
Tier 2 information in the DCD. Paragraph III.D establishes the generic
DCD as the controlling document in the event of an inconsistency
between the DCD and the final safety evaluation report for the
certified standard design.
Paragraph III.E makes it clear that design activities outside the
scope of the DC may be performed using actual site characteristics,
provided that the design activities do not affect the DCD or conflict
with the interface requirements. This provision applies to site-
specific portions of the plant, such as the administration building.
D. Additional Requirements and Restrictions (Section IV)
Section IV of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 sets forth additional
requirements and restrictions imposed upon an applicant who references
appendix A to 10 CFR part 52.
Paragraph IV.A sets forth the information requirements for COL
applicants and distinguishes between information and documents that
must be included in the application or the design control document and
those which may be incorporated by reference. Any incorporation by
reference in the application should be clear and should specify the
title, date, edition or version of a document, the page number(s), and
table(s) containing the relevant information to be incorporated. The
legal effect of such an incorporation by reference into the application
is that appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 would be legally binding on the
applicant or licensee.
In paragraph IV.B the NRC reserves the right to determine how
appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 may be referenced under 10 CFR part 50,
``Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities.'' This
determination may occur in the context of a subsequent rulemaking
modifying 10 CFR part 52 or this DC rule, or on a case-by-case basis in
the context of a specific application for a 10 CFR part 50 construction
permit or operating license. This provision is necessary because the
previous DC rules were not implemented in the manner that was
originally envisioned at the time that 10 CFR part 52 was issued. The
NRC's concern is with the manner by which the inspections, tests,
analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) were developed and the lack
of experience with DCs in a licensing proceeding. Therefore, it is
appropriate that the NRC retain some discretion regarding the manner by
which appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 could be referenced in a 10 CFR part
50 licensing proceeding.
E. Applicable Regulations (Section V)
The purpose of Section V of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to
specify the regulations that are applicable and in effect for the U.S.
ABWR DC renewal. These regulations consist of the technically relevant
regulations identified in paragraph V.A, except for the regulations in
paragraph V.B that are not applicable to this certified design.
[[Page 34910]]
F. Issue Resolution (Section VI)
The purpose of Section VI of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to
identify the scope of issues that are resolved by the NRC through this
final rule and, therefore, are ``matters resolved'' within the meaning
and intent of Sec. 52.63(a)(5). The section is divided into five
parts: Paragraph VI.A identifies the NRC's safety findings in adopting
appendix A to 10 CFR part 52, paragraph VI.B identifies the scope and
nature of issues that are resolved by this final rule, paragraph VI.C
identifies issues that are not resolved by this final rule, paragraph
VI.D identifies the issue finality restrictions applicable to the NRC
with respect to appendix A to 10 CFR part 52, and paragraph VI.E
identifies the availability of secondary resources.
Paragraph VI.A describes the nature of the NRC's findings in
general terms and makes the findings required by Sec. 52.54,
``Issuance of standard design certification,'' for the NRC's approval
of this DC final rule.
Paragraph VI.B sets forth the scope of issues that may not be
challenged as a matter of right in subsequent proceedings. The
introductory phrase of paragraph VI.B clarifies that issue resolution,
as described in the remainder of the paragraph, extends to the
delineated NRC proceedings for plants referencing appendix A to 10 CFR
part 52. The remainder of paragraph VI.B describes the categories of
information for which there is issue resolution.
Paragraph VI.C reserves the right of the NRC to impose operational
requirements on applicants that reference appendix A to 10 CFR part 52.
This provision reflects the fact that only some operational
requirements, including portions of the generic technical
specifications in Chapter 16 of the DCD, and no operational programs
(e.g., operational quality assurance), were completely reviewed by the
NRC in this DC final rule. However, those operational requirements that
the NRC completely reviewed and approved as documented in the NRC's
final safety evaluation report, are subject to the change control
provisions of paragraph VIII.C. The NRC notes that operational
requirements may be imposed on licensees referencing this DC through
the inclusion of license conditions in the license, or established by a
COL applicant or license holder through the inclusion with sufficient
specificity of a description of the operational requirement in the
plant-specific final safety analysis report.\4\ The NRC's choice of the
regulatory vehicle for imposing the operational requirements will
depend upon the following, among other things: (1) Whether the
development and/or implementation of these requirements must occur
prior to either the issuance of the COL or the Commission finding under
Sec. 52.103(g) and (2) the nature of the change controls that are
appropriate given the regulatory, safety, and security significance of
each operational requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Certain activities ordinarily conducted following fuel load
and therefore considered ``operational requirements,'' but which may
be relied upon to support a Commission finding under Sec.
52.103(g), may themselves be the subject of ITAAC to ensure
implementation prior to the Sec. 52.103(g) finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, paragraph VI.C allows the NRC to impose future operational
requirements (distinct from design matters) on applicants who reference
this DC. License conditions for portions of the plant within the scope
of this DC (e.g., start-up and power ascension testing) are not
restricted by Sec. 52.63. The requirement to perform these testing
programs is contained in the Tier 1 information. However, ITAAC cannot
be specified for these subjects because the matters to be addressed in
these license conditions cannot be verified prior to fuel load and
operation, when the ITAAC are satisfied. In the absence of detailed
design information to evaluate the need for and develop specific post-
fuel load verifications for these matters, the NRC is reserving the
right to impose, at the time of COL issuance, license conditions
addressing post-fuel load verification activities for portions of the
plant within the scope of this DC.
Paragraph VI.D requires the NRC to follow the restrictions
contained in Section VIII of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 when
requiring generic or plant-specific modifications, changes, or
additions to structures, systems, and components; design features;
design criteria; and ITAAC within the scope of the certified design.
Paragraph VI.E provides that the NRC will specify at an appropriate
time the procedures on how to obtain access to sensitive unclassified
and non-safeguards information (SUNSI) and safeguards information (SGI)
for the U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule. Access to such information would be
for the sole purpose of requesting or participating in certain
specified hearings, such as hearings required by Sec. 52.85,
``Administrative review of applications; hearings,'' or an adjudicatory
hearing.
G. Duration of This Appendix (Section VII)
The purpose of Section VII of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is, in
part, to specify the period during which this design certification may
be referenced by an applicant or licensee for a COL, under Sec. 52.55,
``Conditions of construction permits, early site permits, combined
licenses, and manufacturing licenses,'' and the period it will remain
valid when the DC is referenced. For example, if a COL application
references this DC during the 15-year period, then the DC would be
effective for that COL application until that COL application is
withdrawn or the license issued on that COL application expires,
including periods of operation under a renewed license. The NRC intends
for appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to remain valid for the life of the
plants that reference the DC to achieve the benefits of standardization
and licensing stability. This means that changes to, or plant-specific
departures from, information in the plant-specific DCD must be made
under the change processes in Section VIII for the life of a plant that
references this DC rule.
H. Processes for Changes and Departures (Section VIII)
The purpose of Section VIII of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to
set forth the processes for generic changes to, or plant-specific
departures (including exemptions) from, the DCD. The NRC adopted this
restrictive change process in order to achieve a more stable licensing
process for applicants and licensees that reference DC rules. Section
VIII is divided into three paragraphs, which correspond to Tier 1, Tier
2, and operational requirements.
Generic changes (called ``modifications'' in Sec. 52.63(a)(3))
must be accomplished by rulemaking because the intended subject of the
change is this DC final rule itself, as is contemplated by Sec.
52.63(a)(1). Consistent with Sec. 52.63(a)(3), any generic rulemaking
changes are applicable to all plants referencing this DC rule, absent
circumstances which render the change technically irrelevant. By
contrast, plant-specific departures could be either required by an
order to one or more applicants or licensees; or an applicant or
licensee-initiated departure applicable only to that applicant's or
licensee's plant(s), similar to a Sec. 50.59 departure or an
exemption. Because these plant-specific departures result in a DCD that
is unique for that plant, Section X of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52
requires an applicant or licensee to maintain a plant-specific
[[Page 34911]]
DCD. For purposes of brevity, the following discussion refers to the
processes for both generic changes and plant-specific departures as
``change processes.'' Section VIII refers to an exemption from one or
more requirements of this appendix and addresses the criteria for
granting an exemption. The NRC cautions that when the exemption
involves an underlying substantive requirement (i.e., a requirement
outside this appendix), then the applicant or licensee requesting the
exemption must demonstrate that an exemption from the underlying
applicable requirement meets the criteria of Sec. 52.7, ``Specific
exemptions,'' or Sec. 50.12, ``Specific exemptions.''
Tier 1 information is the portion of design-related information in
the generic DCD that the NRC approves in the 10 CFR part 52 design
certification appendices. Tier 1 information can only be changed with
NRC approval by rulemaking, approval of an exemption from the certified
design rule, or required by the Commission through a plant-specific
order. Tier 2 information also is approved by the NRC in the 10 CFR
part 52 design certification rule appendices, but it is not certified
and licensees who reference the design can change this information
using the process outlined in Section VIII of the appendices. This
change process is similar to that in Sec. 50.59 and is generally
referred to as the ``Sec. 50.59-like'' process. If the criteria in
Section VIII are met, a licensee can change Tier 2 information without
prior NRC approval. The NRC created a third category, Tier 2*, to
address industry requests to minimize the scope of Tier 1 information
and provide greater flexibility for making changes. Tier 2* information
is included in Tier 2 and has the same safety significance as Tier 1
information, but the NRC decided to provide more flexibility for
licensees to change this type of information. Tier 2* is significant
information that cannot be changed without prior NRC approval of a
license amendment requesting the change. Paragraph VIII.B.6 of appendix
A to 10 CFR part 52 sets forth the process for changing Tier 2*
information.
Tier 1 Information
Paragraph VIII.A describes the change process for changes to Tier 1
information that are accomplished by rulemakings that amend the generic
DCD and are governed by the standards in Sec. 52.63(a)(1). A generic
change under Sec. 52.63(a)(1) will not be made to a certified design
while it is in effect unless the change: (1) Is necessary for
compliance with NRC regulations applicable and in effect at the time
the certification was issued; (2) is necessary to provide adequate
protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and
security; (3) reduces unnecessary regulatory burden and maintains
protection to public health and safety and common defense and security;
(4) provides the detailed design information necessary to resolve
select design acceptance criteria; (5) corrects material errors in the
certification information; (6) substantially increases overall safety,
reliability, or security of a facility and the costs of the change are
justified; or (7) contributes to increased standardization of the
certification information. The rulemakings must provide for notice and
opportunity for public comment on the proposed change, under Sec.
