ML20127L484
| ML20127L484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/15/1993 |
| From: | Pierson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hink A AECL TECHNOLOGIES |
| References | |
| PROJECT-679A NUDOCS 9301270171 | |
| Download: ML20127L484 (3) | |
Text
__
-. f.
/, f %go UNITED STATES
- 4
~,,
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k*****/
January 15, 1993 Project No. 679 Mr. A.D. Hink 4
Vice President / General Manager AECL. Technologies -
9210 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 410 Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Mr. Hink:
SUBJECT:
REQUIRED INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE PREAPPLICATION REVIEW OF THE CANADIAN DEUTERIUM URANIUM 3 (CANDU 3) REACTOR DESIGN
.In a letter to the NRC' dated December 21, 1992, you responded to the staff's repeated requests for documents required to support our preapplication review of the CANDU 3 reactor design, and provided expected submittal dates for material' which the staff requested.
I am writing to express concern with your submittal date for an updated safety analysis report (SAR), and to attempt to resolve an apparent continued misunderstanding of what kind of safety analysis the staff needs to review at the preapplication stage.
In your letter, you indicated that a CANDU 3 SAR would not be submitted until June 1993.
In a meeting with the NRC on October 15, 1992, the. staff informed
)
AECL Technologies of its intent-to begin the review of the CANDU 3 design in late 1992.
In SECY-92-393, " Updated Plans and Schedules for the Preapplication Reviews of the _ Advanced Reactor (MHTGR, PRISM, and PIUS) and CANDU 3 Designs," the staff informed the Commission of its intent to issue a
-final preapplication safety evaluation report-for the CANDU 3 design in December 1994. To support this date, the staff. has-formally begun the
. preapplication review of the CANDU 3 design and plans to complete the technical review of the design in early FY 94. A June 1993, submittal of
. safety analysis information would preclude the' staff from completing its.
review of the CANDU 3 consistent with the dates' published in SECY-92-393.
1 Furthermore, your-letter indicates that the June 1993, submittal of a CANDU 3 SAR is simply-an update of the CANDU 3 Conceptual Safety Report (CSR) submitted in August-1989.. The staff does want'an update of the CANDU 3 CSR which reflects the current design changes. However, the point we have been making in several communications with your staff is. that the safety analysis provided in the CSR is not adequ_ ate in-depth for our preapplication review.
Detailed' accident sequence evaluations.for applicable CANDU 3 design basis accidents should be provided including specifics of the accident progression,
- modeling assumptions used, appropriate acceptance criteria, and graphs providing data on important' parameters such as temperature,- pressure, flow rates, reactivity, and-radionuclide releases, all as a function of time from initiation of the event sequence.
~
g u % g m iu d iO M M M iyjf/N Yf
! D g
u} m
4 Mr.- A.D. Hink January < 15, 1993 CANDU Project No. 679 cc: Louis N. Rib,-Licensing Consultant-AECL Technologies.
9210 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 410 Rockville, liaryland ' 20550 Bernie Ewing, Manager Studies-and Codification Division Atomic Energy Control Board P.O. Box 1046, Station B 270 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ' KIP 5S9 A.M. Mortada Aly, Senior Project Officer Advanced Projects Licensing Group Studies and Codification Division-
-Atomic-Energy Control Board P.O. Box 1046, Station B 270 Albert Street Ottawa,-Ontario, Canada KlP 559 Project Director - CANDU-3 AECL CANDU 2251 Speakman Drive Mississaugua, Ontario, Canada L5K 182 L. Manning Muntzing Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, N.W.,LSuite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 1
Steve Goldberg, Budget Examiner Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20503
-a
Mr. A.D. Hink January 15, 1993
\\
l 4
i in a meeting with the staff on April 7,1992, AECL verbally provided accident evaluation data for the CANDU 3 which reflects the new inlet header design.
The staff requested at that time, that the data verbally transmitted in that meeting be provided in writing to the staff.
In our letter of September 23, 1992, we reiterated our request for accident analysis information.
In our 4
meeting with your staff on October 15, 1992, we discussed the analyses available to the staff and restated our need for a more complete presentation, including graphs of various parameters versus time. The staff has not yet received any new accident evaluation data.
This letter requests that the material presented at the April 7,1992, meeting and information of similar i
level of detail on other design basis accident sequences, be submitted by February 28, 1993, in order to support the staff's review of the CANDU 3 i
design.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
1 Robert C. Pierson, Director Advanced Reactors Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
cc: See next page l
l Distribution:
Central File EDThrom NRC PDR JLKennedy PDAR R/F' OGC DMCrutchfield CANDU R/F RCPierson RMeyer, RES THCox WUpshaw,-0IP LA:PDLR:
PM:PDAR:ADAR C:PDAR: DAR D:P
- ADAR LLuther JLKennedy:s HCo RCPi pson
/ //y/93 l / /193
/ //y/93
\\/QJ93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: CANDUSAR.RAI
.-