ML20058K156
| ML20058K156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PINC, TASK-SE SECY-90-067, SECY-90-67, NUDOCS 9003120053 | |
| Download: ML20058K156 (7) | |
Text
JMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM4 RELEASED TO THE PDR f,,,,g g
r3 l _/4//4 /4 o 09 date '/ '
i e
.i f
- ""*ue......nig.....$
POLICY ISSUE February 28, 1990 (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
SECY-90-067 For:
The Commissioners From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
CANDU 3 DESIGN CERTIFICATION
Purpose:
To provide the Commission with the current status of the CANDU 3 review and to request Commission approval to infonn Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) Technologies about the elimination of NRC resources previously assigned to the CANDU 3 review through FY91 and the effect on the CANDU 3 review schedule.
Background:
In SECY-89-350, " Canadian CANDU 3 Design Certification,"
dated November 21, 1989, the staff informed the Consnission about AECL Technologies' intent to seek design certification of the CANDU 3 nuclear power plant in 1992. As discussed in SECY-89-350, although no resource funds for either staff personnel or technical assistance were budgeted for the CANDU 3 review in FY90, the staff planned to apply 1 FTE to the CANDU 3 review in FY90. The staff estimated that the staff review would require 10 FTEs per year 17 FY91 through FY94, and 5 FTEs in FY95 to perform the CANDU review and rulemaking.
Technical assistance was estimated at a level of approximately
$4 million per year for FY91 through FY94 and approximately
$1/2 million in FY95.
Discussion:
On October 18, 1989, the staff met with the Atomic Enerrc Control Board of Canada (AECB) to discuss technical usue:,
and the licensing status of CANDU 3.
A trip report is enclosed. -The AECB intends to compile a document that would be used to guide the review of CANDU 3.
Work on the document was expected to begin in late 1989 or early 1990. The AECB review is expected to begin in early 1990.
CONTACT:
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY D. Persinko, PMAS/NRR AVAILABLE WHEN THE X21278 san 13 gang AyAILAntt W
[y}g 2 @ D/'/dM m mmmmmMmmmmmmA
The Comissioners In accordance with direction provided by Chariman Carr in a memorandum dated December 22, 1989, the staff does not plan to expend services for the CANDU review in FY91. Effort in FY90 has also been suspended to be consistent with this plan.
If an application fo' certification is received concerning the CANDU 3 desigh, we will inform the Comission, so that the Comission can adcress review priorities under then-existing circumstances. L11mination of CANDU 3 review work in FY90 and FY9? would dehy staff review 2 years, assuming that the funds *iiminattd will be supplied in future years.
The staff intends to inform AEC rechnologies about the elimination of resources assigned to the CANDU 3 review through FY91 and the effect this kill have on the CANDU 3 review schedule, unless otherwise oirected by the Com.
mission. The Canadians may feel that the delay in staff review work before the application for certification is filed raises questions under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
Relevant provisions of the agreement require that Canadian companies be given equal concideration with U.S. companies.
In discussions with the NRC, AECL Technologies has indicated its desire to assist the staff in learning the CANDU technology and how it is applied to CANDU 3.
To accomplish this goal, AECL Technologies is investigating methods of paying for some NRC effort.
AECL Technologies wants to submit technology-transfer documents to the NRC in March or April 1990.
The NRC Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 101-101, 103 Stat. 664 (1989), authorizes the Comission to retain funds received for the " cooperative nuclear safety research program and services rendered to foreign governments and international organizations," and exempts those funds from the statutory restriction requiring deposit in the U.S. Treasury. Accept-ance of funds from foreign governments is more fully described in a memorandum dated August 21, 1989, from the General Counsel, William C. Parler to Chairman Carr. AECL Technologies has suggested an agreement providing for NRC Staff review and approval of technical reports submitted by AECL Technologies for subsequent direct pre-approved incorporation into the application for certified design to be submitted in the future. An analogy was made to the process for review and
t I
e The Commissioners approval of topical reports. NRR and OGC hav0 concluded that the AECL Technologies' proposal involves e.ctivities of the type covered by 10 CFR Part 170. Thus, undte the NRC's current appropriations act, moneys collected for such review activities would not be available to augment NRC's budget authority.
Alternatively the staff may be able to accept funds as services to foreign governments for activities that do not involve licensing services of the tyre covered by Part 170.
(-
This might include the development of independent review methods such as the modification or development of computer i
codes to model the thermal-hydraulic analyses and accident analysis codes. The staff intends to discuss this matter further with AECL Technologies.
Recommendation: That the Commission note that the staff intends to inform AECL Technologies about the elimination of resources assigned l
to the CANDU 3 review through FY91 and the effect this will have on the CANDU 3 review schedule. The staff intends to inform AECL Technologies within 10 working days of the date of this paper unless otherwise instructed by the Commission.
l f
Nf
~es M. Ta or ecutive Director for Operations Cnclosure:
As stated i
SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Thursdas, March 15, 1990, that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OIG LSS GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS ACNW ASLBP ASLAP SECY
l i
[fp en sq's, e
UNITED STAT [s v,f' *k NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=
I f,
"/
n ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20666 5
October 27, 1989 i
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas Cox, Section Chief Policy Developr4nt and Technical Support Section Policy Developrent and Technical Support Branch, NRR j
FROM:
Drew Persinko, Senior Technical Assistant l
Policy Development and Technical Support Section Policy Development and Technical Support Branch, NRR
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT--MEETING WITH ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOAFD (AECB) AND ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED (AECL)--0CTOBER 18-20, 1989 On October 18, 1989 Frank Gillespie and I met with representatives of the Atom'c Energy Control Board (AECB) to discuss the reactor licensing process in Canale e H the AECB review of the CANDU 3 reactor design. AECB representatives attehdi*g the meeting were:
tygmond Domaratzki, Director General, Reactor Regulation Directorate Pierre Marchildon, Manager, Power Reactor Division Peter Wigfull, Manager, Safety Evaluation Division Joe Molloy, Manager, Components and Quality Assurance Division In presenting an overview of the licensing process in C*..ca, the AECB noted i
that there are no private utilities in Canada owning nuclear plants. AECL is the only major consultant and there are few regulatory documents. Figure 1 depicts the overall regulatory framework in Canada.
1 The following [Mnts were made by the AECB:
1.
Plant licenses are given for 2 years and are renewed every 2 years.
Plants are backfitted on a case-by-case basis to bring them up to i
l standards that existed when originally licensed--not up to current standards.
1 2.
AECB meetings are not peneially open to the public. There is no fine system to ensure comp 1'ance.
3.
The single / dual failure concept originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s to reduce the likelihood of common mode failures. This approach has now evolved to a five category approach.
In the present five category approach, events are categorized in one of five categories depending on estimated frequency. Maximum permissible whole body and thyroid dose
. limits are specified for each category.
4 Areas of review by the AECB for earlier CANDU reactors included:
a.
emergency core cooling (ECC) effectiveness b.
fuel / pressure tube behavior without ECC c.
thermosyphoning j
d.
pressure tube integrity
~
i l
Thomas Cox 2
i e,
fission product / hydrogen behavior in containntrt f.
steam and feedwater line ruptures in the powerhouse g.
environmental qualification of equipment h.
computerized shutdown system and correctness of the software 1.
containment ventirp following accidents It should be noted that station blackout and complete core melt were considered by the AECB but were not included on the list because it was felt that the probabilities of such occurrences were sufficiently low.
I 5.
In addition to the areas listed above, the AECB anticipates reviewing the following areas during its review of the CANDU 3:
a.
shutdown coolers b.
grouping of systems c.
no dousing tank in containment d.
on power refueling from one side of the reactor 6.
It was felt by the AECB representatives that the CANDU designs have not focused on severe accidents to the extent U.S. reactors have. AECB has recently let a contract for approxinately $125,000 to perform severe accident related work.
It was pointed out, however, that LOCA plus loss of emergency core cooling is a design basis accident for CANDU reactors.
7.
CANDU reactors produce approximately 10 times more spent fuel than U.S.
reactors because they use natural uranium and refuel often.
8.
Low level radioactive effluent release is an area for staff consideration since it appears that allowable releases are higher than for U.S. plants.
The AECB intends to compile a document that will be used to guide the review of the CANDU 3. Work on this document is expected to begin in late 1989 early 1990 and the document is expected to be completed in spring 1990. Concurrently, the AECB expects to begin review of selected aspects of the CANDU 3, however, the major portion of the CANDU 3 review is expected to begin in spring 1990.
The' staff's review of the CANDU 3 and publication of Safety Evaluation Reports will lag the AECB's review in order for the staff to utilize AECB knowledge of the CANDU design that has been obtained from experience. AECL intends to submit reports en selected technical aspects of the CANDU design to the NRC beginning in April 1990. The reports will transfer technology on the CANDU design and provide technical information for staff use in conducting reviews of existing and future plants apart from CANDU.
On October 19,1989 we toured the Darlington nuclear facility and spoke with theAECBprojectofficerslocatedonsite. Darlington A is a four-unit facility that employs a vacuum building and an interconnecting containment as part of its design. The lower parts of'the steam generator and the heat transport pumps are located inside containment while the balance of these components are located outside containment.
... : f. '
l t-t
'.g I
Federal Acts i
Federal Regulations Provincial Regulatory Documents License Conditions------Acts I
Policy Statements l
u-......-...-.
Regu l a to ry Gu i d e s------------------------------l l
e i
e Consultative Codesknd Reference documents standards documents (e.g. operating policies and principles)
=
V FIGURE.1 -- DVERALL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN CANADA
_ _, - -. -. _. -. - ~ -
.-----.e.-
- - ~.
j TRANSMITTAL TO:
[
Document Control Desk, Pl 24 l
ADVANCE COPY 10:
Public Document Room *
/ 0 / / 9,/ 9 0 DATE:
SECY,OperationsBranc((./hr 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.
M't/ti AL4 tt
- 1. L 90-scr n.
n90-o s 7 V
.AA x ( n 96 -o S r 4 Y
- 2. 40-04_7 tt'A d Ie/o3 8 0 12.
VO o2 f f
}
k Q'M M<-- W ~
g i
34Ac.t.1 %
90- 0 fd
- 13. 90 AFf d % /0479o
%.f W
& h-9 e - 2 57 y
& t C. A uA t% 90 arY~~ l A. d.hA-- /d/5'/9 o Y
L W '4 ~-<iA-.
%. W W l
5 M AA.uAn9V-er.T*15. % h 9o-Aff
(%. 2An a m l
6 L- % 90-0fd~
l6.
%.heAA 7.Akbtt A. W VG- 0 f f 17.
8.
0
- D [0 l 8.
%70wh 5
9,4 c6t.- B lLt A W W 0 G7 19. _.
&M.
W
- 10. M A 90-847 20.
k
- PDR is advanced two copies of each SECY paper and one copy of each related document.
i.dC2CG D Fo1
'\\ t
-