ML20245D474
| ML20245D474 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1988 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317A604 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR32060, RULE-PR-52 AC61-1, AC61-1-06, AC61-1-6, NUDOCS 8806290388 | |
| Download: ML20245D474 (17) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,g>*
- ff,
~
f'(
c UNITED STATES
~
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p (g hL
/,
j wasmwovow. o. c. mss
\\,,.... #
June 16, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations, EDO.
FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Comittee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
FINAL MINUTES FOR CRGR REVILW 0F PROPOSED l
RULE (PART 52) ON STANDARDIZATION Enclosed are the final minutes for the CRGR review of the subject rule.
The Committee's review of this proposed rule began at Meeting No. 137 on June 8, 1988.
Because the review package was received only shortly before that meeting, the Committee was unable to complete their review on June 8; however,
)
in support of the ED0's request for special, expedited handling of this matter, draft minutes of Meeting No. 137 containing the Committee's 4
preliminary comcants and recommendations were provided to the EDO on June 10.
Subsequently, at Meeting No. 138 on June 14, the Committee completed their review of proposed Part 52 and approved the enclosed final minutes. The enclosed minutes for the CRGR review of proposed Part 52 will ultimately be included in the overall minutes for Meeting No.137, which will address the Committee's consideration of two other items in that meeting.
The total minutes package for Meeting No.137 will be issued by June 17, and will become final one week later in accordance with the usual CRGR procedure.
d ordan, Chairman Commit e to Review Generic Regt rements s
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
i V. Stello W. Parler CRGR Members a
l 00 h f) <
r
.s P
4-to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 137 Proposed Rule on Standardization June 8. 1988
- TOPIC
. M.' Malsch (OGC) and S. Crockett (OGC) presented for CRGR review a proposed
. draft. rule,10 CFR Part 52, on Site Permits, Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses intended to implement both the Commission's revised Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Standardization and, to the extent permitted by l ~
present statutory law, the license reform legislation proposed by. the Commission to Congress last year.
Copies of the briefing slides used by the staff to guide their presentations and the discussions with the Committee on the proposed draft rule at this meeting are enclosed (see Attachment 1 to this enc 1csure).
This draft rule is related to, but is broader in scope, than two Commission:
papers reviewed recently by the Committee (i.e., " Standardization of DOE-Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs," and " Key Licensing Issues.for DOE-Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs").
The most recent version of the (Part 52) draft rule is intended to reflect the Committee's comments and recommendations on those two Commission papers; see enclosed excerpts.from' the minutes of CRGR Meeting Nos. 135 and 136 (Attachments 2 and 3 to this enclosure).
BACKGROUND 1.
The Part 52 draft rule package was transmitted initially to CRGR for review by memorandum dated April 19, 1988, W. C. Parler to E. L. Jordan; that initial review package included the following:
a.
Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Standardization, dated September 15, 1987 b.
Draft Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, undated (70 Pages) 2.
Subsequently, a revised draft Federal Register Notice, reflecting CRGR comments and recommendations on two related Advanced Reactor Commission papers (and coordination efforts by the EDO office), was transmitted by memorandum dated June 7,1988, W. C. Parler to E. L. Jordan; the revised draft Federal Register Notice was broken into two separate parts, as follows:
a.
Supplementary Information Section, undated (33 pages) b.
Draft Rule and Backfit Analysis Section, undated (39 pages)
LL' CONCLUSIONS / REC 0 EMENDATIONS As a result of their review of this matter, including the discussions at this rasting and earlier related discussions at Meeting Nos.135 and 136, the 1
Committee recommended that the proposed draft rule be issued for comment, subject to the following modifications.
1.
At p. 21 of the draft rule, under Section 52.45(a), change the wording to read-i "Any person who holds or has applied for a final design approval..."
i 2.
At p. 21 of the draft rule, under Section 52.45(c), replace the word
" isolated" with the term " appropriately sited".
i 3.
At p. 22 of the draft rule, under Section 52.45(d):
a.
Change the wording to. read:
" Designs shall be complete in scope.
Only site-specific elements, such as... heat sink, may be excluded from the scope of the design.
(Excluded site specific elements that can affect safe operation must be addressed in the specification of the site envelope or interface requirements.)
o b.
Also, delete the phrase "... essential to the safe operation of the i
plant" at the end of the second sentence there; and substitute the following:
j l
"... components that can affect the safe operation of the plant but j
are not fixed by siti specific considerations or parameters."
4.
At pp. 22-23 of the draft rule, under Section 52.47:
a.
Change the second sentence of the opening paragraph to read as follows:
"The information submitted for a design cert.fication must include performance requirements and specifications suf ficient to permit the drawing up of procurement specifications.
b.
At the top of p. 23 of the draft rule, under Section 52.47, to avoid confusion regarding intent, delete the word " unconditional" in the third line, and modify the wording of that sentence to convey the I
same thought but also take into account the fact that certification of a standard design will necessarily include " conditions" (e.g., in the specification of interface requirements).
