ML20087F916
| ML20087F916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1995 |
| From: | Tuckman M DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR17902, RULE-PR-52 60FR17902-00016, 60FR17902-16, NUDOCS 9508160091 | |
| Download: ML20087F916 (4) | |
Text
i
,p s
~ Dae1%werCompany M.S nauw P.0 Box 1006 Senior Vice Fresi&nt aarone.ncmoi-too6 DOCKETED NulearGeneratin USNPC
(***#i" (704%4360Far ouwrPOwra
'75 A'JG 14 P4 :24 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR ss OF% n : ccf:eTARY DOCKff F RVICE (bygg August 7,1995 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Subject:
Proposed Advanced Reactor Design Certification Rules; Duke Power Company Comments Introduction The NRC has taken two major strides in its effort to revitalize the process by which nuclear plants are licensed in the U. S. First, in 1989, the NRC issued 10 CFR Part 52, 1-which provides for early site permits, certification of standard designs, and a combined construction permit and operating license (COL). Safety issues are to be resolved prior to construction and are not subject to re-review and re-litigation in subsequent proceedings.
The second stride occurred in April of 1995, when the NRC issued Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPRs) regarding the design certifications of the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and ABB-CE System 80+ designs. The NOPRs state that the rules seek to achieve: 1) the early resolution of safety issues,2) enhanced safety and reliability of future nuclear power plants,3) a more predictable and stable licensing process, and 4) standardization of future plants; goals that apply broadly to the whole I art 52 licensing process, not just design certification. Unfortunately, the implementatior. of the Part 52 process, as set forth in the NOPRs, falls fatally short of these goab. Duke Power hereby expresses strong affirmation for the comments submitted by both ABB-CE and the Nuclear Energy Institute; the major points of which are summarized below.
Lack of finality in desiens Part 52 states that "the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification." (10 CFR 52.63(a)(4))
In contrast with these words, the NOPRs provide that only those nuclear safety issues 9508160091 950807 PDR PR 52 60FR17902 PDR w o, mw w.
\\O
associated in the Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) or Design Control Document (DCD) have finality. Clearly, a design certification becomes significantly less meaningful if
" certified" issues lack finality. This issue alone would be enough to deter a utility from undertaking to license a new reactor. To ensure the viability of the Part 52 licensing process, finality must be provided to a substantially broader scope of matters than those described in the proposed rules. Finality must be accorded to a)) matters within the scope of the approved designs. It is self-evident that 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4), quoted above, means that allissues related to the adequacy of the standard design and all matters resolved on the rulemaking docket, including matters discussed in the applicant's Standard Safety Analysis Report (SS AR) or raised in design certification miemaking, should be considered resolved and not subject to further consideration in a license proceeding.
Additional " applicable regulations" SECY-90-016 and SECY-93-087 identified a number of NRC positions on severe accident and other technical issues that are not embodied in current NRC regulations. The NOPRs propose that more than a dozen of these be designated as " applicable regulations";
thus giving them a status similar to the Commission's regulations in Part 50. The Staff s stated purpose for their proposal is to facilitate issuance and renewal of design certifications and to ensure compliance with existing design requirements. These additional" applicable regulations" are unnecessary, are duplicative of requirements already stated in the design certifications, and create potential for destabilizing backfits.
For example, the proposed " applicable regulations" require the use of"best available methods" to ensure equipment survivability during accident conditions. The "best available method" will almost certainly change over time. As a result, the applicant or licensee could be required to perform new evaluations or make backfits to its plant (s) to reflect changes in state-of-the-art analytical methods or hardware, even though changes are not necessary to provide or maintain adequate protection for the public health and safety, and even though backfits would not result in any increase in safety. Adoption of the proposed
" applicable regulations" will introduce a large and unfortunate element of risk into the licensing process.
Adherence to ITAAC in the Part 50 licensing process It would be doubly unfortunate if the NRC chose to adopt the proposed rule as is - which substantially diminishes the intended force of Part 52 - and at the same time made it extremely difficult to license the advanced designs under Part 50 by requiring adherence to ITAAC (inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria). In order to provide future applicants the option to utilize 10 CFR Part 50, with its two-step process, it makes absolutely no sense to specify that ITAAC must be met.
Conclusion
o Duke Power Company shares the concerns expressed by ABB-CE and NEI in their comments. Whether an advanced reactor design certification is ever referenced by a U. S.
utility will depend hrgely on how the NRC starTresolves industry comments on the NOPRs. Accordingly, Duke Power encourages the NRC to review these comments carefully and take the measures necessary to ensure that the goals of 10 CFR Part 52; i.e.,
to create a stable and predictable licensing process, are achieved.
Very truly yours,,
b)
M. S. Tuckman cc:
Mr. V. Nerses, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. L. A. Wiens, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. R. E. Martin, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14H25, OWFN Washington, D. C. 20555 4
Stuart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW - Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. G. F. Maxwell Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station Mr. R. J. Freudenberger Senior Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station
I 3
.1 o
Mr. P. E. Harmon Senior Resident Inspector Oconee Nuclear Station
,ea m
_