ML23156A028

PR-052 - 58FR58664 - Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Design (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

ML23156A028
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/03/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
58FR58664, PR-052
Download: ML23156A028 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 11/03/1993 PR-052 - 58FR58664 - RULEMAKINGS TO GRANT STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGN (ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING)

PR-052 58FR58664 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF 1

PROPOSED RULE:

PR-052 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:

RULEMAXINGS TO GRANT STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGN (ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING)

PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE:

58FR58664 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

11/03/93 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 01/03/94 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:

EXTENSION DATE:

I I

FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE:

FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE:

NOTES ON: ANPR SIGNED BY THE EDO.

FILE LOCATED ON 16-G.

TATUS F RULE:

PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT 7

I I

PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY OF THE RULE

~

PART AFFEC'l'BD: PR~052 RULE TITLE:

ROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER:

FINAL RULE SECY PAPER:

CONTACTl: HARRY CONTACT2: JERRY RULEMAXINGS TO GRANT STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGN (ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAXING)

PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SRM DATE:

I I

SIGNED BY SECRETARY:

STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE

s. TOVMASSIAN MAIL STOP: NLS-129 PHONE:

N. WILSON MAIL STOP: 11-H-3 PHONE:

PRESS PAGEUP TO SEE STATUS OF RULEMAKING PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES, (E) TO EDIT OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY 10/28/93 I

I 492-3634 504-3145

DOCKET NO. PR-052 (58FR58664)

DATE DOCKETED 11/02/93 01/03/94 In the Matter of RULEMAKINGS TO GRANT STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGN (ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING)

DATE OF TITLE OR DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 10/28/93 12/30/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE FOR ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING COMMENT OF NUMARC (WILLIAM RASIN) (

1) 01/05/94 01/02/94 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY INC 01/07/94 01/07/94 01/10/94 01/05/94 01/10/94 01/25/94 01/05/94 01/18/94 03/03/94 02/23/94 (SUSAN L. HIATT) (

2)

COMMENT NO. 3 WAS MISCODED AND HAS BEEN REMOVED.

COMMENT OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (STEVEN A. HUCIK) (

4)

COMMENT OF TU ELECTRIC (J. S. MARSHALL) (

5)

COMMENT OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (NICHOLAS J. LIPARULO) (

6)

COMMENT OF ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR POWER (C. B. BRINKMAN) (

7)

II ~~C.K~T ~~~~~~ PR 19 (_ 'i r F-(l, r6

..:...:t;::.::.,_

7}-"-

'r...::;;;;

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secretary of the Commission February 23, 1994 LD-94-014 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

'h Ni*'C

• 94 MAR - 3 A 8 :S 2

,j~;.,,*~

~;l, ~,-..,

JdC.Kf 11**-i1,-,;,,'

• Vl'.I

~'.h;\!~I 11

Subject:

"Rulemaking to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

( 58 Fed. Reg.

58 664

[November 3, 1993])

Dear Mr. Chilk:

ABB Combustion Engineering {ABB-CE},

an applicant for design certification for an evolutionary advanced light water reactor

{System so+'), participated in the preparation of and supports the detailed comments submitted to the NRC on behalf of the nuclear industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council with respect to the subject Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

We urge prompt resolution of the issues addressed in the ANPR and in the NUMARC comments, since we believe this to be critical for the timely initiation of our design certification rulemaking.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

/lw cc:

R. Bishop (NUMARC}

P. Lang (DOE)

w. Rasin (NUMARC}

T. Wambach (NRC}

Very truly yours, C. B. Brinkman Acting Director Nuclear Systems Licensing ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power Combustion Engineering, Inc.

P 0. Box 500 (j) 1000 Prospect Hill Rd Windsor, CT 06095 Telephone (203) 688-1911 Fax (203) 285-5203 MAY 1 o 1994 Ac1mow1edged by card..... "........... -....... _ _

. ;;\' CO. 1.t~SION

~

• , IC;E,:EGTiON C:

i

': s::rtiEl Aii

,-.. **.; Cv,\ /'S:,iON l

I 1a

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Energy Systems Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

• 94 JAN 25 A11 :36

SUBJECT:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)

"Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs" (58 Federal Register 58664 - November 3, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Box 355 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 15230-0355 NTD-NRC94-4045 NSRA-APSL-94-0023 Docket No.: S'IN-52-003 January 18, 1994 These comments are filed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghouse")

in response to the invitation for comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (" ANPR")

on Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs (58 Federal Register 58664, November 3, 1993). Westinghouse has participated in the development by Nuclear Management and Resources Council ("NUMARC") of comments on the ANPR and supports the position set forth in the NUMARC comments. The purpose of these Westinghouse comments are to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with additional insight with respect to several of the items raised in the ANPR.

1.

In ANPR Topic 5, the Commission requests views on the "acceptability of identifying selected technical positions from the Safety Evaluation Report as 'unreviewed safety questions' that cannot be changed under a '§50.59-like' change process". Westinghouse believes that designating in the design certification rule certain areas in Tier 2 which would be deemed to constitute "unreviewed safety questions" should changes to those areas be proposed is inappropriate. The effect of predesignating certain aspects of the Tier 2 portion of the plant design as constituting "unreviewed safety questions" should changes to those areas be proposed, is to establish yet another tier of design information.

Westinghouse believes the end result of any such designation will be to unduly restrict the ability to make changes to aspects of the design which are contained in Tier 2 and, thus, to deprive the operator of the flexibility necessary for operation of the facility.

The suggested areas which the staff has identified as constituting areas involving "unreviewed safety questions" are so broad as to leave virtually every aspect of the plant relating to fuel and control rod design, control room design, or involving human-system interface as falling within the new category. The additional burden on licensees and the staff when changes are to be made in such areas will be substantial, and no justification is given for imposition of such burden. Changes which are routinely performed in today's licensed nuclear power plants and which involve no unreviewed safety questions will be caught up in the new special category and will not be permitted except with prior 1445A

'9.S. NUCLr.

• • __.1...-1TOR CO !MISSION DOU,

l:CTION 0,-*.,

I, RY Cop::

Add!~

. _J/#!}91/_ ___ _

} ______ _

.

• J __ -,.. __ _

NTD-NRC-94-4045 NSRA-APSL-94-0023 January 18, 1994 review and approval of the staff. Westinghouse believes that such a burden will prove to be extremely cumbersome and will divert necessary time and attention from areas where real safety issues exist.

Westinghouse supports the proposal stated in the NUMARC comments that certain Tier 2 materials be designated as requiring prior notification to the staff before implementing changes under

§50.59. Such material should not be designated in the design certification rule itself, and, in any event, should be as specific as possible to avoid unnecessary restrictions and limitations on flexibility.

2.

In ANPR Topic 5, the Commission requests views on the "acceptability of using design-specific rulemakings rather than generic rulemaking for the technical issues whose resolution exceeds current requirements". According to the Federal Register Notice, such "applicable regulations" would become part of the Commission's regulations for the specific certified design.

Westinghouse strongly opposes this proposal and believes that adoption of this proposal will significantly and adversely affect the design certification process. As noted in SECY 92-287A, the staff's proposal is to restate and designate technical and severe accident positions endorsed by the Commission as "applicable regulations", thus creating within each design certification rule a collection of additional "applicable regulations". Under this scheme, it will be necessary as part of the design certification not only to certify the design, but also to formulate a series of new rules within the certified design rule relating to the design. The process by which this will take place will complicate the design certification rulemaking process to such an extent that it is doubtful if such a rulemaking could be conducted in a timely fashion. In effect the Commission will be conducting a series of individual rulemakings on a variety of technical issues within each design certification rulemaking. It is as though in connection with licensing of current plants, the Commission would have required for each license a determination of the applicable rules governing the license to take place as part of the licensing proceeding.

Westinghouse believes that the "applicable regulations" proposal will not achieve the purpose which we understood to be behind the staff's intent. Rather than ensuring compliance with NRC staff positions or enforceability of agency positions at design certification, the "applicable regulations" proposal creates a potential for varying interpretations by the staff, both in connection with design certification and throughout the life of the design certification. Establishment in each design certification of "applicable regulations" destroys the goal of Part 52 to establish a predictable, stable licensing process.

3.

The handling of secondary references in each specific design certification rule is a matter of major consequence to Westinghouse. Westinghouse believes that it is not necessary or appropriate to incorporate by reference in specific design certification rules documents other than the Design Control Document ("DCD") and those specific documents referenced in the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria portion of the rule. Westinghouse supports the revised draft industry paper dated December 6, 1993 "Incorporation by Reference in a Design Certification Rule". Westinghouse notes that this matter currently is under discussion with the NRC staff.

1445A

NTD-NRC94-4045 NSRA-APSL-94-0023 January 18, 1994

4.

The extent to which design PRA infonnation is incorporated in the DCD also is a matter of significant concern to Westinghouse. As currently understood, the revised NRC staff position seeks to incorporate detailed quantitative results from the design PRA. To the extent such inclusion requires an owner to use PRA in Section 50.59 evaluations where a plant modification might cause insignificant changes in the results of the PRA, it will be an unnecessary increase in the complexity and cost of implementation of design changes. PRAs are a tool for evaluating plant changes and may provide insights into the effects of such changes, but PRAs are not of themselves detenninative.

Incorporating detailed design PRA infonnation in the Design Control Document, however, will induce unnecessary cost and rigidity into the change process and will have a significant adverse impact on resources, design certification schedules and flexibility in use of the §50.59-like design change process.

Design certifications and combined licenses represent the future of the nuclear industry in the U.S. It is important that the rulemaking regulations which are adopted provide a sufficient degree of flexibility so as to make design certification a useful process. If the design certification process becomes encumbered with such additional burdens as designation of certain items as "unreviewed safety questions" or the approval of certain materials as "applicable regulations", the design certification process will not represent a viable vehicle for future nuclear power plant approval.

Westinghouse urges the Commission to take the NUMARC and Westinghouse comments into consideration and to reject those aspects of the staff's proposals which would unduly encumber the design certification process and the viability of Part 52.

Westinghouse thanks the Commission for the opportunity to comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and looks forward to further interaction with the Commission and the staff as design certification moves forward.

Very truly yours,

.{)_,__..,///~-

Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities

/nja cc:

W. H. Rasin D. Crutchfield 1445A NUMARC USNRC

1UELECTRIC Log Fi 1 e csr Fr< srtt,~'IJ....