5.
At p. 29 of the draft rule, under Section 52.62(a), modify the wording of that entire subsection to more clearly convey the intent that (a) during the initial or renewal periods in which a design certification is in effect, no changes will be imposed by the Commission except changes needed to comply with regulations in effect at the time of certification approval /
4 renewal, or to provide adequate safety; but (b) in the ruitmaking for renewal of certification, changes that substantially improve safety in a cost beneficial manner can only be imposed prospectively.
6.
Make clearer in the treatment of mechanisms for public participation in the regulatory process for certified designs (e.g., at pp.19-20 of the Supplementary Information package) the important distinction between (a) the rulemaking proceedings for initial approval or renewal of certification, and (b) the rulemaking proceedings.for amandment of a certified design, i.e., the former includes provision for petitioners to request informal hearings as a preliminary step, but the latter does not. This should be very clear because it may be a principal area of public comment.
7.
At p.13 of the draft rule, under Section 52.17(c), modify the wording to read as follows:
"The application must show, and the Commission must make a finding, l
that the area surrounding...at the site."
The rule should be modified, wherever necessary, to assure, to the extent practical, that emergency planning issues are resolved at the initial hearing, i.e., at an early site or combined hearing.
8.
Throughout the draft Part 52 package, delete the term "... structures, systems, and components that are essential to the safe operation of the plant..." and substitute other wording that is not so likely to be m sunderstood by applicants as synonymous with the current safety i
classification term " safety-related." The phrase "... structures, systems, and components that can significantly affect safe operation of the facility..." (or something similar and equivalent) would be satisfactory and less likely to result in confusion on this important point.
9.
At p. 22 of the Supplement Information package, delete the third sentence on that page.
10.
At pp. 29-30 of the Supplementary Information package, under Question 7, add the following:
"Should the standards for obtaining exemptions for a certified design be stricter to avoid continual regression from true standardization?"
11.
The Committee understands from discussions with staff at this meeting that the proposed rule is intended to apply to existing as well as i
I advanced designs, e.g., to the ALWRs and to (applicants who hold or have applied fer) final design approvals for existing designs. The wording at
- p.14 of the Supplementary Information, however, package states (in a 'way that suggests exclusiveness) that the rule applies to "... procedural aspects of the certification of advanced reactor designs..." Clarify the intended scope of the rule, perhaps by deleting this wording.
)
1 h
i
-4 M
g
- l.
The recommendt' ions in the preceding for the most.part are focused on changes in the wording of just one specific section-of the total package' submitted for review.
It is intended that the staff should carefully review,'and make conforming changes to, other parts of the package as appropriate for-I '-
consistency.throughout.
i e
I b
=:
' to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.135 DOE Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs - Key Licensing Issues April 27, 1988 TOPIC The Committee continued at this meeting their review of the proposed Commis-sion Paper, " Key Licensing Issues Associated With DOE Sponsored Advanced Reactor Designs" which as begun at Meeting No'.133 - (see Minutes dated 5/6/88).
W. Morris (RES) and T. King (RES) were the principal staff representatives presenting and discussing at this meeting the proposed design criteria for, and approach to the staff's review and certification of, three advanced reactor designs that are being sponsored by DOE. Attachment 1 to this enclosure is a copy of a briefing slide used by the staff at this meeting to clarify the relationship between Advanced Reactor Certification and Standard-ization issues (as reflected in the two draft Commission Papers submitted by RES for CRGR rerview), and the draft rulemaking package (Part 52) submitted to CRGR for review recently by OGC.
BACKGROUND In addition to the documents submitted initially by RES for CRGR review in this matter (see listing of those documents in Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.133), the Committee was provided the following supplemental information subsequent to Meeting No.133:
Memorandum dated April 21, 1988, J. H. Conran to E. L. Jordan et al., with j
attachments as follows:
1.
Comments by Irw!!vidual CRGR Member (Ross), undated, " Major Points to Make on Commission Paper on Advanced Reactors."
2.
Note dated April 12, 1988, S. Treby to T. King, subject: "SECY Paper on Key Licensing Issues Associated with DOE-Sponsored Advanced Reactor Desigts."
]
1 3.
RevisedPages(pp. 8, 9, 16, 17, & 38) for the Draft (Key Licensing
{
Issues) Commission Paper, dated February 9,1988, that was submitted 1
initially by RES for CRGR review in this satter.
(The documents listed above are included as a part of these Minutes - see q to this Enclosure.)
j i
i l
CONCLUSIONS /'.h0PME2AllMS As a result of their review of this matter, including the discussions with the staff at Meeting Nos.133 and 135, the Committee recommended in favor of send-ing the proposed " Key Licensing Issues" Commission Paper forward for EDO and Comission consideration, subject to the following comments and modifications:
l to Enclosure 2 i
J
.g.
1.
The Committee strongly believes that, as a principal policy objective, NRC should require that advanced reactor designs provide an improved level.of safety compared to currently operating LWRs, at least with respect to the degree of confidence in the level of safety achieved.
