ML063240059
| ML063240059 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, Brunswick, Crystal River, Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/2006 |
| From: | Kitchen R Progress Energy Co |
| To: | Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/SECY/RAS |
| Ngbea E S | |
| References | |
| 71FR61329 00004, PE&RAS-06-079, PR-2, PR-50, PR-51, PR-52, RIN 3150-AG24 | |
| Download: ML063240059 (6) | |
Text
PR 2, 50, 51 and 52 (71 FR61329)
DOCKETED USNRC PO Box 1551 November 17, 2006 (11:28am) 411 Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh NC 27602 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Serial: PE&RAS-06-079 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF November 16, 2006 Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff
SUBJECT:
Comments on Proposed Rule, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; SupplementalProposed Rule," 71 Fed. Reg. 61,330 (October 17, 2006) (RIN 3150-AG24)
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:
Progress Energy is pleased to submit comments on the subject proposed rule. Progress Energy commends the NRC staff on their efforts to enhance the regulatory framework for construction of new nuclear units and issue this supplement on a schedule so that these changes can be included in the final rule to be issued in early 2007.
Progress Energy has worked closely with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Combined Operating License Task Force (COLTF) to review and comment on the proposed rule. Progress Energy personnel also actively participated in the NRC staff s Limited Work Authorization (LWA) rulemaking workshop on November 1, 2006.
Based on our review of the proposed rule, Progress Energy endorses the comments submitted by NEI on behalf of the nuclear industry via letter dated November 16, 2006. NEI comments of particular interest to Progress Energy propose enhancements in the following areas.
- Excavation: Progress Energy believes that excavation .is more appropriately characterized as site exploration rather than construction and, recommends that excavation be removed from the definition of "construction" contained in proposed Section 50.10(b).
Alternatively, new exclusion (9) could be added to Section 50.10(b) which would allow excavation provided the potential licensee geologically maps the excavations and notifies the NRC staff when the excavations are open for inspection.
- Scope of "Construction": The scope of activities included in "construction" is too broad (i.e., any structure, system, or component ... describedin the site safety analysis report).
The scope of "construction," as used in Section 50.10(b), should be limited to only those activities that have a direct nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security (i.e., reactor building and buildings housing equipment important to safety).
In addition to the NEI comments, Progress Energy submits the following comments for the staff's consideration.
Sections 50.10(d)(2) and 52.17(c): This proposed rule modifies Section 52.17(c) such that it no longer requires a "redress" plan. The requirement for "redress" has been relocated to Section 50.10(c)(3)(iii). Therefore, the proposed Section 50.10(d)(2) reference to 52.17(c) regarding a redress plan should be changed to 50.1 0(c)(3)(iii).
Ed 7, O-
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission PE&RAS-06-079 Page 2 of 3 Section 50.10(b) Statements of Consideration (71 Fed. Reg., 61337): This section states, However, the installationor integration of that structure, system, or component into its final location in the reactor would require either a constructionpermit or combined license.
Progress Energy proposes that the sentence be reworded as follows to be consistent with wording used elsewhere in the notice.
However, the installationor integrationof that structure, system, or component into its final plant location and elevation in the reacte, would require either a constructionpermit or combined license.
The proposed rule requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) associated with a LWA. Where the Environmental Report (ER) for Phase 1 of the Combined Operating License (COL) application indicates no significant environmental impact, the staff should have the option to issue an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in lieu of an EIS. Once the limited scope of the environmental review to support an LWA is considered, regulations mandating the NRC issue an EIS without considering whether the ER indicates significant impacts appears an unnecessary burden for the staff.
To implement these thoughts, the following changes to the proposed-rule are suggested:
- i. Proposed rule Section 51.49(a)(2) (71 Fed. Reg. 61,349). Rather than requiring an applicant to state the need for the LWA, an applicant should only state its purpose.
- 2. Proposed rule Section 51.20(b)(5) (71 Fed. Reg. 61,349). Instead of mandating an EIS, allow the staff discretion to issue an EA if the ER of part 1 of a phased COL shows no significant impacts associated with proposed LWA activities.
- 3. Proposed rule Section 51.76(b) and (e) (71 Fed. Reg. 61,351 & 61,352). Instead of mandating an EIS, allow the staff discretion to issue an EA if the ER of part 1 of a phased COL shows no significant impacts associated with proposed LWA activities.
- 4. Section 51.20(b)(1): Clarify that LWA requires an EIS only if performed in conjunction with a construction permit.
Progress Energy is currently developing COL applications, with the submittal of the first application targeted for the fourth quarter of 2007, and desires a stable regulatory framework in which to prepare and submit these applications. The incorporation of the comments and enhancements as submitted by NEI on behalf of the industry and Progress Energy will further enhance stability and significantly improve the regulatory framework surrounding new plant construction. In this regard, Progress Energy will continue to work diligently with the NRC through the NEI COLTF to achieve this end.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission PE&RAS-06-079 Page 3 of 3 Please contact me at (919) 546-6992 if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Robert H. Kitchen Manager - Nuclear Plant Licensing DBM
StY-T-E:_Progress-Ener- mments on Licenses, Certifications, and Approva fNuea ls er Plants; Supplemental i From: "Miller, David (Bryan)" <David.Miller@ pgnmail.com>
To: <SECY@nrc.gov>
Date: Fri, Nov 17, 2006 8:22 AM
Subject:
RE: Progress Energy Comments on Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Supplemental Proposed Rule (RIN 3150-AG24) - Resend There was an issue with the OCR conversion of the PDF document sent to you yesterday afternoon which may have introduced errors. Please replace that document with the attached PDF document.
Thank you
<<06-079 Kitchen Letter Comments on LWA Rule Change.pdf>>
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Miller, David (Bryan)
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:09 PM
> To: 'SECY@nrc.gov'
Subject:
Progress Energy Comments on Licenses, Certifications,
> and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Supplemental Proposed Rule
> (RIN 3150-AG24)
> << File: 06-079 Kitchen Letter Comments on LWA Rule Change.pdf >>
CC: "Nanette Gilles" <NVG@nrc.gov>
ae1111l Page 2c:tem\W002TM Mail Envelope Properties (455DB771.519: 11 : 46361)
Subject:
RE: Progress Energy Comments on Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants; Supplemental Proposed Rule (RIN 3150-AG24) - Resend Creation Date Fri, Nov 17, 2006 8:19 AM From: "Miller, David (Bryan)" <David.Miller@pgnmail.com>
Created By: David.Miller@rLnmail.com Recipients nrc.gov TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 SECY (SECY) nrc.gov OWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 NVG CC (Nanette Gilles)
Post Office Route TWGWPO02.HQGWDO01 nrc.gov OWGWPOO2.HQGWDOO1 nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 660 Friday, November 17, 2006 8:19 AM TEXT.htm 1831 06-079 Kitchen Letter Comments on LWA Rule Change.pdf 2410411 Mime.822 3303726 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard ReplyRequested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard Junk Mail Handling Evaluation Results Message is eligible for Junk Mail handling This message was not classified as Junk Mail Junk Mail settings when this message was delivered Junk Mail handling disabled by User Junk Mail handling disabled by Administrator
c:\tem\GW)00002.TMP Page2 Junk List is not enabled Junk Mail using personal address books is not enabled Block List is not enabled