~

t\ ! i t

1. TXX -94002

~)N.<C

1. 10185

• 94 JAN 10 A10 :44 r r f :-, *,.

t l II January 5, 1994

~ju(:'k[-~~,~ *:

• t V William J. Cahill, Jr.

Group Vice President Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch

(* I f,. l,H

SUBJECT:

RULEMAKING TO GRANT DESIGN CERTIFICATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGNS.

Gentlemen:

TU Electric welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed "Rulemaking to Grant Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs" published in 58 Fed. Reg. 58684.

In the proposed rulemaking, the NRC proposes a two tier design certification process.

In this two tier approach tier 1 is defined as information which includes design descriptions, inspections, acceptance criteria, and site parameters.

Tier 2, is defined as the design related information residing in the plant Design Control Document that is not contained in tier 1.

This information includes the detailed design information, the safety analysis, and the design and supporting information that supports the tier 1 information.

In adopting the two tier design certification concept and limiting major regulatory changes that can be made to this information, the NRC is defining a boundary in which it seeks to provide a stable regulatory environment for construction and licensing of a new fcility.

TU Electric supports the NRC's effort to limit the regulatory changes, to this area within these defined boundaries.

TU Electric also supports the development of a process analogous to the 10 CFR 50.59 process which would allow a licensee to make changes to the facility without prior approval as long as there is no unreviewed safety consequences similar to an unreviewed safety question of 10 CFR 50.59.

In the proposed rulemaking the NRC solicits input to several specific questions.

One of these questions is the acceptability of identifying selected technical positions from the Safety Evaluation Report and, in analogy to the 50.59 process, designating those positions as "unreviewed safety questions", and not changeable under the 50.59 like process to be developed.

It is not clear how these selected technical positions would be 400 N. Olive Street L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 75201

S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCl<ET;i iG & SERVICE SECTION Offl-:E Or THE SECRETARY Or THE COi.1MISSION Dccurnsrt c,atl3tics Postma*k Da e

• I SI '1 L./ -------

Co p ;es R~ce*

/ _ ___ _

Add'I C ~ic,-; r C;),::~Jv~ " - '--......---

Special Dist ibution 12.:r i2~ PrJfl,

//IJ,\.A.$~liJ,,~

/AJ]

i\i

TXX -94002 Page 2 of 2 chosen since changes, by a licensee, to tier 2 information that require review and approval by the NRC prior to implementation would have precedent value for other licensees using the same standard design and seeking the same change.

TU Electric believes that in pre-defining these technical positions and designating those positions as not changeable the NRC could, over a period of time, conceivably designate so many of these positions so as to negate the benefit of allowing change based on the results of the safety evaluation performed by the licensee. Additionally, the greater the number of these pre-designated technical positions the greater the time and resources required of the NRC and the licensee, which would tend to frustrate the intent of facilitating and streamlining the licensing process.

If you have any questions please contact Mr. Jose' D. Rodriguez at (214) 812-8674.

Sincerely,

~:~

J. S. Marshall Generic Licensing Manager JDR/

T NUJ ER OSE ULE~=-----....... -

{_r;rf ~ 5' ~t, 6L/)

GE Nuclear E!IB!fll ~-

Sawn A. Hucik Manager: ABWR Projects

' 1.')Nt1{

Ganaral Elactric Campany 175 Curtner Avenue, MIC 780; San Jase, CA 95125*1jJt JAN 1 Q 408 925-6951 (phone) 408 925-4257(facsimile) urr 'Ct r ~-

Jt..,

AlC :44 January 51 1994 Mr. SamuelJ. Chilk Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 SUBJECT~ "Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (58 Fed.Reg. 58664 (Nov.3,1993)).

Dear Mr. Chilk:

General Electric Company (GE) provides the following comments on the above-referenced advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

GE participated in the preparation of and fully supports the detailed comments submitted on behalf of the nuclear energy industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). We share the NUMARC view that the ANPR provides a good starting point for the development of a specific design certification rule, but that certain revisions and additions, as set forth in the NUMARC comments, should be made by NRC in formulating the proposed rule's final form and content. GE would especially emphasize in these comments its particular concerns regarding three ANPR proposals which, if adopted, would adversely impact design certification rulemaking and subsequent Part 52 licensing.

The three ANPR positions which warrant the Commission's special attention and which GE strongly disagrees with are: (1) the proposed incorporation by reference in the rule of Tier 2 secondary references; (2) the proposed inclusion in the rule of so-called "applicable regulations" as new, "broadly stated", free standing regulations; and (3) the creation in Tier 2 of a new subset of requirements singled out for special change restriction (so-called Tier 2*).

We would additionally urge the Commission to sanction issuance of Final Design Approvals (FDAs) for the pending ELWR applications prior to NRC approval of Design Control Documents (DCDs) for their rulemakings. The basis for our position on each of these matters is stated below. Early Commission guidance on these matters, and on the other issues addressed in the NUMARC comments, is essential if the schedules set previously by the NRC staff and approved by the Commission are to be met Secondary References GE strongly objects to the proposed requirement that selected secondary references in Tier 2 of the DCD be incorporated as primary references in the specific design certification rules. The basis for our objection is fully set forth in Reference 7 to the NUMARC comments.

In substance: Incorporation by reference of Tier 2 secondary references is not legally required; as a practical matter, such a process will diminish certainty in Part 52

.MAY 1 o 199L Acknowledged by card.* -.......... mmenn II

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE CO,1MlSSION Document Statistics Postmark Date - ~/ =--/-"-'e;....J-~ ---

Copies Rece:** ~v, ___

• ct I Cop,es Rc;:,*"dt;ced k

..1-__

ial Distribution

r. Jt1J JJ.o=

~

<.J-~,.;;.;1--

1" t> LI /1"--e-J {/ A,/\

/.V,. l 5 lJ n.

_.t.1.

,,__ J

implementation rather than enhance it; and efforts to implement such a course - which involves the contextual analysis of and selection from many hundreds of Tier 2 secondary references - will cause major and costly disruption to FDA and design certification rulemaking schedules. Importantly, moreover, this course will provide no increased safety or other discernible benefit. Accordingly, GE agrees with the industry recommendation that such incorporation by reference should be limited to Tier 1 references. As elaborated more fully in Reference 7 to the NUMARC comments, such a course is consistent with the two-tier structure of 10 CFR Part 52 and can be practicably implemented in design certification rulemaking and Part 52 licensing.

"Applicable Regulations" GE additionally recommends that the Commission disapprove the NRC staffs proposal in Section A. 7 of the Draft Proposed Standard Design Certification Rule to separately codify in the rule - as "broadly stated", free standing, "applicable regulations" - Commission-approved staff positions which go beyond currently established regulatory requirements.

Such requirements, we submit, need not be separately adopted as regulations in the design certification rule since Commission-approved staff positions will be reflected in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 design requirements of the DCD which, in turn, will be incorporated in the rule. Thus, these requirements will constitute a part of "applicable regulations" (i) at the time of design certification rule (OCR) issuance, (ii) for purposes of §52.63 backfitting and (iii) at the time of OCR renewals - the three areas of ostensible staff concern. The course proposed by the staff would enormously complicate pre-rulemaking preparation, the conduct of the rulemakings themselves and COL licensing and post-licensing facility construction and operation. It would, moreover, impose schedule delays and generate needless duplication, if not outright conflicts. We are additionally concerned that such "broadly stated" regulations carry the potential for later differing interpretations, thus undermining the certainty and stability which are major Part 52 objectives.

Pre-Designation of "Unreviewed Safety Questions" GE also has serious reservations concerning the proposed pre-designation by the NRC staff (in Section A.3 of the Draft-Proposed Standard Design Certification Rule) of certain Tier 2 design information, a change from which would automatically constitute an unreviewed safety question, thus foreclosing use of the Section 50.59 change process. Creation of this de facto third tier is unnecessary and at odds with the two-tier rule structure which is an essential Part 52 feature. As more fully explained in NUMARC's detailed comments, there is a less burdensome alternative that will accommodate the staffs desire for pre-implementation review of contemplated changes in selected areas and we recommend its careful consideration by the Commission. Whichever alternative is adopted, however, we urge that such design areas be narrowly limited and that the matters covered be specified in precise terms. To do otherwise would undercut the Tier 2 change process which is an integral aspect of design certification rules and their subsequent Part 52 licensing implementation.

FDA/DCD Separation Finally, GE requests that the Commission endorse staff issuance of an FDA prior to completion of the DCD approval process. As the staff has acknowledged, such a course is 2

consistent with Part 52 requirements, since the DCD relates only to certification rulemaking.

Resolution of DCD format issues - which could take some months - should not affect the content of an FDA-approved design, and separation of the two issuances would allow the design review process to be completed within a time frame consistent with current NRG-approved schedules. In sum, the separation that we recommend would not affect the content and completeness of the safety review and approval embodied in the FDA.

GE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ANPR and commends the Commission for affording this means to receive public input on key design certification issues.

As earlier emphasized, we urge prompt resolution of the issues addressed herein and in the NUMARC comments since we believe this to be critical for the timely initiation of design certification rulemakings.

Sincerely yours,

~c;.µ Steven A. Hucik cc: D.M.Crutchfield (NRC Staff)

W.H.Rasin (NUMARC)

S.Franks (DOE)

J.F. Quirk (GE)

J.K. Restrick (GE)

D.R. Wilkins (GE)

SAH:94-002 3

DOCKET I BER

~

PROPO"'ED fiU... E *

J ~~

m

[ff-FR srb6i-f)

January 2, 1994 CH

~**

COMMENTS OF OH IO CIT I ZENS FOR RES PONS IBLE ENERGY, INC.

/ v.o~itf.\

># ~

~ -

ON ADVANCED NOT ICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, "RULEMAKINGS T

' GR.i}.NT

• . *t.:_,,>

STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY LIGHT WATER RAG-__...

TOR DESIGNS," 58 FED. REG. 58664 (NOVEMBER 3, 1993)

OCRE fully supports the concept set forth in this notice, provid-ed that Tier 2 information is subject to public challenge in the standard design certification rulemaking and any associated hearing which may be held.

It is important that applicant or licensee initiated changes to Tier 2 information, made pursuant to the 50.59 process, will no longer be afforded the issue preclusion protection of 10 CFR 52. 63.

To do otherwise would turn the two-tier system into a

double standard in which utilities could deviate from the stand-ard design but the public could not challenge such deviations.

Permitting site-specific litigation of such changes would also serve to discourage changes, which can frustrate the goal of standardization.

OCRE would recommend that the sentence, "These Tier 2

changes will no longer be considered 'matters resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification' within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a) (4)," also be included in the paragraph (A.