2.
The Committee believes that the proposed approach to advanced reactor design certification and the preliminary design criteria set forth in the draft Commission Paper provide an acceptable basis for approving the j
construction and testing of prototypes of the advanced reactor designs involved. Infomation, experience, and test results obtained in the
.l co0struction and testing of prototypes should be factored into the
)
development of the final design criteria and guidance that will serve as the tissis for certification of advanced designs. As a specific consider-ation, the Commission should address explicitly the timely development of appropriate codes and standards to support design, construction and j
review of the advanced designs.-
l 3.
The Committee noted that the proposed advanced reactor designs appear to involve significant safeguards issues, because their fuel designs employ I
plutonium or uranius more highly enriched than in current LWR designs; l
but these are not addressed in the draft Commission Paper. The Committee was infomed that the staff intends to address these issues separately and later in the process.
Notwithstanding such future plans, the Commit-tee recommended that the draft (" Key Issues") Commission Paper be revised to include identification, and at least some discussion, of the signifi-cant safeguards issues associated with the use of plutonium and the more highly enriched uranium.
j i
4.
The Committee reconnended, and the staff agreed to make, a number of i
revisions to the wording of the proposed Commission Paper in the specific areas indicated in the following:
a.
Page 2, middle of page:
q The staff should revise the paper with regard to use of the tem
)
" current generation LWRs", in this section and throughout the paper.
That ters should not be applied to " paper" reactor designs that have not yet been built.
Also, usage of that ters in this draft Commis-sion Paper does not appear consistent with its usage in the related (Part 52) rulemaking package provided by OGC (e.g., see under j
c'efinition of " Advanced reactor," at pp. 40-41 of the OGC paper).
b.
Page. 2 & 3. under " General Criter;a":
The wording of this section is too vague or ambiguous; it should be revised / clarified along the following lines:
j i.
... existing rules and regulations, as interpreted for advanced reactor concepts... "
(This is simply too vague to understand for review purposes, as written. Revise this section here, and wherever else these or C
)
a 3
similar words appear, to reflect the explanation to the Commit-tee at the meeting, i.e., that the designers will propose, and i
the staff will review and determine finally, which parts of the existing rules, SRPs,.and other guidance are applicable.)
ii.
... fission product retention capability at least equivalent to LWRs..."
(Indicate more clearly what is intended here, e.g., retention in the fuel, in the reactor, in the containment, etc., and how this is to be seasured/ evaluated for review pu noses.)
iii. "... defense in depth... "
(The intended meaning of this term appears to be different in the advanced design context than is commonly understood for current LWR designs.
Discuss / explain these differences and their safety implications, e.g., is this a less (or more)
{
stringent criterion for the advanced designs than for existing
]
LWR designs with regard to number of barriers and overall effect i
on safety.)
I
... demonstrate enhanced safety / margin via testing..."
iv.
(Indicate more clearly how this will be done, e.g., which systems or features will need to be tested for certification of an advanced design, and how that will be determined.
Note Item 4.e. below in this context.)
v.
" Advanced reactor designers should ensure..."
(Use of the terms "shall" or "must" is more appropriate for specifying design criteria, i.e., design requirements.
"Should" is used in connection with non-sandatory guidance.)
The draft paper should be reviewed carefully throughout for consist-ency in the use of terminologies, and further revised as necessary, in accordance with the preceding.)
c.
Page 3, under " Specific Criteria:
Change the term " release limits" to " dose limits," and revise to delete the term "ad hoc" in discussions of Emergency Planning (here and throughout the paper).
Clarify what is intended with regard to Emergency Planning for advanced designs, in accordance with the discussions with the Committee in this meeting (e.g., same onsite l
planning as for current plants, prompt offsite planning reduced,no drills / procedures required, etc., similar to fuel cycle facilities).
RES agreed to work with OGC in revising this section, and the more detailed discussion of EP matters in Section II.B.4 (at pp.
19-21 of the draft Commission Paper).
i i
i l
3 4
9 d.
Page 10, under Subsection iv, first bullet:
Clarify what is intended by the term " shutdown" for the advanced reactor designs involved, in accordance with the discussions at this' seeting (e.g., one cold shutdown mechanisa/systas independent of offsite power; one systan/sechanism capable of holding the reacter safely at' hot shutdown for "X" hours / days / weeks).
e.
Page 10, under Subsection II. A.1.v and Page 11, under Subsection II.A.2.iii:
Revise wording to specify that the results of the PRA should be used in determining what tests are to be performed for certification.
f.
Page 11, under secord indented paragraph:
Clarify the wording of this section with regard to QA requirements for advanced designs. For example, as indicated to the Committee at this meeting, the QA required for inherent / enhanced safety features say be even more stringent than existing Appendix B, certainly not less stringent as was suggested to some by the existing wording).
g.
