ML20137J414
| ML20137J414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J277 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-059, COMSECY-96-59, DSI-10, SECY-96-059-C, SECY-96-59-C, NUDOCS 9704040018 | |
| Download: ML20137J414 (9) | |
Text
_...
.?
i l
l April 1,.1997
]
SECY N N :
The following documents are being released to the public at this time:
1 1.
Text of DSX 10 (Reactor Licensing for Future Applicants) 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 18, 1997.
3.
Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 17, 1997.
4.
Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 21,'1997.
.5.
Views of Commissioner Dieus dated January 10, 1997.
6.
Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 27, 1997.
7.
Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated February 3, 1997.
John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission
?
i
((Il3,I!lUINf!h*NN!!!h!h h
m 9704040018 970401 PDR NRCSA I 9 (')
10 PDR g
Reaaor Liceming for Future Applicants Summary Analysis of Comments 3.7 REACTOR LICENSING FOR FUTURE APPLICANTS (DSI 10)
COMSECY-96-059 ions 3.7.1 The D.irect. ion-Sett.ing issue and the Opt.
Given the current environment, what should the Comraission's policy be on future reactors?
\\
s e e s e n s s e n e o s,,,,
Option 1: Reassess-Reprioritize REiEASED TOTH PDR dd/W Option 2:
Sustained Responsiveness
=
CL%
ini m Option 3: Refocus
- a-+=c+
e.....
Option 4: Single Solution 3.7.2 Commission's Preliminary Views i
The Commission's preliminary views were that the NRC recognizes that the fundamental economic decisions by license applicants will determine the level of necessary support. The NRC should continue to give priority for reviewing
)
i standard and advanced re d ne designs, early site approvals, and licensing for new reactor license applicants (Optien :', with elements of Option 1).
The staff should develop implementation guidance for the following:
Address maintenance of the Utility Requirements Document and the 1.
certified designs through first-of-a-kind engineering.
Provide a plan for support of this process to the extent that, as a minimum, significant issues are addressed and the resolution path is provided in
)
order to continue adequate support of the certified designs.
Address orderly closecut of all activities.
Document to the greatest 2.
extent practicable the work performed such that its value for future technical and regulatory activities is not lost (e.g. SBWR, MHTGR, etc.).
Evaluate the riesign certification pi: cess following completion of 3.
current applications for lessons learoed.
3.7.3 Summary of Comments f
Significant/Important Comments Directly Affecting the Preliminary Views A.
or the Direction-Setting Issue Several commente,rs (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), South Carolina Electric &
l Gas Company, Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering (ABB-CE), GE Nuclear i
Energy (GE), Westinghouse) supported the elements of Option 2 and the Commission's preliminary views with some amplifications.
NEI preferred Option 2 and was pleased that tFe Commission's preliminary view reflected the need to give continued high priority to the review of standard and advanced rear. tor designs such as the AP600, as well as to early siting and licensing for new NEl believed that the Commission should be more specific in its final pl ants.
views on this paper on the need to begin now to address major generic issues associated with the siting and licensing elements of 10 CFR Part 52 and that Page 3-69 Phase 11 Stakeholde. Interacion Report
ro w n w
.p.,_ ww.a.
aaorLiceraing For fa:we A;pWar.n important progress could be mado or irotemente! ion ef F ut 52 even though resources.will be substant ially reducN f em lesels cycided ;during the various design certification rev'ews, f r its e itten commnts, ABB-CE emphasized the remarks relatino to the nccen + ty t.9 f uU ) d? fine in the very near term the' issues and proterser. wig & ct the cuw.ned 1 manse (COL) applicant must comply in order tc improve tra operatwnel reculation for the next generation of plants.
NEI encouraged the Commission tn adopt this option oecause it is necessary to fulfill the Part 52 policy objective tu establish a predictable, stable licensing process,'and because it corresponds to the needs and priorities of the industry and the Nation. NEI further stated that the strategic assessment was.a key opnortunity-to reinforce and :mplify the Commission'.s 1986 policy statement on advanced plants and its policy should be to reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers and burdens on new orders for nuclear plants. GE thought that the NRC could augment its existing policy with a statement such as the following:
Given that the standard design are at least one to two orders of magnitude safer than the current generation of plants, it is the NRC's policy to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and barriers that may discourage orders for new plants.
Similarly, ABB-CE thought that the NRC could look "at the philosophy of regulating the new Advanced Light Water Reactor designs such that their vastly J
improved safety features result in added margin from regulatory requirements rather than tightening the regulations to enforce the new safety levels."
Three commenters (Westinghouse, ABB-CE, GE) provided specific comments l
relating to elements in the Commission's preliminary views. Westinghouse strongly requested that the APG00 design certification program with NRC be completed in a timely ~ and efficient manner on a priority basis ;as described in the preliminary Commission view. ABB-CE did not support the Commission's view i
for the staff to document the work performed on " truncated" design certificatien reviews except to the extent someone is willing to fund such close-out work.