13 (d) (2)) on exemptions from Tier 2 information, for clari-ty, and since 10 CFR 52.63(b) (1) does not mention the two-tiered system.

It is probably not necessary to amend 10 CFR 52.63(b) (2) to reflect the two-tiered system, as the standard design certifica-tion itself becomes a rule.

The NRC should incorporate both Tier 1 and Tier 2 information in the combined license, as both tiers contain important design information.

1 MAY 1 o 19~

Acknowledged by card... --w.-wuu........e

- ___ __J

r---------------------* - - - -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics

f Regarding the acceptability of using design-specific rulemakings rather than generic rulemakings for technical issues whose resolution exceeds current requirements, as a practical

matter, it may make little difference.

Such

issues, and their resolution, are likely to be design specific

anyway, and the standard design certification becomes a rule.

However, if the NRC wants all plants constructed after a

certain date to incorporate certain design features or otherwise address certain technical issues, then a generic rulemaking may be the safest and most cost-effective way to accomplish this.

A generic rule would cover an applicant that might decide not to use a

standard, certified design.

Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt Director, OCRE 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 2

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street. NW

• Suite 300

• Washington. DC 20006-37~4 (202) 872-1280 WIiiiam H. Rasln Vice President & Director Technical Division Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 December 30, 1993

SUBJECT:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 11Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs 11 (58 Federal Register 58664 - November 3, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

1ft I 3

I I

n..,. 7 The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC)1, on behalf of the nuclear power industry, has reviewed the ANPR, 11Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs 11 and offers the following comments for consideration.

Notwithstanding the industry recommendations for changes provided in this response, we believe this ANPR provides a workable framework for developing the initial proposed design certification rules. Indeed, we find that areas of common understanding with the NRC staff far outnumber those where differences remain. Significant understandings have been developed on fundamental issues such as a two-tier rule structure and a design change process. Nevertheless, early Commission guidance is 1NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member ofNUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

(j)

MAY 1 o 1994 Acknowledged by card..._lillW.:~'".D!Ml!:a.tll

.. i

)

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk December 30, 1993 Page2 needed on the matters dealt with herein in order to facilitate timely commencement of rulemakings consistent with published design certification schedules.

The industry comments are provided in two attachments. Attachment A addresses the nine topics specifically identified in the ANPR. Attachment B addresses significant issues arising from Appendix 2 of the ANPR, Draft Proposed Standard Design Certification Rule. For ease of reference, previous industry submittals to the NRC that form the basis for these comments are also listed in Attachment B.

The industry previously provided, under NUMARC letter dated September 10, 1993, a draft-proposed rule for NRC staff consideration, which is listed as Reference 3 of Attachment B. The industry's draft-proposed rule contained many elements that were not reflected in the ANPR. For example, the industry's draft-proposed rule included proposed Statements of Consideration, addressed the conduct of a parallel Part 51 rulemaking on severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) under NEPA, and incorporated Commission guidance on design certification rulemaking proceedings. While the NRC staffs ANPR is appropriate for seeking public comment, we believe the comprehensive draft rule forwarded by the industry can be of value to the NRC staff and Commission in developing the initial proposed design certification rules.

There are three issues we believe are most significant relative to the form and content of design control documents (DCDs). Two of the issues arose from the NRC staffs preliminary guidance on DCD form and content (ANPR Reference 9) that was forwarded to each design certification applicant on August 26, 1993. The third issue comes from SECY-287/287A, Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule.

The first issue involves the treatment of secondary references in a design certification rule. This issue is of paramount importance to the industry due to the potentially significant adverse impact on design certification rule clarity and certainty, as well as on industry and NRC schedules and resources in both the near and long term.

Item 1 of Attachment B includes a revision of the draft industry paper, "Incorporation by Reference in the Design Certification Rule," an earlier version of which was forwarded to the NRC staff in our letter dated December 6, 1993. A meeting is scheduled with the NRC staff on January 6, 1994, to discuss a practicable resolution of this critical issue. As a result of these discussions, the industry may supplement this ANPR response in the future.

The second issue concerns the extent and purpose of design PRA information to be documented in a DCD. We have forwarded to the NRC staff, via letter dated

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk December 30, 1993*

Page3 November 8, 1993, a draft industry paper titled, "Regulatory Significance of Information Contained in DCDs;" As discussed in response to ANPR Topic 9 and that paper, we urge a return to the NRC staff position discussed at the November 23, 1992, briefing of the Commission. Contrary to the new position conta,ined in the NRC staffs August 26, 1993, preliminary DCD guidance, the earlier staff position embodied the view shared by the industry that only severe accident insights, i.e., key design features as delineated in the PRA, are necessary for documentation in the DCD. We hope to meet shortly with the NRC staff to resolve this issue. If appropriate, we may supplement this ANPR response in the future.

The third issue relates to "applicable regulations." The industry recommendation and basis for our disagreement with the NRC staff proposal in this area was forwarded in our May 25, 1993, letter of comment to the Commission on SECY-92-287/287A; Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule. We continue to have fundamental differences with the NRC staff on this important issue and Commission consideration is requested on this matter as iterated in response to ANPR Topic 8.

Because of the continued uncertainty surrounding issues fundamental to proceeding with DCD preparation, we reaffirm our recommendation that the Commission issue guidance allowing for issuance of a Final Design Approval (FDA) prior to proposed DCD approval. By our comment letter to the Commission dated June 22, 1993, on SECY-93-097 (Integrated Schedules), we stated our reasons for concluding that FDA issuance need not, and should not, await DCD approval. While pertinent to a design certification rulemaking, resolution of the remaining issues regarding the formal content of a DCD is not expected to cause any change to the FDA-approved design.

We hope these comments on the subject ANPR will be helpful to the Commission in evaluating issues associated with design certification rule form and content. We look forward to early definitive Commission guidance. We will continue our interactions with the NRC staff toward resolution of the. remaining issues and will supplement this response as appropriate. Timely issue resolution and Commission guidance are needed to support preparations for design certification rulemakings consistent with published NRC schedules. Additionally, we urge the Commission to provide guidance allowing for FDA issuance prior to DCD approval.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk December 30, 1993 Page4 The industry would be available to brief the Commission on any of these issues to facilitate its deliberations.

WHR/RJB/

Enclosures c: Chairman Ivan Selin Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Forrest J. Remick Commissioner E. Gail de Planque Sincerely,

~4~~

William H. Rasin James M. Taylor, Executive Director of Operations, NRC Thomas E. Murley, Director, NRR

Attachment A INDUSTRY COMMENTS ON NRC ANPR "Rulemaking to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary LWR Designs" Identified ANPR Topics ANPR Topic 1:

Acceptability of a Two-Tiered Design Certification Rule

-Structure A two-tier design certification rule structure was developed as a way to effectively implement 10 CFR Part 52. The Commission explicitly approved the* two-tier rule structure in its February 15, 1991, StaffRequirements Memorandum (SRM) on SECY-90-377 as an implementation approach comporting with Part 52.

For the reasons outlined below, industry agrees with the NRC that a two-tier structure to a design certification rule is practical and fully consistent with the both the intent and requirements of Part 52. The ANPR reflects a two-tier rule structure and thus appropriately provides a basic framework for further consideration and development of specific design certification rules.

10 CFR 52.47(a)(l) requires an application for a design certification rule to include extensive information relating to plant design. In promulgating Part 52, the Commission declared that, while all of the information in the application would be subject to Commission review and approval, only the most important design features would comprise the "certified" design portion of the rule. In particular, the Commission stated in the Part 52 Statements of Consideration:

The Commission does expect,. however, that there will be less detail in a certification than in an application for certification, and that a rule certifying a design is likely to encompass roughly the same design features that Section 50.59 prohibits changing without prior NRC approval.

(54 Fed. Reg. 15372, 15377 1989)

Thus, in issuing Part 52, the Commission distinguished between the level of detail in the certified design and the level of detail in the application for the certified design. This difference in level of detail forms one of the bases for the two-tier structure -- a structure which formats that differentiation and documents with appropriate specificity the content of each tier.

To summarize, Tier 1 contains design descriptions, extracted from Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) design information, documenting the most important and salient safety features of the design and associated inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria (ITAAC). The scope and depth of Tier 1 (level of detail) will be directly related to the safety significance of each system that comprises the certified design. Tier 1 will also include site parameters for the certified design and interface requirements. The Tier 1 portion of the design is that which will be explicitly certified by design certification rulemaking.

Tier 2 contains the more detailed supporting information which, together with Tier 1, provides the basis for the NRC staffs overall safety determination and final design approval. Tier 2, as well asTier 1, will comprise the design that will be evaluated and approved in the design certification rulemaking.

In addition to being fully compatible with Part 52, the two-tier approach is needed as a practical matter to implement Part 52. The two-tier approach promotes standardization, enhances issue resolution and assures workability. Standardization is furthered by clearly delineating in Tier 1 those aspects of the design, plus associated ITAAC, most significant to safe operation of the plant and subject to the most stringent Part 52 change controls. Standardization is also furthered by clearly defining the Tier 2 (uncertified) design and establishing clearly defined limitations against change.

Issue resolution is furthered by including both the certified and uncertified portions of the design (i.e., Tiers 1 and 2) within the scope of the rule. By doirig so, matters within the scope of both tiers are resolved for purposes of Combined License (COL) issuance.

Issue resolution is vital to prospective owner operators who will consider licensing and constructing nuclear plants under Part 52 relative to other forms ofbaseload generation.

The breadth and finality of issue resolution through design certification promotes 2

predictability and stability in the licensing and regulatory processes that is essential to the support for AL WRs by the financial community as well as the electric utility industry.

The two-tier approach is necessary to facilitate the practical implementation and workability of Part 52 as applied to licensing and construction of an AL WR facility. In formulating Part 52, the Commission recognized the need to afford flexibility for making plant-specific design changes ( e.g., to incorporate technological advancements).

Accordingly, as noted below and discussed further in response to Topic 2, separate and graded change provisions are accommodated best through a two-tier structure.

As indicated, the change provisions in Part 52 embody a two-tier concept.

Specifically, Section 52.63(b) provides that a design change by an applicant or licensee will be subject to different change criteria, depending upon whether the change in question pertains to the "certified" portion of the design or to the remainder of the design.

