ML20087C090

Comment Supporting Pr 10CFR52 Re Design Certification Rules for Standardized Advanced Reactors

ML20087C090
Person / Time
Site:	05200001, 05200002
Issue date:	08/04/1995
From:	Hairston W SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-60FR17902, RULE-PR-52 60FR17902-00005, 60FR17902-5, NUDOCS 9508090034
Download: ML20087C090 (2)

Text

(

D So thern Nuclear Oper: ting Company Post office Box 1295

.. Birrningham Alabama 35201

• . Telephone 205 868-5s81 00cKETEO USHRC w.o wreta,m President and

%0A Southem Nudear Operati Company l Chief Executwo officer ,

gg thesouthern doctnesntan ,

OFI.CE UJi w-- SPVICE DOCKET:

w'mHCH August 4,1995 DOCKET NUMBER g 9 -

PROPOSED RULE (JooFRJ190h Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 Comments on Proposed Design Certification Rules for Standardized Advanced Reactors (60 Federal Register 17902 and 17924 dated April 7,1995)

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (Southern Nuclear) has reviewed the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPRs) for the General Electric ABWR and ABB-CE System 80+

Advanced Reactor Design Certification Rules published in the Federal Register on April 7, 1995, and submits this letter in accordance with request for comments. Southern Nuclear is in total agreement with and adopts the comments submitted to the Commission on behalf of the nuclear industry by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NErs comments accurately convey Southern Nuclear's support for the policies expressed in Part 52 and the Energy Policy Act, the progress the NOPRs represent toward achieving those goals, and the serious concems of Southern Nuclear that those policies and goals would be frustrated by key provisions of the NOPRs. As a ,

stakeholder in the Advanced Reactor Corporation programs, Southern Nuclear shares a vested interest in the ultimate success and realization of the advanced reactors these NOPRs represent.

In enacting the licensing reform provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress adopted the policies expressed by the Commission when it promulgated Past 52. The beneficial attributes of these licensing reforms included: (1) the resolution of almost all safety issues prior to l the commencement of construction; (2) the establishment of objective safety standards against which the constructed plant could be measured in order to determine when the plant is ready to l

operate; and (3) the nurumization of uncertainties in the licensing process that inhibit support for nuclear energy in the financial community. The NOPRs departure from these fundamental elements with respect to the issues identified by NEI, namely, fmality of issue resolution, the imposition of so-called " applicable regulations," undue restrictions on 50.59-like changes, and the absence of a process to ensure the objectivity of the verification ofITAAC, not only fails to achieve the goals of the Energy Policy Act and Part 52, it greatly diminishes the lik.elihood that a final design certification rule would ever be referenced by a potentia! licensee. ,

9508090034 950804 PDR PR  %;O 52 60FR17902 PDR

Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary Page Two U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 4,1995 In its comments on the NOPRs NEI has suggested changes and additions to the mle which would bring it into conformance with the principles underlying both the Energy Policy Act and Pan

52. These changes include the exosion of the scope ofissues accorded finality, the elimination of so-called " applicable regulatic.u," practical application of 50.59-like changes, and the addition of language that would clariffthe ITAAC verification process. These changes will substantially enhance certainty in the licen ;ing process and are essential to the restoration of economic viability to the nuclear option.

As reflected in the NEI comments, the ABWR and System 80+ designs constitute

. achievements by all of the various groups that have labored over the past decade to enhance the level of safety and relia,ility of the next generation of nuclear plants. The benefits of these improved designs will bc realized, however, only if the licensing process for these designs, beginning with the design cenification mies, eliminates the uncenainty and concomitant financial risk inherent in the "two-step" licensing process. The design cenification mies for these reactors will be a determining factor in the attractiveness of these designs to potential licensees and the financial community, and establish precedent for future standard design cenification mles. In so doing the rules will significantly influence the viability of nuclear power as an energy option in the next century. Southem Nuclear urges the Commission to incorporate the changes suggested by NEI in the final rule so that the benefits of these advanced, safe, and efficient designs may be realized.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, it).

W. G. Hairston,11I WGH/BJG cc: Southern Nuclear Operatine Comoany Nuclear Enerev Institute J. H. Miller, III W. H. Rasin J. D. Woodard R. Simard L.B.Long R. Bell j D. N. Morey G. Bockhold Southern Company Services K. W. McCracken W. C. Ramsey )

B. J. George l B. D. McKinney Dalch & Bingham l M. S. Blanton 1 Advanced Reactor Corporation j R. P. Mcdonald l