ML20073R696
Text
_ _ _.
b ' M N' Q T&
zsc l,,
h
~
UNITED STATES
-j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jq s
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20rE4 g.
r l
%,),$.
OCT 101991 6u MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations 51-0001_
APPROACHES TO 10 CFR PART 52 DESIGN
[2_goept
SUBJECT:
CERTIFICATION The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your request for a discussion of alternative approaches to design certification.
These alternative approaches could address the current difficulties being experienced in obtaining detailed design advanced information during the General Electric Company (GE)
I boiling water reactor (ABWR) and Combustion Engineering, i
Incorporated (CE) System 80+ design reviews.
Since issuing 10 CFR Part 52 on April 18, 1989, the NRC staff has l
worked closely with the industry and specific applicants to perform the technical facility design reviews and develop the procedures and policies to effectively implement 10 CFR Part 52.
The staff has submitted Commission papers on the level of design (SECY-90-377); inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance I
detail criteria (ITAAC) (SECY-91-178) ; the ITAAC requirements for issuing l
a final design approval (SECY-91-210) ; severe accident mitigation l
design alternatives for certified designs (SECY-91-229); and the l
resolution of selected technical and severe accident issues for evolutionary light water reactor designs (SECY-91-262).
i i
In conducting the design reviews for the GE ABWR and the CE System 80+ designs the staff has identified a number of technical review areas where the applicants are not providing the level of detailed design and engineering information that the staff expected to utilize in arriving at its design acceptability The areas in decision prior to design certification issuance.
which the staff has not received the detailed design information expected for the GE ABWR design include pipe stress analyses, control room design details, and incorporation of human factors considerations in the control room design.
The staff discussed two of these areas in SECY-91-272 " Role of Personnel and Advanced
~
Control Rooms in Future Nuclear Power Plants" dated August'27, and SECY-91-292 " Digital Computer Systems for Advanced
- 1991, l
Light Water Reactors" dated September 16, 1991.
r l
~
CONTACT:
%)
Bill Borchardt, NRR na 492-1193
~
The Chairman 2
The primary reasons for the vendors not providing detailed design information sufficient for the staff to arrive at a design safety determination include a consideration of 1) technologies that are evolving so rapidly that it would be unwise for the NRC to freeze the details of the design many years before an actual plant is ready to be constructed, 2) design areas such as pipe stress and support analyses where as-built /as-procured information to finalize the design is not available and 3) costs associated with more fully completing the design.
The approaches discussed in this paper may enable the vendors to generate additional financial support for their designs and subsequently develop the additional design detail.
This memorandum discusses potential options for phased approaches to design certification, and issuing a final design approval (FDA) based in part on design l
acceptance criteria.
i Discussion Part 52 of the regulations requires applicants for a design certification to provide the technical information required of applicants for construction permits and operating licenses by l
10 CFR Parts 50, 20, 73, and 100.
The applicants must also provide information related to the Three Mile Island require-i ments, the postulated site parameters, the resolution of unresolved and generic safety issues, a design-specific prob-abilistic risk assessment, ITAAC, interface requirements, and ITAAC for the interface requirements.
Section 52.47 (a) (2) states the following:
The application must contain a level of design information sufficient to enable the Commission to judge the applicant's proposed means of assuring that construction conforms to the design and to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before the certification is granted.
The issue concerning the level of design detail required for design certification has been the subject of prior Commission consideration and guidance.
The staff requirements memorandum of February 15, 1991 "SECY-91-377 - Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part-52" states that applications for design certification should (1) reflect a design which, for all structures, systems or components that can affect safe operation of the plant, is complete, except to the extent that some further adjustment to the design within established design envelops may be necessary to accommodate actual, as-procured hardware characteristics; (2) encompass a depth of detail no less than that in an FSAR at the
j i
3
?
The Chairman operating stage for a recently licensed plant, except 3
for site-specific, as-procured, and as-built information; (3) be sufficient to allow staff to i
~
evaluate the resolution of severe accident issues in the design and the incorporation of experience from operating events in current designs which we want to prevent in the future; and (4) provide a sufficient i
~
level of detail to ascertain how the risk insights-from the design-specific PRA are addressed in the design.
However, because of economic and technological concerns, vendors 1'
have not provided the NRC with the level of design detail that i
the staff would have at the time a facility is ready for
]
licensing at the operating license stage under the 10 CFR Part 50 licensing process.
Yet, the vendors urge the NRC review process grant them a document having agency or staff approval status, l
3' despite the absence of this level of design detail.