Pages 13-14, under " Event Categories III & IV:
The staff should specifically call to the Commission's attention, and '
get explicit Commission agreement on, the proposed requirement that the advanced reactors be designed for very severe accidents, clearly beyond what are currently recognized as' the Design Basis Events.
Also, there should also be explicit acknowledgement of, and appropri-ate cautionary guidance regarding, the large uncertainties associated with event frequencies as low as E-6 and E-7, as referred to in this section.
5.
The changes rec'ommended above should be coordinated with the CRGR staff.
In addition, RES should obtain NRR concurrence on the revised package.
If this results in further substantive modifications to the package, it should be resubmitted for review by the Committee.
I l
l 1
)
l l
L____________---
j
.4
[. ;"
t PART 52 IN A NUTSHELL (Sections changed from 4/19 draf t are marked "*")
EARLY SITE PERMITS Anolicant is anyone who may apply for CP '(15) l Contents of application (17) i Types of facilities auitable to site I
Projected population profile Redress plan
~ Good faith offorts to get local cooperation on emergency planning
]
Fees (.19)
{
No application' fee i
Review fees paid by permittee but deferred 4
Hearings are mandatory, and adjudicatory (21)
ACRS'(23) reviews any safety issues l
LWA-1 activities ok without separate authority (25)-
Duration of permit is 10 years (27) i Renewals (29-33)'
1 5-10 years Unlimited number y
Granted.if application meets current regulations Bearing opportunity ACRS review Permit remains valid during renewal proceeding or if cited in CP application before expiration I
Use of site for other purposes ok, with NRR review (35)
Finality (39)
)
If permit in effect, backfits only for undue risk i
CP/OL applicant may request variance under 50.92 i
j
. to Enclosure 2
E
/'
)
i 1
l l
1 DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS l
Aeolicant in any person (45) j Advanced reactors can be certified (45)
Prototpye test is presumed d
Presumption can be overcome 1
Incomplete desians can be certified (45)
If everything " essential to safety" is in design Contents of applications (47)
Level of detail FDA level Enough to draw up procurement specs, etc.
Enough so DC can be unconditional Technical information Required by applicable portions of
)
Parts 20, 50, 73, & 100 Staff will advise applicant on what is needed Site parameters PRA Proposed tests, analyses, inspections, etc.
Modular design information Options for configuration PRA should take account of options Interface requirements with uncertified BOP, with Showing of verifiability of requirements Representative design for BOP Emes (49)
No application fee Review fees paid by holder but deferred Certification oroceedina (51)
Rulemaking Notice and Comment 1
Informal hearing before ASLB ACRS need not consider issues it reviewed earlier (53) l Duration of certification is 10 years (55)
)
Eenewals (57-61) 5-10 years j
Unlimited number Granted if application meets current regulations i
Proceeding is rulemaking with informal hearing j
DC remains valid during renewal proceeding i
i or if cited in CP application before expiration Finality (63)
If DC in effect, backfits only for undue risk
- Holder may apply for amendment to design Granted if it complies with regulations Backfitted if adequate protection requires Applicant or licensee may request 50.12 exemption Backfitted if adequate protection requires Licensee may make plant changes without prior NRC approval if change is outside design J
l l
l l
COMBINED CP AND CONDITIONAL OL Amelicant is anyone who may apply for CP (75)
Fees are those for CP/0Ls in Part 170 (75)
Contents of Applications -- Technical information (70)
.As for DCs, If cites DC and ESP, show them compatible Tech specs Emergency plans and good faith efforts to get local cooperation Hearings are mandatory and adjudicatory (85)
ACRS need not consider issues it reviewed earlier (87)
LWA-1 activities ok without separate authority (91)
I If early site permit cited l
Redress required in application denied and site permit expires without being cited l
Exemotions & variances (93)
Applicant may seek 50.12 exemption from DC Applicant may seek variance from permit Conversion to full operating license (103)
Each module the subject of a separate conversion Opportunity for hearing on grounds of Nonconformance of construction with DC, etc.
Some change necessary for adequate protection
.4.
to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.136 Standardization of 00E-5ponsoreed Advanced Reactor Designs May 19, 1988 TOPIC The Committee continued at this meeting their review of the proposed Commission Paper, " Standardization of Advanced Reactor Designs," begun at Meeting No.133
- (see Minutes dated May 6,1988).
W. Morris (RES) and J. Wilson (RES) were the principal staff representatives at this meeting who presented the staff's proposed plans for review of three D0E-sponsored advanced reactor designs and-the proposed (preliminary) design criteria that those advanced designs will be reviewed against. Copies of the briefing slides used by the staff at this meeting are enclosed - (see Attachment 1 to this Enclosure).
BACKGROUND In addition to the documents submitted initially by RES for CRGR review in this matter (see listing in Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.133), the Committee was provided supplemental information by the staff subsequent to Meeting No.133, as follows:
1.
Revised (draft) Commission Paper, dated May 10, 1988
[See enclosed - Attachment 2 to this Enclosure]
2.