Under Section 52.63(b)(l), changes from the "certified" (i.e., Tier 1) design can only be made by means ofan amendment to the rule or the NRC granting an exemption. To accommodate as-procured and as-built practicalities, flexibility is allowed for Tier 2 changes. Thus, Section 52.63(b )(2) provides that a Section 50.59-like process is available to evaluate proposed plant-specific changes for the remaining aspects of the approved design (i.e., Tier 2). As the Commission noted in the Statements of Consideration for Part 52, "Section 50.59 will continue to apply to the uncertified portion" of the approved design. (54 Fed. Reg. 15372, 15377 (1989))

In summary, a two-tier structure is fully consistent with both the language in the Statements of Consideration for Part 52 and the provisions of Part 52 itself and is needed as a practical matter to facilitate successful implementation of Part 52.

ANPR Topic 2:

Acceptability of the Process and Standards for Changing Tier 2 Implementation The industry concurs in the process and standards for changing Tier 2 information as identified and discussed in 10 CFR 52.63 and Commission SRMs dated February 15, 1991, on SECY-90-377 and June 23, 1993, on SECY-92-287/287A.

3

In addition, we believe the industry and the NRC staff have a consistent view on the criteria that are part of the so called "Section 50.59-like" process to be used by COL applicants and holders for evaluating and implementing changes to Tier 2 information.

Specifically, as indicated in the ANPR Section A.13(d)(3), Tier 2 changes can be made without prior Commission approval unless the proposed change involves a change to the Tier 1 information, Technical Specifications or raises an unreviewed safety question. The Commission guidance in the SRM dated February 15, 1991, affirmed the use of a process similar to 10 CFR 50.59 to afford the flexibility necessary to complete construction of an ALWR facility.

However, certain issues associated with implementation of the "Section 50.59-like" change process have been raised by this ANPR or references therein that are addressed elsewhere in this response. In particular, the industry does not agree with the statement in the ANPR Section A.13(d)(3) that changes properly implemented via the "Section 50.59-like" process cause a loss of finality relative to the affected portion of the design or are subject to subsequent legal challenge. Such changes would be specifically sanctioned by the design certification rule, and the only issue entertainable in a COL licensing proceeding is whether the 50.59-like process has been complied with -- not the merits of the subject change. This issue is addressed in Attachment B of this response.

Further, the industry does not agree with preliminary NRC staff guidance provided in ANPR Reference 9 relative to implementing safety evaluations under the "Section 50.59-like" process. We address this issue in our response to ANPR Topic 9, Design Control Document Form and Content, below. Two additional issues related to the Tier 2 change process, the proposal for a Tier 2 exemption and availability of the "Section 50.59-like" process to COL applicants, are addressed in response to ANPR Topics 3 and 4, respectively.

ANPR Topic 3:

Acceptability of a Tier 2 Exemption At the NRC's public workshop on design certification held on November 23, 1993, the NRC staff elaborated on its concept of a Tier 2 exemption process. As indicated in ANPR Section A.13(d)(2), we understand the NRC staff is proposing an exemption process equivalent to that of 10 CFR 50.12(a) that would be used to evaluate requested exemptions from Tier 2 information filed by COL applicants and licensees (i.e., in cases 4

where Section 50.59 evaluation determines that prior Commission approval of a change is required). The NRC staff notes that a process for seeking exemption from one or more elements of a design certification, including Tier 1 information, is provided by Section 52.63(b)(l). The NRC staff is recommending that a corresponding provision specifically relating to Tier 2 exemptions be included in EL WR design certification rules.

Additionally, the NRC staff proposal would differentiate between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 change processes in that Commission consideration of the impact on safety due to a reduction in standardization would not be required in evaluating plant-specific Tier 2 exemption requests by a COL applicant or holder. Rather, Section 50.12(a) alone would apply to such changes.

The industry supports the above described proposal as consistent with the two-tier approach and change structure inherent in Part 52 as discussed in response to ANPR Topic 1.

The industry recommends the Commission approve the addition of a Tier 2 exemption process indicated by ANPR Section A.13(d)(2).

ANPR Topic 4:

Acceptability of Using a "Section 50.59-like" Change Process Prior to the Issuance of a Combined License that References a Certified Design The Commission expressly approved the NRC staffs recommendation in SECY-92-287 /287 A, supported by the ACRS, that a combined license applicant should be afforded the opportunity to utilize a "Section 50.59-like" process for making changes to Tier 2 information. While Part 52 and associated guidance provide for the use of the "Section 50.59-like" change process by licensees, the identification of the need for changes to Tier 2 information will likely begin prior to the application for a COL. For example, an applicant may identify the opportunity to incorporate improvements in technology through use of an edition of a code or standard that was released subsequent to design certification, but would be appropriate for inclusion in a COL application.

The industry supports extending the availability of the "Section 50.59-like" change process to COL applicants. The practical benefit of this approach is clear. If use of the "Section 50.59-like" change process were restricted to licensees, then changes, associated 5

reporting, and NRC reviews would have to be deferred until after the COL is issued.

Thus, the opportunity to reflect such changes, as appropriate, in the COL would be lost.

Extending the use of the "Section 50.59-like" change process to an applicant will provide necessary flexibility at the appropriate time in the licensing process and will result in a COL with more predictability and greater stability.

Because Part 52 is silent concerning Section 50.59 use by COL applicants, we believe such authorization would be a sound exercise of Commission policy discretion.

In addition to including appropriate rule language, such as that discussed in ANPR Section A.13(d)(3), we recommend the Commission specify its intent in this regard in the Statements of Consideration accompanying the design certification rules.

ANPR Topic 5:

The Acceptability of Identifying Selected Technical Positions from the FSER as "Unreviewed Safety Questions" that Cannot Be Changed Under a "Section 50.59-Like" Change Process The NRC staff has proposed to pre-designate changes to certain design aspects as constituting "unreviewed safety questions." The proposal apparently stems from the NRC staffs conclusion that the COL applicant or COL holder should not be able to change certain selected Tier 2 information, considered by the NRC staff to be especially

. important, without NRC approval. These special designations would be made in design areas where it was either not practical to specify a high degree of design detail at the time of design certification, or where it was believed to be desirable to allow the design to accommodate subsequent improvements in technology (and, therefore, a high degree of design detail was deliberately not specified). In those selected areas, the NRC staff seeks to ensure that certain Tier 2 information, which the staff will designate, cannot be changed without prior NRC approval.

The industry believes it is not necessary to create an artificial set of "unreviewed safety questions" to accomplish the NRC staffs objective. The NRC staffs proposal, as articulated, is tantamount to the creation of a third tier of design information and thus runs counter to the two-tier rule structure discussed in response to ANPR Topic 1 and endorsed by the Commission in its SRM on SECY-90-377.

6

To address the NRC staffs underlying concerns, the industry proposes that Tier 2 material selected by the staff be designated, not broadly in the rule as proposed in Section A.13(d)(3), but specifically in the ELWR SSAR/FSER and DCD as that requiring staff notification prior to implementing changes under Section 50.59. Prior staff notification, similar to notifications incident to changing quality assurance programs or emergency response or security plans, would allow the NRC staff to make a determination on whether the proposed change would constitute an unreviewed safety question. The COL applicant or holder would, at that point, be constrained from proceeding with the change absent either staff concurrence or a successful appeal of the NRC staffs determination.

By not explicitly incorporating special restrictive Tier 2 designations into design certification rules, appropriate flexibility will be provided for future reevaluation of the need to continue special treatment of Tier 2 changes in identified areas. The industry

• envisions a time, subsequent to completion of designs and IT AAC, where any special change restrictions within Tier 2 will no longer be necessary. Satisfactory completion of IT AAC will likely demonstrate that areas of the design for which special change restrictions had been imposed have achieved the same, probably greater, level of detail as that which supported "up-front" safety determinations by the NRC staff in other design areas at design certification. Continued differentiation of the change process for selected aspects of the Tier 2 design should no longer be needed. Instead, the "Section 50.59-like" process would govern the evaluation and implementation of changes throughout all of the Tier 2 design and throughout the life of a plant built and operated based on that design.

The suspension of special Tier 2 designations subsequent to completing IT AAC is consistent with the approach taken in the core/fuel design area. In this area, extensive detailed interactions with the NRC staffhave determined that (1) only changes to certain limited aspects of the core/fuel design would be subject to special Tier 2 restrictions; and (2) these special restrictions would apply only to the first fuel cycle core load. The latter determination reflected that NRC staff approval has historically been sought prior to making the types of core/fuel design changes in question. Thus, it was recognized that historical industrywide practice obviates the need beyond the first cycle to maintain special Tier 2 restrictions designated in the DCD.

Whether the Commission adopts the approach proposed by the NRC staff or the recommended industry alternative discussed above, any special predesignations by the NRC staff should be limited to the design areas discsussed to date with plant designers.

7

Moreover, it is vital that these special designations be as narrow and specific as practicable to avoid the inadvertent broadening of this special category of Tier 2 design information and the excessive restrictions against change that would result. The examples of "unreviewed safety questions" given by ANPR Section A.13(d)(3)(i,ii), e.g.,

"fuel design," clearly are not sufficiently narrow and specific to avoid these

• consequences. The listing would need to correspond precisely to the specific design information for which changes will require NRC staff notification or Commission approval. 1 We reiterate that the industry-recommended alternative approach to predesignating "unreviewed safety questions" would be completely effective in addressing the NRC staffs underlying concerns and would avoid the redundancy and difficulties noted above associated with listing them in specific design certification rules.

We recommend the NRC adopt the alternative approach to designating "unreviewed safety questions" as described above.

ANPR Topic 6:

Need for Modification to Section 52.63(b)(2) if the Two-Tiered Structure for the Design Certification Rule is Approved As discussed in response to ANPR Topic 1, the industry views the two-tier structure for implementing the Part 52 rule to be inherent in Part 52 as the Commission promulgated the rule in 1989. As such, there is no need to modify Part 52 at this time.

However, based on experience with the initial design certifications, some Part 52 changes may be identified as appropriate for future consideration.

As proposed by the NRC staff in this ANPR and at the November 23, 1993, public workshop, design change provisions based on Section 52.63, but clarified to implement the two-tier concept and relevant Commission guidance, would be incorporated into specific design certification rules. We believe such a step to be appropriate.

1 In this regard, we assume that ANPR Section A.13( d)(3)(iii), "[O]ther identified unreviewed safety questions" was included in the ANPR for illustration purposes and is not intended to be included in proposed or final design certification rules. Clearly, given the importance oflimiting the number and scope of such designations, inclusion of such an open-ended item would be inappropriate in an actual rule.