In developing a discussion of design certification options for the Commission's consideration, the staff attempted to develop options that were consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 and with the guidance provided by the Commission on Part 52 related issues including the level of design detail needed for design certification.
The following discussion compares each option with the regulatory requirements and previous guidance.
4 1
Phased Approach - General Discussion 4
A phased approach means that an initial agency approval (design certification or final design approval) could be issued without detailed design information for certain limited portions of the plant provided the functional performance description, design acceptance criteria, and interface requirements provide an adequate basis for the staff to make a final safety determination regarding the design.
The design acceptance criteria and interface requirements need to be sufficient for the staff to 1
conclude that any additional design detail submitted after the i
initial agency approval which sati'sfies those criteria would not alter the staff's safety conclusion.
1 To implement a phased approach to design certification, the staff would need to clearly define a standard for determining which i
ortions of a detailed plant design could utilize design cceptance criteria rather than detailed design information.
The initial agency approval could be an FDA or an initial design The staff believes that the use of design certification rule.
acceptance criteria in lieu of detailed design information should The restrictions should be based upon a considera-i be limited.
tion of those design areas affected by rapidly evolving tech-nologies, design areas where as-built /as-procured information
i l
1 The Chairman 4
is not available, or areas where economic considerations prohibit further design work from being completed at the time of initial design certification.
Despite these considerations, the staff must have sufficient information to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before a design certification is issued.
The staff believes that there may be evolving technologies for which it would be premature to finalize the design details at any I
time before the COL is issued.
By waiting until the COL is issued to complete the final design for those areas, the vendor or COL applicant could use the most recent technology for each plant.
However, this could reduce the level of standardization expected from 10 CFR Part 52.
As additional design details are finalized and reviewed by the staff the follow-on approval could be prepared and issued.
In addition to the supplemental design information, the correspond-ing supplemental ITAAC will also need to be developed and reviewed.
If the initial approval were an FDA, the follow-on j
approval would be a design certification rule.
If the initial approval were a design certification, the fullow-on approval would be a second design certification rule.
The staff has developed two options thtt could result from utilizing a phased approach to design certification.
These two options assume that the initial approval is a design certifica-tion rule (DCR) which relies on detailed design information and design acceptance criteria for areas of the plant subject to rapidly evolving changes in technology, situations where it would not be economical to complete the final design, or areas where Ps-built /as-procured information is not available.
Rhile 10 CFR Part 52 anticipated the use of interface requirements, the phased
(
approach to design certification vould use design acceptance I
criteria and interface requirements to a greater extent than originally anticipated.
The use of design acceptance criteria will be limited to those unique situations of rapidly evolving I
technologies, areas where as-built /as-procured information is not available, and over-riding economic considerations.
The' enclosed figures illustrate how the phased approach to design certification might be implemented.
Figure 1, " Basic Certification / Licensing Process," depicts the basic sequence of events anticipated under the 10'CFR Part 52 licensing process.
A design certification in Figure 1 is expected to resolve all non site-specific safety issues through the review and approval of detailed design information and interface requirements but without relying on design acceptance criteria.
After issuance of the design certification, a COL applicant would reference the DCR l
l
l 5
The Chairman and develop site-specific design information.
The hearing held before the COL is issued would be limited to only those issues not resolved as part of the referenced DCR, and therefore limited The advantages to this process include early and final in scope.
resolution of a wide range of technical issues during the DCR the ability to make safety determinations based on
- process, design detail, and the positive impact on standardization.
The potential disadvantages to this process have been mentioned earlier in this paper and include concerns with certifying p7rtions of the design that involve rapidly evolving tech-ncelogies, requiring information that can only be obtained through as-built /as-procured measurements, and the economic impact to the vendors of having to provide a large amount of engineering i
detail.
Post COL Option for Phased Certification titled " Phased Certification -- Post COL Option,"
Figure 2, illustrates the sequence of events that would result from a COL applicant referencing a DCR that relies on design acceptance criteria in lieu of detailed design information in limited areas and how a more complete DCR could subsequently be developed.
Once an original design certification rule is issued, the regulatians permit a combined license applicant to reference that DCR in i 3 application.
Under this option, the COL applicant would be expected to provide the remaining detailed design information in the COL application sufficient for the Commission to reach a decision regarding issuance of a COL.
The COL applicant / holder would be required to complete the facility design details such that the DCR design acceptance criteria are satisfied.
This step involves design verification against the criteria codified in the design certification.
It can be viewed as being similar to, but distinct from, the construction verification ITAAC that will take place during the post-COL issuance construction of the facility.
