ML20043E220
| ML20043E220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Carr NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| BEVILL-900327, CCS, NUDOCS 9006120174 | |
| Download: ML20043E220 (1) | |
Text
-_
900096 l
MR. BEVILL:
Please describe the difference between the U.S. and other countries with regard to the use of standard designs and indicate the reason for these differences.
CHAIRMAN CARR:
The'NRC continues to encourage and endorse standard plant designs through its policy statement, " Nuclear Power Plant Standardization" dated September 15, 1387, and its new licensing procedures in 10 CFR Part 52, "Early Site. Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Reactors." This rule provides incentives to utilities that select standard designs.
France is the only country that h65 achieved a significant degree of standardi-zation of nuclear power plants.
It was able to achieve that degree of standardization because it has one national utility, one reactor manufacturer, and two turbine-generator suppliers. However, even France has five different PWR designs and some gas-cooled and liquid metal cooled reactors.
In the U.S.
and most other countries, utilities have the option of choosing amongst a number of reactor manufacturers, turbine-generator suppliers, and architect-engineering firms.
Competing market forces, the choice of multiple vendors and designs, and the lack of substantial incentives to standardize in the past made it difficult to achieve a significant degree of standardization.
9006120174 900327 (C6f
$0DILLb$b PDC
@ !)
Question 10/Bevill/RES 03/27/90