GE indicated that it was unclear as to the Cemnission's intent concerning maintenance of the Utility Requirements Document and action is certified designs through first-of-a-kind engi eering since no NR#
needed and the industry has not requested any NRC decisions on these matters.
j At stakeholder meetings, Westinghouse, NEI, and ABB-CE generally expressed support for Option 2 and the Commission's preliminary views.
Additionally, NEI a d ABB-CE commented on a related issue in Direction Setting Issue (DSI) 10 concerning whether emergency planning requirements could be simplified for advanced light-water designs.
Both organizations believed that they could and plan to support a petition for rulemaking to accomplish this objective in 1997.
NEI reiterated this view at a stakeholder meeting.
B.
Comments on Other Options The Organization of Agreement States, in comments endorsed by the New Hampshire, Louisiana, Georgia, Utah, Ohio, and Mississippi radiological-related capartments, specifically backed pursuing Option 3, the refocus option, t.fter completion of the evolutionary design certifications, citing Phase 11 Stakeholder Interacion Repon Page 3-70
Swnn ry Analysis of Comments Reactor Licensing For Future Applicants that the economic and political environment will preclude the sale of any new nuclear power reactors in this country for a long time.
The Ohio Department i
i of Health further suggested that any additional future design reviews be accomplished on a case-by-case basis with the NRC conducting the review after 1
an applicant signs a bonafide letter cf intent with a nuclear steam supply system supplier to build an advanced reactor design.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control strongly endorsed the Organization of Agreement States' comments.
The Oregon Heal.h Division j
endorsed Option 3 without additional comment.
Although not specifically endorsing Option 3, several commenters (Barkley, Lewis, No Nanie) presented analyses of internal / external factors that concluded that purruit of advanced reactor licensing activities is largely unnecessary trith one adding that a small team could be used to keep abreast of future reactor technology and report annually on the status. One commenter (Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power) rejected all options noting that the Commission would commit a serious error in assuming that there is any need, desire, or economic capability for any nuclear power reactors in the future.
With respect to Option 4, the single solution, no one specifically endorsed this of. tion, although it was discussed at several of the stakeholder meetings.
l The commenters (NEI, El Paso Electric) recognized that the option was a provocative idea and that'some Government role in the concept would be appropriate.
However, their overall assessment was that the concept has been around for awhile, has not moved anywhere, and did not look as if it would move in the current environment.
C.
Comments on Important Omissions In its written comments. the NEI amplified on several areas in which it felt that the issue paper omitted important details related to this OSI.
These areas include the following:
NEI believad that the issue,nper did not fully articulate the policies expressed by the Commission when it promulgated Part 52 and that were adopted by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
In light of the substantial improvements in safety achieved by the staudard designs, NEI believed that the NRC should hava a policy of removing unnecessary regulatory burdens aad barriers that 'nay discourage new orders for ruclear plants referencing these designs.
Several commenters (Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, LLP; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); ABB-CE; NEI) reflected this view in discussions at the stakeholder meetings.
NEI believed that the issue paper failed to adequately recognize that the NRC Part 52 licensing reform initiative, like the industry's " Strategic Plan for Building New Nuclear Power Plants," is a work-in-progress. A thorough advance understanding of the complete Part 52 process, including major issues associated with plant licensing, construction, and operation, is essential to a prospective licensee's decision to build a new nuclear power plant.
Several commenters (ABB-CE, EPRI, NEI, El Paso Electric.) exoressed similar views in discussions at the stakeholder meetings. Other commenters (Sinclair, NEI), in the context of these discussions, provided the additional insight that the bottom-line issue is what is the level of resources that NRC is willing to expend on this issue.
One commenter (EPRI) noted that many of the dctails of Page 3-71 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interacion Report
aaor Lauwr.y For Fuurc A;>pucanu design certification came out in ti,t discuss ust. H the plarr~ specific te the em iren:1: le<e! aptreach to applications, so there a a 1imit resolving COL issues.
tM ' m u s t e,. aric the NRC staff NEl noted that the paper did not refleu Itict have made a start on post-design certif scatun issun and met (on February 5, (RiRP).
Issues 1996) to discuss NEI's "Reculatory Issa Resolution Plan" identified learned from design certification, Part 50 rulemakings related to advance plant emergency planning ano,cintenance of design probabilis implementation of the "50.59-like" process to preserve severe accident -
insights, and COL issues potentially requiring Commission policy guidance.
NEI pointed out that the RIRP is structured to require relatively modest NRC ABB-CE and GE added several other resources over the next few years.
potential topics in their written remarks.
With respect to design certification, NEI reiterated its concerns regarding shifting NRC statf positions during the rulemaking process a Both EPRI and ABB-CE spoke to this point at stakeholder licensing process.
meetings.
D.
Comments on Internal / External Factors Several commenters (NEI, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, GE, League of Women Voters of Rockfe;ra, Davidson) provided additional perspective and specific information that related to internal and external factors discussed in the issue paper but did not present factors that were fundamentally different.
