ML20135E241
| ML20135E241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/22/1996 |
| From: | Dicus G, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135E228 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-077-C, SECY-96-77-C, NUDOCS 9612110112 | |
| Download: ML20135E241 (4) | |
Text
.- _ . _. - - _ . . _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ __ ._ _ __
AFFI RMATION VOTE 1 1 ' RESPONSE SHEET l
TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary
-FROM: COMMISSIONER ROGERS
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-O'/7 - CERTIFICATION OF TWO EVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS So pa kti T4
, Approved" consedrs # Disapproved Abstain m
Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS: see a 79 amor vert I
i l
/ A0h SIGNATUREC l Release Vote / X/ 77 /P f4 f
} DATE Withhold vote / /
- Entered on "AS" Yes X No I
9612110112 961209
_ __ _ __ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _
1 l COMMISSIONER ROGERS' COMMENTS ON SECY-96-077:
I approve the two final rules that amend 10 CFR Part 52 to certify the U.S. G.E. ABWR and C.E. System 80+ designs subject to revisions l to the final design certification rules and statements of I consideration in accordance with the recommendations provided in j Mr. Taylor's memorandum to the Commission dated August 13, 1996, l and as supplemented by his memorandum of October 21, 1996, subject l to the following comments:
- 1. I disapprove the inclusion of Section 5(c) Applicable
( Regulations. I concur with the Chairman's comments on this
( subject and approve the language attached to her vote for l
inclusion in the statements of consideration and the certification rules.
- 2. I approve the staff's position with respect to the status of l
operational requirements in the design control document (DCD) .
I concur with the Chairman's position approving a revised Section 8(c) of the rule that would apply to technical specifications and other approved operational requirements in the DCD. I agree with the staff position that the technical specifications should be treated as a special category of information in the DCD that is under 2.758. After the COL is l issued, the technical specifications in the DCD would be subject to the backfit provisions in 50.109. Design changes would still be covered by 52.63 backfit provisions. These are all positions approved in the Chairman's vote on this issue with which I concur.
- 3. I concur with the Chairman's position that the Commission sho aid defer consideration of specific design certification renewal procedures until after the Commission has approved the final design certification rulemakings. I also support the inclusion of language covering this matter in the statements of consideration as provided in Mr. Taylor's memorandum to the Commission dated October 21, 1996.
NCK Uh7(7 s 4
i i
AFFIRMATION VOTE f
RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS ,
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-077- CERTIFICATION OF TWO EVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS Approved X w/ comments Disapproved Abstain ;
Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS: See attached.
I i 9
Nht iIc <, ..
i c_,
(f V SjGNATURE I
Release Vote /_X /
30cvErbe 22, /99h l
DATE Withhold Vote / /
- Entered on "AS" Yes X No I
~
f Comm. Dicus comments to SECY-96-077 l
The staff should be commended for its efforts in bringing these two certification design i rulemakings to closure. Their diligence over the years in identifying, addressing and ;
resolving technical, procedural and policy issues with industry representatives will result in what I believe will be a more stable regulatory framework for the licensing of future I reactors.
! l i
I approve the certification of the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and CE System I 80+ Evolutionary Designs as described in SECY-96-077 subject to the revisions l recommended in memoranda from the EDO to the Commission dated August 13, and j l
l October 21,1996, with the exception of " Applicable Regulations" as noted below. !
- 1. With respect to " Applicable Regulations", I disapprove the inclusion of Section 5(c) " Applicable Regulations." Rather, I favor the inclusion of language j in the SOCs and certification rules that would preserve the design features and i level of safety of these evolutionary designs, as expressed in and attached to,
! the Chairman's comments.
I
- 2. With respect to extending finality to Technical Specifications and other l operational requirements in the DCDs, I support the staff's position, and the Chairman's comment on this issue. There are many requirements in the Technical Specifications and the Design Control Documents which may be I
relevant to both design and operational considerations, but were reviewed in detail only with regard to their relationship to design. Therefore, I agree it is not appropriate to apply the special backfit provisions of $52.63 to the Technical Specifications or to operational requirements that have not received a comprehensive safety review.
- 3. With respect to renewal applications, I find it inappropriate to extend finality to the certification renewal proceeding. The renewal proceeding should not be subject to the special backfit provisions of 952.63.' It is my belief that the staff does not intend to perform a de-novo review of the entire design in its evaluation of a i certification renewal application, but rather, to focus on proposed design changes and new information or insights gained from the time of certification. Therefore, I support the staff's approach to include language in the SOC that addresses this !
!- issue as prc /ided in the EDO's October 21,1996 memorandum to the Commission. I also agree that the scope of, and procedures related to renewal reviews be deferred until after the Commission has approved the final !
certification design rulemaking. !
l l r
l
- - - . - . . . - -- - . - _ . .- - . - , - .