8

ANPR Topic 7:

Incorporation versus Identification of Tier 1 or Tier 2 Information, or Both, in the Combined License As acknowledged by the NRC staff at the public workshop on November 23, 1993, it is not imperative that this issue be resolved for design certification. Nonetheless, the industry has identified at least two options for future consideration in connection with the initial combined license proceeding.

One option would be that identified in SECY-92-287A in response to a Commission question raised in the earlier SECY-92-287. This option would "incorporate" Tier 1 of the design certification rule by reference into a COL while "identifying" Tier 2. Tier 2 would not be incorporated because, according to the NRC staff, doing so would require license amendments for licensee-initiated changes as is the case with Technical Specifications.

However, we note that a viable option would be to incorporate both tiers of information in the rule, provided that Tier 2 change provisions are incorporated in the rule as well.

We recommend the Commission defer decision on this issue because resolution is not required for design certification. Instead, options such as those noted above should be explored more fully in the context of developing guidance related to COL form and content. It is requested that the Commission provide explicit guidance to the NRC staff that resolution of this issue is not required to support NRC staff issuance ofFSERs or FDAs.

ANPR Topic 8:

Acceptability of Using Design Specific Rulemakings Rather than Generic Rulemaking for the Technical Issues whose Resolution Exceeds Current Requirements (i.e., "Applicable Regulations")

In SECY-92-287A, the NRC staff proposed to restate and designate technical and severe accident positions endorsed by the Commission as "applicable regulations" effective at the time of design certification issuance. We understand the purposes of the NRC staff proposal are to ( 1) ensure compliance with the NRC staff positions on these issues; (2) ensure enforceability of these agency positions at design certification and at 9

the time of any renewal thereof; and (3) provide legal bases for changes imposed by the Commission under Section 52.63(a)(l).

As indicated in Reference 2, the industry strongly disagrees with the NRC staff on this issue. There is no need to create within the design certification rule a free-standing collection of additional "applicable regulations." Commission approved NRC staff positions will be reflected in a design certification rule by means of design provisions contained in Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the DCD incorporated in the rule. Those provisions will govern issuance of the design certification rule, will constitute "applicable regulations" in considering subsequent compliance backfits pursuant to Section 52.63(a), and will comprise part of the regulatory basis for making design certification renewal determinations.

Far from providing benefits to the NRC, industry and public, as asserted by the NRC staff, formulating independently-stated "applicable regulations" to include in a

, certification, which is itself a rule, would generate needless duplication, complexity, and delay. After achieving agreement on the specifics of the design, the NRC staffs proposed approach would result in yet another round of extensive discussions to reach agreement on matters that have already been agreed to in detail, but now must be formulated in more "broadly stated" positions in a process equivalent to a series of complex, discrete ruiemakings. The specific wording of those positions will likely be the subject of considerable controversy and review if those positions are to become free-standing

. "applicable regulations." Such debates present t.he prospect of further delays in certification schedules and a prolonging of the certification proceedings, even though there is agreement that the specifics of the design are acceptable.

Finally, these "broadly stated," free-standing," applicable regulations" carry the potential for new and diverse interpretations by the NRC staff during the life of the design certification -- interpretations which may be at odds with the understandings that were translated into specific Tier 1/Tier 2 requirements in the DCD. The injection of this factor into the Part 52 process runs counter to the Part 52 objectives of standardization and establishment of a predictable, stable licensing process, both of which are needed to assure the economic viability of AL WRs.

On a related matter, we have read with interest the Commission's September 14, 1993, SRM on SECY-93-226, "Public Comments on 57FR44513 - Proposed Rule on

• 10

AL WR Severe Accident Performance." This reflects the Commission's decision to defer further consideration of generic severe accident rulemaking at least until after issuance of FSERs on the evolutionary AL WRs, completion of siting and source term related revisions to 10 CPR Parts 50 and 100, and further experience is gained with plant-specific design certification rulemakings.2 We note that there appear to be important parallels between the Commission's recent consideration of generic severe accident rulemaking and the present consideration of "applicable regulations." First, many of the "applicable regulations" sought by the NRC staff for incorporation in design certification rules relate to severe accident mitigation or prevention. The SRM on SECY-93-226 reflects the Commission conclusion that further severe accident regulations are not necessary for protecting the public health and safety. As observed by Commissioner Remick for this SRM, the design certification rulemakings themselves will serve the purpose of resolving AL WR severe accident issues at this time.

Moreover, we see little difference between the NRC staff proposal to incorporate "broadly stated," free standing, "applicable regulations" in design certification rules and the similar effect that would have resulted had the decision been made to proceed with generic severe accident rulemaking for AL WRs. The arguments made above and in Reference 2 in opposition to the "applicable regulations" proposal are similar to those made in the industry's December 22, 1992, response to the severe accident ANPR (Reference 6).

The industry strongly recommends that the Commission disapprove the NRC staff proposal regarding "applicable regulations." We believe such a decision is both necessary and consistent with the recent Commission decision to defer further consideration of generic severe accident rulemaking for AL WRs.

2 In this regard, we agree with Commissioner Remick's additional comments on SECY-93-226, consistent with our December 22, 1992, response to the severe accident ANPR (Reference 6), that generic severe accident rulemaking is not needed and should not be considered while any of the four submitted AL WR designs have their design certifications pending.

11

ANPR Topic 9:

Appropriate Form and Content of a Design Control Document (DCD)

Under the concept proposed by the NRC staff, a DCD would be developed for each AL WR as a repository for the respective design certification rule's design and ITAAC requirements. A DCD, as modified during the design certification rulemaking proceeding, will represent the codified standard design and will be the design document referenced in a COL application.

We believe there is common understanding with the NRC staff on many aspects of DCD form and content. A DCD is envisioned to consist of three parts: an introductory section; Tier I information; and Tier 2 information. A DCD must contain information sufficient to support a DCD's design requirements and must be suitable for incorporation by reference in a design certification rule noticed in the Federal Register. A DCD should not contain information that is inappropriate, unnecessary or undesirable for codification in the NRC's regulations. Thus, proprietary information would not be included in a DCD.

Further, conceptual information in a SSAR relating to out-of-scope site-specific design interfaces should be excluded from a DCD because this information is not intended to be binding on future COL applicants. Similarly, the NRC staff has agreed that other types of COL license information, so-called "COL Action Items," are not appropriate for inclusion in the DCD. Also, the industry and NRC staff agree that the design PRA is inappropriate for inclusion in a DCD. Instead, a subset of design PRA information, the nature and extent of which is the subject of continuing detailed interactions between the industry and the NRC staff ( as discussed below), will be incorporated in a DCD.

The following algorithm essentially describes the the industry's view of the contents of a DCD:

DCD = SSAR minus proprietary information minus conceptual information and "COL Action Items" minus the design PRA plus Certified Design Material (i.e., Tier I information) plus an appropriate subset of design PRA information (e.g., key PRA assumptions and severe accident insights) 12

The NRC staff forwarded to each plant designer on August 26, 1993, preliminary guidance outlining the proposed form and content of a DCD. While the guidance reflected many areas of agreement, as noted above, it also raised a number of important issues related to the detailed implementation of the DCD concept and implications for COL applicants/holders. The industry provided comments (Reference 4) on the NRC staffs preliminary DCD guidance on September 28, 1993, and met with the staff to discuss DCD issues on October 12, 1993. As a result of these interactions, two main issues have emerged that the industry and NRC staff continue to address. The first is the nature and treatment for rulemaking purposes of secondary references contained in the DCD. At issue is the extent to which references to codes, standards, Regulatory Guides, etc., cited in Tier 1 or Tier 2 of the DCD need to be explicitly "incorporated by reference" in specific design certification rules. Because there are many hundreds of such references in a typical SSAR, this issue has significant potential implications for the workability of the design certification process and for design certification schedules. It is important to note that many of these references were not written or configured to be elevated to the status of a rule. Thus, appropriate resolution is of paramount importance to the industry.

The secondary references issue relates directly to ANPR Section A.5, Contents of the EL WR Design Certification, and is discussed further in Attachment B and Reference 7.

The second major DCD form and content issue is related to the regulatory significance of information contained in the DCD and, in particular, design PRA information. In sum, the NRC staff is apparently seeking to incorporate design PRA information that is significantly greater in volume and detail than the industry considers necessary or appropriate. As described in the NRC staffs preliminary DCD guidance and at our October 12 meeting, the staff position on the nature and extent of PRA information appropriate for inclusion in a rule represents a significant expansion of the previously understood staff position that only qualitative descriptions of key PRA assumptions and severe accident insights and features would be captured. Significantly, and of great concern to the industry because of potentially significant adverse implications for COL applicants/holders, the revised NRC staff position seeks to incorporate a substantial portion of the design PRA, including detailed quantitative results. As discussed in our November 8, 1993, draft industry point paper (Reference 5) titled, "Regulatory Significance of Information Contained in DCDs," the industry is particularly concerned with the consequences of the new NRC staff position with respect to the conduct of Section 50.59 safety evaluations. Inclusion in the DCD (and therefore the rule) of the design PRA, or a subset thereof containing detailed, quantitative PRA results, would 13

elevate this information to become part of the licensing basis for the AL WR. This, in tum, might be seen as requiring owner/operators to use PRA in all Section 50.59 evaluations because many plant modifications might cause some insignificant change in the quantitative results, rankings, etc., of the PRA that the NRC staff proposes to codify as part of the DCD. Required use of PRA to support Section 50.59 evaluations would unnecessarily increase the complexity and cost of implementation of design changes and would severely erode the flexipility needed by COL applicants and holders intended by Part 52 and by the Commission.

As discussed in our November 8 paper, the ostensible purpose for the NRC staffs position is to ensure use of PRA in design change*evaluations so that severe accident features in the design will not unknowingly be compromised. However, it is not a purpose of Section 50.59, nor of the "Section 50.59-like" process described in response to ANPR Topic 2, to mandate the process by which safety evaluations must be conducted or the resources ( e.g., a PRA) that must be utilized. Currently, plants that have PRAs or other risk-insight capabilities (e.g., IPE, IPEEE) utilize those resources as part of the Section 50.59 evaluations to the extent plant management judges their use appropriate.

Consistent with the industry guidance document NSAC-125, "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations," PRA is not to be regarded as an absolute determinant, but as one possible tool for evaluating plant changes. As stated by the NRC staff in SECY 287, "[I]nsights on severe accident and technical issues have been incorporated into the specific designs in both the DCD and FSER based on guidance from previous SRMs and SECY papers." The NRC staff also states, and we agr~e, "[t]he proposed "Section 50.59-like" process will ensure preservation of these insights."

