ML20087C109
| ML20087C109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001, 05200002 |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1995 |
| From: | Bruschi H WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR17902, RULE-PR-52 60FR17902-00007, 60FR17902-7, NUDOCS 9508090046 | |
| Download: ML20087C109 (6) | |
Text
g W
.p
~ ~ * -
- g
- i.,,
DOCKETED USNRC
~95 AUG -7 M1 '10-SetiCem
- r *5 i
EnergySystems Electfic Cofporation BusinessUnit ym er MCRETARY iS,$/gnknnsymma33 Westinghouse 00cy"ms !. SFWICE DCP/NRC0375 g
ppyp Aavancea hennetagy August 4,1995 Mr. John Hoyle
~'
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSE.DRUE S %
Secretary of the Commission.
n D
555 U.OR\\NCG)
Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch Comments of Westinghouse Electric Corporation re: Proposed R'ules: Standard
Subject:
Design Cenifications for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the System 80+ Standard Designs
[
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (" Westinghouse") submits the following comments in res'po the invitation for comments on the proposed rules for Standani Design Cenifications for the' U.S.
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and the System 80+ Standard Designs [60 Fed, Reg.17902 and 17924 (April 7,1995) (Docket Nos.52-001 and 52 002)]. Westinghouse has participated in the development by the Nuclear Energy Institute ("NEI") of its comments on the proposed design certification rules for both the ABWR and System 80+ and fully supports and endorses the positions set forth in the NEI comments. 'Ihe purpose of these Westinghouse comments is to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") with additional insight into Westinghouse concerns with certain aspects of the proposed rules with respect to the change process, changes by design certification applicants, finality and applicable regulations.
Westinghouse has submitted to the NRC an application for certification of the Simplified Passive Advanced Light Water Reactor (AP600).' That application currently is under review by the NRC Many of the determinations made in connection with the present design cenification rulem'aking the ABWR and System 80+ may serve as precedent for the processes to be used in connection wit the certification of the AP600. Accordingly, Westinghouse has a substantial interest in making c that the design certifications cunendy undergoing rulemaking contain appropriate provisions wit respect to such processes so that designs certified by the NRC will provide a viable and attr option to the U. S. utility industry when future plant orders in this country are being c,onside Westinghouse underscores NEI's concerns over the significant process deficiencies in design cenification rules which,if not corrected, cast substantia serious and significant r.ature which need to be corrected in the final mie to insure the viabilit workability of the licensing process for standardized nuclear power plants.
When the NRC added Part 52 to its regulations in 1989 to provide for the issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications and combined constr 9500090046 950804' PDR PR gp
- sm.ooe.n w 52 60FR17902 ppg I
B00*390d Ld33 N91530 009dd WOdd SS:S! 56, P 900-
L
~
l b
- However, the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants." [54 Fed. R l
two of the goals of Part 52 - certain of the procedural provisions in the design certification r being proposed for the ABWR and System 8(4 will have the contrary eficct. In m proposed design certification rules will introduce even more uncertainty than exi licensing process. Westinghouse believes it is important for Commission and by the nuclear industrv.
There appears to be a fundamental philosophical problem with respect to cen
~
h the design certification rules. The rules reflect a reluctance to accept the discipline Part 52 licensing process was established - that once a proposed standard design h and the Commission has issued a design certification rule with respect to that design, all mattei resolved in connection with the issuance of that rule will be tmated as resolved by the C Dis philosophical problem accounts for the very nanow concept in the proposed d rules of what will be accorded finality and the denial of finality even to matters which are i hearing and resolution in the design certification rulemaking proceedings. The prdb seen in the denial in the proposed rules of f' ality to proprietary information, safeguards i m
and secondary references which am submitted to, and reviewed by, the NRC as par dd the design cenification applications. Even under the Pan 50 process, such information is rmality. The failure of the proposed mies to provide finality to safety issues within design unless those issues am discussed in the Design C to the adequacy of the standard designs are reflections of a philosophical approach to certification which is at odds with the concepts on which standardization and Part 52 are b This same philosophical problem also is the underlying reason for the inappropriat proposed design certification rules of " applicable regulations" and the vague fh to the proposed applicable regulations. Including broadly worded applicable regulati design certification rules appears to be the result of an attempt to maintain maxim impose changes and backfits, all at the expense of the underlying concepts process.
