ML20236M036
| ML20236M036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1987 |
| From: | Perkins J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR34884, RULE-PR-50 52FR34884-00003, 52FR34884-3, NUDOCS 8711120005 | |
| Download: ML20236M036 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:" ' ' DOCKET NUMBER . 6 i PROPOSED RULE N-. 7 i (52 F2 kug~0CKETE0 0 l USNRC -l-Box 141-North Easton MA 02356 W @ -4 P2:20-27 October 1987 ^ El NG yl SRANCH. Samuel C'nilk. .j Secretary of the NRC USNRC Washington DC 20555 Dear Mr. Chilk-Please find attached comments for the record concerning the policy statement on reactor stonderdization, notice of which was pubitshed in l the Federal Register (Vol. 52, No.178, pp 34884-6) on Tuesday, September 15,1987. / .l4' James Perkins cc: Sen. Edword Kennedy Sen. John Kerry l l Rep. Joseph Mookley i
- h. 2 p 'd '
E,b e711120005 g71027 $[5[FR34064 PDR s 0 ,f ef %f tt L acknowledged bycard.M,t )-
a l .f t [- i 4 4 a 1 :c.. Comments of James Perkins yj . Notice regarding Reector Stenderdizationi: 52 FR 178, September 15,1987' page 1 of 3 - l L
Background
j Despite its apparent belief otherwis', the NRC is not responsible for. I e initiatives to " enhance the... eveilability of nuclear plants.' This responsibility was excluded from the mondole of th'e Commission. j This section twice refers to alleged " complexity and uncertainty in (or 'or) the regulatory process". Most of the complexity that has been introduced into the' system of licensure has been due to Commission - ef forts to ease the burdens on those seeking licenses. For exemple, the-licensing hearings for the.Seabrook Station have been split into several' separate sets of proceedings because the Commission has seen fit to hold hearings on pieces of the licensing questions, rather then weit until the : j utility is ready for hearings on the whole. It is ludicrous to conduct full-blown hearings on the evacuation planning for communities in one ' state et a time, but that has been the Commission's decision, not the - result of actions taken by the intervening parties. Before any actions are taken in the name of reducing complexity,ithere ~ should be on odequete opportunity to essess the nature and source of.the. elleged complexity. It is true that in this society nuclear power is controversial. Hence, the resolution of licensing questions cre bound to be - -{ complex. In a democracy, there is no room for cutting the Gordien Knot. 1 I On the intent "to encouroae the use of stenderd Dient desions. ": Encouraging stonderdization,if done lex 19, does not mondete. stenderdizatinn. Ang Individual utility.which moy' appropriately (or not) opt for site-specific changes will reintroduce complexity.The - Commission's plan to " envelop e large portion'of the potential sites", which is referred to in the Statement of Policy, willl presumably _not mondete the same requirements for tolerating seismic stress on a future Californie plant es on one in a region less seismically inclined. Hence, the envelopes will likely be so wide os to undo' standardization. Encouraging stenderdization,if done rigorously, will certainly stifle. . ingenuity, notwithstanding the wishful assertion that it will notLNot even j former Chairmen Palladino'would claim otherwise if he hoped to welk-il 1
.l nments of James Perkins I page 2 of 3 i through the corridors of his Department of Nuclear Engineering at Penn State with head held high.The Commission should activelu solicit opinions on this specious claim from engineering school professors across the country. The Notice suggests later that,"(t)he most significant (drawback) is that specific problems may potentially affect a large number of reactors." That is a masterpiece of understatement.The Commission should face the reality that if this proposal were in place no utility would dare choose to buck an established design with its purported freedom from complexity and uncertainty in licensing in order to try out a newer model. No utility would dare look its state utility commission in the eye and opt for a plant design that is allegedly better, but one that carries with it the threat of a ) complex and uncertain regulatory future. On the " intent to make resources available on a orloritu basis. "- While the Commission may know a few reactor vendors with under-employed design staffs or.d may feel that its licensing boards won't have enough work in the years ahead, there is not an overwhelming clamor in the marketplace for new reactor designs.The problems of Ilying with and correcting past design flaws should be more than edequate to keep the Commission and the country's nuclear engineers busy. There are enormous problems associated with the ongoing operation of GE containments, embrittled reactor vessels, and spent fuel pools filled beyond their design bases. It is for these and similar existing issues that the Commission shculd make its resources available on a priority basis. Finally,it is interesting to note that the Commission has seen fit to revive here old dreams of "one-step licensing" and " site-banking". These are attempts to avoid the public opposition that mounts slowly, but of ten persuasively, to poorly planned projects. Statement of Policu it is asserted that "(o)ther features of the design which are dependent on the site.. are also reviewed for acceptability and compatibility with the pre-approved / certified design at the time of an actual application."This. statement requires substantial clarification:
I 4 1 Comments of James Perkins page 3 of 3 is this section of the Statement of Policy asserting that all site-specific issues must be fullu resolved and litioated prior to the granting of an OL (or of a combined CP/DL in the event of one-step Itcansing)? Or is it asserting that the pre-approved / certified design will have guiding parameters on these issues for licensing boards to apply and rule upon at their own discretion? It would not be acceptable, and it would certainly f ace court challenge, to grant a license to operate based upon a Board's judgement that some years in the future there will be sufficient cooling water and/or adequate emergency plans. Even more challengeable would be a Board's finding that a plant is seismically adequately designed,if, as the construction progresses, new faults or fractured rock or unexpectedly sof t soils are encountered. The Commission must address the question of when and what types of new information would lead to the reconsideration of findings of edequacy. Finally, if ' procedures will be developed to allow for plant-specific variances.. at the request of the facility licensees"(and would-be licensees, presumably), the Commission will have to address the reasons for denying interested third parties or will have to allow interested third parties the right to make a case for additional plant-specific variances. In Summaru As an af terword, may i note that this Notice is sad evidence that the Commission has not learned the lessons which underlag and justified its creation. Others are supposed to worry about the future of nuclear power in this country. The Commission's main task is to make certain that the public's health and safety are protected from nuclear power. This need not, on the face of it, mean that the Commission must close every reactor immediately. It does, however, mean that the Commission should be concentrating on the problems at hand. It was precisely because the AEC was so busy dreaming about the nuclear power of the future that it failed to regulate that which it had.The NRC is supposed to be free of such confilets, but the temptation seems to be too great. The present mess is too unpleasant, even dangerous; so you geern for the rosy future where no design flaws have yet been built in. l J}}