ML20135E261
| ML20135E261 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1996 |
| From: | Diaz N 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 9612110120 | |
| Download: ML20135E261 (4) | |
Text
\\
AFFIRMATION VOTE
)
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-077 - CERTIFICATION OF TWO EVOLUTIONARY DESIGNS Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
$ q <c chctc (O i
i j
A.
+
-SIGINATURE)
/
Release Vote
// /
\\\\~ 1 \\' 9 b DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on "AS" Yes v'
No 9612110120 961209 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
I1/21/96 COMMISSIONER DIAZ' VOTE ON SECY-96-077 I approve the two final rules with revisions to the staff proposed Appendix A and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 52. Appendix A certifies the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design and Appendix B certifies the System 80+ design.
I do not agree with the staff proposed approach regarding " applicable regulations." 1:is clear that when the Commission approved the Standardization Policy Statement and the Advanced Reactor Policy Statement, the Commission exnected that future designs would be safer than current designs. The Commission expected that the safer designs would be realized by certification of the improved designs, not bv reauiring a higher level of safety through regulations. Another benefit of the design certification process is to provide the opportunity for regulatory stability and predictability. The industry is attempting to reap this benefit by new reactor designs which meet our regulations by a wide margin. I do not believe it is appropriate for NRC to now attempt to codify some of the improved design features through " applicable regulations." llowever, we also need to ensure that the improved safety features embodied in the certified design will not be eroded by exemptions over time. Therefore, I recommend that Sections 5(c) and 8(c) be deleted and include the language in the Statements of Consideration and certification rules as attached to Chainnan Jackson's vote.
The stalTindicated that not all Technical Specifications (TSs) and operational requirements in the Design Control Document (DCD) have received sufficient review to be assigned finality under 52.63. Consistent with earlier Commission guidance, and with full consideration ofindustry viewpoints, the TSs and operational requirements reviewed and approved by the staff should be identified and accorded finality; the approved TSs should be included in Tier 2. To accomplish this, the staff should perform the following:
-Notify the Commission of the proposed method for resolution and provide a schedule for expeditious completion of the matter.
-Report the established final designation of the " approved" TS categories (e.g., safety limits, limiting conditions for operation) and operational requirements for Commission consideration.
Changes to approved TSs and operational requirements that do not require a change in the design as certified in the DCD can then be made through rulemaking meeting the criteria of 50.109.
Proposed changes requiring a change in the DCD design would be subject to 52.63.
I approve SECY-96-077 with the attached revisions to section 2(d)(1),3(e) 4(c) and addition of a new Section 8(c)
I support the staff position of requiring a license amendment and opportunity for hearing for proposed changes to Tier 2* information and the staff position of not allowing a "50.59-like" l
i j
_.~_. _ _
l t
I-l process to make generic Tier 2 changes afler design certification and before first COL application. Both of these positions are consistent with the definition of Tier 2 and Tier 2*and the principles of design certification and stability.
i lt would be an unnecessary burden for both the NRC and the industry to performs a duplicate review of the originally certified design at the renewal stage. Therefore. the renewal review should start with the baseline information established by the initial design certification and changes thereto. The review should be focused on areas that may be significantly affected by new information, including operating experience from these and other designs and technical l
guidance from risk-informed, performance-based assessments. I support the Statements of l
Consideration language proposed at the bottom of page 2 in the memorandum from Mr. James M. Taylor to the Commission dated October 21,1996.
1 l
I' l
i h
. - -....-. - = - -_ -.-.._
I Revised Section 2(d)(I)
Information required by 10 CFR 52.47, with the exception of:cchnical speciSca:;sas and 1
conceptual design information but include those technical specifications that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC; 4
Revised Section 3(e) i Conceptual design information end generic :cchnical speciScations, as set forth in the j
generic DCD, are is not part of this appendix. Those technical specifications that have i
been reviewed and approved by the NRC are part of this appendix.
1 1-Revised Section 4(c)
]
Use the paragraph proposed on pages 5 and 6 of the NEl letter to W.T. Russell dated l
9/23/96, with the following revisions:
4 l
" lf the additional requirements directly or indirectly require a change to a design i
requirement specified in the Design Control Document referenced by this appendix, then
{
Section 8 of this appendix applies."
4 N.ew Section 8(c)
Use the paragraph proposed on pages 2 and 3 of the NEl letter to W.T. Russell dated 9/23/96, with the following revisions:
1
" 10 CFR 50.109. provided, hov.crer, However, that those proposed technical specification changes that would directly or indirectly require a change to a design requirement specified in the Design Control Document must meet the criteria of Section j
52.63..."
l
... that the NRC may not impose a modification that would directly or indirectly require a change to a design requirement specified in the Design Control Document unless the criteria of Section 52.63 are met..."
l