ML20147C104

Responds to Requesting Opportunity to Review Design Certification Rule for ABWR Before Sent to Ofc of Fr for Publication.Request Denied

ML20147C104
Person / Time
Site:	05200001
Issue date:	01/23/1997
From:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Hucik S GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 9702050288
Download: ML20147C104 (1)

Text

-. . - -. . . -. . , - - - - - . ._- . .

l c

YDPm pC REauq#

P UNITED STATES f" \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

,g l

e k.....8 ,o January 23, 1997 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Mr. Steven A. Hucik General Manager Nuclear Plant Projects l GE Nuclear Energy ,

l 175 Curtner Avenue, M/C 780  !

San Jose, California 95125-1088

Dear Mr. Hucik:

I am responding to your December 16, 1996 letter requesting an opportunity to review the design certificstion rule for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor t (ABWR) before it is sent to the Office of the Federal Register (0FR) for l publication. Your letter indicates that the purpose of this review would be narrowly limited to focus solely on ensuring that the language of the rule accurately and clearly conforms with the Commission's policy determinations as set forth in the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of December 4,1996, and would not be for the purpose of commenting on the policy l determinations that have been made by the Commission. You also state that GE I Nuclear does not intend to raise new issues, and that any meeting between GE Nuclear and the Staff would be publicly noticed.

The Commission has decided that a limited opportunity for GE Nuclear to review the final ABWR design certification rule solely for the purpose of ensuring I l that the rule conforms with the Commission's SRM is not necessary. In light i of the extensive public process leading to the specification of the issues decided by the Commission's SRM, the specificity of the Senior Review Group's August 13, 1996 Memo to the Commission which addressed these issues, and the detailed direction provided in the Commission's SRM, a further limited review l opportunity by GE Nuclear would not provide any substantial enhancemer$^ to the

! quality of the final design certification rule. 'r l Sincerely, i

IA _

hn C. oyle Secretary of the Commission l

/ i 9702050288 970123 .g PDR ADOCK 05200001 A PDR (

O( ( D fl. (l ' *' (  ;

EC 19 11:21AM P.1/3 l ,. GENarclearEnergy i

3 esses A Muser, PE &cta Planthoreca GewalMeneger Gews!Bectre Compw 175CurtnerAmue. M!C780

.lun.kse, c4 9S1261068 408 92S 6951 h:4069254267 December 16,1996 I Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary i OfEce of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Hoyle:

1 l Sub)ect: Design Corts)ication Rulefor the Advanced Bel ling WaterReactor i (ABWR); Docket No.32-001.

! On December 4,1996, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum j (SRM) approving certification rules for the ABWR and System 80+. In so doing, the

Commission resolved the remaining policy issues and directed the staff"as a matter of

! priority to couform the final certificadon rules to the changes noted in the SRM and l forward the rules to the Secretary for signature and publicadon in the Federal Register.

General Electric (GE) is deeply appreciative of the Commission's constructive resolution j of the policy issues and the emphasis it placed on priority compledon of the rulemaking process.

GE is the apphcant for design certification of the ABWR. Based upon discussions with 4

Mr. Jerry N. Wilson of the NRC staff, we were informed that the staff will complete work on the design certification rule for the ABWR in approximately three or four months, that the rule will be provided to the Secretary for transmission to the Office of Federal j Register (OFR), and that we will not be given an opportunity to see the rule before it is

sent to the OFR unless the Secretary's Office so authorizes. The purpose of this letter is

to request your authorizadon for GE to conduct a narrowly focused review of the design certification' rule for the ABWR before it is sent to the OFR and to urge that staff rule issuance activities be expedited to the maximum extent feasible. We believe that both requested actions can be mutually supportive in carrying out remaining NTC pre-issuance steps.

As you are aware, a supplemental proposed rule for design certification of the ABWR was issued for public comment in SECY-96077. OnJuly 23,1996, GE submitted extensive comments on the design certification rule for the ABWR, and incorporated by reference the lengthy comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on the same date.