Memorandum dated May 19, 1988, S. A. Treby to E. L. Jordan, " Standardization j
of Advanced Reactor Designs" l
[See enclosed - Attachment 3 to this Enclosure) i 1
CONCLUSIONS / REC 0mE2ATIONS As a result of their review of this matter, including the discussions with the staff at Meetings 133 and 13(, the Committee recommended in favor of sending the proposed (Standardization of Advanced Reactor Designs) Commission Paper forward for EDO and Commission consideration, subject to the following caveats:
1.
The scope of the staff's review should be an entire prototypical advanced reactor plant (not just the safety-related envelope); and the staff should require a level of detail sufficient to do a complete review of both i
balance-of plant and safety-related systems, and to understand fully any i
E interactions between them.
2.
The staff should require prototype testing at an isolated site.(i.e., not a site that could be approved in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.47).
The i
test configuration should be closely representative of a whole plant (e.g., a single module with a heat sink other than a turbine should not be considered acceptable).
The purpose of this prototype testing would be to demonstrate the inherent / enhanced safety features of the advanced design, to Enclosure 2
.g.
and to verify the intended absence of interactions between safety equipment and other plant equipment / systems. The results of the' prototype testing should be used to determine the scope of certification of the final standard design; and this would be addressed in the SER
. accepting the advanced design for certification.
i 9
l i
[~!
UNITED STATES q,,
NUCLEAR RE!!ULATORY COMMISSION
/
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS e
- 1 manHWOTON.D.C. 30585 0
June 7, 1988 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
l Chaiman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chaiman " lech:
NRC PROPOSED RULE ON EARLY SITE PERMITS, STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION, AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER
SUBJECT:
REACTORS During the 338th meeting of the Advisory Comnittee on Rea guards, June 2-4, 1988, which would provide for issuance of early site permits, standard' design certifications, and combined construction pemits and conditional operating licenses for nuclear power reactors. ~ We had the benef 31, 1988 briefings by the NRC Staff during a subcommittee meeting on MayWe al and during the full Comittee meeting.The ACRS provided comments on this documents referenced.
letters of August 12, 1986 and October 15, 1986.
In addition, we suggested We have three concerns, as articulated below. changes to, and which presumably will be made in the draft submitted to you.
We recomend that, in 10 CFR Part 52 Subpart B, the scope'and level detail of information required by the Staff for design certification be defined more fully by incorporating the information identified for this purpose in the NRC Policy Statement on Standardization of Nucle Plants.
Although we encourage the development of a clear enunciation of C sion regulations for early site permits, standard in the same Part of Title 10 of the CFR, concerning standardization of manufactured and duplicate plants an Staff review thereof are contained in Appendices M N and 0 of Part 5 The portion of proposed Part 52 relating to standard design certifica To make tion is an elaboration of Section 7 of Appendix 0 of Part 50.
this elaboration a significant portion of a new Part of the regulations, which also includes two other complex matters, will add to the com-Part 50 is plexity and inscrutability of the Comission's regulat We nonpower reactors, and fuel cycle facilities.
power reactors, l
RF. 88-0527 6/9..To EDO for Appropriate Action..Cpys to:
~ 0 5,2.*~' N b [
l
- ,y*
4 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. June 7, 1988 I
recomend against promulgating another multipurpose Part of the regu-j lations.-
' The Staff agrees in principle with these views but indicates that it does not have the resources to develop the new regulations in a more f
orderly fashion and thus offers the proposed patchwork. We can think cf no better time in the agency's existence for improving.the scrutability i
of the regulations.
We see a need to distinguish between the amount' of design detail re-i quired for the NRC Staff, review of a request for certification and the design detail that is included in the certifyino rule. 7t is highly-desirable.that nuclear power plant designs sutimisted for certification be essentially complete in both scope and detail.- However, if the.
certifying rule includes the same. amount of detail, rulemaking will be
~
required in order to correct errors.in the documentation or. to make minor but desirable changes in the design.
It is therefore essential that great care be taken in defining what is o be included in the In this respect, we believe-that alternatives to.
design certification.
certification by rulemaking have not been, adequately explored.
We These are the only major coments we have to offer at this time.
will continue our review and offer coments as appropriate as the process develops.
~
Sincerely, W. Kerr Chairman
References:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Proposed Rule,10 CFR Part 52, 1.
"Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined 24, 1988.
Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors " received May U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Policy " Statement,10 CFR Part 2.
50, " Nuclear Power Plant Standardization, 52 FR 34884, dated September 15, 1987.
