ML20081K872

Requests That ABWR Final Design Approval (Fda) Be Amended to Provide for Term of 15 Years from Date of Issuance & That,As Provided in SRM on COM-SECY-95-025,FDA Be Updated as Needed to Conform to Any Changes Resulting from Certification RM

ML20081K872
Person / Time
Site:	05200001
Issue date:	09/20/1994
From:	Quirk J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9503290326
Download: ML20081K872 (5)

Text

{

(

' GENudoarEnergy JosephF Ourk GereralDoctc Ccepany ABWRlicensing Meneger 175 CLrtner Aeonve, MC 782. San kse. CA 951251014 RgectMagur ABWRCertsticaten 408 9254219(phone) 406 925-4257(facsnik)

September 20,1994 Mr. William T. Russell Director, OfTice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Russell:

In its letter to you of August 31,1994, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested that the Final Design Approvals (FDA) for the AInVR and System 80+ designs be changed from the five-year duration prescribed in those FDAs to a period of fifteen years - the duration prescribed in Pan 52 for the design certifications which will be based on those FDAs. GE Nuclear Energy strongly supports the position advocated in the NEI letter and specifically reque:ts such action through amendment to the AInVR FDA. Such an amendment would have no impact on the ABWR design cenification schedule.

As stated in the NEI letter, earlier this year the industry submitted a proposed content for ALWR FDAs based on industry understanding of 10 CFR Part 52 requirements. Despite industry requests to discuss with the staff any differences between the industry proposal and the FDA content that the staiT contemplated proposing, FDA applicants were not made aware of the staff-proposed FDA content prior to its finalization even though, under Appendix 0 to Part 52, an applicant-designer becomes the " holder" of an FDA upon its issuance.

The legal, policy and practical reasons supporting a fifteen-year FDA duration are set forth in the enclosure to this letter. In summary, we believe that the five-year restriction is counter to the Part 52 regulatory regime, which establishes requirements supporting fifteen-year design approvals; that it disregards the safety approval bases for FDA issuance, which are the same as those for the fifteen-year design certification; and that it is at odds with the Commission's express disapproval of a five-year FDA term (SRM on COM-SECY-94-025). The enormous technical and financial resources committed by GE Nuclear Energy, the nuclear industry, and the Department of Energy over the past seven years in support of FDA approval and the extraonlinarily rigorous safety review by the NRC staff which preceded that approval add to the weight of the foregoing. It is evident, moreover, that a five-year FDA duration severely diminishes the force of the supporting safetyjudgments when the approved designs compete with those of foreign vendon for projects outside the U.S.

Therefore, GE Nuclear Energy requests that the ABWR FDA be amended to prmide for a term of fifteen years from the date ofits issuance and that, as pro ided in the SRM on COM-SECY-94-025, the FDA be " updated as needed to conform to any changes resulting from the cenification nilemaking and be in effect for the duration of the certification."

I

~

nnmon<

9503290326 940920 /

PDR ADOCK 05200001 A

PDR {

x

.. ib O

4 In addition, we recommend the FDA be amended to clarify two other matters. First, the FDA does not contain a provision which approves the ABWR certified design material (CDM), including the inspecdons, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) for the ABWR. Since the Final Safety Evaluation Report for the ABWR accepts the CDM, and since the staff made submission and acceptance ofITAAC a prerequisite forissuance of the FDA,it is only fitting and appropriate that the FDA be amended to approve the CDM and associated ITAAC. Second. the FDA for the ABWR does not contain a provision which requires the staff and the ACRS to utilize and rely upon the approved safety analysis repon and CDM in subsequent design cenification and licensing proceedings (absent significant new .

Information which substantially affects the previous determination or other good cause). '

Such a provision should be added to the FDA to conform with Appendix 0 to Part 52 and past practice for Part 50 FDAs. .

We would be pleased to discuss with you any questions you may have with regard to these requests. ,

Sincerely ,

e se i . Quirk t

Attachment t

cc: Chairman Selin Commissior.cr Rogers Commissioner de Planque DM Crutchfield, NRR bcc: Steven Hucik (GE)

Sterling Franks (DOE)

Ashley Lucas (ARC)

William Rasin (NEI)

Marcus Rowden (Fried, Frank ...)

2

- ATTACHMENT Extending the Five-Year Term for Final Design Approvals Both the ABWR and the System 80+ ALWR designs were issued their Final Design Approvals (FDAs) in July 1994, the product of enormous investments of time and money over a multi-year period. Much to the surprise of the industry, and particularly to the vendors which had expended hundreds of millions of dollars to create standardized designs, those FDAs were restricted to a five-year term.

There is no need for this restriction. Indeed, as explained below, the five-year restriction runs counter to the regulatory regime set forth in Part 52, disregards the safety approval bases for FDA issuance, and is at odds with the Commission's express disapproval of a five-year FDA term.

