ML20056F301
| ML20056F301 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/12/1993 |
| From: | Remick F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056F080 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308260334 | |
| Download: ML20056F301 (2) | |
Text
F i
pn ato v
/
'o, UNITED STATES l
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,, f
{
1 WASHINGT ON, 0.C. 20555
%u k
I J
orricr OF THE July 12, 1993
)
COMMISSIONER i
l MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor e
or for Operations Executive,D'
'N FROM:
Fpt 4 mick
SUBJECT:
S 'CY-93-087 :
POLICY, TECHNICAL, AND LICENSING ISSUES PERTAINING TO EVOLUTIONARY AND ADVANCED LIGHT-WATER REACTOR (ALWR)
DESIGNS As part of my vote on SECY-93-087, dated 25 June 1993, I indicated that I would provide comments separately on items for which the staff was not requesting decisions at this time.
This memo provides comments and requests for further information on two such items.
Your assistance would be appreciated.
I II.M Reliability Assurance Procram In SECY-93-087 the staff describes the purpose of the Reliability Assurance Program (RAP) as well as the Design RAP (D-RAP) and Operational RAP (0-RAP).
The staff indicates that its position on 0-RAP will be provided in a future Commission paper.
Further, the staff indicates that "the staff position is that a high level commitment to a RAP applicable to design certification (D-RAP) should be required as a non-system generic Tier 1 requirement with no associated ITAAC."
However, the staff provides no rationale for its position on D-RAP and several commenters indicate strong objection to the staff position and request further discussion with the staff.
When the staff provides its position on O-RAP to the Commission,.
{
I would appreciate receiving additional information on the rationale for the staff's position on D-RAP, as well as an explanation of the relationship between the staff final _ position i
on RAP and (1) 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, (2) -implementation of the Maintenance Rule and (3) the Utility Requireronts Document.
)
009126 EDO 9308260334 930802 PDR ORG NE ED
=7 > ' ' N F - 4 f-f i
PDR i
~
4
.ws e
4 2
i III.G Simplification of Offsite Emeraency Plannina In SECY-93-087 the staff indicates that it "will evaluate this issue for the passive plant designs when sufficient supporting information becomes available.
The staff plans to update the status of this review in a separate Commission paper."
I would appreciate knowing the staff's schedule for providing the separate Commission paper.
Further, inasmuch as it is not apparent to me at this time that passive plants will necessarily represent lower risks than the evolutionary plants, will the staff paper also address this issue from the standpoint of the evolutionary designs?
Finally, if NRC requirements for offsite emergency planning are changed, would an amendment to a specific design certification rule be necessary to implement such changes to a certified design or to a plant referencing such a certified design?
t t
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner de Planque SECY i
h t
I e
l J
I k
i i