A negative effect of referencing a design certification which relies to a greater extent on design acceptance criteria is that all new design information submitted to satisfy the design acceptance criteria l
would be subject to litigation during the combined license l
~
i proceedings.
Following issuance of a COL, the additional d to supplement the detailed design information could be usedesign information contained in th l
more encompassing DCR application could be submitted.
The combination of design acceptance criteria, interface kih'C3+-
requirements, and functional performance descriptions are q,g hg-h sufficient to allow the staff to arrive at a safety determination PT hgr f regarding a limited portion of the design.
By designating the l
design acceptance criteria and interface requirements in the b l.
l design certification rule, the Commission will establish the l
l l
i i
l The Chairman 6
standards against which the staff will eventually evaluate the detailed design.
The determination that the detailed design meets those acceptance criteria would be made during the COL review.
The original DCR would still be valid and effective for 15 years since Section 52.63 (a) (1) prevents the Commission from modifying, rescinding or imposing new requirements on the certification unless modification is needed to bring the design certification into compliance with the regulations or to ensure adequate safety.
A potential risk to the use of a phased design certifi-cation process is that the issues resolved during the original DCR rulemaking process will be reopened during the new and separate follow-on DCR rulemaking period.
Also, each DCR is required to conform to the regulations in effect at the time of certification.
Therefore, a follow-on DCR may be different from the original DCR due to changes in the regulations during the intervening period.
The advantages of the phased certification - post COL option include the ability to enter the design certification proceedings without waiting for substantial additional design detail for certain portions of the plant, and the retention of design flexibility within the limits of the certified design acceptance criteria.
The disadvantages of this option include a delay in resolving design implementation decisions until the COL review, an expanded scope of issues open to litigation during the COL hearing, a potential loss of standardization, and an estimated 2.5 year delay in issuing a COL from the time of initial design certification.
The time delays associated with this option would include the time to 1) develop the additional design details, i
- 2) perform the design reviews, and 3) resolve the increased scope of issues open for litigation during the COL proceedings.
This option optimistically assumes that a potential COL applicant will fund the additional design work immediately upon DCR issuance.
Initiating a new and separate follow-on rulemaking process would enable all issues previously resolved in the initial DCR to be reopened.
Implementation of this approach could require a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR Part 52.
Specifically, if the information provided for the initial design certification is in fact sufficient to satisfy the information requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.47, particularly 52.47 (a) (2),
...information sufficient to enable l
the Commission...to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before a design certifica-ation is issued" - then under Part 52 additional design information, other than site-specific information, is gn required at the COL stage.
The required design information and testing and acceptance criteria are matters for the design
A 15 \\S N-I4k W
4 c13 Q3s,qq
]
The Chairman 7
certification rule and (except for site specific information) may not be challenged in the COL proceeding.
On the other hand, if the information provided for the initial design certification does not satisfy the information requirements of 10 CFR Part i
52.47 for the full design, a design certification could not be issued in accordance with the rule.
The Commission specifically
- l rejected the concept of a partial certification for the GE ABWR and other evolutionary designs in the Part 52 rulemaking.
Rulemaking to amend Part 52 at this time would be difficult and controversial since it is currently being litigated before the DC circuit and considered by the Congress.
Series Ontion for Phased Certification illustrates the sequence of events resulting from an Figure 3 initial DCR that relies on design acceptance criteria and is 4
d subsequently used as the basis for initiating a follow-on design certification.
An initial DCR could serve as the starting point for future additional design development by the vendor, or the vendor and additional partners.
The resulting further developed design would form the basis for a more complete design certification.
A COL applicant could then reference the more complete DCR in a subsequent COL application.
It should be pointed out however, that Part 52 allows a COL applicant to reference either of the two certified designs at any time.
I The advantages of the series option for phased certification are similar to those discussed for the previous option but also include the resolution of more issues before the COL application is submitted and therefore a more limited scope of COL hearing issues than the previous option.
The disadvantages of this option include an estimated additional 3.5 year delay in issuance of a COL due to the time it will take to develop the additional design detail between the original DCR and the follow-on application, the time to review that design information and prepare a second FDA, and the time associated with the rulemaking hearing for the follow-on DCR.
Each subsequent DCR proceeding is a new and separate rulemaking and all issues are open for review and litigation.
In general, the advantages of a phased design certification approach include the ability to incorporate the latest technology into the plant design, retention of design flexibility until a time period closer to actual construction, and more timely issuance of the initial design certification.