52.63(a)(2). The NRC will give consideration as to whether the benefits
justify the costs for plants that are already licensed or for which an
application for a permit or license is under consideration except for
those changes that are necessary to provide adequate protection of the
public health and safety or the common defense and security.
Departures from Tier 1 may occur in two ways: (1) The NRC may order
a licensee to depart from Tier 1, as provided in paragraph VIII.A.3, or
(2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from Tier 1, as
addressed in paragraph VIII.A.4. If the NRC seeks to order a licensee
to depart from Tier 1, paragraph VIII.A.3 would require that the NRC
find both that the departure is necessary either to assure adequate
protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and
security or to bring the certification into compliance with the NRC's
regulations applicable and in effect at the time of approval of the DC
and that special circumstances are present, taking into consideration
whether the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that
may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the plant-
specific order. Paragraph VIII.A.4 provides that exemptions from Tier 1
requested by an applicant or licensee are governed by the requirements
of Sec. Sec. 52.63(b)(1) and 52.98(f), which provide an opportunity
for a hearing. In addition, the NRC would not grant requests for
exemptions that will result in a significant decrease in the level of
safety otherwise provided by the design.
Tier 2 Information
Paragraph VIII.B describes the change processes for the Tier 2
information; which have the same elements as the Tier 1 change process,
but some of the standards for plant-specific orders and exemptions
would be different. Generic Tier 2 changes would be accomplished by
rulemaking that would amend the generic DCD and would be governed by
the standards in Sec. 52.63(a)(1). A generic change under Sec.
52.63(a)(1) would not be made to a certified design while it is in
effect unless the change: (1) Is necessary for compliance with NRC
regulations that were applicable and in effect at the time the
certification was issued; (2) is necessary to provide adequate
protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and
security; (3) reduces unnecessary regulatory burden and maintains
protection to public health and safety and the common defense and
security; (4) provides the detailed design information necessary to
resolve select design acceptance criteria; (5) corrects material errors
in the certification information; (6) substantially increases overall
safety, reliability, or security of a facility and the costs of the
change are justified; or (7) contributes to increased standardization
of the certification information.
Departures from Tier 2 would occur in five ways: (1) The Commission
may order a plant-specific departure, as set forth in paragraph
VIII.B.3; (2) an applicant or licensee may request an exemption from a
Tier 2 requirement as set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4; (3) a licensee
may make a departure without prior NRC approval under paragraph
VIII.B.5; (4) the licensee may request NRC approval for proposed
departures which do not meet the requirements in paragraph VIII.B.5 as
provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.e; and (5) the licensee may request NRC
approval for a departure from Tier 2* information under paragraph
VIII.B.6.
Similar to Commission-ordered Tier 1 departures and generic Tier 2
changes, Commission-ordered Tier 2 departures cannot be imposed except
when necessary, either to bring the certification into compliance with
the NRC's regulations applicable and in effect at the time of approval
of the DC or to ensure adequate protection of the public health and
safety or the common defense and security, provided that special
circumstances are present as set forth in paragraph VIII.B.3. However,
unlike in the case of Tier 1 departures, the Commission would not have
to consider whether the special circumstances for the Tier 2 departures
would outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the
reduction in standardization caused by the plant-specific order, as
required by Sec. 52.63(a)(4). The NRC has determined
[[Page 34912]]
that it is not necessary to impose an additional limitation for
standardization similar to that imposed on Tier 1 departures by Sec.
52.63(a)(4) and (b)(1) because it would unnecessarily restrict the
flexibility of applicants and licensees with respect to Tier 2
information.
An applicant or licensee referencing this DC rule may request an
exemption from Tier 2 information as set forth in paragraph VIII.B.4.
The applicant or licensee would have to demonstrate that the exemption
complies with one of the special circumstances in regulations governing
specific exemptions in Sec. 50.12(a). In addition, the NRC would not
grant requests for exemptions that would result in a significant
decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.
However, unlike Tier 1 changes, the special circumstances for the
exemption do not have to outweigh any decrease in safety that may
result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption.
If the exemption is requested by an applicant for a license, the
exemption would be subject to litigation in the same manner as other
issues in the licensing hearing, consistent with Sec. 52.63(b)(1). If
the exemption is requested by a licensee, then the exemption would be
subject to an opportunity for hearing in the same manner as license
amendments.
Paragraph VIII.B.5 allows an applicant or licensee to depart from
Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, if the departure does
not involve a change to or departure from Tier 1 information, Tier 2*
information, or the technical specifications, and the departure does
not require a license amendment under paragraph VIII.B.5.b or c. The
technical specifications referred to in B.5.a of this paragraph are the
technical specifications in Chapter 16 of the generic DCD, including
bases, for departures made prior to the issuance of the COL. After the
issuance of the COL, the plant-specific technical specifications would
be controlling under paragraph VIII.B.5. The requirement for a license
amendment in paragraph VIII.B.5.b is similar to the requirement in
Sec. 50.59 and applies to all of the information in Tier 2 except for
the information that resolves the severe accident issues or that
affects information required by Sec. 52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft
impacts.
The NRC concludes that the resolution of ex-vessel severe accident
design features should be preserved and maintained in the same fashion
as all other safety issues that were resolved during the design
certification review (refer to SRM on SECY-90-377, ``Requirements for
Design Certification Under 10 CFR part 52,'' dated February 15, 1991,
ADAMS Accession No. ML003707892). However, because of the increased
uncertainty in ex-vessel severe accident issue resolutions, the NRC has
adopted separate criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.c for determining if a
departure from information that resolves ex-vessel severe accident
design features would require a license amendment. For purposes of
applying the special criteria in paragraph VIII.B.5.c, ex-vessel severe
accident resolutions are limited to design features where the intended
function of the design feature is relied upon to resolve postulated
accidents when the reactor core has melted and exited the reactor
vessel, and the containment is being challenged. These design features
are identified in Section 19E of the DCD but may be described in other
sections of the DCD. The location of design information in the DCD is
not important to the application of this special procedure for ex-
vessel severe accident design features. However, the special procedure
in paragraph VIII.B.5.c does not apply to design features that resolve
``beyond-design-basis accidents'' or other low-probability events. The
important aspect of this special procedure is that it is limited to ex-
vessel severe accident design features, as defined above. Some design
features may have intended functions to meet ``design-basis''
requirements and to resolve ``ex-vessel severe accidents.'' If these
design features are reviewed under paragraph VIII.B.5, then the
appropriate criteria from either paragraph VIII.B.5.b or VIII.B.5.c are
selected depending upon the function being changed.
An applicant or licensee that plans to depart from Tier 2
information, under paragraph VIII.B.5, is required to prepare an
evaluation that provides the bases for the determination that the
proposed change does not require a license amendment or involve a
change to Tier 1 or Tier 2* information, or a change to the TS, as
explained above. In order to achieve the NRC's goals for design
certification, the evaluation needs to consider all of the matters that
were resolved in the DCD, such as generic issue resolutions that are
relevant to the proposed departure. The benefits of the early
resolution of safety issues would be lost if departures from the DCD
were made that violated these resolutions without appropriate review.
The evaluation of the relevant matters needs to consider the proposed
departure over the full range of power operation from startup to
shutdown, as it relates to anticipated operational occurrences,
transients, DBAs, and severe accidents. The evaluation must also
include a review of all relevant secondary references from the DCD
because Tier 2 information, which is intended to be treated as a
requirement, is contained in the secondary references. The evaluation
should consider the tables in Sections 14.3 and 19.8 of the generic DCD
to ensure that the proposed change does not impact Tier 1 information.
These tables contain cross-references from the safety analyses in Tier
2 to the important parameters that were included in Tier 1.
Paragraph VIII.B.5.d addresses information described in the DCD to
address aircraft impacts, under Sec. 52.47(a)(28). Under Sec.
52.47(a)(28), applicants are required to include the information
required by Sec. 50.150(b) in their DCD. A COL applicant or licensee
that departs from this information is required to consider the effect
of the changed design feature or functional capability on the original
aircraft impact assessment required by Sec. 50.150(a). The applicant
or licensee is also required to describe in the plant-specific DCD how
the modified design features and functional capabilities continue to
meet the assessment requirements in Sec. 50.150(a)(1). Submittal of
this updated information is governed by the reporting requirements in
paragraph X.B.
During an ongoing adjudicatory proceeding (e.g., for issuance of a
COL) a party who believes that an applicant or licensee has not
complied with paragraph VIII.B.5 when departing from Tier 2 information
may petition to admit such a contention into the proceeding under
paragraph VIII.B.5.g. As set forth in paragraph VIII.B.5.g, the
petition would have to comply with the requirements of Sec. 2.309,
``Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing,
and contentions,'' and show that the departure does not comply with
paragraph VIII.B.5. If on the basis of the petition and any responses
thereto, the presiding officer in the proceeding determines that the
required showing has been made, the matter would be certified to the
Commission for its final determination. In the absence of a proceeding,
assertions of noncompliance with paragraph VIII.B.5 requirements
applicable to Tier 2 departures would be treated as petitions for
enforcement action under Sec. 2.206, ``Requests for action under this
subpart.''
Paragraph VIII.B.6 provides a process for departing from Tier 2*
information. The creation of and restrictions on changing Tier 2*
information resulted from the development of the Tier 1 information for
the Advanced Boiling
[[Page 34913]]
Water Reactor design certification (appendix A to 10 CFR part 52) and
the System 80+ design certification (appendix B to 10 CFR part 52).
During this development process, these applicants requested that the
amount of information in Tier 1 be minimized to provide additional
flexibility for an applicant or licensee who references these
appendices. Also, many codes, standards, and design processes that were
not specified in Tier 1 as acceptable for meeting ITAACs were specified
in Tier 2. The result of these departures is that certain significant
information exists only in Tier 2 and the Commission does not want this
significant information to be changed without prior NRC approval. This
Tier 2* information is identified in the generic DCD with brackets,
italicized text, and an asterisk.
Although the Tier 2* designation was originally intended to last
for the lifetime of the facility, like Tier 1 information, the NRC
determined that some of the Tier 2* information could expire when the
plant first achieves full (100 percent) power, after the finding
required by 10 CFR 52.103(g), while other Tier 2* information must
remain in effect throughout the life of the facility. The factors
determining whether Tier 2* information could expire after full power
is first achieved (first full power) were whether the Tier 1
information would govern these areas after first full power and the
NRC's determination that prior approval was required before
implementation of the change due to the significance of the
information. Therefore, certain Tier 2* information listed in paragraph
VIII.B.6.c ceases to retain its Tier 2* designation after full power
operation is first achieved following the Commission finding under 10
CFR 52.103(g). Thereafter, that information is deemed to be Tier 2
information that is subject to the departure requirements in paragraph
VIII.B.5. By contrast, the Tier 2* information identified in paragraph
VIII.B.6.b retains its Tier 2* designation throughout the duration of
the license, including any period of license renewal.
