ML20056E393
| ML20056E393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/20/1993 |
| From: | De Planque NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308230300 | |
| Download: ML20056E393 (2) | |
Text
[
.........,..,~....... -
=.
' y ",,
~~"
N0TATI0N V0TE:
i O[fd i_
RESPONSE SHEET
'." _ m
'e
,m.
>,. m.,
m,,,
T0:
SAf4UEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE C0!44ISSION FROM:
COMMISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-092 - ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE ADVANCED REACTOR (PRISM, MHTGR, AND PIUS) i AND CANDU 3 DESIGNS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS APPROVED x on. art) DISAPPROVED x (in part) ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0!41ENTS:
see attached comments.
L R
k 40AQn SIGNATURE #
RELEASE VOTE
/ XX /
July 20, 1993 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
i ENTERED ON "AS" YES NO XX 9308230300 930720 PDR COMMS NRCC i
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
l s*
Commissioner de Planaue's comments on SECY-93-092 I approve the staff's conclusion that a prototype CANDU-3 is not l
required for design certification.
With respect to the ten policy issues in Enclosure 1,
I have the I
following comments:
1 For items A (Accident Evaluation), B (Source Term), and C
[
(Containment), I approve the staff's position.
For items E (Reactivity Control System), F (Operator Staffing and l
Function), G (Residual Heat Removal), and H (Positive Void i
Coefficient), I approve the staff's position, including its
{
agreement with the ACRS comment.
l For item D (Emergency Planning), I agree with Commissioners l
Rogers and Remick as follows:
(1) I agree with the staff I
proposal for no changes to regulations at this time, (2) final decision on emergency planning requirements should await further development of the accident scenarios and source term, and (3) work related to Emergency Planning should be closely correlated with these other aspects, and with the staff's approach to emergency planning for passive plants.
For item I (Control Room and Remote Shutdown Area Design), I agree with the Chairman.
For item J (Safety Classification of Systems, Structures and Components), I agree with Cr. Rogers that this issue cannot be l
l correctly considered as either Category 1 or Category 2 at this l
l time.
Its resolution must await future design developments and resolution of issues such as RTNSS, as well as design-specific resolution of other issues in SECY-93-092.
6 i
I l
4 i
l 1
l i
- -