19 CFR Part 52, U.S. ABWR Comment #2

DOCKETED
USNRC

PR 52
(76FR03540)

April 5, 2011 (9:35am)

HITACHI

OFFICE OF SECRETARY

RULEMAKINGS AND
ADJUDICATIONS STAFF

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy
Jerald Ga Head
Senior Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
P.O. Box 780
3901 Castle Hayne Road
MC A09

April 5, 2011

Wilmington, NC 28402

USA
T 910 819 5692
F 910 362 5692

MFN 11-137
Secretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff
Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:

Comments on Proposed Rule; U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Aircraft Impact
Design Certification Amendment; NRC-2010-0134; RIN 3150-AI84; 76 Federal
Register 3540 (Jan. 20, 2011)

Dear Secretary,
General Electric Company, acting through its GE Nuclear business ("GENE") was the original applicant
for the ABWR Design Certification Rule ("DCR"l. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy ("GEH"), GENE's successor
business organization, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule that would add
an "option" to the ABWR DCR. Note that GEH was not involved in development of the amendment
addressed by the proposed rule and, therefore, does not comment on technical issues in the
proposed amendment. GEH provides comments in three topic areas below.
Proposed Rule for Option to Address STPNOC Aircraft Impact Assessment
GEH requests that the NRC suspend the rulemaking and review the STPNOC proposed changes to the
ABWR design certification as departures in the STP Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application
proceeding, as is allowed by NRC regulations associated with aircraft impact assessment ("AIA"]
requirements. See 10 CFR 50.150(oa03)(v01B) and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(147). The proposed rulemoking
appears to fashion an approach solely for the purpose of supporting the STP Units 3 and 4 COLA. In
fact, Chairman Jaczko made a similar observation in his voting record for the ABWR AIA amendment:
It appears that the primary rationale for adopting branches within on appendix over
separate appendices is to make it easier to justify, adopt, and use the options
approach to support the licensing activities associated with the South Texas Project
combined license application.
Chairman Joczko goes on to state:
It should be acknowledged in the revised narrative that the use of the options
approach by the NRC is not fully in the spirit of the Commission Policy Statement on

a4Y-o7
=
TmplaM-t

MFN 11-137
April 5, 2011
Page 2

Nuclear Power Plant Standardization. The adoption of the options approach by the
NRC, albeit permissible, will introduce complexity and does not encourage
standardizationwithin a single design.
GEH agrees with Chairman Jaczko's assessment of both the "options" approach and the "branches"
approach. GEH also suggests that the "options" approach, as well as the "branches" approach for
renewal, as applied in this specific case or as may be applied in the future, undermines the
protection afforded by the Commission in its decision to use rulemaking to certify standard designs.
See 54 Fed. Reg. 15372, 15375 (Apr. 18, 1989).
"Branches" Approach for Renewing a Design Certification
Further to the "branches" approach, GEH requests that, if the NRC proceeds with the current
rulemaking, the discussion regarding renewal of a design certification rule be removed from
Supplementary Information associated with the final rule, as the STPNOC request is not an
application for renewal, and the NRC need not make a decision at this time regarding how it will later
treat multiple renewal applications for a single design certification. GEH maintains that, regardless
of NRC regulatory provisions regarding use of an alternate vendor in a Combined License application,
when an original applicant (or its direct successor) continues to do business and support a design
certification, the NRC should treat an alternate entity's application as a new design certification
under the provisions of 10 CFR 52.59(c). If the NRC retains information discussing a design
certification renewal in the final rulemaking, the NRC should remove all discussion regarding
commercial value of a design certification, as the NRC has no direct knowledge regarding how
potential customers would value a design certification.
GEH also suggests that, similar to the "options" approach, the "branches" approach undermines the
protection afforded by the Commission in its decision to use rulemoking to certify standard designs.
See 54 Fed. Reg. 15372, 15375 (Apr. 18,1.989).
Specific Comments
Notwithstanding GEH's request that the NRC suspend the rulemaking, GEH provides specific
comments on the proposed rule. The proposed rule includes a replacement for Paragraph VIII.B.5.d,
as follows:
d. If an applicant or licensee proposes to deport from the information required by 10
CFR 52.47(a)(28) to be included in the FSAR for the standard design certification, then
the applicant or licensee shall consider the effect of the changed feature or capability
on the original assessment required by 10 CFR 50.150(o). The applicant or licensee
must also document how the modified design features and functional capabilities
continue to meet the assessment requirements in 10 CFR 50.150(a)(1) in accordance
with Section X of this appendix.
76 Fed. Reg. at 3560. It appears that this would replace reference to the following current
requirement in Paragraph VIII.B.5.d:
d. If a departure requires a license amendment pursuant to paragraphs B.5.b or B.5.c
of this section, it is governed by 10 CFR 50.90.

MFN 11-137
April 5, 2011
Page 3

GEH notes that the deletion of the current requirement does not seem appropriate within the context
of Paragraph VIII.B.5 and suggests that current paragraphs VIII.B.5.d and VIII.B.5.e be changed to
VIII.B.5.e and VIII.B.5.f, respectively. The NRC should review this change and determine if its proposed
placement in the rule is correctly identified and, if so, consider changing the current paragraphs "d'
and "e" to new paragraphs "e" and "f" to reflect the addition of a new requirement, rather than a
replacement for the current paragraph "d."
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.
Sin erely,

"'erald G. Head

Cc:

R. Kingston, GEH
A. Muniz, NRC
Caroline Redo, GEH

Rulemaking Comments
From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Attachments:

Campbell, Patricia L (GE Power & Water) [patriciaL.campbell@ge.com]
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:21 AM
Rulemaking Comments
Gilles, Nanette
Comments on NRC-2010-0134/RIN 3150-AI84
MFN 11-137.pdf

1