However, there appear to be significant risks and disadvantages to this approach including increased opportunity for litigation, a longer schedule to reach a final DCR and COL, and a potential reduction in the degree of standardization.
8 The Chairman If the information provided in the initial design certification satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.47, this approach is consistent with Part 52, although the initial certification would have no legal status in the second certification review.
How-MsL if the information provided for the initial design certifi-
- ever, cation does not satisfy the information requirements of 10 CFR
! '[g Part 52.47, a design certification could not be issued in accord-
- 0 L-i h the current rule.
'f Q '
-ance w t 1
i Final Desian Approval with Desian Acceptance Criteria An option related to the phased approach to design certification is a process that would allow the staff to issue an FDA that relies on design acceptance criteria but would require an l
applicant to submit detailed design information for all areas of i
the plant before the staff issues a design certification.
In this would be a two-phase FDA process that would enable
- effect, the staff to find the design to be accaptable with design acceptance criteria but would withhold % sign certification until the design details are reviewed and apptvved.
Appendix 0 to Part l
52 provides flexibility on the scope of the reactor facility l
design covered by a preliminary or final design approval.
Paragraph 1 of Appendix 0 states that a design approval submittal l
may consist of either the preliminary or final design for the l
entire reactor facility or the preliminary or final design of major portions thereof.
The sequence of events for this option would be the same as for the basic certification / licensing process as shown in Figure 1.
The most significant impact of this option is the potential time delay between issuance of the FDA and commencement of the design certification rulemaking It is possible that if the interval between the proceedings.
initial design approval and the commencement of certification rulemaking proceedings is significant, design changes would be needed to comply with new regulations or regulatory positions.
The staff's original intent was that the FDA would be based on t_he review or detailed design information and would document the starr's design approval imme_d_ialgly_ prior to commencement of dusign certTri55tlon rulemaking.
The advantage to this approach is that it woula allow the staff to issue an FDA earlier, and formally document the starr's acceptance of sign 1Iicant portions of the plant's design details.
Issuance of an FDA does not involve any public participation nor does it provide issue finality prior to certification.
Summary The options presented in this memorandum were developed in an attempt to identify potential alternative approaches to design certification.
The issues involved are obviously complex and will require continued study if the Commission decides to pursue l
9 The Chairman The staff is available to discuss this paper any of the options.
at your convenience and will be prepared to discuss the options 1991 Commission presented in this memorandum at the October 17, meeting.
i
\\
.Ees 1I or ecutive irector for Operations cc:
Commissioner Rogers L-Comitifssioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick SECY OGC O
P
-*y
=
e%
=v-
---m y-
-+p-
BASIC CERTIFICATION / LICENSING PROCESS APPUCATION DESIGN RUEMMIM FDA FOR DESIGN CERTIRCATION HEARING CEmiFvCATION PHASE
\\
e--,
= r-
= n== -
OPERATING l
UCENSE i
FINDING ACRS ISSUED REVIEW r'I
+
- k m %
OPERATION APPUCATION EARLY SITE NY SE FOR EARLY %
PERMIT PERMR HEARINGS SITE PERMIT FIGIRE 1
]
i
" PHASED CERTIFICATION"-POSTCOL OPTION
-[
APPUCADON FOR DESIGN HULEMAKING h
DESIGN FDA CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION HEARING PHASEI f.
+W
/
APPUCATION FOR s '
h DESIGN kl DESIGN RULEMAKING g;
CERTIFICATION N HEARING f
CERTIFICATION 11
~
FDA s\\
A j
e
[ SECOND PLANTORDER BASED
[
W ON CERTIFICATION PHASEII roa TT,:Sa W at^L 4 "^#A" N isPeo
/
APPUCATION 8
OFE I
I',,-
UCENSE__
A
-iCRS i CONSTRUCnON I 4
neview FINDING ISSUED l
"""*" M g
APPUCATION EARLY SITE Shim"ki,r @
"^k%"r""
OPERATION FIGURE 2
" PHASED CERTIFICATION" - SERIES OPTION t
DESIGN APPUCATION FOR j
APPUCATION rut.EMAKING CERUFICADON DESIGN CERT 11
% FDA %
HEARING PHASEI FOR DESIGN t,w ur-vCATION l
9 P
DEMN CEM
- 4 FDA l 1
g t
IMh{CONSTRUCDON j R
EEk ""Fj^?NG 8
ggg FOR COM ED EEh REVIEW i
1N OPERATING g
t UCENSE
,gr FINDING ACRS ISSUED
, REVIEW Mf OPERATION APPUCATION EARLY SITE EA FOR EARLY %
PERMfT d)
HEARINGS SITE PERMIT FIGURE 3
I l
1 l
1 V
$n+
l e<
l 1
i 1
l i
'l 5
(
l l
1 l
l l
1
9-s o ny Ni a4Au
[
UNITED STATES
,a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yf i E
i s
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20565 iMc t,
a
%...../
OCT 101991 4c12 MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
APPROACHES TO 10 CFR PART 52 DESIGN CERTIFICATION The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your request for l
a discussion of alternative approaches to design certification.