NEl believed that the paper did not adequately recognize the vital role of advanced reactor program activities in maintaining a strong nuclear power industry, noting that this was one of the principal motivations behind theThe repre industry's steadfast pursuit of design certification.
the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety at the Chicego stakeholder meeting made a similar observation concerning the maintenance o' a cadre of experienced personnel familiar with the approved designs.
NEI noted that industry restructuring and competition may result in utilities'Therefore, opting for baseload additions in the 600-MWe range. maintain high priorit certification.
NEI points out that there is a continuing high level of interest Plants," including the investment of over $150 million by Advanced R Corporation utilities.
potential for nuclear generation to be economically coetitive and perhaps superior, given the impact of future environmental contrals on power plant Therefore, the goal of opening the option for future nuclear power plant orders as distinct from the orders themselves remains important to them.
costs.
Phase H Stakeholder interacion Repon Page 3-72
Reactor Licensing For Future Applicants Summary Analysis of Comments NEI stated that utility planning for the addition of new baseload capacity generally begins several years before construction of a plant is actually begun.
NEI reasoned that all major aspects of Part 52 implementation must be understood when utility decision making about new baseload capacity is begun, or the nuclear option is likely to be dismissed.
NEI recognized that resolution of post-certification issues documented in Commission staff requirements memoranda, NUREGs, and the like, would not be binding on future NRC staff and Commissions.
NEI's expectation was that properly documented generic issue resolutions that form part of the basis for proceeding with a new nuclear plant ordar and license application would not be revisited, except when it can be clearly shown that the prior Commission decision would not ensure public health and safety.
GE commented that the NRC should be cautious about applying lessons learned regarding the advanced reactors to current reactors because the advanced reactors have been designed to achieve a higher level of safety than required by NRC regulations, and therefore lessons learned for advanced reactors may not be applicable to current reactors.
At stakeholder meetings, one commenter (League of Women Voters of Rockford) inquired about the Department of Energy's plans for mixed oxide fuels and tritium production; a factor that was mentioned briefly in the context of this DSI but was considered more fully in other elements of the strategic assessment.
Similarly, one commenter (Davidson) questioned whether the existing security regulations provide adequate security protection for the next generation of power reactors.
E.
Comments on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary views, the Commission did not pose any additional questions for public comment.
3.7.4 List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTS 1.
Octobu 21, 1996, Organization of Areement States (Robert Quillin) 2.
October 29, 1596, Richard S. Barkley, U.S. NRC 3.
November 3, 1996, Marvin Lewis 4.
November 4, 1996, New Hampshire Bureau of Radiological Health (Diane Tefft) 5.
November 7,1996, Mississippi State Department of Radiological Health (Robert W. Goff) 6.
November 14, 1996, Oregon Department of Human Resources, Health Division (Ray D. Paris) 7.
November 14, 1996, South Ccrolina Department of Health and Environmental e'
Control (M. K. Batavia)
Page 3-73 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report
u.:......-
traave bccr.nr.g for Fu:urc A;,pucan:s aa 4
8.
November 21, 1996, State of Louisiana, Department of En.rironmental Quality (Ronald Wascom) 9.
November 21, 1996, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Thomas E.
j Hill) l 10.
November 21, 1996, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (William J.
Sinclair) e 11.
November 22, 1996, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Gary J.
Taylor) 12.-
November 27, 1996,' Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas D. Ryan) 13.
December 1,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith H.
Johnsrud) 14.
December 2, 1996, Ohio Department of Health (Robert E. Owen) 3 15.
December 2,1996, ABB-CE (Charles B. Brinkman) 16.
December 3, 1996, GE Nuclear Energy (Steven A. Hucik) 17.
December 3, 1996, No Name 18.
December 3, 1996, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (H. J. Bruschi) 19.
December 4, 1996, John Davidson, U.S. NRC q
ORAL COMMENTS-Washington, D.C. (October 24 - 25, 1996) pages 7 - 35 1.
Steve Franz, Morgan Lewis and Bockius, LLP 2.
Gary Vine, EPRI
?.
Russell Bell, PEI 4.
Brian McIntyre, Westinghouse i
Colorado Springs, CO (October 31 - November 1, 1996) pages 258 - 287 1.
John Trotter, EPRI 2.
Charles Brinkman, ABB-CE 3.
Fred Gowers, El Paso Electric 4.
Roger Huston, NEl 5.
William Sinclair, Utah Department of Environmental Quality 6.
Steve Floyd, NEl Page 3 74 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaaion Report
.....n.
e j-
'Sc==y Analysis of Comments Reaaor Liceruing for Future Applicants l
1 Chicago, IL (November 7 - 8, 1996) pages 4 - 26 1.
Roger Huston, NEI 1
2.
Roy Wight, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety J-Betty Johnson, League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois 3.
~
\\
J i-I l
i i
d
)
1-i 1
1 J
1, J
i i
Page 3-75 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report
Reactor Liceraing For Futwe Applicants Summary Analysis of Commer.ts This page was intentionally left blank.
l 1
4 i
Page 3-76 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interacion Repon