Similarly, the philosophical problem is behind an unwillingness in the propos utilize the long-standing NRC regulatory pmetices under Section 50.59 without the new concept which would define an "unreviewed safety question" in relationshi has previously reviewed and approved the issue. His radical depanure from procedure will have the effect of prohibiting virtually all changs to the stan d
prior NRC approval, thereby destroying tne applicability of the Section 50.5 plants.
In short, the processes contained in the proposed design certification rules turn NRC Pan 52 licensing process from one of early identification and resolution more stable, predictable licensing process to one which undermines standardiza discourage the type of commitments necessary for the development, approv final designs. Westinghouse believes it is necessary for the Commission to go ba i d d
review the rulemaking record underlying Pan 52 and the Commission determinations w Pan 52 and to impose discipline in such a manner that the processes contained in th f
certification rules are in keeping with the basic intent of the Commission in its length d hence for the standardization process. In the Westinghouse view, the battle for standardization, an h
lit the future of nuclear power in the United States, will ultimately be won or lost not onl!
2541 A 0094MAi 2
C00*3Ded 1d33 ND1530 009dd WOdd 95:9I 56. P One
kJ of the designs which are being proposed, but,on the quality of the processes w designs and which can either enhance or destroy the utility of the designs. n b
proposed design certification rulemakings represents a defeat for standard With this furalamental philosoph. cal problem in mind Westinghouse has the fo comments to specific aspects of the proposed design cenification rules.
Change Pmeess The notices of proposed rulemaking ("NOPR") provid i
change involves an issue that the NRC staff has not previously approved" or if the c 17912-17913). These inconsistent with the resolution of an issoe in the FSER (see 60 Fed. Reg. at provisions are contrary to the provisions of NRC regulations in 10 CFR Se CFR Section 50.59 and should be deleted from the final rule.
Section 50.59, which is incorporated by reference in Section 52.63 (b)(2), req for changes made by a licensee only when the changes involve an unreviewed sa f
change to the plant technical specifications. An "unreviewed safety question," is d i
of the impact of the change on safetyf De NOPR, by derming an unreviewed safety qu d
f whether a matter has previously been approved or resolved by the NRC, would radically e NRC practice and procedures dating back to the 1960's. No reason is given i departure, which would fundamentally alter the way 9
require NRC apptoval for any change which adversely 11,1995 public meeting on the NOPR, the NRC staff indicated that the NRC did n establish a new critenon or different criterion. However, the NRC staff comment accurate explanation of the current practice under Section 50.59, and thus is not adl concems.) Westinghouse believes such a drastic depanure from longstanding NRC1 warranted and will adversely affect the usefulness of the certified designs.
The change process contaired in the proposed design certification rules is flawed in The proposed rules would establish a "50,59-like" process allowing applicant changes in Tier 2 without prior NRC appmval unless t rules would require consideration of changes in the severe accident risk and proba d
evaluations. As discussed in the NEI comments, this requirement would be extremely b is neither necessary nor desirable. In seeking to apply Section 50.59 to all severe a probabilistic evaluations the rules would go far beyond the goal of prese insights and would tequire evaluations on matters no needless burden on the cenified designs which will only have the effect of ' making th attractive as an alternative for providing power in the future.
