ML20056B493
| ML20056B493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/17/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Young W ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056B494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008280357 | |
| Download: ML20056B493 (2) | |
Text
h [)d e
[. pa uogD o
UNITED STATES
{, },
.?
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.j, -
y g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\.%
f" August 17, 1990 CHAIRMAN I
Mr. William H.
Young Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Department of Dergy Washington, D.C.
20585
Dear Mr. Young:
I am responding to your letter of July 16, 1990, in which you provided the views of the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the
-need for operation of new nuclear power plants, offered comments on recent actions by the Nuclear Reculatory Commission (NRC) related to certification of advanced licht water reactors (ALWRs),
and requested support from the NRC for certain aspects of DOE's national planning efforts related to nuclear energy.
Your letter specifically expressed concern that the current process for NRC design certification may result in extended delays in the design certification schedules fer the four ALWR design reviews that the DOE is sponsoring.
Also, you expressed concern that the level of detail necessary for design certification should not overspecify details that would limit competition, unduly complicate the regulatory process, or stifle technological advances.
In-response to your concern regarding the review schedule, the Ccmmission considered various options for the review process which included the role of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in-developing design requirements for ALWRs.
The Commission selected a review process that will enable it to consider and resolve important safety and policy issues early in the design certification process.
This review process also allows for a thorough review by the Commission's' Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and should allow the NRC to perform an efficient and comprehensive evaluation of both EPRI requirements and the ALWR designs.
The Commission is interested in establishing an effic-ient review process.
Our mandate is to ensure that all issues affecting the public health and safety are adequately addressed.
To accomplish this, the staff needs sufficient time to identify and evaluate these issues and to conduct thorough reviews to ensure that the proposed ALWR designs provide adequate protection.
As we have not at this time defined all issues related to the ALWRs, we believe it is premature
+9 commit to a specific schedule.
However, the Commission is considering the level of detail required for design certification and.should arrive at a decision, as well as update its review schedule, if appropriate, later this fall.
We will keep you apprised of these decisions as they develop.
9008280357 90oe17 h
PDR COMMS NRCC coRReseoMos~ce roc g
2_-
In regard to your comment on the level of detail required for design certification, the Commission is firmly committed to-a process that will facilitate design certification under Part 52 of our regulations.
The process should also contribute to the achievement of the degree of standardization sought by all and minimize excessive diversity in_ designs.
Among other potential problems, excessive diversity can increase the complexity of maintenance, exacerbate the potential for human error, and affect the availability of spare parts.
The level of detail required in design certification applications is of great importance in determining what level of standardization is realized and must be resolved before the staff can reevaluate its schedules.
The Commission has met with both the staff and with representa-tives of industry to obtain recommendations for establishing an appropriate level of design detail.
Recently, the Commission published in the Federal Register a request for comment on SECY 90-241, "LeviT HT Deti1T Riquired for Design Certification Under Part 52."
I understand a copy of this document has been provided to your staff.
I would like to encourage you to provide specific comments on the options contained in the referenced paper so that the Commission can consider your views in its policy decisions on this issue.
Additionally, the Commission would be pleased to meet with you to further discuss issues-related to-the standardization of ALWR designs.
The Commission is also interested in hearing about efforts by DOE and the Nuclear Power Oversight Committee-(NP0C) to provide support for first-of-a-kind engineering efforts and to ensure that standardization of first-of-a-kind and follow-on plants will be achieved.
Sincerely, Kenneth M. Carr
.._ _ -