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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

34905 

Vol. 86, No. 124 

Thursday, July 1, 2021 

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is withdrawn as a result of such 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: Dawn.Forder@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions contact the 

individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Email comments to:

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. 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: 

Dennis.Andrukat@nrc.gov, or James 

Shea, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, telephone: 301–415–1388, 

email: James.Shea@nrc.gov. 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 publiclyavailable 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 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 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 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 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 

Library.Resource@nrc.gov 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34906 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The requirement for modifications in DC 

renewals to address § 50.150 was added to 

§ 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. 

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-andcomment process. For example, a 

substantive response is required when— 

(a) The comment causes the NRC to 

reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or 

conduct additional analysis; 

(b) The comment raises an issue 

serious enough to warrant a substantive 

response to clarify or complete the 

record; or 

(c) The comment raises a relevant 

issue that was not previously addressed 

or considered by the NRC. 

(2) The comment proposes a change 

or an addition to the rule, and it is 

apparent that the rule would be 

ineffective or unacceptable without 

incorporation of the change or addition. 

(3) The comment causes the NRC to 

make a change (other than editorial) to 

the rule. 

For 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 § 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 § 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 § 21.3. For the 

NRC to issue a rule granting the DC 

renewal under § 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 § 50.150, 

‘‘Aircraft impact assessment.’’ 1

A DC renewal applicant may propose 

to amend the design under § 52.59(c). 

An amendment is an applicantproposed change that is not an update 

under § 52.57(a) or a change to meet the 

renewal standards in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34907 

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. 

Information, Section II.A.1, ‘‘Finality,’’ 

stated that the NRC ‘‘does not plan or 

expect to be able to conduct a de novo 

review of the entire design if a 

certification renewal application is filed 

under § 52.59[,]’’ ‘‘Criteria for renewal’’ 

(62 FR 25800, 25805). Instead, the NRC 

stated that it expects that the focus of 

the review would be on changes to the 

design that are proposed by the 

applicant and insights from relevant 

operating experience with the certified 

design or other designs, or other 

material new information arising after 

the NRC staff’s review of the design 

certification. Furthermore, the standards 

in § 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 reanalysis amendment and the necessary 

changes to meet the requirements of 

§ 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 § 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, ‘‘NearTerm 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 

§ 50.155, ‘‘Mitigation of beyond-designbasis events,’’ the Commission decided 

not to impose mitigation strategies 

requirements on DCs.2

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 § 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 § 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— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34908 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

3NUREG–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 § 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 § § 50.150 and 52.59. 

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. 

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, § 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 § 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 plantspecific 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 plantspecific 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 plantspecific 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 § 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 twotiered 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34909 

by this appendix. The change process 

for Tier 2 information is similar to, but 

not identical to, the change process set 

forth in § 50.59, ‘‘Changes, tests, and 

experiments.’’ The regulations in § 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 

§ 50.59, as described in § 50.59(c)(4), the 

definitions and criteria of § 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 plantspecific 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 § 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 plantspecific 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 

§ 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34910 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

4Certain activities ordinarily conducted 

following fuel load and therefore considered 

‘‘operational requirements,’’ but which may be 

relied upon to support a Commission finding under 

§ 52.103(g), may themselves be the subject of 

ITAAC to ensure implementation prior to the 

§ 52.103(g) finding. 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

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 § 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 postfuel 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 plantspecific 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 nonsafeguards 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 § 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 § 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 plantspecific 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 § 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 § 52.63(a)(1). 

