ML20045F665
| ML20045F665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/17/1993 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307080208 | |
| Download: ML20045F665 (3) | |
Text
'
RELEASED TO THE PDR N0 TAT 10N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET
- ,,,(??,,,,,,,,joif,...
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C014!4ISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-104 - PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEWS OF THE ADVANCED REACTOR (PRISM, MHTGR, AND PIUS)
AND CANDU 3 DESIGNS
,,/ u APPROVED DISAPPROVED X ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
/hea><
a //ncb I 3u
/
. f]l ff /
(j 7 '
SIGHATURE 4
RELEASE VOTE
/X/
/ 7% /99 (
DATE i
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES No
$SA7$8$A!TS83'7
(/ vuW) j CORRESPONDENCE PDR
4 Commissioner Remick's comments on SECY 93-104:
I disapprove staff's recommendations in SECY 93-104.
I believe that the staff's proposed action on NRC's advanced reactors and CANDU-3 reviews is premature.
WITGR and PRISM:
With respect to the MHTGR and PRISM reviews, it is my understanding that the Congress has not acted on DOE's recommendations.
In addition, industry has indicated its continued support for the advanced reactor designs, particularly the MHTGR.
The MHTGR and PRISM programs have, in the past, received strong congressional support.
If the Congress concurs with the Administration's recommendations, then the NRC should seek the vendors' input as to whether they desire to pursue on their own the licensing reviews of theiv respective plant designs.
The staff should inform the Commission of vendor decisions.
If the Commission adopts the staff's recommendations, then the NRC will lose inhouse and contractor technical expertise to review advanced reactor theories and designs.
If the Congress and the industry decide to abandon such activities, then the NRC has no choice but to terminate its review of these designs.
I do not believe that we have reached that juncture and a Commission's decision to cease all reviews in these areas is premature and counter to the Commission policy statement on Advanced Reactors, which states:
"The Commission's primary objectives in issuing an advanced reactor policy statement are three fold:
o First, to encourage the earliest possible interaction of applicant, vendors, and government agencies with the NRC; o
Second, to provide all interested parties, including the public, with the Commission's views concerning the desired characteristics of advanced reactor designs; and o
Third, to express the Commission's intent to issue timely comment on the implications of such designs for safety and the regulatory process."
For the time being until Congressional and industry actions are known, I support the status quo in staff's activities related to the review of the MHTGR and PRISM programs.
The need for early interaction with the designers was underscored during the recent Commission meeting on SECY 93-087, where the Commission remarked that the NRC should have initiated its technical reviews on new
':echnologies much earlier than it did.
~
t Commissioner Remick's comments on SECY 93-104 (continued):
CANDU:
With respect to the CANDU-3 design, I concur with Commissioner de Planque in her support of Option 3; continue the review as planned.
PIUS:
With respect to the PIUS design, the staff should fully document its assessment of the PSID and then close out the docket until such time that a formal application is submitted.
Allocating 0.3 FTE to maintain an open docket would be wasteful.
t 4
l 2