Based upon requests by NEI, the Commission established a Senior Review Group (SRG) to review these comments, and the SRG issued an extensive analysis of these comments on August 13,1996 recommending a number of changes to the supplemental proposed rule contained in SECY-96-077. SRG recommendations on other issues raised in industry comments were contained in the memorandum to the Commission from the Executive Director for Operations dated October 21,1996., in a SRM dated December 6,1996, the A./

12/19?..To OGC to: Prepare Response for Signature...Date due: Jan 6 Cpy to: Chairman, DSB.. 96-1256

$ 7e#W3 Arp.

f ., P. 24 DEC 19 '% 11:22At1 2

g . .

4 Mr. John C. Hoyle, Secretary

December 16,1996 j Page 2 i

i

Commission accepted most of the SRG's recommendations and identified other areas in I which the supplemental proposed rule should be modified.

i j As a result of the Commission's SRM, all policy issues regarding the design certification j mie for the ABWR have been resolved. However, in most cases, neither the SRG's August ,

i IS and October 21,1996 analyses nor the Commission's SRM identi6ed specific language -!

j to implement these resolutions for the issues raised by NEI and GE. Because the implementing language is cdtical to the resolution of these issues, we request an  ;

opportunity to mview the design certification mie for the ABWR before it is sent to the ,

j OFR. Our review would be narrowly limited -it would focus solely on ensuring that the l j language of the rule accurately and clearly conforms with the resolutions specified by the  !

! Commission; we are not requesting an opportunity to comment on the policy l determinations that have been made by the Commission and we do not propose to raise new issues. Any such meeting for this purpose would, of course, be publicly noticed. j For the following reasons, we believe that it would be appropriate to allow GE to conduct -

such a narrowly-focused revicw:

• GE is the applicant for design certification of the ABWR. As the applicant, we have a unique interest in ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the design certification rule.

In this regard, we note that the NRC in the past has given applicants for operating l licenses for nuclear power plants an opportunity to review the licenses before they are {

issued in final form, and we believe that it is appropriate to afford GE an analogous  ;

opportunity to review the design certification for the ABWR before it is 6nallacd.  ;

(

• The SRG and Commission accepted many of the comments submitted by GE  !

(including NEI's comments that GE incorporated by reference). Therefore, we i believe that GE can provide an especially valuable function in ensuring that the l language in the design certification rule accurately and clearly reflects the Com- l mission's intent. Review by GE of the implementing language will help ensure a  ;

r quality product. In this regard, we note that we have previously identified clarifiations and corrections in the language of the proposed rule and supplemental proposed  ;

rule, and both the staff and the Commission have found these clarifications and j corrections to be useful and appropriate in implementing the content of the i Commission (see, e.g., the Commission's SRM dated March 17,1995 on SECY 95-023; SRG's August 13,1996 Analysis, @g I.E., I G., and X.A.).  ;

l

• A review by GE would not delay issuance of the design certiScation mic. Indeed, we desire that the mie be issued as expeditiously as possible and that, consistent with the Commission's SRM directive for " priority" staff action, the aforementioned three to four months of pre-issuance staff activities be significantly reduced. Based i

upon our discussion with the staff, we undcrstand that the critical path to submission of the rule to the OFRis not revision of the supplemental proposed rule but instead  ;

,. . - .- . . _- .. . ~ - -

P.3/3

. DEC 19 '96 11: 22Ai1

[

i l

Mr. John C. Hoyle December 16,1996 l Page 3 performance of ancillary activities, such as revising the final safety evaluation report (FSER) for the ABWR, and a lengthy period for the staff concurrence process. We estimate that GE could perform its review in one or two days, and we expect that any l clarifications or corrections could easily and quickly be incorporated into the rule.

In this regard, we understand that the Office of General Counsel (OGC) will be completing its review of the design certification rule in the next several weeks, and we -

l would propose that our review be conducted contemporaneously with or shortly after OGC's reyew.

. We have discussed the possibility of a review by GE with the NRC's Deputy General Counsel, and he has informed us that OGC has no legal objection to such a resiew.

Similarly, we are not aware of any legalimpediment to such a review.

Based upon the above, we request thatyou direct the staff to permit GE to resiew the design certification rule for the ABWR prior to its submission to the OFR for the limited l

purpose of ensuring that the language in the rule accurately and clearly impicments the Commission's resolutions of the policy issues raised by GE.

1 Sincerely, j

/-

l A g' Steven A.Hucik j

l cc: ChairmanJack. son

! Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus 1

l Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGafligan M. Malsch J. Wilson  ;

l j

I