ML20002A971
| ML20002A971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1980 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Abbott E HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002A972 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012090264 | |
| Download: ML20002A971 (2) | |
Text
-.
((s -
0 11 :
o UNITED STATES C
D23*\\
4
'ig NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cg g
g,
,E WASHINGTON, D.C 20555 3
November 21, 1980 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER i
u Mr. Ed Abbott i
Office of Technology Assessment L' gress of the United States Wa aington, D. C.
20510
Dear Ed:
I have read tha report and my first connent is that it reads well; it flows nicely from fairly light material to the more substantial Chapter III.
I find the report somewhat biased on its treatment of the NRC in that it seems to place most of the blame for the slow progress towards standard plants on us while it also implies that we would benefit the most from them.
The political climate is ignored as a source of prob-lems and benefits to the industry from a standardization program are downplayed. There is also the criticism that NRC has accepted "too many" standard designs.
Chapter I talks about how by the law:; of supply and demand the number of designs ava.ilable is limited and will probably diminish as the most experienced A/E's take over the field.
This would lead me to predict that not all the accepted designs will be used and thus, we need not worry about too many approved designs at this point.
The Table of Issues (Enclosure 1 to the letter) looks good to me except that the effects on safety are not truly assessed (Item No. 2).
Section B in Chapter III looks at this and I thought they made a pretty good case but the writers steadfastly refer to these as " alleged safety bene fi ts. " Somehow this iaaves me neither here nor there but I guess it would take significantly more work to come to a more definite con-clusion.
I could not control my instincts and marked a few typos and edits along the way.
I am sure you have someone proofreading this, but thought it might be useful to have this additional check.
e 4
8012090.
. Also a sentence at the bottom of page 54 regarding Browns ferry is not consistent with NRC's findings.
Page 27 needs to be updated.
And I would change the seritence on page 9 as indicated.
The various typos, edits, and changes are on pages with the corners turned down.
The report is enclosed.
Altogethe
.nk it is a good report.
\\\\
St cerely, J se h
. Hendrie Commi:sioner
^
Enclosure:
As stated
.