Consistent with § 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 52.7, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ 

or § 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 § 50.59 and is 

generally referred to as the ‘‘§ 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 § 52.63(a)(1). A generic change under 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 52.63(a)(1). A generic 

change under § 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 plantspecific order, as required by 

§ 52.63(a)(4). The NRC has determined 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34912 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

that it is not necessary to impose an 

additional limitation for standardization 

similar to that imposed on Tier 1 

departures by § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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-designbasis accidents’’ or other lowprobability 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 

§ 52.47(a)(28). Under § 52.47(a)(28), 

applicants are required to include the 

information required by § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 plantspecific 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 plantspecific 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 

§ 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 § 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 plantspecific 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 plantspecific 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 § 2.335, ‘‘Consideration of 

Commission rules and regulations in 

adjudicatory proceedings.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34914 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Paragraph VIII.C.6 states that the 

generic technical specifications would 

have no further effect on the plantspecific 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 § 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 NRCapproved 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 plantspecific 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 § 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 § 50.150(a) 

throughout the pendency of the 

application and for the term of the 

license and any renewal. This provision 

is consistent with § 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 § 50.150(a)(1) will 

be met. 

Paragraph X.A does not place 

recordkeeping requirements on sitespecific 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 semiannual 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34915 

under 10 CFR part 52, after the 

Commission has made a finding under 

§ 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 

(§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34916 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 51.30(d) 

and § 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

Document ADAMS Accession No./ 

Federal Register citation 

SECY–20–0112, ‘‘Direct Final Rule–Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design Certification Renewal (RIN 3150–AK04; 

NRC–2017–0090),’’ December 9, 2020.

ML20170A520 

GE-Hitachi ABWR Design Control Document Tier 1 & 2, Revision 7, October 2019 (includes correction noted, as of 

March 2020).

ML20093K254 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Transmittal of ABWR Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal Application Design 

Control Document, Revision 5, Tier 1 and Tier 2, December 7, 2010.

ML110040176 

GE-Hitachi ABWR Design Control Document Tier 1 & 2, Revision 5, December 7, 2010 .............................................. ML110040323 

Technical Report NEDO–33875, ABWR U.S. Certified Design—Aircraft Impact Assessment, Licensing Basis Information and Design Details for Key Design Features, Rev. 3 (M170049), February 2017.ML17059C523 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34917 

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO U.S. ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION RENEWAL RULE—Continued 

Document ADAMS Accession No./ 

Federal Register citation 

Licensing Technical Report NEDO–33878, ABWR ECCS Suction Strainer Evaluation of Long-Term Recirculation Capability, Rev. 3 (M180068), March 2018.ML18092A306 

Final Safety Evaluation Report and Supplements 

NUREG–1503, Supplement 2, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling 

Water Reactor Design,’’ October 2020.

ML20301A886 

NUREG–1503, Supplement 1, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling 

Water Reactor Design,’’ May 1997.

ML080710134 

NUREG–1503, Vols. 1–2, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Advanced Boiling Water 

Reactor Design,’’ July 1994.

ML080670592 

Environmental Review 

Environmental Assessment by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Relating to Renewal of the Certification of 

the ABWR Standard Design, June 2021.

ML21147A381 

Staff Technical Analysis in Support of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design Certification Renewal Environmental Assessment.ML20024D602 

MFN 16–062, ‘‘Applicant’s Supplemental Environmental Report—Amendment to Standard Design Certification 

(ABWR Renewal Docket 52–045),’’ August 2016.

ML16235A415 

25A5680AA, ‘‘Amendment to Technical Support Document for the ABWR,’’ Sheet 1, November 30, 2010 (Renewal 

Application).

ML110040178 

SECY–97–077, ‘‘Certification of Two Evolutionary Designs,’’ April 15, 1996 (Original ABWR Environmental Assessment).ML003708129 

Letter from GE Nuclear Energy Submitting the Enclosed ‘‘Technical Support Document for the ABWR,’’ December 

21, 1994 (Original NEPA/SAMDA Submittal).

ML100210563 

Commission Papers, Original Design Certification, Interim Rule Amendments, and Other Supporting Documents 

SECY–19–0066, ‘‘Staff Review of NuScale Power’s Mitigation Strategy for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events,’’ 

June 26, 2019.

ML19148A443 

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,’’ February 17, 2012.

ML12039A111 

SECY–11–0093, ‘‘Near-Term Report and Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan,’’ 

July 12, 2011.

