ML19312E424
| ML19312E424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/27/1980 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Casey Smith NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006040392 | |
| Download: ML19312E424 (2) | |
Text
}
f
~~
ETf i i 1
l Clifford V. Smith. Director, NMSS Attached is a response to question #4 from the June 28, 1978, Hearings on Waste Management (Flowers Subcomittee).
This response was telephone to Dan Fehringer on 8/25/78 by T. P. Speis of my staff.
f Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management, NRR 27595
\\
'l l
,0 9su\\,@y, y
-jl 80 06040 3 f(
l.
FWG!6hMs ll
_ _r -
l l
4.
Question:
In the Committee's experience it seems that the regulation of the environmental, health and safety aspects of energy technologies is often at loggerheads with the development of new technologies.
The effect of applying the regulatory process at too early a develop-mental stage in the case of new fossil technologies for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor has had the effect.of increasing costs, delaying and possibly even preventing the development of the technologies, which in the long run may be cleaner and safer than present techno-logies.
How does NRC make allowances for these kinds of considerations?
Answer:
The regulatory process requires that radiological health and safety, environmental, and common defense and security matters associated with each plant and/or facility subject to licensing be examined on their individual technical merits.
In particular, safety features are required that can be justified based on previous and current technology.
This may impose a severe burden on first-of-a-kind plants, where previous experience is limited.
For such plants, an effort is made to avoid passing on to subsequent plants the require-ments for any protective measures that may eventually be found to be unnecessary on the prototype.
However, it is sometimes difficult to eliminate protective features that were used in the prototype from future plants, unless a sound basis can be developed by applicants for the elimination of such features.
It should be pointed out that for first-of-a-kind plants specific regulations or guidance are not available and an applicant has some flexibility to design and/or build a plani. to meet performance and safety objectives embodied in the Commission's General Design Criteria.
As more experience is gained and the technology matures, the General Design Criteria can be supplemented with specific regulatory guides to minimize subjectivity in both the design and the regulatory review process.
1