These alternative approaches could address the current difficulties being experienced in obtaining detailed design information during the General Electric Company (GE) advanced l
l boiling water reactor (ABWR) and Combustion Engineering, Incorporated (CE) System 80+ design reviews.
Since issuing 10 CFR Part 52 on April 18, 1989, the NRC staff has worked closely with the industry and specific applicants to perform the technical facility design reviews and develop the procedures and policies to effectively implement 10 CFR Part 52.
The staff has submitted Commission papers on the level of design l
detcil (SECY-90-377); inspections, tests, analyso's and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) (SECY-91-178) ; the ITAAC requirements for issuing a final design approval (SECY-91-210); severe accident mitigation design alternatives for certified designs (SECY-91-229) ; and the resolution of selected technical and severe accident issues for evolutionary light water reactor designs (SECY-91-262).
In conducting the design reviews for the GE ABWR and the CE System 80+ designs the staff has identified a number of technical review areas where the applicants are not providing the level of detailed design and engineering information that the staff expected to utilize in arriving at its design acceptability The areas in decision prior to design certification issuance.
l which the staff has not received the detailed design information l
expected for the GE ABWR design include pipe stress analyses, control room design details, and incorporation of human factors considerations in the control room design.
The staff discussed two of these areas in SECY-91-272 " Role of Personnel and Advanced Control Rooms in Future Nuclear Power Plants" dated August"27, 1991, and SECY-91-292 " Digital Computer Systems for Advanced Light Water Reactors" dated September 16, 1991.
T I
CONTACT:
Bill Borchardt, NRR g
y 492-119 w
t
i I
The chairman 2
The primary reasons for the vendors not providing detailed design information sufficient for the staff to arrive at a design safety determination include a consideration of 1) technologies that are i
evolving so rapidly that it would be unwise for the NRC to freeze the details of the design many years before an actual plant is ready to be constructed, 2) design areas such as pipe stress and support analyses where as-built /as-procured information to l
finalize the design is not available and 3) costs associated with more fully completing the design.
The approaches discussed in this paper may enable the vendors to generate additional financial support for their designs and subsequently develop the additional design detail.
This memorandum discusses potential i
options for phased approaches to design certification, and issuing a final design approval (FDA) based in part on design acceptance criteria.
Discussion Part 52 of the regulations requires applicants for a design certification to provide the technical information required of applicants for construction permits and operating licenses by 10 CFR Parts 50, 20, 73, and 100.
The applicants must also provide information related to the Three Mile Island require-ments, the postulated site parameters, the resolution of unresolved and generic safety issues, a design-specific prob-abilistic risk assessment, ITAAC, interface requirements, and ITAAC for the interface requirements.
Section 52.47 (a) (2) states
{
the following:
I The application must contain a level of design information sufficient to enable the Commission to judge the applicant's proposed means of assuring that construction conforms to the design and to reach a l
final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before the certification is granted.
l The issue concerning the level of design detail required for design certification has been the subject of prior Commission consideration and guidance.
The staff requirements memorandum of February 15, 1991 "SECY-91-377 - Requirements for Design Certification Under 10 CFR Part 52" states that applications for design certification should (1) reflect a design which, for all structures, systems or components that can affect safe operation of the plant, is complete, except to the extent that some l
i further adjustment to the design within established design envelops may be necessary to accommodate actual, as-procured hardware characteristics; (2) encompass a j
depth of detail no less than that in an FSAR at the i
3 The Chairman operating stage for a recently licensed plant, except for site-specific, as-procured, and as-built information; (3) be sufficient to allow staff to evaluate the resolution of severe accident issues in the design and the incorporation of experience from operating events in current designs which we want to prevent in the future; and (4) provide a sufficient level of detail to ascertain how the risk insights from the design-specific PRA are addressed in the design.
However, because of economic and technological concerns, vendors have not provided the NRC with the level of design detail that the staff would have at the time a facility is ready for licensing at the operating license stage under the 10 CFR Part 50 licensing process.