If Tier 2* information is changed in a generic rulemaking, the
designation of the new information (Tier 1, 2*, or 2) will also be
determined in the rulemaking and the appropriate process for future
changes will apply. If a plant-specific departure is made from Tier 2*
information, then the new designation will apply only to that plant. If
an applicant who references this design certification makes a departure
from Tier 2* information, the new information will be subject to
litigation in the same manner as other plant-specific issues in the
licensing hearing. If a licensee makes a departure from Tier 2*
information, it will be treated as a license amendment under 10 CFR
50.90 and the finality will be determined under paragraph VI.B.5. Any
requests for departures from Tier 2* information that affects Tier 1
must also comply with the requirements in paragraph VIII.A.
Operational Requirements
The change process for technical specifications and other
operational requirements in the design control document is set forth in
Section VIII, paragraph C. The key to using the change processes
described in Section VIII is to determine if the proposed change or
departure would require a change to a design feature described in the
generic DCD. If a design change is required, then the appropriate
change process in paragraph VIII.A or VIII.B would apply. However, if a
proposed change to the technical specifications or other operational
requirements does not require a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD, then paragraph VIII.C would apply. This change process has
elements similar to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 change processes in
paragraphs A and B, but with significantly different change standards.
Because of the different finality status for technical specifications
and other operational requirements, the NRC designated a special
category of information, consisting of the technical specifications and
other operational requirements, with its own change process in
paragraph VIII.C. The language in paragraph VIII.C also distinguishes
between generic (Chapter 16 of the DCD) and plant-specific technical
specifications to account for the different treatment and finality
consistent with technical specifications before and after a license is
issued.
The process in paragraph VIII.C.1 for making generic changes to the
generic technical specifications in Chapter 16 of the DCD or other
operational requirements in the generic DCD is accomplished by
rulemaking and governed by the backfit standards in Sec. 50.109. The
determination of whether the generic technical specifications and other
operational requirements were completely reviewed and approved in this
DC rule is based upon the extent to which the NRC reached a safety
conclusion in the final safety evaluation report on this matter. If a
technical specification or operational requirement was completely
reviewed and finalized in the design certification rulemaking, then the
requirement of Sec. 50.109 would apply because a position was taken on
that safety matter. Generic changes made under paragraph VIII.C.1 would
be applicable to all applicants or licensees referencing this DC rule
as described in paragraph VIII.C.2, unless the change is made
technically irrelevant by a plant-specific departure or an exemption is
requested.
Some generic technical specifications contain values in brackets [
]. The brackets are placeholders indicating that the NRC has not
reviewed these values and represent a requirement that the applicant
for a COL referencing the U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule must replace the
values in brackets with final plant-specific values (refer to guidance
provided in Regulatory Guide 1.206, Revision 1, ``Applications for
Nuclear Power Plants''). The NRC will review the final plant-specific
values when provided as part of a COL application referencing this
design. The values in brackets are neither part of the DC rule nor are
they binding. Therefore, the replacement of bracketed values with final
plant-specific values does not require an exemption from the generic
technical specifications.
Plant-specific departures may occur by either an order under
paragraph VIII.C.3 or an applicant's exemption request under paragraph
VIII.C.4. The basis for determining if the technical specification or
operational requirement was completely reviewed and approved for these
processes would be the same as for paragraph VIII.C.1 previously
discussed. If the technical specification or operational requirement is
completely reviewed and finalized in the design certification
rulemaking, then the NRC must demonstrate that special circumstances
are present before ordering a plant-specific departure. If not, there
would be no restriction on plant-specific changes to the technical
specifications or operational requirements, prior to the issuance of a
license, provided a design change is not required. Although the generic
technical specifications were reviewed and approved by the NRC in
support of the design certification review, the NRC intends to consider
the lessons learned from subsequent operating experience during its
licensing review of the plant-specific technical specifications. The
process for petitioning to intervene on a technical specification or
operational requirement contained in paragraph VIII.C.5 is similar to
other issues in a licensing hearing, except that the petitioner must
also demonstrate why special circumstances are present pursuant to
Sec. 2.335, ``Consideration of Commission rules and regulations in
adjudicatory proceedings.''
[[Page 34914]]
Paragraph VIII.C.6 states that the generic technical specifications
would have no further effect on the plant-specific technical
specifications after the issuance of a license that references this
appendix. After a license is issued, the bases for the plant-specific
technical specifications would be controlled by the bases change
provision set forth in the administrative controls section of the
plant-specific technical specifications.
I. [RESERVED] (Section IX)
This section is reserved for future use. The matters discussed in
this section of earlier design certification rules--inspections, tests,
analyses, and acceptance criteria-are now addressed in the substantive
provisions of 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, there is no need to repeat
these regulatory provisions in the U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule. However,
this section is being reserved to maintain consistent section numbering
with other design certification rules.
J. Records and Reporting (Section X)
The purpose of Section X of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 is to set
forth the requirements that will apply to maintaining records of
changes to and departures from the generic DCD, which are to be
reflected in the plant-specific DCD. Section X also sets forth the
requirements for submitting reports (including updates to the plant-
specific DCD) to the NRC. This section of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52
is similar to the requirements for records and reports in 10 CFR part
50, except for minor differences in information collection and
reporting requirements.
Paragraph X.A.1 requires that a generic design control document
including SUNSI and SGI referenced in the generic design control
document be maintained by the applicant for this rule. The generic DCD
concept was developed, in part, to meet the requirements for
incorporation by reference, including public availability of documents
incorporated by reference. However, the SUNSI and SGI could not be
included in the generic design control document because they are not
publicly available. Nonetheless, the SUNSI and SGI were reviewed by the
NRC and, as stated in paragraph VI.B.2, the NRC would consider the
information to be resolved within the meaning of Sec. 52.63(a)(5).
Because this information is not in the generic DCD, this information,
or its equivalent, is required to be provided by an applicant for a
license referencing this U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule. Only the generic
DCD is identified and incorporated by reference into this rule. The
generic design control document and the NRC-approved version of the
SUNSI and SGI must be maintained by the applicant (GEH) for the period
of time that appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 may be referenced.
Paragraphs X.A.2 and X.A.3 place recordkeeping requirements on an
applicant or licensee that references this design certification so that
its plant-specific DCD accurately reflects both generic changes to the
generic DCD and plant-specific departures made under Section VIII. The
term ``plant-specific'' is used in paragraph X.A.2 and other sections
of appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to distinguish between the generic DCD
that is being incorporated by reference into appendix A to 10 CFR part
52, and the plant-specific DCD that the COL applicant is required to
submit under paragraph IV.A. The requirement to maintain changes to the
generic DCD is explicitly stated to ensure that these changes are not
only reflected in the generic design control document, which will be
maintained by the applicant for the design certification, but also in
the plant-specific DCD. Therefore, records of generic changes to the
design control document will be required to be maintained by both
entities to ensure that both entities have up-to-date design control
documents.
Paragraph X.A.4.a requires the U.S. ABWR DC rule applicant to
maintain a copy of the aircraft impact assessment analysis for the term
of the certification and any renewal. This provision, which is
consistent with Sec. 50.150(c)(3), would facilitate any NRC
inspections of the assessment that the NRC decides to conduct.
Similarly, paragraph X.A.4.b requires an applicant or licensee who
references appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to maintain a copy of the
aircraft impact assessment performed to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 50.150(a) throughout the pendency of the application and for the
term of the license and any renewal. This provision is consistent with
Sec. 50.150(c)(4). For all applicants and licensees, the supporting
documentation retained should describe the methodology used in
performing the assessment, including the identification of potential
design features and functional capabilities to show that the acceptance
criteria in Sec. 50.150(a)(1) will be met.
Paragraph X.A does not place recordkeeping requirements on site-
specific information that is outside the scope of this rule. As
discussed in paragraph IV.B of this document, the final safety analysis
report required by Sec. 52.79 will contain the plant specific DCD and
the site-specific information for a facility that references this rule.
The phrase ``site-specific portion of the final safety analysis
report'' in paragraph X.B.3.c refers to the information that is
contained in the final safety analysis report for a facility (required
by Sec. 52.79) but is not part of the plant-specific DCD (required by
paragraph IV.A). Therefore, this rule does not require that duplicate
documentation be maintained by an applicant or licensee that references
this rule because the plant-specific DCD is part of the final safety
analysis report for the facility.
Paragraph X.B.1 requires applicants or licensees that reference
this rule to submit reports that describe departures from the design
control document and include a summary of the written evaluations. The
requirement for the written evaluations is set forth in paragraph
X.A.3. The frequency of the report submittals is set forth in paragraph
X.B.3. The requirement for submitting a summary of the evaluations is
similar to the requirement in Sec. 50.59(d)(2).
Paragraph X.B.2 requires applicants or licensees that reference
this rule to submit updates to the design control document, which
include both generic changes and plant-specific departures, as set
forth in paragraph X.B.3. The requirements in paragraph X.B.3 for
submitting reports will vary according to certain time periods during a
facility's lifetime. If a potential applicant for a COL that references
this rule decides to depart from the generic DCD prior to submission of
the application, then paragraph X.B.3.a will require that the updated
design control document be submitted as part of the initial application
for a license. Under paragraph X.B.3.b, the applicant may submit any
subsequent updates to its plant-specific DCD along with its amendments
to the application provided that the submittals are made at least once
per year.
Paragraph X.B.3.b also requires semi-annual submission of the
reports required by paragraph X.B.1 and X.B.2 throughout the period of
application review and construction. The NRC will use the information
in the reports to support planning for the NRC's inspection and
oversight during this phase, when the licensee is conducting detailed
design, procurement of components and equipment, construction, and
preoperational testing. In addition, the NRC will use the information
in making its finding on ITAAC under Sec. 52.103(g), as well as any
finding on interim operation under Section 189.a(1)(B)(iii) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Once a facility begins operation
(for a COL
[[Page 34915]]
under 10 CFR part 52, after the Commission has made a finding under
Sec. 52.103(g)), the frequency of reporting will be governed by the
requirements in paragraph X.B.3.c.