ML11186A950 

The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident, July 12, 2011 .......................... ML111861807 

Staff Requirements Memorandum on SECY–90–377, ‘‘Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part 

52,’’ February 15, 1991.

ML003707892 

SECY–90–377, ‘‘Requirements for Design Certification under 10 CFR Part 52,’’ November 8, 1990 ............................ ML003707889 

NUREG-1948, ‘‘Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Aircraft Impact Amendment to the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) Design Certification,’’ June 2011.ML11182A163 

U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Aircraft Impact Design Certification Amendment, December 16, 2011 .............. 76 FR 78096 

LBP–11–07, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Memorandum and Order in the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station Units 3 and 4 Combined License Proceeding, February 28, 2011.ML110591049 

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for Renewal of the U.S. Advanced Boiling 

Water Reactor Design Certification, February 18, 2011 (Acceptance Application).

76 FR 9612 

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Notice of Receipt and 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).

76 FR 4948 

ABWR–LIC–09–621, Revision 0, ‘‘Applicant’s Supplemental Environmental Report-Amendment to ABWR Standard 

Design Certification,’’ November 2009.

ML093170455 

Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for New Nuclear Power Reactors, June 12, 2009 ...................................................... 74 FR 28111 

Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, August 28, 2007 (Revision of 10 CFR Parts 50 

and 52).

72 FR 49351 

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain Language in Government Writing,’’ June 10, 1998 ................................................... 63 FR 31883 

Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement States Programs, September 3, 1997 ........................ 62 FR 46517 

Standard Design Certification for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, May 12, 1997 (Original U.S. 

ABWR Design Certification).

62 FR 25800 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Transmittal of ABWR Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal Application Design 

Control Document Revision 7, Chapter 5, March 16, 2020.

ML20076D961 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy—ABWR Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal Application Design Control Document Revision 7, Tier 1 and Tier 2, December 20, 2019.ML20007E274 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Submittal of ABWR Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal Application Design 

Control, Document, Revision 6, Tier 1 and Tier 2, February 19, 2016.

ML16081A268 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy—ABWR Standard Plant Design Certification Renewal Application Design Control Document Revision 6, Tier 1 and Tier 2, February 19, 2016.ML16214A015 

Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (MBDBE)—Regulatory Analysis—Proposed Rule Post-SRM, October 

2015.

ML15266A133 

Letter from Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 Termination of Combined Licenses NPF–97 and NPF–98, July 12, 2018.ML18179A217 

South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4, Request for Withdrawal of Combined Licenses, June 22, 2018 ............................ ML18184A338 

Withdrawal of Toshiba Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design Certification Rule Renewal Application, June 9, 2016 ML16173A310 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34918 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

5The 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. 

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO U.S. ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION RENEWAL RULE—Continued 

Document ADAMS Accession No./ 

Federal Register citation 

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy—U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Design Certification Renewal Application, July 20, 2012 .. ML12125A385 

Reactor Regulatory History on Design Certification Rules, April 26, 2000 5 .................................................................... ML003761550 

Notice of Issuance of Revised Final Design Approval for U.S. ABWR Standard Design, December 1, 1994 ................ 59 FR 61647 

Letter to GE Nuclear Energy Transmitting the Revised Final Design Approval for [the] U.S. ABWR Standard Design, 

November 23, 1994.

ML20077A747 

Issuance of Final Design Approval Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix O; U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

Design; GE Nuclear Energy, July 20, 1994.

59 FR 37058 

Final Design Approval FDA–0 for GE Nuclear Energy U.S. ABWR Standard Design, July 13, 1994 (Docket No. 52– 

001).

ML20070L506 

GE Nuclear Energy; Receipt of Application for Design Certification, March 20, 1992 (Initial Application) ...................... 57 FR 9749 

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. 

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 Rulemaking.Comments@

nrc.gov. 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 §§ 73.2 and 73.22(b)(1). 

Consistent with the definition of ‘‘need 

to know’’ as stated in § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34919 

6Broad 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. 