Yet, the vendors urge the NRC review process grant them a document having agency or staff approval status, despite the absence of this level of design detail.
)
In developing a discussion of design certification options for the Commission's consideration, the staff attempted to develop options that were consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 and with the guidance provided by the Commission on Part 52 related issues including the level of design detail needed for design certification.
The following discussion compares each option with the regulatory requirements and previous guidance.
a 4
Phased Approach - General Discussion A phased approach means that an initial agency approval (design certification or final design approval) could be issued without detailed design information for certain limited portions of the plant provided the functional performance description, design j
acceptance criteria, and interface requirements provide an I
adequate basis for the staff to make a final safety determination regarding the design.
The design acceptance criteria and interface requirements need to be sufficient for the staff to conclude that any additional design detail submitted after the initial agency approval which satisfies those criteria would not alter the staff's safety conclusion.
To implement a phased approach to design certification, the staff would need to clearly define a standard for determining which portions of a detailed plant design could utilize design acceptance criteria rather than detailed design information.
The initial agency approval could be an FDA or an initial design certification rule.
The staff believes that the use of design acceptance criteria in lieu of detailed design information should be limited.
The restrictions should be based upon a considera-tion of those design areas affected by rapidly evolving tech-nologies, design areas where as-built /as-procured information
l l
l The Chairman 4
l is not available, or areas where economic considerations prohibit further design work from being completed at the time of initial design certification.
Despite these considerations, the staff must have sufficient information to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before a design certification is issued.
The staff believes that there may be evolving technologies for which it would be premature to finalize the design details at any time before the COL is issued.
By waiting until the COL is t
issued to complete the final design for those areas, the vendor or COL applicant could use the most recent technology for each plant.
However, this could reduce the level of standardization expected from 10 CFR Part 52.
As additional design details are finalized and reviewed by the staff the follow-on approval could be prepared and issued.
In addition to the supplemental design information, the correspond-l ing supplemental ITAAC will also need to be developed and reviewed.
If the initial approval were an FDAr the follow-on approval would be a design certification rule.
If the initial approval were a design certification, the follow-on approval would be a second design certification rule.
The staff has developed two options that could result from utilizing a phased approach to design certification.
These two options assume that the initial approval is a design certifica-tion rule (DCR) which relies on detailed design information and design acceptance criteria for areas of the plant subject to rapidly evolving changes in technology, situations where it would not be economical to complete the final design, or areas where l
as-built /as-procured information is not available.
While 10 CFR l
Part 52 anticipated the use of interface requirements, the phased approach to design certification would use design acceptance criteria and interface requirements to a greater extent than l
originally anticipated.
The use of design acceptance criteria will be limited to chose unique situations of rapidly evolving technologies, areas where as-built /as-procured information is not available, and over-riding economic considerations.
The enclosed figures illustrate how the phased approach to design certification might be implemented.
Figure 1, " Basic Certification / Licensing Process," depicts the basic sequence of l
events anticipated under the 10 CFR Part 52 licensing process.
A design certification in Figure 1 is expected to resolve all non site-specific safety issues through the review and approval of detailed design information and interface requirements but without relying on design acceptance criteria.
After issuance of the design certification, a COL applicant would reference the DCR I
l l
f The Chairman 5
j and develop site-specific design information.
The hearing held t
l l
before the COL is issued would be limited to only those issues not resolved as part of the referenced DCR, and therefore limited in scope.
The advantages to this process include early and final resolution of a wide range of technical issues during the DCR the ability to make safety determinations based on
- process, design detail, and the positive impact on standardization.
The potential disadvantages to this process have been mentioned earlier in this paper and include concerns with certifying portions of the design that involve rapidly evolving tech-nologies, requiring information that can only be obtained through as-built /as-procured measurements, and the economic impact to the vendors of having to provide a large amount of engineering detail.
1 Post COL Option for Phased Certification Figure 2, titled " Phased Certification -- Post COL Option,"
illustrates the sequence of events that would result from a COL applicant referencing a DCR that relies on design acceptance criteria in lieu of detailed design information in limited areas and how a more complete DCR could subsequently be developed.
Once an original design certification rule is issued, the regulations permit a combined license applicant to reference that DCR in its application.
Under this option, the COL applicant would be expected to provide the remaining detailed design information in the COL application suf ficient for the Commission to reach a decision regarding issuance of a COL.
The COL applicant / holder would be required to complete the facility design details such that the DCR design acceptance criteria are satisfied.
This step involves design verification against the criteria codified in the design certification.