V. ABWR Final Design Approval
On July 13, 1994, the NRC issued a final design approval for the
U.S. ABWR design under appendix O to 10 CFR part 52, ``Standardization
of design: staff review of standard designs''; the approval was
published in the Federal Register on July 20, 1994 (59 FR 37058). The
final design approval was scheduled to expire on July 13, 1999. On
November 23, 1994, the NRC issued a revised final design approval under
appendix O to 10 CFR part 52, which expired on July 13, 2009. On
December 1, 1994, the NRC published the revised final design approval
for U.S. ABWR standard design (59 FR 61647). On August 28, 2007, the
NRC replaced appendix O of 10 CFR part 52 with Subpart E of 10 CFR part
52, ``Standard design approvals,'' thereby replacing a final design
approval with a standard design approval (72 FR 49351). As discussed in
the statements of consideration for the 2007 rulemaking, a renewal
process was not specifically provided for either a final design
approval or standard design approval. The issued final design approval
has expired, a renewal was neither requested nor available, nor is
there a standard design approval being sought concurrent with this U.S.
ABWR DC renewal rule. Therefore, the U.S. ABWR design does not have a
current final design approval or standard design approval.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
The following paragraphs describe the specific changes in this
direct final rule:
Appendix A to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced
Boiling Water Reactor
This direct final rule amends appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to
incorporate the renewed U.S. ABWR standard design into the NRC's
regulations. Applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate
a plant using the U.S. ABWR design may do so by referencing the DC
rule.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC
certifies that this direct final rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct
final 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
(10 CFR 2.810).
VIII. Regulatory Analysis
The NRC has not prepared a regulatory analysis for this direct
final 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
or construction permits. Furthermore, an applicant for a design
certification, rather than the NRC, initiates design certification
rulemakings. 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 direct final rule does not
constitute a backfit as defined in the backfit rule (Sec. 50.109), and
it is not inconsistent with any applicable issue finality provision in
10 CFR part 52.
This U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule does not constitute backfitting as
defined in the backfit rule (Sec. 50.109) because there are no
existing operating licenses under 10 CFR part 50, or COLs or
manufacturing licenses under 10 CFR part 52 referencing this DC rule
and because no current final design approval or standard design
approval exists for the U.S. ABWR.
This U.S. ABWR DC renewal 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 DC rules in
appendices B through F to 10 CFR part 52 and there are no COLs or
manufacturing licenses issued by the NRC that reference the original
U.S. ABWR DC rule. Conforming changes appear in appendix A to 10 CFR
part 52 to reflect the renewed standard design in place of the original
U.S. ABWR DC; however, these changes do not impose any additional
requirements.
For these reasons, neither a backfit analysis nor a discussion
addressing the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52 was prepared
for this rule.
X. Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the
NRC certifies the renewal for the U.S. ABWR standard design for use in
nuclear power plant licensing under 10 CFR part 50 or 52. Design
certifications are not generic rulemakings establishing a generally
applicable standard with which all 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 nuclear power
plant licensees must comply. Design certifications are Commission
approvals of specific nuclear power plant designs by rulemaking.
Furthermore, design certifications are initiated by an applicant for
rulemaking, rather than by the NRC. This action does not constitute the
establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable
requirements.
XI. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) 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 31883).
XII. 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 NRC's regulations in subpart A of
10 CFR part 51, that this direct final rule, if confirmed, 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 NRC's generic determination in this regard, reflected in
Sec. 51.32(b)(1), is based upon the following considerations. A DC
rule does not authorize the siting, construction, or operation of a
facility referencing any particular design, but only codifies a
standard design certification in a rule (the U.S. ABWR DC renewal in
this case). The NRC will evaluate the environmental impacts and issue
an environmental impact
[[Page 34916]]
statement as appropriate under NEPA as part of the application for the
construction and operation of a facility referencing any particular DC
rule.
However, consistent with Sec. 51.30(d) and Sec. 51.31(b), the NRC
has prepared an environmental assessment, ``Environmental Assessment by
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Relating to Renewal of the
Certification of the ABWR Standard Design,'' for the U.S. ABWR design
renewal addressing various design alternatives to prevent and mitigate
severe accidents. The environmental assessment is based, in part, upon
the NRC's review of GEH's supplemental evaluation of various severe
accident mitigation design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe
accidents required in ``Amendment to Technical Support Document for the
ABWR,'' which updates information in the original ``Technical Support
Document for the ABWR.'' Based upon review of GEH's evaluation, the
Commission concludes that (1) GEH identified a reasonably complete set
of potential design alternatives to prevent and mitigate severe
accidents for the U.S. ABWR design renewal; (2) none of the potential
design alternatives are justified on the basis of cost-benefit
considerations; and (3) it is unlikely that other design changes would
be identified and justified during the term of the design certification
on the basis of cost-benefit considerations because the estimated core
damage frequencies for the U.S. ABWR are very low on an absolute scale.
These issues are considered resolved for the U.S. ABWR design. Based on
its own independent evaluation, the NRC reached the same conclusion as
GEH that none of the possible candidate design alternatives are
potentially cost beneficial for the U.S. ABWR design. This independent
evaluation was based on reasonable treatment of costs, benefits, and
sensitivities. The NRC concludes that GEH has adequately identified
areas where risk potentially could be reduced in a cost-beneficial
manner and adequately assessed whether the implementation of the
identified potential severe accident mitigation design alternatives or
candidate design alternatives would be cost beneficial for the given
evaluation criteria as provided in the U.S. ABWR DC renewal
environmental assessment.
The finality of all environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives in the current U.S. ABWR design
certification rule relied on site parameters being within those
specified in the technical support document for the original U.S. ABWR,
dated December 1994 as amended November 30, 2010. However, in an Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board memorandum and order in the South Texas
Project Electric Generating Station Units 3 and 4 Combined License
proceeding (LBP-11-07), the board determined that no list of site
parameters was specified in the U.S. ABWR technical support document.
Therefore, the NRC staff re-evaluated the criteria for determining
whether finality for severe accident mitigation design alternatives
should apply in a future U.S. ABWR licensing action. To this end, the
NRC staff selected the criteria for finality as the averted risk
person-rem value for each severe accident mitigation design alternative
provided in Table 5 of the original technical support document.
Although finality criteria for the severe accident mitigation design
alternative for this DC renewal action cannot be based on site
parameters, the selected criteria, if met, provide assurance that a
severe accident mitigation design alternative would still not be cost
beneficial at a proposed site for the U.S. ABWR design. Therefore, the
NRC finds that the evaluation performed by GEH is reasonable and
sufficient.
The environmental assessment is available as indicated in Section
XVI, ``Availability of Documents.''
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of
information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Existing collections of information were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, control number 3150-0151.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting
or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
XIV. Congressional Review Act
This final rule is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget
has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional
Review Act.
XV. Agreement State Compatibility
Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of
Agreement States Programs,'' approved by the Commission on June 20,
1997, and published in the Federal Register (62 FR 46517; September 3,
1997), this rule is classified as compatibility ``NRC.'' Compatibility
is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program
elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of
regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act or the
provisions of 10 CFR, and although an Agreement State may not adopt
program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its
licensees of certain requirements by a mechanism that is consistent
with a particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not
confer regulatory authority on the State.
XVI. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
Documents Related to U.S. ABWR Design Certification Renewal Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS Accession No./
Document Federal Register
citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-20-0112, ``Direct Final Rule-Advanced ML20170A520
Boiling Water Reactor Design Certification
Renewal (RIN 3150-AK04; NRC-2017-0090),''
December 9, 2020.
GE-Hitachi ABWR Design Control Document Tier 1 & ML20093K254
2, Revision 7, October 2019 (includes
correction noted, as of March 2020).
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Transmittal of ABWR ML110040176
Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal
Application Design Control Document, Revision
5, Tier 1 and Tier 2, December 7, 2010.
GE-Hitachi ABWR Design Control Document Tier 1 & ML110040323
2, Revision 5, December 7, 2010.
Technical Report NEDO-33875, ABWR U.S. Certified ML17059C523
Design--Aircraft Impact Assessment, Licensing
Basis Information and Design Details for Key
Design Features, Rev. 3 (M170049), February
2017.
[[Page 34917]]
Licensing Technical Report NEDO-33878, ABWR ECCS ML18092A306
Suction Strainer Evaluation of Long-Term
Recirculation Capability, Rev. 3 (M180068),
March 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Safety Evaluation Report and Supplements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUREG-1503, Supplement 2, ``Final Safety ML20301A886
Evaluation Report Related to the Certification
of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design,''
October 2020.
NUREG-1503, Supplement 1, ``Final Safety ML080710134
Evaluation Report Related to the Certification
of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design,''
May 1997.
NUREG-1503, Vols. 1-2, ``Final Safety Evaluation ML080670592
Report Related to the Certification of the
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design,'' July
1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Assessment by the U.S. Nuclear ML21147A381
Regulatory Commission Relating to Renewal of
the Certification of the ABWR Standard Design,
June 2021.
Staff Technical Analysis in Support of the ML20024D602
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design
Certification Renewal Environmental Assessment.
MFN 16-062, ``Applicant's Supplemental ML16235A415
Environmental Report--Amendment to Standard
Design Certification (ABWR Renewal Docket 52-
045),'' August 2016.
25A5680AA, ``Amendment to Technical Support ML110040178
Document for the ABWR,'' Sheet 1, November 30,
2010 (Renewal Application).
SECY-97-077, ``Certification of Two Evolutionary ML003708129
Designs,'' April 15, 1996 (Original ABWR
Environmental Assessment).
Letter from GE Nuclear Energy Submitting the ML100210563
Enclosed ``Technical Support Document for the
ABWR,'' December 21, 1994 (Original NEPA/SAMDA
Submittal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Papers, Original Design Certification, Interim Rule
Amendments, and Other Supporting Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECY-19-0066, ``Staff Review of NuScale Power's ML19148A443
Mitigation Strategy for Beyond-Design-Basis
External Events,'' June 26, 2019.
SECY-12-0025, ``Proposed Orders and Requests for ML12039A111
Information in Response to Lessons Learned from
Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake
and Tsunami,'' February 17, 2012.
SECY-11-0093, ``Near-Term Report and ML11186A950
Recommendations for Agency Actions Following
the Events in Japan,'' July 12, 2011.
The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from ML111861807
the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, July 12, 2011.
Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY-90-377, ML003707892
``Requirements for Design Certification Under
10 CFR Part 52,'' February 15, 1991.
SECY-90-377, ``Requirements for Design ML003707889
Certification under 10 CFR Part 52,'' November
8, 1990.
NUREG[dash]1948, ``Final Safety Evaluation ML11182A163
Report Related to the Aircraft Impact Amendment
to the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
(ABWR) Design Certification,'' June 2011.