7The requester will be asked to provide his or her 

full name, Social Security Number, date and place 

of birth, telephone number, and email address. 

8This fee is subject to change pursuant to the 

Defense Counter Intelligence and Security Agency’s 

(DCSA) adjustable billing rates. 

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 

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 § 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

c. A completed Form FD–258 

(fingerprint card), signed in original ink, 

and submitted in accordance with 

§ 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 

MAILSVC.Resource@nrc.gov 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, § 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 

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 § 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34920 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

9State-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. 

necessary) an inspection to confirm that 

the recipient’s information protection 

system is sufficient to satisfy the 

requirements of § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 9.29. The 

decision of the EDO constitutes final 

agency action under § 9.29(d). 

Predisclosure Procedures for Proprietary 

Information Constituting Trade Secrets 

or Confidential Commercial or Financial 

Information 

The NRC will follow the procedures 

in § 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 

§ 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 § 9.28(b). In 

applying the provisions of § 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 § 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 § 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 § 2.315(c)). 

• Federally-recognized and Staterecognized 9 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: 

Library.Resource@nrc.gov. 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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. 

■ 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 

§§ 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 plantspecific changes to generic DCD information. 

D. Tier 1 means the portion of the designrelated 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 designrelated 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 § 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 § 50.2 of this chapter, 

§ 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 PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 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 fedreg.legal@nara.gov or go to 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.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 §§ 52.77, 

52.79, and 52.80, comply with the following 

requirements: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34922 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 §§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 52.63(a)(5) in subsequent 

proceedings for issuance of a COL, 

amendment of a COL, or renewal of a COL, 

proceedings held under § 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 

§ 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 (§ 2.390 of this 

chapter and 10 CFR part 9), and securityrelated information), for the purpose of 

participating in the hearing required by 

§ 52.85, the hearing provided under § 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 34923 

plant-specific orders are governed by the 

requirements in § 52.63(a)(4). 

4. Exemptions from Tier 1 information are 

governed by the requirements in 

§§ 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 

§ 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 plantspecific order, while this appendix is in 

effect under § 52.55 or § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 plantspecific 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 exvessel severe accident previously reviewed. 

d. A proposed departure from Tier 2 

information required by § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
34924 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 124 / Thursday, July 1, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 plantspecific 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 2.309 of this 

chapter and must either demonstrate why 

special circumstances as defined in § 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 plantspecific TS. Changes to the plant-specific TS 

will be treated as license amendments under 

§ 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 plantspecific 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 

§ 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 § 52.103(g), the reports and 

updates to the plant-specific DCD must be 

submitted, along with updates to the sitespecific portion of the final safety analysis 

report for the facility, at the intervals 

required by §§ 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 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Part 702 

RIN 3133–AF03 

Transition to the Current Expected 

Credit Loss Methodology 

AGENCY: National Credit Union 

Administration (NCUA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule facilitates the 

transition of federally insured credit 

unions (FICUs) to the current expected 

credit loss (CECL) methodology required 

under Generally Accepted Accounting 

Principles (GAAP). The final rule 

provides that, for purposes of 

determining a FICU’s net worth 

classification under the prompt 

corrective action (PCA) regulations, the 

Board will phase-in the day-one adverse 

effects on regulatory capital that may 

result from adoption of CECL. 

Consistent with regulations issued by 

the other federal banking agencies, the 

final rule will temporarily mitigate the 

adverse PCA consequences of the dayone capital adjustments, while requiring 

that FICUs account for CECL for other 

purposes, such as Call Reports. The 

final rule also provides that FICUs with 

less than $10 million in assets are no 

longer required to determine their 

charges for loan losses in accordance 

with GAAP. These FICUs may instead 

use any reasonable reserve methodology 

(incurred loss), provided that it 

adequately covers known and probable 

loan losses. The final rule follows 

publication of an August 19, 2020, 

proposed rule and takes into 

consideration the public comments 

received on the proposed rule. 

DATES: Effective August 2, 2021. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES