ML20058B863
| ML20058B863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/11/1990 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| TASK-PINV, TASK-SE NUDOCS 9010310028 | |
| Download: ML20058B863 (3) | |
Text
,,,
RELEASED TO THE PDR !
N0TATI0N V 0 T d
/ 4 //.9 / 0 o d'
.. I.........,*,3$k,,,j RESPONSE _SHEEI TO:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMISSION FROM:
C0MISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-067 - CANDU 3 DESIGN CERTIFICATION AP ROVE ISAP OV D A
IN O
(
NOT P TIcI ING R ouES1 Scug10N t
v v
4 COMENTS:
See attached comments.
l Y
Ann Q
SIGNATURE 4 '11 '"
RELEASE VOTE
/J/
.DATE WITHHOLD VOTE-
/
/
4 ENTFDFn ON "AS" YES /
NO E8A*c88siRR8822 CORRESPONDENCE PDC
. ~
~
6 Com'missioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-90-67:
Until we have determined the level of resources that will be required to support the priorities and process established by the Commission r the evolutionary and passive reactor designs, I am not prepareu,o commit resources to the review of advanced reactor designs such as CANDU.
Once we have determined what resources will be required for the review of the evolutionary and passive designs (including the respective EPRI requirements documents), I think it would then be appropriate to turn our attention to evaluating what resources, if any, are necessary or appropriate for review of the CANDU design.
Accordingly, I would recommend that action on this paper be deferred until that time.
(This should not be construed as an indication of my position on the merits of whether we should undertake a review of the CANDU design.
I have not yet reached that decision.)
In the interim, I have no objection to seeking the additional information requested by Commissioner Rogers.
In this regard, I would particularly urge the staff to parsue the matter of whether the Canadians would be willing to fund all or part of the NRC review, should we decide to undertake such a review
' on the question of our ability to accept funding from a foreign entity, it appears to me that the fact that the activities to be undertaken by NRC would involve licensing services of a type that would be covered by 10 CFR Part 170 is irrelevant to the question of whether we can accept such funds under our appropriations act.
Indeed, the appropriations language seems to be clear:
moneys received by the Commission for.
. services rendered to foreign governments
. may be retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with those activities.
The concluding proviso in the appropriations language does nothing to alter this conclusion:
It simply requires that those sums appropriated be offset by any license fees collected by the agency, but it specifically excludes " moneys received for.
seFvices rendered to foreign governments.
Because of this exclusion, I read this language as permitting us to accept funds from a foreign entity, even if the activities to be undertaken by NRC involve licensing services of a type that would be covered by 10 CFR Part 170.
If there are questions about our authority on this matter, I would recommend that we solicit an opinion from the Comptroller General.
t
i I
' TRANSMITTAL TO:
Y Document Control Desk, PI 24 ADVANCE COPY TO:
Public Document Room
- l DATE:
/0 //9 / 90 SECY,OperationsBranc[/.[.
FROM:
Attached are copies of SECY papers and related documents.
They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No other distribution is requested or required.
4t h'aAi M
- 1. L. 9 a - a r.r il. o4y W Sv 9o -s.rr- /-
- 2. 40 - e4 7 dki /Va/po 12. &- fo,2 P f n
Adu.2 w@90-o n'O MNN 4
A 4(
- 13. fo t F F d h c_. /o M 9 c
'[
O W 9 0
,*2 hf' y
k 90-arf ~ la. d h A- /o/Y/9o G.,. W' m M. % A 5 M Ad.04% A h-dIJ"" 15. D A 9*
eit f I
. W i 0,4-.cti-6 N 90 - O d '~~
16.
Go.m.KLm.aihL M N
- 7. Akh.4. l. W f0- # W l7.
8.
f0 ~ 0 [0 l 18.
. shM a 4
9 Bd.AsAn b CG7
, &m. h e 10.4Hd.4 /. A 70-84 7 20.
- PDR is advanced two copies of each SECY paper and one copy of each related document r
DFA 1
&