U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Aircraft 76 FR 78096
Impact Design Certification Amendment, December
16, 2011.
LBP-11-07, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ML110591049
Memorandum and Order in the South Texas Project
Electric Generating Station Units 3 and 4
Combined License Proceeding, February 28, 2011.
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Acceptance for 76 FR 9612
Docketing of an Application for Renewal of the
U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design
Certification, February 18, 2011 (Acceptance
Application).
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Notice of Receipt and 76 FR 4948
Availability of an Application for Renewal of
the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design
Certification, January 27, 2011 (Notice of
Receipt of the Application).
ABWR-LIC-09-621, Revision 0, ``Applicant's ML093170455
Supplemental Environmental Report-Amendment to
ABWR Standard Design Certification,'' November
2009.
Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New 74 FR 28111
Nuclear Power Reactors, June 12, 2009.
Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for 72 FR 49351
Nuclear Power Plants, August 28, 2007 (Revision
of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52).
Presidential Memorandum, ``Plain Language in 63 FR 31883
Government Writing,'' June 10, 1998.
Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility 62 FR 46517
of Agreement States Programs, September 3, 1997.
Standard Design Certification for the U.S. 62 FR 25800
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, May 12,
1997 (Original U.S. ABWR Design Certification).
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Transmittal of ABWR ML20076D961
Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal
Application Design Control Document Revision 7,
Chapter 5, March 16, 2020.
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy--ABWR Standard Plant ML20007E274
Design Certification Renewal Application Design
Control Document Revision 7, Tier 1 and Tier 2,
December 20, 2019.
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Submittal of ABWR ML16081A268
Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal
Application Design Control, Document, Revision
6, Tier 1 and Tier 2, February 19, 2016.
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy--ABWR Standard Plant ML16214A015
Design Certification Renewal Application Design
Control Document Revision 6, Tier 1 and Tier 2,
February 19, 2016.
Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events ML15266A133
(MBDBE)--Regulatory Analysis--Proposed Rule
Post-SRM, October 2015.
Letter from Nuclear Innovation North America ML18179A217
LLC, South Texas Project Units 3 and 4
Termination of Combined Licenses NPF-97 and NPF-
98, July 12, 2018.
South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4, Request for ML18184A338
Withdrawal of Combined Licenses, June 22, 2018.
Withdrawal of Toshiba Advanced Boiling Water ML16173A310
Reactor Design Certification Rule Renewal
Application, June 9, 2016.
[[Page 34918]]
GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy--U.S. Advanced Boiling ML12125A385
Water Design Certification Renewal Application,
July 20, 2012.
Reactor Regulatory History on Design ML003761550
Certification Rules, April 26, 2000 \5\.
Notice of Issuance of Revised Final Design 59 FR 61647
Approval for U.S. ABWR Standard Design,
December 1, 1994.
Letter to GE Nuclear Energy Transmitting the ML20077A747
Revised Final Design Approval for [the] U.S.
ABWR Standard Design, November 23, 1994.
Issuance of Final Design Approval Pursuant to 10 59 FR 37058
CFR Part 52, Appendix O; U.S. Advanced Boiling
Water Reactor Design; GE Nuclear Energy, July
20, 1994.
Final Design Approval FDA-0 for GE Nuclear ML20070L506
Energy U.S. ABWR Standard Design, July 13, 1994
(Docket No. 52-001).
GE Nuclear Energy; Receipt of Application for 57 FR 9749
Design Certification, March 20, 1992 (Initial
Application).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NRC may post materials related to this document, including
public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The regulatory history of the NRC's design certification
reviews is a package of documents that is available in the NRC's PDR
and NRC Library: Reactor Regulatory History on Design Certification
Rules, April 26, 2000. This history spans the period during which
the NRC simultaneously developed the regulatory standards for
reviewing these designs and the form and content of the rules that
certified the designs. This document predates this rulemaking and
therefore does not contain a regulatory history for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XVII. Procedures for Access to Proprietary and Safeguards Information
for Preparation of Comments on the U.S. ABWR Design Certification
Renewal Rule
This section contains instructions regarding how the non-publicly
available documents related to this final rule, and specifically those
listed in Tables 1.6-1 and 1.6-2 beginning on page 1.6-2 of Tier 2 of
the DCD, may be accessed by interested persons who wish to comment on
the design certification. These documents contain proprietary
information and SGI. Requirements for access to SGI are primarily set
forth in 10 CFR parts 2 and 73. This section provides information
specific to this final rule; however, nothing in this section is
intended to conflict with the SGI regulations.
Interested persons who desire access to proprietary information on
the U.S. ABWR design should first request access to that information
from GEH, the design certification applicant. A request for access
should be submitted to the NRC if the applicant does not either grant
or deny access by the 10-day deadline described in the following
section.
Submitting a Request to the NRC for Access
Within 10 days after publication of this direct final rule, any
individual or entity who believes access to proprietary information or
SGI is necessary in order to submit comments on this U.S. ABWR DC
renewal rule may request access to such information. Requests for
access to proprietary information or SGI submitted more than 10 days
after publication of this document will not be considered absent a
showing of good cause for the late filing explaining why the request
could not have been filed earlier.
The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access
proprietary information and/or SGI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications
Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier
mail address is: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email address for the
Office of the Secretary is [email protected]. The requester
must send a copy of the request to the DC applicant at the same time as
the original transmission to the NRC using the same method of
transmission. Requests to the applicant must be sent to Michelle Catts,
Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, General Electric-Hitachi
Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, 3901 Castle Hayne Road, P.O. Box 780, M/C
A10, Wilmington, NC 28402.
The request must include the following information:
1. The name of this design certification, U.S. ABWR design
certification; the rulemaking identification number, RIN 3150-AK04; the
rulemaking docket number, NRC-2017-0090; and the Federal Register
citation for this rule.
2. The name, address, and email or FAX number of the requester.
3. If the requester is an entity, the name of the individual(s) to
whom access is to be provided, including the identity of any expert,
consultant, or assistant who will aid the requestor in evaluating the
information.
4. If the request is for proprietary information, the requester's
need for the information in order to prepare meaningful comments on the
design certification must be demonstrated. Each of the following areas
must be addressed with specificity:
a. The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
b. An explanation why information that is publicly available is
insufficient to provide the basis for developing meaningful comment on
the U.S. ABWR DC renewal rule with respect to the issue or subject
matter described in paragraph 4.a. of this section; and
c. The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
training or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the
requested proprietary information to provide the basis for meaningful
comment. Technical competence may be shown by reliance on a qualified
expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.
d. A chronology and discussion of the requester's attempts to
obtain the information from the design certification applicant, and the
final communication from the requester to the applicant and the
applicant's response, if any was provided, with respect to the request
for access to proprietary information must be submitted.
5. If the request is for SGI, the request must include the
following:
a. A statement that explains each individual's ``need to know'' the
SGI, as required by Sec. Sec. 73.2 and 73.22(b)(1). Consistent with
the definition of ``need to know'' as stated in Sec. 73.2,
``Definitions,'' the statement must explain:
i. The specific issue or subject matter on which the requester
wishes to comment;
ii. An explanation of why publicly available information is
insufficient to
[[Page 34919]]
provide the basis for developing meaningful comment on the design
certification with respect to the issue or subject matter described in
paragraph 5.a.i. of this section and why the SGI requested is
indispensable in order to develop meaningful comments; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Broad SGI requests under these procedures are unlikely to
meet the standard for need to know. Furthermore, NRC staff redaction
of information from requested documents before their release may be
appropriate to comport with this requirement. The procedures in this
document do not authorize unrestricted disclosure or less scrutiny
of a requester's need to know than ordinarily would be applied in
connection with either adjudicatory or non-adjudicatory access to
SGI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. The technical competence (demonstrable knowledge, skill,
training, or education) of the requestor to effectively utilize the
requested SGI to provide the basis and specificity for meaningful
comment. Technical competence may be shown by reliance on a qualified
expert, consultant, or assistant who satisfies these criteria.
b. A completed Form SF-85, ``Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions,'' for each individual who would have access to SGI. The
completed Form SF-85 will be used by the Office of Administration to
conduct the background check required for access to SGI, as required by
10 CFR part 2, subpart C, and Sec. 73.22(b)(2), to determine the
requestor's trustworthiness and reliability. For security reasons, Form
SF-85 can only be submitted electronically through the electronic
questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) website, a secure
website that is owned and operated by the Defense Counterintelligence
and Security Agency (DCSA). To obtain online access to the form, the
requestor should contact the NRC's Office of Administration at 301-415-
3710.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The requester will be asked to provide his or her full name,
Social Security Number, date and place of birth, telephone number,
and email address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. A completed Form FD-258 (fingerprint card), signed in original
ink, and submitted in accordance with Sec. 73.57(d). Copies of Form
FD-258 will be provided in the background check request package
supplied by the Office of Administration for each individual for whom a
background check is being requested. Copies of Form FD-258 may be
obtained by sending an email to [email protected] or by sending
a written request to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn:
Mailroom/Fingerprint Card Request, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852. The fingerprint card will be used to satisfy the requirements of
10 CFR part 2, subpart C, Sec. 73.22(b)(1), and Section 149 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which mandates that all persons
with access to SGI must be fingerprinted for an FBI identification and
criminal history records check.
d. A check or money order in the amount of $326.00 \8\ payable to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for each individual for whom the
request for access has been submitted; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This fee is subject to change pursuant to the Defense
Counter Intelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) adjustable billing
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. If the requester or any individual who will have access to SGI
believes they belong to one or more of the categories of individuals
relieved from the criminal history records check and background check
requirements, as stated in Sec. 73.59, the requester should also
provide a statement specifically stating which relief the requester is
invoking, and explaining the requester's basis (including supporting
documentation) for believing that the relief is applicable. While
processing the request, the NRC's Office of Administration, Personnel
Security Branch, will make a final determination whether the stated
relief applies. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Office of
Administration for an evaluation of his or her status prior to
submitting the request. Persons who are not subject to the background
check are not required to complete the SF-85 or Form FD-258; however,
all other requirements for access to SGI, including the need to know,
are still applicable.
Copies of documents and materials required by paragraphs 5.d.-g.,
as applicable, of this section must be sent to the following address:
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Personnel
Security Branch, Mail Stop TWFN-07D04M, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852. These documents and materials should not be
included with the request letter to the Office of the Secretary, but
the request letter should state that the forms and fees have been
submitted as required.
To avoid delays in processing requests for access to SGI, all forms
should be reviewed for completeness and accuracy (including legibility)
before submitting them to the NRC. The NRC will return incomplete or
illegible packages to the sender without processing.
Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under
paragraphs 4.a.-4.d. or 5.a.-g. of this section, as applicable, the NRC
staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the written access
request whether the requester has established a legitimate need for
access to proprietary information or need to know the SGI requested.
Determination of Legitimate Need for Access
For proprietary information access requests, if the NRC determines
that the requester has established a legitimate need for access to
proprietary information, the NRC will notify the requester in writing
that access to proprietary information has been granted. The NRC must
first notify the DC applicant of the NRC's determination to grant
access to the requester not less than 10 days before informing the
requester of the NRC's decision. If the applicant wishes to challenge
the NRC's determination, it must follow the procedures in Predisclosure
Procedures for Proprietary Information Constituting Trade Secrets or
Confidential Commercial or Financial Information of this section. The
NRC will not provide access to disputed proprietary information to the
requester until the procedures are completed as described in
Predisclosure Procedures for Proprietary Information Constituting Trade
Secrets or Confidential Commercial or Financial Information of this
section. The written notification will contain instructions on how the
requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other
conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These
conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-
Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit setting forth terms and conditions to
prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of proprietary
information by each individual who will be granted access.
For requests for access to SGI, if the NRC determines that the
requester has established a need to know the SGI, the NRC's Office of
Administration will then determine, based upon completion of the
background check, whether the proposed recipient is trustworthy and
reliable, as required for access to SGI by Sec. 73.22(b). If the NRC's
Office of Administration determines that the individual or individuals
are trustworthy and reliable, the NRC will promptly notify the
requester in writing. The notification will provide the names of
approved individuals as well as the conditions under which the SGI will
be provided. Those conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit by each individual
who will be granted access to SGI.
Release and Storage of SGI
Prior to providing SGI to the requester, the NRC staff will conduct
(as
[[Page 34920]]
necessary) an inspection to confirm that the recipient's information
protection system is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Sec.
73.22. Alternatively, recipients may opt to view SGI at an approved SGI
storage location rather than establish their own SGI protection program
to meet SGI protection requirements.
Filing of Comments on the U.S. ABWR Design Certification Renewal Rule
Based on Non-Public Information
Any comments on this final rule that are based upon the disclosed
proprietary information or SGI must be filed by the requester no later
than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information, or the
close of the public comment period, whichever is later. The commenter
must comply with all NRC requirements regarding the submission of
proprietary information and SGI to the NRC when submitting comments to
the NRC (including marking and transmission requirements).
Review of Denials of Access
If the request for access to proprietary information or SGI is
denied by the NRC, the NRC shall promptly notify the requester in
writing, briefly stating the reason or reasons for the denial.
Before the Office of Administration makes a final adverse
determination regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the
proposed recipient(s) for access to SGI, the Office of Administration,
in accordance with Sec. 2.336(f)(1)(iii), must provide the proposed
recipient(s) any records that were considered in the trustworthiness
and reliability determination, including those required to be provided
under Sec. 73.57(e)(1), so that the proposed recipient(s) have an
opportunity to correct or explain the record.
Appeals from a denial of access must be made to the NRC's Executive
Director for Operations (EDO) under Sec. 9.29. The decision of the EDO
constitutes final agency action under Sec. 9.29(d).
Predisclosure Procedures for Proprietary Information Constituting Trade
Secrets or Confidential Commercial or Financial Information
The NRC will follow the procedures in Sec. 9.28 if the NRC
determines, under the Determination of Legitimate Need for Access of
this section, that access to proprietary information constituting trade
secrets or confidential commercial or financial information will be
provided to the requester. However, any objection filed by the
applicant under Sec. 9.28(b) must be filed within 15 days of the NRC
notice in the Determination of Legitimate Need for Access of this
section rather than the 30-day period provided for under Sec. 9.28(b).
In applying the provisions of Sec. 9.28, the applicant for the DC rule
will be treated as the ``submitter.''
XVIII. Incorporation by Reference--Reasonable Availability to
Interested Parties
The NRC is incorporating by reference the U.S. ABWR DCD, Revision
7. As described in the ``Discussion'' section of this document, the
generic DCD combined into a single document Tier 1 and Tier 2
information and generic technical specifications in order to
effectively control this information and facilitate its incorporation
by reference into the rule. The NRC also is incorporating by reference
two GEH technical reports (NEDO-33875 and NEDO-33878).
The NRC is required by law to obtain approval for incorporation by
reference from the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR's
requirements for incorporation by reference are set forth in 1 CFR part
51. The OFR's regulations require an agency to include in a direct
final rule a discussion of the ways that the materials the agency
incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested
parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available
to interested parties. The discussion in this section complies with the
requirement for direct final rules as set forth in 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2).
The NRC considers ``interested parties'' to include all potential
NRC stakeholders, not only the individuals and entities regulated or
otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight. These NRC
stakeholders are not a homogenous group but vary with respect to the
considerations for determining reasonable availability. Therefore, the
NRC distinguishes between different classes of interested parties for
the purposes of determining whether the material is ``reasonably
available.'' The NRC considers the following to be classes of
interested parties in NRC rulemakings with regard to the material to be
incorporated by reference:
Individuals and small entities regulated or otherwise
subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight (this class also includes
applicants and potential applicants for licenses and other NRC
regulatory approvals) and who are subject to the material to be
incorporated by reference by rulemaking. In this context, ``small
entities'' has the same meaning as a ``small entity'' under Sec.
2.810.
Large entities otherwise subject to the NRC's regulatory
oversight (this class also includes applicants and potential applicants
for licenses and other NRC regulatory approvals) and who are subject to
the material to be incorporated by reference by rulemaking. In this
context, ``large entities'' are those that do not qualify as a ``small
entity'' under Sec. 2.810.
Non-governmental organizations with institutional
interests in the matters regulated by the NRC.
Other Federal agencies, States, local governmental bodies
(within the meaning of Sec. 2.315(c)).
Federally-recognized and State-recognized \9\ Indian
tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ State-recognized Indian tribes are not within the scope of
10 CFR 2.315(c). However, for purposes of the NRC's compliance with
1 CFR 51.5, ``interested parties'' includes a broad set of
stakeholders, including State-recognized Indian tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the general public (i.e., individual,
unaffiliated members of the public who are not regulated or otherwise
subject to the NRC's regulatory oversight) who may wish to gain access
to the materials which the NRC incorporates by reference by rulemaking
in order to participate in the rulemaking process.
The NRC makes the materials incorporated by reference available for
inspection to all interested parties, by appointment, at the NRC
Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-415-7000;
email: [email protected]. In addition, as described in Section
XVI of this document, documents related to this direct final rule are
available online in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
The NRC concludes that the materials the NRC is incorporating by
reference in this final rule are reasonably available to all interested
parties because the materials are available to all interested parties
in multiple ways and in a manner consistent with their interest in the
materials.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 52
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Combined license,
Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Incorporation by
reference, Inspection, Issue finality, Limited work authorization,
Nuclear power plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment,
Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard
design certification.
[[Page 34921]]
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is amending 10 CFR part 52:
PART 52--LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 103, 104, 147, 149,
161, 181, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134,
2167, 2169, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2235, 2236, 2239, 2273, 2282);
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42
U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
0
2. Revise appendix A to 10 CFR part 52 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 52--Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced
Boiling Water Reactor
I. Introduction
Appendix A constitutes the renewed standard design certification
for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (U.S. ABWR) design, in
accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart B. The applicant for
certification of the U.S. ABWR design is General Electric-Hitachi
Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC (GEH).
II. Definitions
A. Generic design control document (generic DCD) means the
document containing the Tier 1 and Tier 2 information and generic
technical specifications that is incorporated by reference into this
appendix.
B. Generic technical specifications (generic TS) means the
information required by Sec. Sec. 50.36 and 50.36a of this chapter
for the portion of the plant that is within the scope of this
appendix.
C. Plant-specific DCD means that portion of the combined license
(COL) final safety analysis report (FSAR) that sets forth both the
generic DCD information and any plant-specific changes to generic
DCD information.
D. Tier 1 means the portion of the design-related information
contained in the generic DCD that is approved and certified by this
appendix (Tier 1 information). The design descriptions, interface
requirements, and site parameters are derived from Tier 2
information. Tier 1 information includes:
1. Definitions and general provisions;
2. Design descriptions;
3. Inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria
(ITAAC);
4. Significant site parameters; and
5. Significant interface requirements.
E. Tier 2 means the portion of the design-related information
contained in the generic DCD that is approved but not certified by
this appendix (Tier 2 information). Compliance with Tier 2 is
required, but generic changes to and plant-specific departures from
Tier 2 are governed by Section VIII of this appendix. Compliance
with Tier 2 provides a sufficient, but not the only acceptable,
method for complying with Tier 1. Compliance methods differing from
Tier 2 must satisfy the change process in Section VIII of this
appendix. Regardless of these differences, an applicant or licensee
must meet the requirement in paragraph III.B of this appendix to
reference Tier 2 when referencing Tier 1. Tier 2 information
includes:
1. Information required by Sec. 52.47(a) and (c), with the
exception of generic TS and conceptual design information;
2. Supporting information on the inspections, tests, and
analyses that will be performed to demonstrate that the acceptance
criteria in the ITAAC have been met; and
3. COL action items (COL license information), which identify
certain matters that must be addressed in the site-specific portion
of the FSAR by an applicant who references this appendix. These
items constitute information requirements but are not the only
acceptable set of information in the FSAR. An applicant may depart
from or omit these items, provided that the departure or omission is
identified and justified in the FSAR. After issuance of a COL, these
items are not requirements for the licensee unless such items are
restated in the FSAR.
F. Tier 2* means the portion of the Tier 2 information,
designated as such in the generic DCD, which is subject to the
change process in paragraph VIII.B.6 of this appendix. This
designation expires for some Tier 2* information under paragraph
VIII.B.6 of this appendix.
G. Departure from a method of evaluation described in the plant-
specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or in the safety
analyses means:
1. Changing any of the elements of the method described in the
plant-specific DCD unless the results of the analysis are
conservative or essentially the same; or
2. Changing from a method described in the plant-specific DCD to
another method unless that method has been approved by the NRC for
the intended application.
H. All other terms in this appendix have the meaning set out in
Sec. 50.2 of this chapter, Sec. 52.1, or Section 11 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as applicable.