It can be viewed as being similar to, but distinct from, the construction verification ITAAC that will take place during the post-COL issuance construction of the facility.
A negative effect of referencing a design certification which relies to a greater extent on design acceptance criteria is that all new design information submitted to satisfy the design acceptance criteria would be subject to litigation during the combined license proceedings.
Following issuance of a COL, the additional detailed design information could be used to supplement the design information contained in the original DCR and a new and more encompassing DCR application could be submitted.
The combination of design acceptance criteria, interface requirements, and functional performance descriptions are sufficient to allow the staff to arrive at a safety determination regarding a limited portion of the design.
By designating the l
design acceptance criteria and interf ace requirements in the design certification rule, the Commission will establish the
Y The Chairman 6
standards against which the staff will eventually evaluate the detailed design.
The determination that the detailed design meets those acceptance criteria would be made during the COL review.
i The original DCR would still be valid and effective for 15 years J
since Section 52.63 (a) (1) prevents the Commission from modifying, rescinding or imposing new requirements on the certification unless modification is needed to bring the design certification into compliance with the regulations or to ensure adequate safety.
A potential risk to the use of a phased design certifi-cation proc 2ss is that the issues resolved during the original DCR rulemaking process will be reopened during the new and separate follow-on DCR rulemaking period.
Also, each DCR is required to conform to the regulations in effect at the time of I
certification.
Therefore, a follow-on DCR may be different from the original DCR due to changes in the regulations during the i
intervening period.
The advantages of the phased certification - post COL option include the ability to enter the design certification proceedings without waiting for substantial additional design detail for certain portions of the plant, and the retention of design flexibility within the limits of the certified design acceptance criteria.
The disadvantages of this option include a delay in resolving design implementation decisions until the COL review, 4
an expanded scope of issues open to litigation during the COL hearing, a potential loss of standardization, and an estimated 2.5 year delay in issuing a COL from the time of initial design certification.
The time delays associated with this option would include the time to 1) develop the additional design details,
- 2) perform the design reviews, and 3) resolve the increased scope of issues open for litigation during the COL proceedings.
This option optimistically assumes that a potential COL applicant will fund the additional design work immediately upon DCR issuance.
Initiating a new and separate follow-on rulemaking process would enable all issues previously resolved in the initial DCR to be reopened.
Implementation of this approach could require a rulemaking to amend 10 CFR Part 52.
Specifically, if the information provided for the initial design certification is in fact sufficient to satisfy the information requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.47, particularly 52.47 (a) (2),
...information sufficient to enable the Commission...to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design before a design certifica-ation is issued" - then under Part 52 additional design information, other than site-specific information, is not required at the COL stage.
The required design information and testing and acceptance criteria are matters for the design
The Chairman 7
certification rule and (except for r>ite specific information) may not be challenged in the COL proceeding.
On the other hand, if the information provided for the initial design certification does not satisfy the information requirements of 10 CFR Part for the full design, a design certification could not be 52.47 issued in accordance with the rule.
The Commission specifically rejected the concept of a partial certification for the GE ABWR and other evolutionary designs in the Part 52 rulemaking.
I Rulemaking to amend Part 52 at this time would be difficult and controversial since it is currently being litigated before the DC Circuit and considered by the Congress.
Series Option for Phased Certification Figure 3 illustrates the sequence of events resulting from an initial DCR that relies on design acceptance criteria and is subsequently used as the basis for initiating a follow-on design certification.
An initial DCR could serve as the starting point for future additional design development by the vendor, or the vendor and additional partners.
The resulting further developed design would form the basis for a more complete design certification.
A COL applicant could then reference the more complete DCR in a subsequent COL application.
It should be pointed out however, that Part 52 allows a COL applicant to reference either of the two certified designs at any time.
The advantages of the series option for phased certification are similar to those discussed for the previous option but also include the resolution of more issues before the COL application is submitted and therefore a more limited scope of COL hearing issues than the previous option.
The disadvantages of this option include an estimated additional 3.5 year delay in issuance of a COL due to the time it will take to develop the additional design detail between the original DCR and the follow-on application, the time to review that design information and prepare a second FDA, and the time associated with the rulemaking hearing for the follow-on DCR.
Each subsequent DCR proceeding is a new and separate rulemaking and all issues are open for review and litigation.
In general, the advantages of a phased design certification approach include the ability to incorporate the latest technology into the plant design, retention of design flexibility until a time period closer to actual construction, and more timely issuance of the initial design certification.
However, there appear to be significant risks and disadvantages to this approach including increased opportunity for litigation, a longer schedule to reach a final DCR and COL, and a potential reduction in the degree of standardization.