C"
- by Desian Certifich Aeolicants i
The propowd design certification rules would not permit a design certification changes to Tier 2 using the Section 50.59 - like change process. (Section 52.63 proposed design cenification rules allow a COL appli j
w.omm 3
I P00*390d 1833 N91S3G 009dd WOdd 9s:91 ss, p 9%
I all information necessary for the NRC to reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design, additional design work will be perforrned by design certification applicants after issuance of the design certification rules in order to provide added details relating to the designs. In the course of performing this detailed design development, Westinghouse believes there will be occasions when potential improvements in Tier 2 of the design will be identified. If such improvements or changes to Tier 2 fall within the type of changes that are appropriate to be made under a 50.59-like process. Westinghouse believes that a design cenification applicant should be allowed to make such changes until a design has been referenced in the first license application. Such authorization will benefit standardization and will promote _ regulatory efficiency because these changes would become requirements for all plants that reference the design certification. Conversely, because the ability to make such 50.59-like changes by the design certification applicant would end when the first license application referencing the design is submitted, there will be no lessening of the benefits of standanfization by allowing such a process.
Finality In adopting Part 52, the NRC was concerned with finality -- that is, with the possibility that achievement of enhanced safety which' standardization makes possible would be frustrated if too frequent changes to either a certified design or the plants referencing the design were permitted.
Section 52.63(a)(4) thus states that there shall be treated as resolved in licens~e proceedings "those matters resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design cenification." Issues decided during the design cenification were not to be rereviewed by the NRC or relitigated in subsequent licensing proceedings. The concept of finality was critical to achieving stability sought through the Pan 52 licensing process. Rereview and relitigation was one of the major deficiencies of the Part 50 licensing process and preventing such rereview and relitigation was one of the major goals of the Part 52 process.
The proposed design certification rules, however, represent a retreat from the NRC quest for finality in the design cenification process. As currently written, the NOPR would result in design information reviewed by the NRC staff and resolved as part of the design review and certification process being subject to rereview and relitigation on a plant-specific basis during licensing proceedings. Such a result is directly contrary to the purpose of Part 52, undermines the regulatory foundation of standardization and is unacceptable.
The proposed design certification tules introduce substantial uncenamties and instability in the licensing process. Perhaps most egregious, there is no clear statement in the proposed rules that the l
designs being certified meet the applicable standards of the Atomic Energy Act and Commission I
regulations, determinations required to be made under Section 52.54 for the Commission to centfy the designs. Thus, the proposed rules provide no finality with respect to the adequacy of the design, even though the NRC must reach a final conclusion on all safety questions associated with the design in order to finalize the design certification rules. Westinghouse believes it is essen+ial that any design certification nile state that the design satisfies relevant Commission regulations and provides the required reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the health and safety of the publie'. Inherent in this finding must be a determination that no additional or alternative features are required.' Also mandated is a statement that all nuclear safety issues associated with the design have been resolved.
The rules as proposed would provide no finality to safety issues within the scope of the standard designs unless they are discussed in the DCD or the FSER. Even if an issue becomes the subject of and is considered by the NRC ir the design cenification tulemaking proceeding, the resolution of the issue would not be accorded Gnality under the proposed rules. The rules as proposed also provide no finality to material ceained in the voluminous safety analysis reports (~SARs") or in the dockets of 2541 A. IILM 95 ND) 4 5 00
- 3 9 t* d
-__1_un__unn w_ -
I t
d the rulemakings unless such material also is discussed in the DCD or FSER. Moreover, the pro rules afford no finality to changes made to Tier 2 in accordance with the 50 59 - like process or to changes which are subject to review by the NRC and to an opponunity for hearing. Fina proposed rule affords no finality to proprietary information, safeguards information o which appears in secondary references, all of which were considered by the NRC s the designs. 'Ihus, with respect to finality the proposed rules represent a major step backw the type of cenainty and stability that Part 52 was intended to provide, and in many ways less stability and certainty than the Part 50 licensing process.