By letter of August 31,1994, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) requested that the term of these FDAs be extended to fifteen years- the prescribed duration of a design certification under Part 52 - and that, upon design certification, the FDA be made coterminous with the duration of the certifications. GE Nuclear Energy strongly supports the NEI position and specifically requests amendment of the ABWR FDA to provide for a fifteen-year duration.

Background

Early in 1994, the industry submitted for staff consideration a proposed FDA, the form and content of which, the industry believed, would appropriately implement the applicable provisions in Part 52 and Appendix O (NUMARC letter to Dennis Crutchfield of February 23,1994). The industry draft proposed a' fifteen-year FDA duration, i.e., the same duration as that for design certification. Despite ensuing industry requests to discuss any differences between the industry proposal and the FDA content that the staff contemplated proposing for Commission approval, the staff did not exchange its views on the content of the FDA before FDAs were finalized.

In COM-SECY-94-025 (June 9,1994) the staff requested Commission approval for the content and issuance of an FDA for the ABWR design. The draft FDA enclosed with COM-SECY-94-025 included a bracketed staff recommendation in subparagraph (8) that the FDA be effective for "five years after the date ofits issuance, unless extended by the stafr'.

The Commission's SRM ofJune 30,1994 approved the issuance of an FDA for the ABWR but specifically dir,aoproved limiting the FDA to a five-year term. The SRM affinnatively directed that the FDA should be updated as needed to conform to any changes resulting from the certification rulemaking and "be in effect for the

y-

.p h

,, l '

~2*

duhttion of the certi6 cation of the ABWR". Notwithstanding the foregoing directive,

~ the ABWR FDA issued by the staff maintained the five-year term proposed in the ,

,> - enclosure to 'COM-SECY-94-025. The System 80+ FDA was also issued with a five-year term. :

B2=h for a' 15-Year FDA Duration Neither Part 52 itself nor Appendix O (which deals with final design approvals) specify a term for final design approvals. Both regulatory policy and practical considerations argue that the appropriate FDA term is fifteen years.

• The only time period prescribed in Part 52 is the fifteen-year term speciSed in' i

$52.55 for design certifications.

• The precondition for design certiScation is the issuance of an FDA. FDA issuance is based on the same safety determinations as underlie those for the ensuing design certification.* Indeed, the staff-proposed and Commission-endorsed FDA states that "the staff and the'ACRS will utilize [the approved ~

design] and will rely on it in the administrative review phase of the design certification process." Moreover, the Final Safety Evaluation Reports, which constitute the safety bases for the FDAs, are intended to support a fifteen-year -

approval term.

• It would be anomalous to base a fifteen-year design certification ~ on an FDA which is only five years in duration. It would be equally anomalous to base an .

FDA on a fifteen-year safety evaluation but limit its term to five years.

• The Part 50 practices cited by the staffin COM-SECY-94-025 as support for limiting the FDA term to five years are inapposite.

• The five-year duration of Part 50 FDAs was driven by the first-of-a-kind nature of Part 50 design approvals and by the limited design scope, level of design detail and issue resolution on which they were based.

~

r

• Section 52.43 provides in pertinent part:

(e) A final design approval under Appendix 0 is a prerequisite for certification of a standard design under the subpart. [Ifan applicant for a final design approval intends to seek certification]

the application for the final design approval must,in addition to '

containing the information required by Appendix O, comply with the applicable requirements of Part 52 subpart B, particularly $52.45 and 52.47.

I

h. [

, ;;[ 3

'c '

8 -

• The design ' scope, level of detail and extent ofissue resolution required

- for an FDA under Appendix O to Part 52, and the breadth and depth of . l the staffs review and safety determinations, substantially exceed those . l

+

which governed the application submissions and reviews for Part 50 FDAs.

There is nojustification -in the languagc of Part 52 or in the underlying regulatory policy considerations - for prescribing other than a fifteen-year period for a Part 52 FDA. The foregoing is the conclusion most consistent with the SRM directive

- that FDA duration not be limited to a five-year term but rather that this design approval "be in effect for the duration of the certification". i It merits emphasis that the issuance of FDAs for the evolutionary designs is the product of an enormous commitment of technical and financial resources by the FDA ,

applicants, the nuclear industry, and the Department of Energy over the past seven years and of an extraordinarily rigorous safety review by the NRC staff. Placing a five-year limit on FDA duration severely diminishes the force of the resulting approvals and of their supporting safetyjudgments when these designs compete with those of foreign vendors for nuclear power projects outside the U.S.

Conclusion ,

For the reasons set forth above the ABWR FDA should be amended to provide

. for a term of fifteen-years from the date ofits issuance. As provided in the terms of the.

SRM on COM-SECY-94-025, the FDA would be " updated as needed to conform to any  ;

changes resulting from the certification rulemaking and be in effect for the duration of the certification".

1

i i

9/20/94 l

, , -- , - - -