The Chairman 8
If the information provided in the initial design certification satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.47, this approach is consistent with Part 52, although the initial certification would have no legal status in the second certification review.
How-ever, if the information provided for the initial design certifi-cation does not satisfy the information requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.47, a design certification could not be issued in accord-ance with the current rule.
Final Desian Acoroval with Desian Acceptance Criteria An option related to the phased approach to design certification 1s a process that would allow the staff to issue an FDA that relies on design acceptance criteria but would require an applicant to submit detailed design information for all areas of In the plant before the staff issues a design certification.
this would be a two-phase FDA process that would enable
- effect, the staff to find the design to be acceptable with design acceptance criteria but would withhold design certification until the design details are reviewed and approved.
Appendix 0 to Part 52 provides flexibility on the scope of the reactor facility design covered by a preliminary or final design approval.
Paragraph 1 of Appendix 0 states that a design approval submittal may consist of either the preliminary or final design for the entire reactor facility or the preliminary or final design of major portions thereof.
The sequence of events for this option j
would be the same as for the basic certification / licensing process as shown in Figure 1.
The most significant impact of this option is the potential time delay between issuance of the FDA and commencement of the design certification rulemaking proceedings.
It is possible that if the interval between the initial design approval and the commencement of certification rulemaking proceedings is significant, design changes would be needed to comply with new regulations or regulatory positions.
The staff's original intent was that the FDA would be based on the review of detailed design information and would document the staff's design approval immediately prior to commencement of design certification rulemaking.
The advantage to this approach is that it would allow the staff to issue an FDA earlier, and formally document the staff's acceptance of significent portions of the plant's design details.
Issuance of an FDA does not involve any public participation nor does it provide issue finality prior to certification.
Summary The options presented in this memorandum were developed in an attempt to identify potential alternative approaches to design certification.
The issues involved are obviously complex and will require continued study if the Commission decides to pursue
The Chairman 9
any of the options.
The staff is available to discuss this paper at your convenience and will be prepared to discuss the options I
1991 Commission presented in this memorandum at the October 17, meeting.
l
.YYor A
es ecutive @irector for Operations l
cc:
Commissioner Rogers L-C-esiTssioner Curtiss l
Commissioner Remick SECY OGC l
l l
I BASIC CERTIFICATION / LICENSING PROCESS APPUCATION DESIGN RULEMMING FDA M FOR DESIGN CERTIFICATION g HEARING CERTIFICATION PHASE
'd,,e![
i.t
+
,==0. ea
=r a.
OPERATING i
UCENSE r
FINDING ACRS ISSUED
/
RN mr i;M %
OPERATION L
APPUCATION EARLY SITE gyg FOR EARLY %
PERMIT MRMR HEARINGS i
SITE PERMIT 4
l FIGilRE 1
9
" PHASED CERTIFICATION"-POSTCOL OPTION APPUCATION FOR DESIGN DESIGN RULEMAKING FDA M CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION HEARING PHASEI APPUCATION FOR
~
DESIGN h
hl DESIGN RULEMAKING FDA CERTIFICATION 11 i;
CERTIFICATION II HEARING
!E FJi SECOND PLANTORDER BASED A
ON CERTIFICATION PHASE II g
APPUCATION ISS ED REVIEW H
R OPE ATI UCENSE
+
l CON N l
~
ACRS REVIEW w
FINDING ISSUED
'a n u m ClifdNM%T*J2:5WE+MEDifE W!A 1
APPUCATION EARt.Y SITE SE"^2 fir =>
n2""AS
=> "^Nr""
OPERATION t
1 FIGURE 2
~
" PHASED CERTIFICATION" - SERIES OPTION i
APPUCATION FOR APPUCA N RULEMAKING CERU DON DESIGN CERT 11 FOR DESIGN % FDA HEARING PHASEI i
cm.,e,CAuOn i
1 P
55mmmmmREfRM",Js7,, %"%e""T 0-! FDA I
h,h.I.
l
.Y CONSTRUCDON j
,i APPUCADON
^
FOR COMBINED %'
R H
l 1m OPERATING UCENSE a
FINDING i
ACRS ISSUED qk REVIEW
&Mgl OPERATION APPUCATION EARLY SITE EA FOR EARLY PERMtT i
SITE PERMIT HEARINGS I
1 FIGURE 3
(
D l
3 b
g i
1 1
l I
l l
1 I
i I
i r
l l
I f
l l
l l
1 l
I l