We have similar concerns, as discussed in Reference 5, regarding the NRC staff seeking (as indicated in their August 26, 1993, preliminary guidance on DCD form and content) to ensure the use of "road maps" and the review of unselected severe accident features as part of Section 50.59 safety evaluations._

We note that the revised NRC staff position would be very costly with respect to both resources and schedule for completing DCDs and commencing design certification rulemakings, without discernible safety benefit to the public. The industry recommends that the earlier NRC staff position, which was cogently described to the Commission in a briefing by senior staff management on November 23, 1992, be sustained. We note that 14

the Commission appeared to clearly understand and agree with the course of action described by the NRC staff at this briefing. -

Reference 5 discusses the industry concerns in this area in detail.and provides an alternative approach and rationale for resolving this aspect ofDCD form and content consistent with the original position expressed by NRC senior management regarding the extent of PRA information appropriate in design certification rules.

The issue of PRA content in DCDs is also of high importance to the industry due to the potential for significant adverse impact on resources (both vendor and NRC staff),

design certification schedules, and owner/operator flexibility in use of the "Section 50.59-like design process. We urge the Commission to effect a return to the previously understood position acknowledged at the November 23, 1992, briefing by NRC staff senior management and reflected in the industry's November 8 point paper (Reference 5).

15

INDUSTRY COMMENTS ON NRC ANPR "Rulemaking to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary L WR Designs" Issues Arising from ANPR Appendix 2

• Draft Proposed Design Certification Rule Significant Issues

1.

Section A.5 - Contents of the EL WR Design Certification Attachment B The NRC staff proposes to identify in Section A.5(a) those documents approved by the Federal Register for incorporation by reference and deemed part of the ELWR design certification. As noted in Attachment A, response to ANPR Topic 9, the extent to which documents, other than the DCD, are to be incorporated by reference in specific design certification rules is an issue of paramount importance to the industry due to potentially significant adverse impact on design certification rule clarity and certainty as well as on resources and schedule. The appropriate handling of secondary references continues to be the subject of ongoing interaction between the industry and NRC staff because of its potential impact. The industry position and proposed course of action is

• described in Reference 7 ( attached).

2.

Section A. 7 - Regulations Applicable to the EL WR Design Certification

. The industry strongly opposes the proposed restatement and designation of agency positions on technical and severe accident issues as "applicable regulations" within specific design certification rules. In Reference 2, the industry communicated to the Commission its substantial concerns with this NRC staff proposal and the basis for considering it duplicative, unnecessary, and a source of alinost certain controversy and delay if implemented. Our concerns are restated in Attachment A of these comments in

response to Topic 8 of the ANPR. The example given in Section A.7(b)(4)(iii) is illustrative of the industry's concerns. This provision seems to indicate new regulatory requirements for "operation, maintenance and monitoring activities" beyond those of Part 50 would be applicable to COL holders. However, no elaboration of what these additional requirements would entail or justification for the additional requirements is

. provided.

We strongly recommend that the Commission disapprove the NRC staff proposal regarding "applicable regulations" and, accordingly, that Section A.7 of the draft-proposed rule in the ANPR be deleted.

3.

Section A.9 - Issue Resolution for the EL WR Design Certification Section A.9 of the draft proposed design certification rule states:

(a) all radiological safety issues necessarily associated with approval of the information set forth in the ELWR DCD are "resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification" within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4); and (b) all environmental issues necessarily associated with approval of the information set forth in the ELWR DCD, and the Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Analysis for this design are "resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification" within the meaning of JO CFR 52.63(a)(4).

As extensive as a DCD is, the NRC staff will have reviewed and approved substantially more information in arriving at its safety determinations than is contained therein. In the view of the industry, all matters within the scope of the approved design will have been "resolvedin connection with issuance of the design certification."

In a letter dated September 10, 1993, NUMARC submitted a draft proposed rule (Reference 3) for NRC staff use in formulating the proposed rule to be forwarded for Commission consideration. This document contains the following language that is recommended as an appropriate alternative to ANPR Section A.9:

2

Except as provided in JO CFR 2.758, the Commission shall treat as resolved in any subsequent proceeding all matters within the scope of the design approved in the design certification rulemaking.

These matters include the following:

i.

all matters discussed in the DCD and the standard safety analysis report for the (ALWR) standard design; ii.

all matters discussed in the staff's final safe(v evaluation report and final design approval for the (ALWR);

iii.

all matters raised and resolved in the rulemaking proceeding on the design certification rule for the (ALWR).

Additionally, the Commission has determined that the design structures and functions of the (ALWR) as described in the DCD satisfy the Commission's existing regulations and provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the health and safety of the public. Inherent in this determination is the finding that additional design features and functions are not necessary for the (ALWR) standard design. The lack of need for such additional design features and functions is also considered a matter resolved in connection with issuance of Subpart D (i.e., this design certification rule).

The scope of "matters considered resolved" reflected in the industry's draft proposed rule is both appropriate and vital to assuring the objectives of design certification rulemaking, with its emphasis on "front-end" issue resolution and the predictability and stability of the Part 52 licensing process. We urge the Commission to adopt such a formulation of scope of finality of the design certification process.

3

4.

Section A.13 - Change Process (Finality of "Section 50.59-like" Changes)

As indicated in the Attachment A response to ANPR Topic 2, the industry disagrees with the draft proposed rule provision in Section A.13(d)(3) that changes properly implemented via the "Section 50.59~1ike" process would cause a loss of finality relative to the affected portion of the design and would be subject to subsequent legal challenge. In the industry responses to SECY-92-287/287A, we have noted that Part 52 explicitly provides that Section 50.59-type changes from Tier 2 are permissible. Such changes are thus done in compliance with the rule and do not affect design finality so long as the Section 50.59-like process has been properly implemented.

Accordingly, aspects of the Tier 2 design changed by a COL applicant via the "Section 50.59-like" process should continue to be considered matters resolved in connection with a design certification for purposes of the COL proceeding. The only issue permitted to be challenged in a subsequent COL hearing is whether the Section 50.59 process had been properly implemented. Likewise, such changes made subsequent to COL issuance could be challenged in the Part 52 proceeding prior to fuel load authorization only on the basis that the change resulted in non-compliance with applicable acceptance criteria. It is understood that changes from Tier 2 that require NRC approval would, of course, be subject to a hearing opportunity as specified in Part 52.

As with current operating plants, records of changes made without NRC approval will be retained and reports periodically forwarded to the NRC. In this regard, we note that the recordkeeping provision in ANPR Section A.15(b) proposes that reports of changes from Tier 2 design information be submitted quarterly to the NRC. As indicated in our October 5, 1992, comments on SECY-92-287 (Reference 1), the industry recognizes that during construction it is important for the NRC to be cognizant of the changes being implemented which might have licensing or design certification implications. However, the NRC staff proposal to require quarterly reporting of Section 50.59 changes appears to be unnecessarily burdensome and in excess of what is needed to keep the NRC properly informed. The NRC staff has offered no basis for requiring a four-fold increase in frequency over the annual reporting of changes made under Section 50.59. The industry has proposed establishing a six-month reporting interval rather than quarterly reporting as appropriately balancing the heightened NRC need for design change information during construction with the equally important need to avoid 4

unnecessarily diverting owner/operator resources to meet excessive reporting requirements. Further, we note that substantial economic and licensing disincentives are expected to effectively limit the number of design changes at AL WR facilities.

In summary, the industry recommends that the proposed Section A.13(d)(3) provision be deleted and language be included in the Statements of Consideration accompanying each specific design certification rule affirming that, consistent with current practice, changes properly implemented via the "Section 50.59-like" process do not affect the finality associated with the affected design. In addition, the industry recommends that the quarterly reporting requirement of Section A.1 S(b) should be reduced to bi-annual reporting.

Other Issues

1.

The draft-proposed rule in the ANPR is silent on many of the administrative -

technical drafting requirements (including the NEPA provisions attendant to the consolidated rulemaking proceeding) more fully developed in the industry's September 10, 1993, proposed draft rule. Industry will shortly be providing for NRC consideration an updated draft-proposed design certification rule which will modify the September 10 submittal to incorporate the comments herein and thus represent our current view as it has evolved since that date.

2.

Although the industry recognizes the necessity and desirability for recordkeeping and reporting requirements, it is concerned that the suggested requirements appear to go beyond current requirements without any substantive justification. Specific suggested language will be submitted shortly in a modified industry-proposed draft design certification rule.

5

References

1.

NUMARC letter of comment (Ras in to Crutchfield), dated October 5, 1992, on SECY-92-287

2.

NUMARC letter of comment (Rasin to Chilk), dated May 25, 1993, on SECY 287A

3.

NUMARC letter (Rasin to Crutchfield), dated September 10, 1993, forwarding a draft proposed design certification rule

4.

NUMARC letter of comment (Rasin to Crutchfield), dated September 28, 1993, on preliminary NRC staff guidance on DCD form and content

5.

NUMARC letter (Rasin to Crutchfield), dated November 8, 1993, forwarding the draft industry paper, "Regulatory Significance of Information Contained in DCDs"

6.

NUMARC letter of comment (Rasin to Chilk), dated December 22, 1992, responding to the NRC ANPR on AL WR severe accident performance

7.

(Attached) Revised draft industry paper, titled, "Incorporation by Reference in a Design Certification Rule," previously forwarded in preliminary draft form via NUMARC letter (Rasin to Crutchfield), dated December 6, 1993.

7

Industry ANPR Response December 30, 1993 Reference 7 DRAFT INDUSTRY PAPER:

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE IN THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULE I.

OVERVIEW OF ISSUE:

The NRC staff and industry have agreed that only documents formally "incorporated by reference" into the Design Certification Rule (DCR) as primary references will have the status of rule components. The staff and industry have further agreed that the Design Control Document (DCD) should be incorporated by reference into the DCR as a primary reference. Such an approach satisfies the legal requirements for the publication of a rule by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

A residual policy issue remains that threatens to create unnecessary confusion and cause major and costly disruption to Final Design Approval (FDA) and design certification rulemaking schedules. Specifically, the issue is whether all or some secondary references in Tier 2 of the DCD should be incorporated by reference in the DCR. As discussed below, the industry believes that incorporation by reference of secondary DCD documentary references beyond those in Tier 1 inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria (IT AAC) is neither necessary nor desirable. The substantial applicant and staff resources required to implement the staffs proposed course will provide no increased safety benefit and it is doubtful the result will be increased "certainty."