__._m.-_.-____
f$[/M 1 SieN Federal Regleter / Val 52. Ns.178 / Tuesday. September 15,1gg7 / Rul:s and Regulations b
?*
NUCLEAR ' EOULATOfty tfth F m noletrr than October reduce the comphmity and uncertainty A
m asaseme n s seg 1337.
of the regulatory process, i
e To identify the issues that are j
10 CPR Part 30 kaportant to the implementation of
'j
%e Nuclear Regulatory Co==lan'"l standardization and to state the Nuclear Power Plant StandudiseWon believes that standardization of==las' Commission's intent to develop power plant designs is unimportant proposed rules to address these issues assacy: Nuclear Regulatory initiative that can significantly enhense more fuHy: and i
Commission.
the safety, reliability and availability of
. To express the Commission's intent I
ccTeost Policy statement.
nuclear plants. He Commission intends to make resources available on a
$sa isn a
Pro e e
a revised policy pl is st:tement on the standardization of the regulatory process. Appendices M N plant des'f"hcadons referencin1 and for thelicensing nuclear poveer plant designa. N policy and O to Title to, Part 80 of the Code of
,,,g,,,,
b st:tement encourages the use of Federal Regulaticas (to CFR Part 30) g,,,,,gg gg,
st:ndard plant designs and provides establish various options and has shown that the "
of4
" approach to reactor des?"*
information concoming the certification procedures for the a alof
- ign, l
of plant designs that are essentially standardized plant igns. A provision comewcuon, and gwedon Med 2 complete in scope and level of detail.
for Commission approval of a reference an OPeaung mackr populadon of smat N intent of these actions are to design in a rulemaking pr==ading is variabili and diversity, even among I
im e the licensing process and to included in Appendix 0.Mir has been macks se same mde.nis j
the complexity and uncertainty termed Reference System Design in the story process for Certification and is the focus of the variability is introduced when utilities staad
- d plants.
Commission's standardization policy, and designere incorporate customs oats: Effective on September 15,1987, his policy statement revises the features into their designs; when varying Workshop to be held October 30,1937.
Standardization Policy Statement of construction practices are used: and ed annasamen. Submit comments to: He 1978 (August 31,1978: 43 FR 33054).
'* *"g't g
g, j
Secretary of the Commission U.S.
The pumose o policy statement has introduced
)
his variab[ili Nuclear Regulatory Commisalon, is to er courage stan rdination and to h b bW Washington.DC 30655, Attention:
provi informadon concerning ee l
l on de top a and operation of thesebants,in the Docketing and Service Branch. A public transfer of experience one reactor workshop will be held on October 30 certification of lant des a which:
to another,in technical specifications, in
- Are essentfaB comE teinboth 1987,in the Cabinet Room of the Hyatt operating procedures, and in backfitting Regency Beeesda, One Beeesde Metm considerations.
Center Bethesda, Maryland.
N and level of detail Covw plant design, construedon, De Commitsion believes that the use Poa rusmesa peronesafious coervacT:
and ouality assurance programs; of certi8ed standardized designs can L
lerry N. Wilson, Office of Nuclear
. satisfy regulatory requirements benefit the public health and safety by j
Rrgulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear before construction begins; and concentrating resources on specific.
Regulatory Commission, Washington.
- Can be referenced for individual design approaches without stifling
)
DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-4727.
plant apphcations.
ingenuity; by stimulating standardized suppi.sanastramy meponesavsoet Use of certised reference designs in ams of construction practice, future license applications should ty assurance, and personnel Wedsbep er anr= plant safety, increase the training: and by fostering more effective f
a he NRC staff will conduct a efBeiency of the NRC review prooses, maintenance and improved operation.
wtrkshop to inform the public of staff and reduce complexity and uncertainty Standardization should result in sfforts to develop an implementing in the regulatory process. A regulatory significant economies of scale in rulemakins on standardization and to framework which provides for loaming and sharing opereting provide a forum for public discussion of certification of reference designs by experience, in maintaining qualified the revised policy statement and means of rulemaking will alleviate the vendor support, and in maintaining an relevant issues that need to be need to reconsider design issues in adequa te inventory of long lead. time, cddressedin the rulemaking packase individuallicensing proceedings an bish cost spare parts that can be shared
%e workshop will be held on October future license applications which by e number of units.nese concepts 20,13s7 at the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, reference the certified designs. Areas an embodied in foreip experience with One Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, included within the scope of the the standardization or nuclear power Maryland 30814 in the Cabinet Room.
reference system design certification plant design, construction, and ration.
%e workshop will start at too a.m.ne rulemaking would require no further Standardization is expected to er NRC staff will present an overview of review by the staff, the Advisory heprove the safety performance of the revised statement and the Committee on Reactor Safeguards future plants. Standardization will alla #
proposed package at the (ACRS). or the hearing boards.
for a mon expedit%us and efficier.t works
.%ose members of the public ne Commission's primary objectives review process ano a more thorough who to make a presentation at the iniss a pobey statement on nuclear understanding of tha designs by the workshop should notify the contact power p t standardization are ladustry and the NRC stafL in strongly listed above so that they can be added threefold:
endorsing the concept of to the
. Anyone who wishes to
- To encourage the use of standard standardization, the Com:nission
(
end comments to the record or plant designs in future license acknowledges that there can be who cannot attend the workshop should applications in order to enhance plant drewbads. He most significant is that send written comments to the Secretary safety, improve the efficiency and specific problems may potentially affect
[
Fedoest Register / Vol 82. No.178 / hoeday. Septimber 15. 1937 / Rules cod Reguhtions Mass p
f a large ammber af reactors. However. es accomplished maderits adsting In the reference system design betence, the Comunission believes that statutory authority. in addition, there Je certification process, the Snel decision t
the enhanced of reactor o any'
- peration a need for regulations to implement thewillbe made by the Commissionitself M
should far ou
_7 Commission's standardization policy following review by the ACRS the
^
e,-=6sca for plant amfety is more eBootieely. per these tensons, the issuance of a finaldes approvalby articulated la its Policy Statement as r==i==Im is developing proposed the staff, and the etion of a rule.
