ML20029D913
| ML20029D913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1994 |
| From: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hink A AECL TECHNOLOGIES |
| References | |
| PROJECT-679A NUDOCS 9405120252 | |
| Download: ML20029D913 (4) | |
Text
img f
f [f l'j(ii f
UNITED STATES 5
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- s. Yf WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555--0001
- ...+
May 6, 1994 Project No. 679 Mr. A. D. Hink, President AECL Technologies, Inc.
9210 Corporate Boulevard Suite 410 Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Mr. Hink:
Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1994, in which you state that you plan to submit the CANDU 3 design certification application on or before September 30, 1994. The knowledge of your commitment will enable the staff to do the necessary resource planning in order to handle your application as expeditiously as possible.
As you are aware, my staff met with Messrs. Rib and Durante of your staff on April 14, 1994, to discuss the concerns addressed in your letter.
This letter responds both to your letter and to those discussions.
You cited costs for licensing for plant construction and site approval in Canada. A custom plant application and design certification are quite different, so the costs should not be expected to be the same.
A design certification review requires more staff effort than does a custom application review because a determination of safety must be made before the as-built configuration is available for consideration. Also, other factors that could lead to a lengthier design review include the following:
the positive void coefficient, treatment of the design's severe accident response, and lack of NRC codes capable of modeling the horizontal pressure tube design. The staff plans to review the CANDU 3 design to the same depth that it would review an advanced U.S. designed reactor.
It is our understanding that the NRC review will go beyond that done in Canada, especially in the areas of probabilistic risk assessment and severe accidents. As the design certification can be used for any number of combined operating license applications, with only siting issues to be resolved, serious safety implications could exist if the staff failed to uncover a design defect in any type reactor.
It should be noted that the estimated 105 full time equivelent (FTE) employees for the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and 23 FTE employees for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research identified in SECY-94-079, " Schedule and Resource Estimates for CANDU 3 Design Certification Review," are direct FTE and would be the basis for NRC fees. A decision has not yet been made on what research costs are design specific.
With regard to a more detailed description of the type of analysis and support contracts the staff expects to implement, these will be similar to those being implemented for the ongoing design certification reviews of the evolutionary and passive reactors.
Since the review process and the level of information the staff needs to certify the advanced light water reactor designs should be
}
directly applicable to the CANDU 3 review, we encourage you to examine what I hrj 9405120252 940506
/
PDR PROJ g
, c c /~ g[Cf f
s x
679A PDR
\\
11CC04 np3()f 5 v. 'L [ /, w s o pg2ll RLTURN M REGULATORY CENTRAL ElLES
l 7 Mr. A. D. Hink May 6,1994 the staff has done with regard to these designs.
The staff does not expect to duplicate existing work. However, we must provide an independent capability 1
to review the CANDU 3 design and ensure its safety.
Our cost estimates reflect the work needed to accomplish that objective.
The $600,000 in NRC charges you identified in your letter has been for staff and contractor involvement in the preapplication review, and is not included in the estimates given in SECY-94-097. These efforts have focused on the development of policy issues, the containment, unresolved safety issues /
generic safety issues, materials, fuels, probabilistic risk assessment, and others.
The staff expects that the knowledge gained from this early work will facilitate the review of the application, and this benefit was considered in developing the cost estimates.
Preapplication work has produced a number of contractor reports that are available for your review; however, the real benefit is in the time invested by the NRC staff in becoming familiar with the design and examining some of the issues.
Detailed information on our planned analysis efforts and contract work has not yet been developed; therefore, we cannot respond to your request to review such material. As we proceed, we will be producing more detailed plans and l
other materials, much of which will be available to the public.
If you have further questions regarding this letter please contact the CANDU 3 Project Manager, Dino Scaletti, at (301) 504-1104 or the Director of Advanced Reactors, Gail Marcus, at (301) 504-1111.
Sincerely, hl William T. Russell, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page I
l
~
4
=
d i N Mr. A. D. Hink i.
CANDU Project No. 679 cc:
Louis N. Rib, Licensing Consultant AECL Technologies i
9210 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 410
}
Rockville, Maryland 20850 d
A.M. Mortada Aly, Senior Project Officer j
Advanced Projects Licensing Group Studies and Codification Division Atomic Energy Control Board P.O. Box 1046, Station B i
270 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KlP SS9 Project Director - CANDU-3 AECL CANDU 2251.Speakman Drive Mississaugua, Ontario, Canada L5K 182 i
L. Manning Muntzing Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 1
i Steve Goldberg, Budget Examiner j
Office of Management and Budget i
725 17th Street, NW.
Washington, D.C.
20503 l
4 3
J, W
W
hc Lct fi Q Mr. A. D. Hink the staff has done with regard to these designs. The staff does not expect to duplicate existing work. However, we must provide an independent capability to review the CANDU 3 design and ensure its safety.
Our cost estimates reflect the work needed to accomplish that objective.
The $600,000 in NRC charges you identified in your letter has been for staff and contractor involvement in the preapplication review, and is not included in the estimates given in SECY-94-097.
These efforts have focused on the development of policy issues, the containment, unresolved safety issues /
generic safety issues, materials, fuels, probabilistic risk assessment, and others. The staff expects that the knowledge gained from this early work will facilitate the review of the application, and this benefit was considered in developing the cost estimates.
Preapplication work has produced a number of contractor reports that are available for your review; liowever, the real benefit is in the time invested by the NRC staff in becoming familiar with the design and examining some of the issues.
Detailed information on our planned analysis efforts and contract work has not yet been developed; therefore, we cannot respond to your request to review such material. As we proceed, we will be producing more detailed plans and other materials, much of which will be available to the public.
If you have further questions regarding this letter please contact the CANDU 3 Project Manager, Dino Scaletti, at (301) 504-1104 or the Director of Advanced Reactors, Gail Marcus, at (301) 504-1111.
Sincerely, 0:fginaI Signo! W TILLI AM T. RUSS71D William T. Russell, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File NRC PDR ED0# 0009977 J. Taylor J. Milhoan H. Thompson J. Blaha R. Scroggins W. Russell /F. Miraglia L. Reyes A. Thadani F. Gillespie PDLR R/F (w/ incoming)
D. Crutchfield W. Travers G. Marcus D. Scaletti P. Shea 0GC OPA OCA B. Sweeney, GT0009977 P. Magnanelli, GT0009977 NRR Mail Room (GT0009977)
- See previous concurrence OFC:
LA:ADAR PM:
tA Ry D:PDAR:ADAR TECH ED*
b NAME:
. D DScsG GMarcus[
MMejac 045h94 04/ 94 04/27/94 04/28/94 DATE:
0FC:
Adht:NRR b f
RR NAME:
DC u ch ld
'A WRussell O(/[/94 0
94 DATE:
0FFICIAL DOCUMENT COPY DOCUMENT NAME:
GT9977