ML20058A798
| ML20058A798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/20/1990 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010290195 | |
| Download: ML20058A798 (4) | |
Text
-.
.s TRANSMITTAL T0:
I Document Control Desk, PI-24 ADVANCE COPY T0:
Public Document Room *
)
DATE:
/0 //9 / 90 erationsBranc((.
FROM:
SECY Attached are copies of SECY papers and related documents.
They
)
are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and I
placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or required.
M b
M
- 1. k fo-o rs~~
11.
n90-e s 7
% & 96 -f St~ $
Y
- 2. $0 04 7 N l0/o /9012. /
V0 ' o2 W n
k Q'M M A" ~
g 34lJt.t.4 %
90-0 A
- 13. 90 ot ff 6Yhd- /0/G90 Al W
&W 9 0 2 h/'
M
' A A fo-art'~ 14. M /#/!//f o Y
4
(%.W'M
%. Q.w tzi.o ' A S M A22.a.4 4 6 % -d I f' 15. M A 9 8 - A fI
%. E455 W 6
AM 8 & #.C I 16.
4
^ h i4L
_& W [0- # /"T~~
7.
8.
0 ' 0 [0 l l8.
+
M. M'hM M
9 M M A k d 6/ 19.
- b. W M
- 10. M A N-847 20.
I i
- PDR is advanced two copies of each SECY paper and one copy of each related document.
9010290195 900320 pDR COMMS NRCC l-CORRESPONDENC.E PDC l
e
~'
- - ~ ~ ~ '
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e f.
RELEASED TO THE PDR
?
NOTATION VOTE
.s RESPONSE SHEET Y **
TO:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:
COINISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-055 - PIUS DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED X w/cmts DISAPPROVED _
ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COR4ENTS:
SEE ATTACHED COMMENTS l
i l
W/ SIGNATURE i
RELEASE VOTE
/b kdO/f0 DATE i
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES1/ NO
.~
e r *
.s Page 1 of 2 1
COMMISSIONER REMICK'S REMARKS ON SECY-90-055:
In order to minimize the complexity and uncertainty in the regulatory process, in August 1986, the Commission published its Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants.
In the background section of the policy statement, the Commission stated that the primary objectives in issuing an advanced reactor policy statement are three fold:
"First, to encourage the earliest possible interaction of applicant, vendor, and government agencies with the NRC; Second, to provide all interested parties, including the public with the Commission's views concerning the desired characteristics of advanced reactor designs; and Third, to express the Commission's intent to issue timely comment on the implications of such' designs for safety and the regulatory process."
I believe that it is the NRC's duty and responsibility to strive for a stable and timely-regulatory process.
A prerequisite for a stable and timely process is a technically competent regulatory agency.
The emphasis on " technically competent regulatory-agency" was the intent of the Congress when it enacted the Energy Reorganization Act and was highlighted by former President Gerald Ford during his signing of that legislation on October 11, 1974.
Technical' competence can not be achieved overnight. Not only does it require continued application of basic and advanced scientific j
concepts and engineering, but also requires being cognizant and L
involved in emerging and developing technologies.
l For these reasons I approve the staff's program plan for conducting the conceptual design review of the PIUS reactor with the followina conditionst.
1.
Similarly appropriate resources should be devoted to the conceptual design reviews of the AP600, SBWR, MHTGR, MLMR, CANDU-3 and other advanced and passive reactor designs.
I
'(I do not consider this to be inconsistent with the Commission's past decision on review priorities.
These I
L proposed efforts would be relatively minor in comparison to a full review of a licensing submittal.)
4 I
ci Page 2 of 2 COMMISSIONER REMICK'S REMARKS ON SECY-90-055 (CONTINUED):
2.
In regard to the Italian licensing authority's (ENEA) request to exchange an AP600 RELAPS computer model for a RELAPS computer model of PIUS, I recommend that this exchange not be made without written consent by Westinghouse.
(My personal preference is for staff to obtain the " raw" data and develop the computer model from the " raw" data.
The model we apply in our licensing review / audits should be QA'd.
With my personal belief that hands on analyses is vital for technical competence, I would prefer that the NRC develop the model and fully document all of the plant parameters and design.)
r 3.
As NRR will eventually have the responsibility for reviewing all license applications, it is important that.NRR is
-knowledgeable of and feels ownership of the results of the-early NRC reviews.
I would therefore like to see effective interaction betwean RES and NRR in the conceptual reviews of all advanced reactor designs.
4 l
9 I
L.