Page2 II.

BACKGROUND:

In NRC staff letters dated August 26, 1993, to design certification applicants, the following is included among the preliminary guidance provided on the form and content of a DCD: Each design certification applicant must review all references in its SSAR and for each reference either ( 1) delete the reference for the DCD and provide a justification for the deletion or (2) if the reference is included in the DCD, provide the NRC with two copies of the entire referenced document on microfilm and submit a list of all such references to the NRC which will be included as part of the design certification rule. The preliminary guidance goes on to explain that such an approach is needed to satisfy the requirements of the OFR regarding documents "incorporated by reference" in a rule. The proposed NRC staff position provided in the preliminary guidance letter ( subsequently embodied in Section A.5 of the staff's draft-proposed standard design certification rule) had not previously been identified to the industry by the NRC.

In the NRC staff's view, "secondary references" (i.e., those references in a document which is, in tum, incorporated by reference in a rule, as would be the case for DCD references) do not require OFR approval. The industry agrees. The NRC staff, nonetheless, now proposes ( as announced at the November 23, 1993, workshop) to designate Tier 1 and selected Tier 2 documentary references as "primary references" in the design certification rule and thereby require their formal incorporation by reference into the DCR. The reason given is that this will more clearly define which of these documentary references are to be treated as requirements for COL applicants and licensees.

Page3 III.

INDUSTRY POSITION:

The industry believes that incorporation by ref~rence of all documentary references in the IT AAC or in any other portion of the Certified Design (Tier 1) may be appropriate. Recent reviews indicate that references in Tier 1 IT AAC are restricted to the ASME Code Section III (numerous times) and a portion of the ASME Code Section XI.

Formally incorporating into the DCR those documentary references in Tier 1 IT AAC would be consistent with the two tier structure developed over the past several years. Indeed, the NRC staff and industry have spent an extraordinary amount of time in the past three years ascertaining and agreeing on those key safety features of the standardized design to justify ITAAC for such design features. Under 10 CFR 52.47(a)(vi), ITAAC must be "necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that, if the tests, inspections and analyses are performed and the acceptance criteria met, a plant which references the design is built and will operate in accordance with the design certification." The industry agrees that incorporating by reference. those documents referenced in Tier 1 IT AAC is consistent with their importance to safety.

The industry's residual concern with what the NRC staff now is proposing for Tier 2 reference incorporation is that substantial confusion and considerable delay will result if the staff and industry embark on the unnecessary task, which has no beneficial impact on.

safety, of delineating which parts of the thousands of pages of Tier 2 secondary references should be elevated from the text for exp~icit inclusion in the rule. The confusion arises both because the documents which are referenced were not drafted with such a use in mind and hence vary in what they include, and because it is not clear how such inclusion will affect the ability to use the 50.59-like change process with respect to Tier 2. The delay arises because the task of reviewing the documents (and perhaps

Page4 revising them) will be very lengthy. For example, SSAR textual material is supported by a plethora (1000 to 2000) of different secondary references, a lesser number of which (on the order_ of 100 to 150) are also referenced in NRC's draft Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) on the designs.11 Many (if not most) of those Tier 2 secondary references in tum reference or rely explicitly on tertiary references, and the tertiary references on further references, and so on, ad infinitum. Moreover, the great majority of these secondary references were not drafted with the necessary precision of a rule; elevating them to be primary references to be included in the rule will only serve to confuse, not clarify. None of this labor will change the design or result in increased safety.

Experience suggests that the approach best suited to resolve this dilemma --

perhaps the only approach that is disciplined and appropriately keyed to the language of Part 52 and the safety judgments previously reached -- is to draw the line where it has already been drawn, that is, at the Tier 1/Tier 2 boundary. Tier 1 is the certified design and the ITAAC are specified by Part 52 and Title XXVIII of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 as the approval elements that are "necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations. "Thus, it is appropriate that documentary references in the Tier 1 ITAAC be expressly incorporated by reference in the design certification rule.

No incorporation by reference in the DCR, however, is required or appropriate with respect to documents referenced in Tier 2 of the DCD. In general, these are SSAR 11 An even smaller fraction of the SER references are references that do not already have some regulatory status under NRC policies and procedures, e.g., they are not NRC-produced regulatory documents, such as NUREGs or Regulatory Guides, but rather topical reports or studies produced by the applicants.

Page5 references which provide background information, greater detail concerning analyses and processes used in design development, or further detail on how design performance criteria have been implemented. The context of these references indicates whether they are included as explanatory material, as source references or as requirements. Because the DCD will be incorporated by reference in the DCR, the provisions of the DCD will have binding effect. The provisions in the DCD cannot be met if pertinent requirements portions of such references are not satisfied. Therefore, further incorporation of individual references is not needed to provide either clarity or finality. In addition, Tier 2 of the DCD will be either "incorporated" or "identified" in referencing COL licenses and, as such, its requirements will be subject to NRC enforcement..

Essentially, the DCD will be similar to other documents that are incorporated by reference in NRC rules. For example, 10 CFR 50.55a references the ASME Code which contains references to other codes and standards, such as sections of the ASTM Code.

These secondary references in the ASME Code have never been considered by NRC or OFR to be "incorporated by reference" as that term is used in theOFR regulations, yet there is no question that licensees are obligated to comply with those requirements.

IV.

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO THE BROADER APPROACH TO INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE CONTEMPLATED BY THE STAFF'S AUGUST 26, 1993 LETTER If the broader approach contemplated in the NRC staffs August 26, 1993, preliminary guidance is implemented, "certainty" would not be achieved and significant counterproductive consequences would ensue. Specifically:

Page6 There will be confusion as to which pages or sections of the voluminous secondary references should be elevated to the status of a rule. In the context of the DCD, secondary references are made for a limited purpose.

If the entire document referenced is listed for.incorporation in the design certification rule as a primary reference, it is possible that all provisions in the reference could be deemed to be part of the DCR thereby distorting the very purpose of its reference in the DCD. For such references, there would be need for significant reworking of the contextual provisions in Tier 2. In effect, this means a significant rewrite of the SSAR.

References will themselves contain references which, in tum, contain further references, ad fnjinitum. Plainly, it is not necessary.-- and may not even be possible -- to incorporate by reference all such subsidiary references. However, such lower level references may be substantively indistinguishable from the primary reference.

Incorporation by reference of a substantial number of Tier 2 secondary references will create uncertainty relative to the 50.59-like change process.

The NRC staffs August 26 preliminary guidance states that the design certification rule will need to contain a list which identifi~s the "specific code, edition, revision, etc." of the documents referenced in the DCD. By identifying such references (including specific editions and revisions) in the DCR, an applicant or licensee could not use the 10 CFR 50.59 process to enable it to use a more recent edition or reference. Instead, either a rule amendment or an exemption from the rule must be sought. Similarly, a COL applicant or iicensee could not deviate from any of the references incorporated in the DCR without obtaining an exemption or license

Page7 amendment. This would be inconsistent with the reason for placing these references in Tier 2 of the DCD, i.e., to allow applicants and licensees to use 10 CFR 50.59 to take account of technological advancements and additional experience.

Application of the incorporation by reference course proposed by the NRC staff would prove enormously burdensome, expensive and time consuming.

There are thousands of secondary references in the SSAR, some of which are multi-volume documents. The NRC staff approach would require reevaluation of each specific reference to determine whether it is appropriate for Tier 2

• inclusion in the design certification rule or for deletion. In addition, identifying, collecting and copying referenced documents will require substantial time, effort and cost. Furthermore, some of these references will consist of documents whose copyright belongs to third persons or organizations outside the control of the applicant; thus design certification applicants may not be able to provide these documents on microfilm for the OFR as stated in the NRC staffs August 26 preliminary guidance. And, as stated above, undertaking such a task has nothing to do with the safety of the design being proposed.

Any significant incorporation of secondary references would place an unwarranted economic burden on COL holders, during both construction and opration, without an increase in safety. By elevating these references through formal incorporation, changes which could be made through the 50.59 process would require issuance of either exemptions or.license amendments. Thus, both the NRC staff and licensees could be diverted

Page 8 from more important aspects of plant operation and safety to the administrative processing of exemption and license amendment requests.

In summary, if "primary reference" is the imprimatur by which SSAR secondary reference "requirements" become official, each candidate reference must be reviewed in detail to determine (a) which specific portion, if not all, of the reference must be converted or brought into the SSAR text; (b) whether the text of the convertible portion 41 must be modified to make it a prescriptive requirement; ( c) whether any such modification affects the applicant's or the NRC staffs review and conclusions with respect to that particular design feature; ( d) whether there are tertiary references, tables, or underlying data which are so important to the basis of the secondary reference that they, too, must be converted; and ( e) whether any such changes affect other portions of the SSAR. Further, another round of vendor/senior management review and QA/QC evaluation will be required. To suppose that all of this can be accomplished in a mere two weeks ( as has been suggested) disregards experience in dealing with level of detail issue and IT AAC implementation. Indeed, the NRC staffs contemplated approach could result in upwards of a one year delay, or more, with no assurance that it could be successfully accomplished.

V.

RECOMMENDATION The documentary references in the Tier 1 ITAAC, and those references only, should be formally incorporated by reference in the DCR and submitted for OFR approval.

AGENCY:

ACTION:

SUMMARY

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 52 RIN 3150 - AE87

• 93 NOV -2 P 3 :35 Rulemakings to Grant Standard Design Certification for Evolutionary Light Water Reactor Designs Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing four applications for Standard Design Certifications for light water reactors under applicable regulations. These design certifications will be granted through rulemaking by adding a separate appendix to 10 CFR Part 52 for each design so certified. The Commission anticipates that two of these applications for design certification may be ready for such rulemakings in 1994.

This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is issued to invite public recommendations on issues pertaining to the form and content of rules that will certify evolutionary light water reactor designs.

I /3/1'-/

DATE: The comment period expires on [Insert date 60 days following the date of publication in the Federal Register].

Co~ments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES:

Mail written comments to:

The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Comments may also be delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

Copies of comments received will be available for examination and copying at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. {Lower Level), Washingto~, DC.

Documents listed in Appendix 1 to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking are also available for examination and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW. {Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone {301) 492-3634 or Jerry N. Wilson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone {301) 504-3145, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B - Standard Design e

Certifications, provides the requirements applicable to issuing a design certification for a standard nuclear power plant design.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is planning to promulgate several rules which will provide for certification of each evolutionary light water reactor design which it reviews and approves. These rules would be set forth in separate appendices to 10 CFR.