Safety Goals (August 4.1gsk St FR regulations that erill address licensing making proceeding.
reference se0H. August n.1sek st FR 3enas).no reform and standardization. With regard systern concept means etet an entire Standardization Policy also is commistant to standardization, the proposed rules nuclear power plant du.gn or a mefor with the standardized plantprovisions -
will provide a regulatory framework for portion of the design is acceptable for oftbsn==i==laa'e : _ 7 - tary Commiac an oortiSostion of standard incorporation by reference in individual e
Severe Accident Polky Statement desips by rulemaking, as set forth in license applications.N design (August 8.19ek soFR anas).Many of V7 7af Appendix 0 to10CFR certification concept focuses on the the desirable safety characteristlos
- 50. He rules wiu address certification of a reference system listed la the Advanced Reactor Policy the followings
- Relati of design through rulemaking._as provided Statement Duty a, taak 31 FR 34N3) are the new regolatory framework to for by Appendix 0 to 10 GrR Part 50.He aqueuy desirable for evolutionary light existing provisions of Appendices M. N.
sules tMag developed to implement this water reactor standardized designs and O to part at filing noenirements:
plicy = 11 address the criteria and h r===1aaton believes that contents of applications, design procedu.es for issuance and renewal of Congrees should nuclearsefety verification end renewal fws: design design certifications, as well as the by pursuing tiveinitiatives to certincetion rulamaking procedures, duration of the certification and further secourage the standardization referral of appbcatione to the Advisory renewals.De certified design must be concept.De proposed Meclear power Committee en Reactor Safeguards used and relied upon by the staff, the plant 9tandardisation andLicensing Act (ACRS): duration and renewal of desip ACRS the hearing boards and the of1987, which the t'a==niselon certifications: changes to certified Commission in their consideration of forwarded to Congress in January of this standard designa: and provisions for applications that reference the certified year. includes the following tinee plant spealAc variances.ne design. %e issue of relatisation of issues legislative proposale:
Comme==an's general _ +s to considered and decided in the design
- lesuance of a combined standard design certification under its certification rulemaking will be construction permit and operating existing rules is outlined in this policy -
addressed in the proposed rules.
license:
statement.Se issues important to The Commission believes that several
- Issmance of a site pennit prior to execution of the Commission's submission of an application for a standardization policy wiu be addressed benents wEl be realised in thi]s roce which wiU aM only enhance s ety, but construction permit or cambined more fully la the proposed rules.
should also contribute added stability struction permit and operating statement of policy on Nuclear power and predictability to the regulatory
.'c.a of a,aciu,y desi,n piani sis.dar,nsanon proc. s.ne,uiemaung wiu ce,ufy the approval (Reference System Demsn The purpose of this standardization acceptability of the design. The certified Certification) prior to==lunission of an policy is to vide the regulatory design willbe referenced in the APP ication for a Construction permit or l
application for a construction permit or frarac work reference system design combined construction permit and certification of nuclear power plant Operating Ucense.The rulemaking to operating license.
designs which are essentially complete obtain the design certification will cover he Commission believes that these in both soaps and level of detail: cover the criteria necessary for design and
{
lesialative changes are important to pleet design, construction, and goality construction of a plant: the quality acldevi the full benefits of assurance programs; satisfy regulatory assuram program: and whatever tests, stan tion.De one-step licensing requirements before construction begins: analyses, and inspection criteria are process would give heensees greater and can be referenced in individuaj necessary to assure that the plant is assurance that if the facility is plant applications.
built within the certified design l
constructed in accordance with the 5e reference system designs, at least specifications.
terms of the application / permit. It will
- 1..,suy, are expected to be evolutions The Commission expects to be permitted to operate once of existing proven LWR designs.
implement the following policies with construction is complete.De issuance Detailed information consisting of regard to design certification review. An of site permits and facility des design and procurement specifications, applicant for a design certification must approvals,in advance of c
performance requirements, and first obtain a Final Design Approval applications for their use, would allow scosplance and inspection requirements (FDA) pursuant to Appendix 0 to part subsequent facility appliantions to will tie substituted for name plate data,
- 50. If the applicant intends to seek a reference the permits and/or approvals
'For those systema, structures and design certification, the FDA application without further regulatory action unless component designs which represent must indicate that intent. As set forth in there is a substantial reason not to do significant deviations fmm previously.