III. Scope and Contents
A. Incorporation by reference approval. The ABWR material
identified in paragraph III.A.1 of this section is approved for
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may
obtain copies of the generic DCD, including the generic technical
specifications, and the two GEH technical reports (NEDO-33875 and
NEDO-33878) from Michelle Catts, Senior Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs, General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, 3901
Castle Hayne Road, P.O. Box 780, M/C A10, Wilmington, NC 28402. You
can view the generic DCD, including the generic technical
specifications, and the two GEH technical reports (NEDO-33875 and
NEDO-33878) online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. In ADAMS, search under ADAMS Accession No.
ML20093K254 to obtain the generic DCD, ADAMS Accession No.
ML17059C523 to obtain GEH technical report NEDO-33875, and ADAMS
Accession No. ML18092A306 to obtain GEH technical report NEDO-33878.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems accessing
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, at 301-415-3747, or by
email at [email protected]. Copies of the ABWR materials are
available in the ADAMS Public Documents Collection. All approved
material is available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, email [email protected] or go to
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
1. General Electric-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC
a. ABWR Design Control Document Tier 1 (25A5675AA), Revision 7
(October 2019).
b. ABWR Design Control Document Tier 2 (25A5675AB), Revision 7
(October 2019).
c. Technical Report NEDO-33875, ABWR US Certified Design--
Aircraft Impact Assessment, Licensing Basis Information and Design
Details for Key Design Features, Rev. 3 (M170049) (February 2017).
d. Licensing Technical Report NEDO-33878, ABWR ECCS Suction
Strainer Evaluation of Long-Term Recirculation Capability, Rev. 3
(M180068) (March 2018).
B. An applicant or licensee referencing this appendix, in
accordance with Section IV of this appendix, shall incorporate by
reference and comply with the requirements of this appendix except
as otherwise provided in this appendix. Conceptual design
information, as set forth in the generic DCD, the ``Technical
Support Document for the ABWR,'' and the ``Amendment to Technical
Support Document for the ABWR,'' are not part of this appendix. Tier
2 references to the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) in the U.S.
ABWR DCD Tier 2 Chapter 19 do not incorporate the PRA into Tier 2.
C. If there is a conflict between Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the DCD,
then Tier 1 controls.
D. If there is a conflict between the generic DCD and either the
application for the design certification renewal of the U.S. ABWR
design or the NUREG-1503, ``Final Safety Evaluation Report Related
to Certification of the ABWR Standard Design''; NUREG-1503,
Supplement 1; and NUREG-1503, Supplement 2, then the generic DCD
controls.
E. Design activities for structures, systems, and components
that are wholly outside the scope of this appendix may be performed
using site characteristics, provided the design activities do not
affect the DCD or conflict with the interface requirements.
IV. Additional Requirements and Restrictions
A. An applicant for a COL that wishes to reference this appendix
shall, in addition to complying with the requirements of Sec. Sec.
52.77, 52.79, and 52.80, comply with the following requirements:
[[Page 34922]]
1. Incorporate by reference, as part of its application, this
appendix.
2. Include, as part of its application:
a. A plant-specific DCD containing the same type of information
and using the same organization and numbering as the generic DCD for
the U.S. ABWR design, either by including or incorporating by
reference the generic DCD information, and as modified and
supplemented by the applicant's exemptions and departures;
b. The reports on departures from and updates to the plant-
specific DCD required by paragraph X.B of this appendix;
c. Plant-specific TS, consisting of the generic and site-
specific TS that are required by Sec. Sec. 50.36 and 50.36a of this
chapter;
d. Information demonstrating that the site characteristics fall
within the site parameters and that the interface requirements have
been met;
e. Information that addresses the COL action items; and
f. Information required by Sec. 52.47(a) that is not within the
scope of this appendix.
3. Include, in the plant-specific DCD, the sensitive,
unclassified, non-safeguards information (including proprietary
information and security-related information) and safeguards
information referenced in the U.S. ABWR generic DCD.
4. Include, as part of its application, a demonstration that an
entity other than GEH is qualified to supply the U.S. ABWR design,
unless GEH supplies the design for the applicant's use.
B. The Commission reserves the right to determine in what manner
this appendix may be referenced by an applicant for a construction
permit or operating license under 10 CFR part 50.
V. Applicable Regulations
A.1. Except as indicated in paragraphs A.2 and A.3 and B of this
section, the regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR design are in
10 CFR parts 20, 50, 52, 73, and 100, codified as of May 2, 1997,
that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in the
final safety evaluation report (NUREG-1503); NUREG-1503, Supplement
1; and as described in NUREG-1503, Supplement 2, for renewal
modifications except as it pertains to addressing compliance with
Sec. 50.150 of this chapter.
2. Except as indicated in paragraphs A.1 and A.3 and B of this
section, the regulations that apply to the U.S. ABWR design are in
10 CFR parts 20, 50, 52, 73, and 100, codified as of September 29,
2021, that are applicable and technically relevant, as described in
NUREG-1503, Supplement 2, for renewal amendments.
3. Except as indicated in paragraphs A.1 and A.2 and B of this
section, the regulations in Sec. 50.150 of this chapter, codified
as of September 29, 2021, apply to the U.S. ABWR design, that are
applicable and technically relevant, as described in NUREG-1503,
Supplement 2.
B. The U.S. ABWR design is exempt from portions of the following
regulations:
1. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Plant Safety Parameter
Display Console--codified as of May 2, 1997;
2. Paragraph (f)(2)(viii) of 10 CFR 50.34--Post-Accident
Sampling for Boron, Chloride, and Dissolved Gases--codified as of
May 2, 1997; and
3. Paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of 10 CFR 50.34--Dedicated Containment
Penetration--codified as of May 2, 1997.
VI. Issue Resolution
A. The Commission has determined that the structures, systems,
and components and design features of the U.S. ABWR design comply
with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and the applicable regulations identified in Section V of this
appendix; and therefore, provide adequate protection to the health
and safety of the public. A conclusion that a matter is resolved
includes the finding that additional or alternative structures,
systems, and components, design features, design criteria, testing,
analyses, acceptance criteria, or justifications are not necessary
for the U.S. ABWR design.
B. The Commission considers the following matters resolved
within the meaning of Sec. 52.63(a)(5) in subsequent proceedings
for issuance of a COL, amendment of a COL, or renewal of a COL,
proceedings held under Sec. 52.103, and enforcement proceedings
involving plants referencing this appendix:
1. All nuclear safety issues associated with the information in
the final safety evaluation reports (NUREG-1503; NUREG-1503,
Supplement 1; and NUREG-1503, Supplement 2), Tier 1, Tier 2, and the
rulemaking records for original certification and renewal of the
U.S. ABWR design, with the exception of generic TS and other
operational requirements;
2. All nuclear safety and safeguards issues associated with the
referenced information in the 85 public and non-public documents in
Tables 1.6-1 and 1.6-2 of Tier 2 of the generic DCD, or other
referenced documents, which, in context, are intended as
requirements in the generic DCD for the U.S. ABWR design;
3. All generic changes to the DCD under and in compliance with
the change processes in paragraphs VIII.A.1 and VIII.B.1 of this
appendix;
4. All exemptions from the DCD under and in compliance with the
change processes in paragraphs VIII.A.4 and VIII.B.4 of this
appendix, but only for that plant;
5. All departures from the DCD that are approved by license
amendment, but only for that plant;
6. Except as provided in paragraph VIII.B.5.f of this appendix,
all departures from Tier 2 under and in compliance with the change
processes in paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix that do not require
prior NRC approval, but only for that plant; and
7. All environmental issues concerning severe accident
mitigation design alternatives associated with the information in
the NRC's environmental assessment for the U.S. ABWR design (ADAMS
Accession No. ML21147A381) and GEH's supplemental evaluation of
various severe accident mitigation design alternatives to prevent
and mitigate severe accidents in ``Amendment to Technical Support
Document for the ABWR'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML110040178), which
updates information in the original ``Technical Support Document for
the ABWR'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML100210563) for plants referencing
this appendix whose averted risk person-rem value for each severe
accident mitigation design alternative is less than or equal to the
averted risk person-rem value for that severe accident mitigation
design alternative provided in Table 5 of the original technical
support document.
C. The Commission does not consider operational requirements for
an applicant or licensee who references this appendix to be matters
resolved within the meaning of Sec. 52.63(a)(5). The Commission
reserves the right to require operational requirements for an
applicant or licensee who references this appendix by rule,
regulation, order, or license condition.
D. Except under the change processes in Section VIII of this
appendix, the Commission may not require an applicant or licensee
who references this appendix to:
1. Modify structures, systems, components, or design features as
described in the generic DCD;
2. Provide additional or alternative structures, systems,
components, or design features not discussed in the generic DCD; or
3. Provide additional or alternative design criteria, testing,
analyses, acceptance criteria, or justification for structures,
systems, components, or design features discussed in the generic
DCD.
E. The NRC will specify, at an appropriate time, the procedures
to be used by an interested person who wishes to review portions of
the DC or references containing safeguards information or sensitive
unclassified non-safeguards information (including proprietary
information, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial
information obtained from a person that are privileged or
confidential (Sec. 2.390 of this chapter and 10 CFR part 9), and
security-related information), for the purpose of participating in
the hearing required by Sec. 52.85, the hearing provided under
Sec. 52.103, or in any other proceeding relating to this appendix,
in which interested persons have a right to request an adjudicatory
hearing.
VII. Duration of this Appendix
This appendix may be referenced for a period of 15 years from
September 29, 2021, except as provided for in Sec. Sec. 52.55(b)
and 52.57(b). This appendix remains valid for an applicant or
licensee who references this appendix until the application is
withdrawn, or the license expires or is terminated by the NRC,
including any period of extended operation under a renewed license.
VIII. Processes for Changes and Departures
A. Tier 1 Information
1. Generic changes to Tier 1 information are governed by the
requirements in Sec. 52.63(a)(1).
2. Generic changes to Tier 1 information are applicable to all
applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those
for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by
action taken under paragraph A.3 or A.4 of this section.
3. Departures from Tier 1 information that are required by the
Commission through
[[Page 34923]]
plant-specific orders are governed by the requirements in Sec.
52.63(a)(4).
4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are governed by the
requirements in Sec. Sec. 52.63(b)(1) and 52.98(f). The Commission
will deny a request for an exemption from Tier 1, if it finds that
the design change will result in a significant decrease in the level
of safety otherwise provided by the design.
B. Tier 2 Information
1. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are governed by the
requirements in Sec. 52.63(a)(1).
2. Generic changes to Tier 2 information are applicable to all
applicants or licensees who reference this appendix, except those
for which the change has been rendered technically irrelevant by
action taken under paragraph B.3, B.4, or B.5, of this section.