Part 52.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~s presently evaluating four applications for Standard Design Certification in accordance with Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 52.

The most recent_ NRC staff estim~te of the schedules for these design reviews was provided to the Commission in SECY-93-097, "Integrated Review 2

--- *--------~----~

Schedules for the Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor Projects."

These schedules project issuance of the first proposed rule certifying a standard plant design in June 1994.

The NRC staff has been developing guidance for the implementation of Subpart 8 of 10 CFR Part 52 following the issuance of Part 52 in 1989.

The proposed.guidance has been set forth in several Commission (SECY) Papers and Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRM) referenced in Appendix 1.

One of these papers, SECY-92-287, "Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule," dated August 18, 1992, included a draft-proposed design certification rule which the NRC staff believes is prototypical of the type of rule that should be promulgated. This draft-proposed design certification rule has been revised in accordance with Commission guidance and provided as Appendix 2 to focus comments on this ANPR.

The elements contained in this prototype are those that the Commission believes should be included in a design certification rule.

This ANPR is published to provide the public an early opportunity to give advice and recommendations to the Commission on the form and content of a rule that would certify evolutionary nuclear power plant designs in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart 8.

The NRC is particularly interested in the public's views concerning the following topics:

1.

The acceptability of a two-tiered design certification rule structure;

2.

The acceptability of the process and standards for changing Tier 2 information;

3.

The acceptability of a Tier 2 eremption;

4.

The acceptability of using a change process similar to the one in 10 CFR 50.59 applicable to operating reactors ("§ 50.59-like") prior to the issuance of a combined license that references a certified design; 3

)

5.

The acceptability of identifying selected technical positions from the Safety Evaluation Report as "unreviewed safety questions" that cannot be changed under a"§ 50.59-like" change process;

6.

Need for modifications to § 52.63(b)(2) if the two-tiered structure for the design certification rule is approved;

7.

Whether the Commission should either incorporate or identify the information in Tier I or Tier 2 or both in the combined license;

8.

The acceptability of using d~sign-specific rulemakings rather than generic rulemaking for the technical issues whose resolution exceeds current requirements.

These "applicable regulations" will become part of the Commission's baseline of regulations for the specific certified design that are applicable and in effect at the time the certification is issued; and

9.

The appropriate form and content of a design control document.

In addition to the publication of this ANPR, the Commission's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research will mail a copy of this ANPR to domestic nuclear power plant vendors and other known interested persons to ensure that they are e

aware of this ANPR.

List of Subjects Part 52 - Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, Inspection, Limited work authorization, Nuclear powe~ plants and reactors, Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification.

4

The authority citation for this document is: Sec. 161, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); Sec. 201, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).

'"#f-Dated at Rockvil.le, Maryland, this~ day of ~

, 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

or for Operations.

5

APPENDIX 1 - REFERENCES

1.

SECY-90-377, November 8, 1990, "Requirements for Design Certification under 10 CFR Part 52."

2.

SRM,dated February 15, 1991, "SECY-90-377 - Requirements for Design Certification under 10 CFR Part 52."

3.

SECY-92-287, August 18, 1992, "Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule."

4.

SRM dated September 30, 1992, "SECY-92-287 - Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule."

5.

• SECY-92-287A, March 26, 1993, "Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule."

6.

SRM dated June 23, 1993, "SECY-92-287/287A - Form and Content for a Design Certification Rule."

7.

SECY-93-087, April 2, 1993, "Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor Designs."

8.

SRM dated, July 21, 1993, "SECY-93-087 - Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and Advanced Light-Water Reactor Designs."

9.

Letter from Dennis M. Crutchfield, Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Patrick W. Marriott, Manager, Licensing & Consulting Services, GE Nuclear Energy, August 26, ;993, "Guidance on the Form and Content of a Design Control Document."

6

APPENDIX 2 DRAFT-PROPOSED STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULE 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A A. l Scope This Appendix constitutes the standard design certification for the Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (ELWR) design, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B (Section 52.54). The applicant for the certification of the ELWR design was ________ _

A.3 Definitions As used in this appendix:

Design control document (DCD) is the master document that contains the Tier 1 and Tier 2 design-related information that is incorporated by reference into this design certification rule.

Tier 1 is the portion of the design-related information contained in the DCD that is certified by this rule. This information consists of the Tier 1 f

design descriptions, the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), the site parameters, and the interface requirements.

7

Tier 2 is the remainder of the design-related information contained in the DCD that is approved by this rule. Tier 2 contains detailed information on the ELWR design that supports the information provided in Tier I. Tier 2 includes safety analyses for the ELWR design and supporting details on the inspections, tests, and analyses that will be p 0erformed to demonstrate that the accer:,tance criteria in the ITAAC have been met.

A.4 Information collection requirements: 0MB approval.

(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this appendix to the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

0MB has approved the information collection requirements contained in the appendix under control number 3150-(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this appendix appear in Section A.IS.

A.5 Contents of the ELWR design certification.

(a) The following documents, which have been approved by the Office of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference, are deemed to be part of the ELWR design certification:

(1) ELWR DCD dated _____ _

8

(The following are examples of secondary references)

(2) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NE, Division 1, Class MC.

(3) ANSI Standard A58.l, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American National Standards Institute.

(4) Regulatory Guide 1.59, Rev. 2, "Design f1asis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants."

(5) Other documents considered necessary.

(b) An applicant for a construction permit or license that references this standard design certification must reference both tiers of information in the ELWR DCD.

(c) If there is a conflict between the information in the ELWR DCD and the application for standard design certification or the Final Safety Evaluation Report on the application and supplements thereto, then the ELWR DCD is the controlling document.

A.7 Regulations applicable to the ELWR design certification.

The following were considered to be regulations that are applicable to the ELWR design certification, including the regulations identified in

§ 52.48, and were in effect at the tim~ this design certification was issued for the purposes of§§ 52.48, 52.54, 52.59, and 52.63:

9

(The following are examples of applicable regulations)

(a) The standard design must include features that reduce the potential for and effect of interactions with molten core debris by:

(1) Providing reactor cavity floor space to promote core debris spreading; (2) Providing a means to flood the r~actor cavity to assist in the cooling process; and (3) Protecting the containment liner and other structural members from direct contact by molten core debris.

(b) An application for design certification must contain:

(1) The description of the *reliability assurance program used during the initial ELWR design that includes, scope, purpose, and objectives; (2) The methodology used to evaluate and prioritize the structures, systems, and components in the ELWR design, based upon their degree of risk-significance; (3) The structures, systems, and components designated as risk-significant; and (4) For those structures, systems, and components designated as risk-significant:

(i) The methodology used to determine dominant failure modes that considered industry experience, analytical models, and existing requirements; (ii) The key reliability assumptio1ns and risk insights; and

(iii) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities to be performed by a licensee that references the ELWR design.

(c) Other applicable regulations considered necessary.

A.9 Issue resolution for the ELWR design certification.

(a) All radiological safety issues necessarily associated with approval of the information set forth in the ELWR DCD are 11resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification 11 within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4).

(b) All environmental issues necessarily associated with approval of the information set forth in the ELWR DCD, and the Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Analysis for this design are 11resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification 11 within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a)(4).

A.11 Duration of the ELWR design certification.

This standard design certification may be referenced for a period of 15 years from [insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register],

except as provided for in §§ 52.55(b) and 52.57(b). This standard design certification will remain valid for an ~pplicant or licensee that references this certification until their application is withdrawn or their license expires.

11

A.13 Change Process.

(a) For rule changes, refer to § 52.63(a)(l) for generic changes to this appendix or Tier 1 information.

(b) For changes to this appendix or Tier 1 information, for plants tha~

reference the ELWR design certification:

(1) Refer to§ 52.63(a)(3) for NRC mandated changes; and (2) Refer to § 52.63{b){l) for exemptions.

{c) For Tier 2 rule changes:

(1) Notwithstanding any provision in 10 CFR 50.109, while the ELWR design certification is in effect under§§ 52.55 or 52.61, the Commission may not modify, rescind, or impose new requirements on Tier 2 information, whether on its own motion or in response to a petition* from any person, unless the Commission determines in a rulemaking that a modification is necessary either to bring the Tier 2 information or the referencing plants into compliance with the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time the ELWR design certification was issued, or to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security. The rulemaking procedures must ptovide for notice and comment and an opportunity for the party which applied for the certification to request an informal hearing which uses the procedures described in § 52.5~.

(2) Any modification the NRC imposes under A.13(c)(l) will be applied to all plants referencing the ELWR design, except those to wh)ch.the modification has been rendered technically irrelevant by action taken under A.13(d).

12

(d) For Tier 2 changes, for plants that reference the ELWR design certification:

(1) While the ELWR design certification is in effect under Section 52.55 or 52.61, unless (i) A modification is necessary to secure compliance with the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time the ELWR design certification was issued, or to assure adequate protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security, and (ii) Special circumstances as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are present, the Commission may not impose new requirements by plant-specific order on the Tier 2 information of a specific plant referencing the ELWR design certification.

(2) An applicant or licensee who references the ELWR design certification may request an exemption from the Tier 2 information.

The Commission may grant such a request only if it-determines that the exemption will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a).

(3) An applicant or licensee who references the ELWR design certification may make changes to the Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval, unless the proposed change involves a change to this appendix or the Tier 1 information, the technical specifications, or an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2} or identified below.

These Tier 2 changes will no longer be considered "matters resolved in connection with the issuance or renewal of a design certification" within the meaning of 10 CFR 52.63(a}(4}.

13

(The following are examples of identified unreviewed safety questions)

(i) The fuel and control rod design criteria for the ELWR design; the first cycle fuel, control rod, and core design; and the methods used to analyze these components.

(ii) The ELWR human-system interface design implementation process.

(iii) Other identified unreviewed safety questions.

A.15 Recordkeeping (a) An applicant or licensee that references the ELWR design certification must maintain records of all changes resulting from Section

-~

A.13(b) or (d). These records must describe the changes, discuss the need for the change, and, as applicable, discuss any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the change, as required by 10 CFR 52.63.

(b) An applicant or licensee that references the ELWR design certification must ~aintain and submit quarterly reports of all changes to the facility under Section A.13(d)(3) until the applicant or licensee receives either an operating license under 10 CFR Part 50 or the Commission makes its findings under 10 CFR 52.103.

Records must be maintained and submitted in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 thereafter.

(c) An applicant or licensee that references the ELWR design certification must maintain all records required by this section in an 14

auditable form and make them available for inspection until their application is withdrawn or their license expires.

15