ML20133H673

Notation Vote Response Sheet,Approving in Part & Disapproving in Part w/comments,SECY-96-128, Policy & Key Tech Issues Pertaining to W AP600 Standardized Passive Reactor Design

ML20133H673
Person / Time
Site:	05200003
Issue date:	10/09/1996
From:	Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20133H573	List: ML20133H571 ML20133H634 ML20133H654 ML20133H666 ML20133H673 ML20133H730
References
SECY-96-128-C, NUDOCS 9701170253
Download: ML20133H673 (2)

Text

_. - _ _ - . _ -. . - . . _ _ _ - . . _ . . . - . . . - . _ . .. .

NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary 3 FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ i

i

SUBJECT:

SECY-96-128 - POLICY AND KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE WESTINGHOUSE AP600 STANDARDIZED PASSIVE REACTOR DESIGN i

Approved 4

I Disapproved _I N Abstain 4

Not Participating Fequest Discussion i

i COMMENTS:

hMN CDWM4h b0 i AA -

/ gIGNATU Release Vote /V/  !

O-9-94 DATE Withhold Vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes V No I

9701170253 970115 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

Commissioner Diaz' Comments on SECY-96-128 I approve in part and disapprove in part the staff's recommendations as follow- i I do not agree with the staff recommendation to use "non-safety-related system (s) to address the uncertainties associated with the passive natural fission product removal mechanisms for design basis analysis."

Although there may be merit to having a non-safety-related spray for heat and fission product removal Jollowing a severe accident, it should not be justified based on uncerta.nties in the design basis accident analysis (unless staff proposes to give explicit credit for sprays in the design basis analysis - an approach I also do not favor). Staff should complete its evaluation of the non-safety-related fan coolers to  !

determine if they provide acceptable capabilities to mitigate the  ;

consequences of a severe accident If staff continues to believe a spray system is desirable, it shot.ld revisit the SAMDA analysis to determine if such a system can be justified or alternately, the staff ,

can explicitly request the Commission for approval for requiring a non- '

safety-related spray system. (Sta) f should continue to give credit for l non-safety-related systems in its evaluation of severe accidents.) l I support the staff recommendatior. that the site be capable of sustaining all design basis events with onsite equipment and supplies for the long term and that after 7 days, replenishment of consumables can be credited.

Regarding the staff's recommendation that Westinghouse performs a limited analytical evaluation of e<-vessel phenomena. Westinghouse. ih its August 20, 1996 letter. has ag,'eed to perform this evaluation.

Therefore, this issue appears moot. I suggest that the Commission defer action on this issue until such time as the staff determines that the Westinghouse analysis is insufficient.

.