Appendix 0, the FDA application must so.%is process would also facilitate approved LWR designs, prototype include information on scope and design early identification and resolution of sitir testing and/or empirical information deta!! which is essentiaUy equivalent to and design issues after allording an may also be required. Advanced design that required by to CFR 80.34(b). as well J _: ;ty for public participation.
concepts should be developed accordig as any other information customarily-the Comunission continues to beliews to the guidelines of the Advanced required by the staff to perform a Final]
that nuclear standardization and Rasetor policy Statement. When an Befety Analysis Report review,in licensing legislation should be enacted.
advanced design concept is sufficiently addition,it must address the following The Commission recogrdass, however.
mature, e.g., through comprehensive, four licensing criteria for new plant that much of its legislative proposal with prototypical testing. an application for designs set forth in the Commission's respect to standardization could be design certification could be made.
Severe Accident policy Statement:
34306 Federal Register / W1. 52, No.178 / Tuesday, September 15, 1987 / Rules End R:gulations 9
(1) Demonstration cf compli:nce with the designer dennes a set of sita viri:nces in limitId circumstances at the requirements of the current enveloping parameters (seismic events, the aquest of the facility licensee.
Commission regulations, including the reinfall, flood, etc. which am used in All lications forlicenses and Three Mile Island requirements for new the design of the nt. % ese op a for standard designs are at pl:nts es reflected in the construction parameters usua y are selected to present subject to the fees and the fee permit rule.10 CFR 80M(f),
envelop a large portion of the potential recovery rates identified in to CFR Part l
(2) Demonstration of technical sites in the U.S. Once the design is 170.%e Commission has authorized a res:lution of all applicable Unresolved certified by the Commission, revision of 10 CFR Part 170 to include a Saf;ty Issues and the medium and high-conformance of actual sites with the new provision for the reference system l
priority Generic Safety lesues, including established site envelope must be design certification process.This l
e special focus on ensuring the demonstrated by the applicant and revision would permit the phased I
reliability of decay heat removal verified by the staff at the time en actual secow of desian certification costs systems and the reliability of both AC plant application is nviewed. Other erongb couection oness non me-l cnd DC electrical supply systems; features of the design which are holder of the design certification, as the (3) Completion of a probabilistic risk dependent on the site l.e., cooling water designis referenced. lf the design is not supply, emergency pre (paredness plans, essessment (pRA) and consideration of referenced or if all the costs are not the severe accident vulnerabilities that etc.) are also reviewed for acceptability recovend within ten years, the holder of the PRA exposes, along with the insights and comp / certified design at the time of atibility with the pre-the design certification will be that it may add to the assurance that approved responsible for any amounts still due et thIre is no undue risk to public health an actual application.
and safety; and Currently. NRC-initiated changes to theand of the ten year period, (4) Completion of staff review of the the design certification rule will not be Althugh ee knmissbn stmngh d: sign with a conclusion of safety required unless the Commission encourages the use of certified designs ace:ptability using an approach that determines that these modifications are fw the entire plant in all future license stresses deterministic engineering in accord with the backfit rule specified applications, the regulations also allow enalysis and judgment complemented in 10 CFR 50.100.The subject of for other standardization options by PRA.
modifications to berequired after the including the duplicate plant, the The design certification application design certification is granted, as well as replic848 Plant, and the manufacturing should also propose, for staff review ar.endments at the request of the design license concepts. While these options and approval, the tests, analyses, certification holder and variances at the
".sy be used in the interim they are inspections and acceptance criteria that request of a utility,will be addressed in discouraged for the longer term.The tre considered necessary to provide the proposed rules. In developing those Counissim also moognises eat mview, reasonable assurance that a plant which rules, the Commission will consider the approual and certdicaban of majw references the certified design is built appropriateness of employing the panons of complete plants may be and operated within the specifications backfitting standard set forth in the usefulin the interim.Howem.
of the final design. Additional proposed standardization and licensing applications for essentially complete information beyond that required for an reform legislation.ne Commission designs am erred and will be given FDA may be necessary to support the expects that backfits to the design priwity in a location of moources to design certification rulemaking. Further certification rule would be applied suppwt myiew and approval.
detailed guidance in this area will be uniformly to all plaats referencing the Deted at Weehington. DC, this 9th day of devtloped by the staff. lf necemary, as a certified design. Similarly, amendments September, ies7.
result of experience with the first few to the design certification rule initiated For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
FDA/ design certification reviews.
by the holder of the design certification Features of the design which can only would also be applied uniformly to all w%
be determined when a specific site is plants referencing the standard design.
8'CNd8'F 8/'h' C **i'8/0"-
chosen generally are not included in the in addition, procedures will be (FR Doc.e7Wo6 Filed S-to-st &45 am]
design approval or certifica tion. Rather, developed to allow for plant. specific
- cens 7sseet m t
-