3. The Commission may not require new requirements on Tier 2
information by plant-specific order, while this appendix is in
effect under Sec. 52.55 or Sec. 52.61, unless:
a. A modification is necessary to secure compliance with the
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time this
appendix was approved, as set forth in Section V of this appendix,
or to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety or
the common defense and security; and
b. Special circumstances as defined in Sec. 50.12(a) of this
chapter are present.
4. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may
request an exemption from Tier 2 information. The Commission may
grant such a request only if it determines that the exemption will
comply with the requirements of Sec. 50.12(a) of this chapter. The
Commission will deny a request for an exemption from Tier 2, if it
finds that the design change will result in a significant decrease
in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design. The
granting of an exemption to an applicant must be subject to
litigation in the same manner as other issues material to the
license hearing. The granting of an exemption to a licensee must be
subject to an opportunity for a hearing in the same manner as
license amendments.
5.a. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix may
depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, unless
the proposed departure involves a change to or departure from Tier 1
information, Tier 2* information, or the TS, or requires a license
amendment under paragraph B.5.b or B.5.c of this section. When
evaluating the proposed departure, an applicant or licensee shall
consider all matters described in the plant-specific DCD.
b. A proposed departure from Tier 2, other than one affecting
resolution of a severe accident issue identified in the plant-
specific DCD or one affecting information required by Sec.
52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft impacts, requires a license
amendment if it would:
(1) Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of
occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific
DCD;
(2) Result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of
occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component
important to safety and previously evaluated in the plant-specific
DCD;
(3) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD;
(4) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences
of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component important to
safety previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD;
(5) Create a possibility for an accident of a different type
than any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD;
(6) Create a possibility for a malfunction of a structure,
system, or component important to safety with a different result
than any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD;
(7) Result in a design-basis limit for a fission product barrier
as described in the plant-specific DCD being exceeded or altered; or
(8) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described
in the plant-specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or
in the safety analyses.
c. A proposed departure from Tier 2, affecting resolution of an
ex-vessel severe accident design feature identified in the plant-
specific DCD, requires a license amendment if:
(1) There is a substantial increase in the probability of an ex-
vessel severe accident such that a particular ex-vessel severe
accident previously reviewed and determined to be not credible could
become credible; or
(2) There is a substantial increase in the consequences to the
public of a particular ex-vessel severe accident previously
reviewed.
d. A proposed departure from Tier 2 information required by
Sec. 52.47(a)(28) to address aircraft impacts shall consider the
effect of the changed design feature or functional capability on the
original aircraft impact assessment required by Sec. 50.150(a) of
this chapter. The applicant or licensee shall describe, in the
plant-specific DCD, how the modified design features and functional
capabilities continue to meet the aircraft impact assessment
requirements in Sec. 50.150(a)(1) of this chapter.
e. If a departure requires a license amendment under paragraph
B.5.b or B.5.c of this section, it is governed by Sec. 50.90 of
this chapter.
f. A departure from Tier 2 information that is made under
paragraph B.5 of this section does not require an exemption from
this appendix.
g. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for either the
issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license or for operation under
Sec. 52.103(a), who believes that an applicant or licensee who
references this appendix has not complied with paragraph VIII.B.5 of
this appendix when departing from Tier 2 information, may petition
to admit into the proceeding such a contention. In addition to
complying with the general requirements of Sec. 2.309 of this
chapter, the petition must demonstrate that the departure does not
comply with paragraph VIII.B.5 of this appendix. Further, the
petition must demonstrate that the change bears on an asserted
noncompliance with an ITAAC acceptance criterion in the case of a
Sec. 52.103 preoperational hearing, or that the change bears
directly on the amendment request in the case of a hearing on a
license amendment. Any other party may file a response. If, on the
basis of the petition and any response, the presiding officer
determines that a sufficient showing has been made, the presiding
officer shall certify the matter directly to the Commission for
determination of the admissibility of the contention. The Commission
may admit such a contention if it determines the petition raises a
genuine issue of material fact regarding compliance with paragraph
VIII.B.5 of this appendix.
6.a. An applicant who references this appendix may not depart
from Tier 2* information, which is designated with brackets,
italicized text, and an asterisk in the generic DCD, without NRC
approval. The departure will not be considered a resolved issue,
within the meaning of Section VI of this appendix and Sec.
52.63(a)(5).
b. A licensee who references this appendix may not depart from
the following Tier 2* matters without prior NRC approval. A request
for a departure will be treated as a request for a license amendment
under 10 CFR 50.90.
(1) Fuel burnup limit (4.2).
(2) Fuel design evaluation (4.2.3).
(3) Fuel licensing acceptance criteria (Appendix 4B).
c. A licensee who references this appendix may not, before the
plant first achieves full power following the finding required by 10
CFR 52.103(g), depart from the following Tier 2* matters except in
accordance with paragraph B.6.b of this section. After the plant
first achieves full power, the following Tier 2* matters revert to
Tier 2 status and are thereafter subject to the departure provisions
in paragraph B.5 of this section.
(1) ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section III.
(2) ACI 349 and ANSI/AISC N-690.
(3) Motor-operated valves.
(4) Equipment seismic qualification methods.
(5) Piping design acceptance criteria.
(6) Fuel system and assembly design (4.2), except burnup limit.
(7) Nuclear design (4.3).
(8) Equilibrium cycle and control rod patterns (Appendix 4A).
(9) Control rod licensing acceptance criteria (Appendix 4C).
(10) Instrument setpoint methodology.
(11) EMS performance specifications and architecture.
(12) SSLC hardware and software qualification.
(13) Self-test system design testing features and commitments.
(14) Human factors engineering design and implementation
process.
d. Departures from Tier 2* information that are made under
paragraph B.6 of this section do not require an exemption from this
appendix.
C. Operational Requirements
1. Changes to U.S. ABWR DC generic TS and other operational
requirements that were
[[Page 34924]]
completely reviewed and approved in the design certification
rulemaking and do not require a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD are governed by the requirements in Sec. 50.109 of this
chapter. Changes that require a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD are governed by the requirements in paragraph A or B of
this section.
2. Changes to U.S. ABWR DC generic TS and other operational
requirements are applicable to all applicants who reference this
appendix, except those for which the change has been rendered
technically irrelevant by action taken under paragraph C.3 or C.4 of
this section.
3. The Commission may require plant-specific departures on
generic TS and other operational requirements that were completely
reviewed and approved, provided a change to a design feature in the
generic DCD is not required and special circumstances, as defined in
Sec. 2.335 of this chapter are present. The Commission may modify
or supplement generic TS and other operational requirements that
were not completely reviewed and approved or require additional TS
and other operational requirements on a plant-specific basis,
provided a change to a design feature in the generic DCD is not
required.
4. An applicant who references this appendix may request an
exemption from the generic TS or other operational requirements. The
Commission may grant such a request only if it determines that the
exemption will comply with the requirements of Sec. 52.7. The
granting of an exemption must be subject to litigation in the same
manner as other issues material to the license hearing.
5. A party to an adjudicatory proceeding for the issuance,
amendment, or renewal of a license, or for operation under Sec.
52.103(a), who believes that an operational requirement approved in
the DCD or a TS derived from the generic TS must be changed, may
petition to admit such a contention into the proceeding. The
petition must comply with the general requirements of Sec. 2.309 of
this chapter and must either demonstrate why special circumstances
as defined in Sec. 2.335 of this chapter are present or demonstrate
that the proposed change is necessary for compliance with the
Commission's regulations applicable and in effect, as set forth in
Section V of this appendix. Any other party may file a response to
the petition. If, on the basis of the petition and any response, the
presiding officer determines that a sufficient showing has been
made, the presiding officer shall certify the matter directly to the
Commission for determination of the admissibility of the contention.
All other issues with respect to the plant-specific TS or other
operational requirements are subject to a hearing as part of the
licensing proceeding.
6. After issuance of a license, the generic TS have no further
effect on the plant-specific TS. Changes to the plant-specific TS
will be treated as license amendments under Sec. 50.90 of this
chapter.
IX. [Reserved]
X. Records and Reporting
A. Records
1. The applicant for this appendix shall maintain a copy of the
generic DCD that includes all generic changes that are made to Tier
1 and Tier 2, and the generic TS and other operational requirements.
The applicant shall maintain the sensitive unclassified non-
safeguards information (including proprietary information and
security-related information) and safeguards information referenced
in the generic DCD for the period that this appendix may be
referenced, as specified in Section VII of this appendix.
2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
maintain the plant-specific DCD to accurately reflect both generic
changes to the generic DCD and plant-specific departures made under
Section VIII of this appendix throughout the period of application
and for the term of the license (including any periods of renewal).
3. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
prepare and maintain written evaluations which provide the bases for
the determinations required by Section VIII of this appendix. These
evaluations must be retained throughout the period of application
and for the term of the license (including any periods of renewal).
4.a. The applicant for the U.S. ABWR design shall maintain a
copy of the aircraft impact assessment performed to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 50.150(a) of this chapter for the term of the
certification (including any periods of renewal).
b. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
maintain a copy of the aircraft impact assessment performed to
comply with the requirements of Sec. 50.150(a) of this chapter
throughout the pendency of the application and for the term of the
license (including any periods of renewal).
B. Reporting
1. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
submit a report to the NRC containing a brief description of any
plant-specific departures from the DCD, including a summary of the
evaluation of each departure. This report must be filed in
accordance with the filing requirements applicable to reports in
Sec. 52.3.
2. An applicant or licensee who references this appendix shall
submit updates to its plant-specific DCD, which reflect the generic
changes to and plant-specific departures from the generic DCD made
under Section VIII of this appendix. These updates shall be filed
under the filing requirements applicable to final safety analysis
report updates in Sec. Sec. 50.71(e) of this chapter and 52.3.
3. The reports and updates required by paragraphs X.B.1 and
X.B.2 of this appendix must be submitted as follows:
a. On the date that an application for a license referencing
this appendix is submitted, the application must include the report
and any updates to the generic DCD.
b. During the interval from the date of application for a
license to the date the Commission makes its finding required by
Sec. 52.103(g) of this chapter, the report must be submitted semi-
annually. Updates to the plant-specific DCD must be submitted
annually and may be submitted along with amendments to the
application.
c. After the Commission makes the finding required by Sec.
52.103(g), the reports and updates to the plant-specific DCD must be
submitted, along with updates to the site-specific portion of the
final safety analysis report for the facility, at the intervals
required by Sec. Sec. 50.59(d)(2) and 50.71(e)(4) of this chapter,
respectively, or at shorter intervals as specified in the license.
Dated: June 23, 2021.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-13801 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P