During discussions leading to the adoption of Part $2. Westinghouse sought to allow d certified either by license or rule. Westinghouse was concerned that design eenification by would not accord the proponent of a certified design the type of protection that would be acc connection with licensing of the design. The thrust of the NRC response in rejecting the Westinghouse position and permitting design certification only by rulemaking was that the certification pmcess was intended to place the design certification proponent in the same posi though there had been a license granted for the design. The finality provisions in the pro are contrary to these assurances provided at the time of the adoption of Pan 52. If desig had been by license and not by rulemaking, finality would have been accorded to all aspec application and design, including all aspects of the SAR the results of the licensing he to the design, proprietary information, safeguards information, and secondary referenc
~
addition to the problems discussed by NEI in its comments on the inadequate fm' ality acc cenified design, Westinghouse believes that the finality provisions are contrary to the intent of NRC when it decided to allow design certification only by rulemaking.
Apolicable Regulations.
Westinghouse strongly opposes the use of the design-specific ru!cmakings to provide 18,1994 on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemakings to regulations." In comments dated June Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs [58 Fed. Re 58664 - (November 3,1993)], Westinghouse, in responding to the NRC's request for advi
" acceptability of using design specific rulemaking rather than generic rulemaking for t issues whose resolution exceeds current requirements," stated that adoption of such a prop significantly and adversely affect design cenification. Neve j
I destroy the goal of Pan 52 to establish a predictable, stable licensing process. Moreove the NEI comments, the proposed " applicable regulations" are unnecessary either to restr licensees or for any of the other reasons asserted by the NRC staff.
The broadly-worded language contained in the applicable regulations proposed for the System 80+ only make this more of a concem. Phrases contained in the proposed "
regulations" such as "shall be minitruzed," "to the extent practical," "use of advari
" demonstration of adequate defense," "must facilitate," " reduce the potential for,' and "most significant" are so vague and general that they allow for an endless variety of interpretat h
throughout the life of the design and an endless opportunity for destabilizing backfits. Thu proposed " applicable regulations" result in a less stable, less predictable licensing proces Finally, Westinghouse believes that not only is the concept of applicable regul design certification, but that the process by which the NRC proposes to adopt the a regulations in the current rulemaking is flawed and does not comport with the requ including the Administrative Procedure Act.
2 % nou m 5
900*'90d 1833 NDIS3G 009dd WOdd 85:91 56, P 900
5 M.
'sofLOO'Sovd'1esos es.
i f
Reauest to Panicipate in Hearmn The NOPR provides that an interested pany may request an informal hearing in acco CFR 52.51 on matters penaining to the design cenification rulemaking and that such reque l
submitted by August 7,1995. Although Westinghouse does not request an informal hej comments, if the NRC decides to hold a hearing at the request of others, Westinghouse right to participate in such a hearing.
'i
' Westinghouse would desire to be heard on that portion of the NOPR upon which a requestor's request for hearing, would use reasons and would rely on arguments set comments and the NEI comments. As the design eenification applicant for the AP600, Westin u
is acquainted with the substantive and procedural content and provisions affecting the NO l
d
. possesses the requisite technical capability to understand the factual matters and help C
. on any issue for which a hearing is requested and possesses a detailed understanding o
. hearing procedures.
I Conclusion Design certifications and combined licenses represent the' future of the nuclear in d
the final design cenification rules contain the significant pmcess deficiencies found in the propo rules, the type of commitments necessary for future nuclear power plant developme be discouraged. Accordingly Westinghouse urges the NRC to take into consideration the comm contained in this letter, together with the NEI and other nuclear industry comments, in prom the final design cenification rules for the ABWR and System 80+.
Westinghouse thanks the NRC for the opportunity to comment on the NOPR and look further interaction with the NRC as the design certifications progress.
Very truly yours,
=k'
~
H. J.
ischi cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers J. Taylor, EDO q
K. Cyr, General Counsel i
.[
254i A. 00 Nape
.6 39Hd 1833 N9IS3G 009dH WO83 sg:9i G6, t'
OnH
.L.