ML20046A851
| ML20046A851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308020006 | |
| Download: ML20046A851 (3) | |
Text
........................
RELEAf;ED TO THE PDR NOTATION VOTE:
-ffY95 t-:
1 ~
I C....;
RESPONSE SHEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
C0f44ISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-287A - FORM AND CONTENT FOR A DESIGN CERTIFICATION RULE APPROVED X/in part DISAPPROVED X/in part ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0f44ENTS:
See attached comments.
RBRS!88881128e4 bM CORRESPONDENCE PDR SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/X /
June 4, 1993 DATE j
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
i
. ENTERED ON "AS" YES X
NO 0?f i
1$b102 3
[
s' l
Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-92-287A:
I agree with the staff's recommendation to issue for public comment a proposed form and content for future design certification rules and, with-one exception, am comfortable soliciting comment on the substantive approach that the staff proposes to take in SECY-92-287A.
b The one exception concerns the " change standard" that the staff proposes be applied to NRC-initiated modifications to matters addressed in the design certification.
Consistent with the Commission's Staff Requirements Memorandum concerning SECY '
377, and for the reasons set forth below, I continue to;believe that NRC-proposed backfits affecting any matter resolved in connection with a design certification rulemaking (i.e., any matter addressed in either Tier 1 or Tier-2) should be subject to the backfitting standards of 10 CFR 52.63, rather than the less i
stringent provisions of 10 CFR 50.109.
In my view, adoption of a lower threshhold for NRC-initiated changes to Tier 2 would be a significant departure from a key concept that the Commission 1
embraced when it issued Part 52 -- a concept that is the very cornerstone of the Part 52 framework ft achieving regulatory stability with respect to future plant design requirements.
Succinctly stated, Part 52 contemplates that all safety issues l
associated with nuclear power plant designs certified under Part 52 are to be settled with a high degree of finality at the time of design certification.
The strictures of 10 CFR 52.63, which limit the imposition of new requirements on certified designs to those necessary for adequate protection of the public health and safety or common defense and security, or compliance with the Commission's regulations, were adopted at the time Part 52 was promulgated to ensure that all matters settled in connection with the design certification were indeed settled with finality.'
For the foregoing reasons, I would modify the staff's proposal along the lines set forth in Enclosure 2 to SECY-92-287A (see p.
3, A2(a)), thereby incorporating the 52.63-type change standard for controlling NRC-initiated changes to Tier 2 information.
This approach should be reflected in the proposed design certification rule format prior to solicitation of public.
j j
comment.
'At the time Part 52 was issued, the Commission did not contemplate the two-tiered design certification rule structure subsequently advanced by the staff to provide the flexibility for changing design details necessitated by practical considerations, such as as-procured equipment design information, and as-built information unavailable prior to construction.
The Commission, however, made clear in its SRM on SECY-90-377 that in adopting the two-tiered approach, NRC-initiated changes to Tier 2 should l
be governed by the standards of 10 CFR 52.63(b).
(:
l 1
-o
.o i In addition, I would recommend that, as a procedural matter, we direct the staff to proceed with publication of the proposed design certification rule format, modified as indicated above, 7
2 for a comment period of 75 days.
Following public comment, I would recommend that the staff finalize its proposals and submit l
them to the Commission for approval, so that the approach can be l
formalized in a manner that would be generically applicable to y
all subsequent design certifications (e.a.,.via a Policy Statement), prior to the time when we actually begin processing design certifications.
l l
i 2Since this proposal could potentially affect Canadian interests involving certification of the CANDU-3 design, the usual 60 day comment period should be extended 15 days pursuant to the approach for implementing the U.S.-Canadian Free Trada Agreement.