ML20137J319
| ML20137J319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz R, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J277 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-059, COMSECY-96-59, DSI-10, FACA, SECY-96-059-C, SECY-96-59-C, NUDOCS 9704030267 | |
| Download: ML20137J319 (2) | |
Text
._
Oc
?
u
/
'o UNITED STATES I
~,,
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; I'
g I
W ASHIN G TON, D.C. 20555 w
f
~~ !
SE..
h%d
{
,~.. ~....,,.
- ..u...
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONE R February 3, 1997 l
L
-MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz FROMi Edward McGaffigan. Jr h). k[
l Commissioner
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-059 - OSI 10 - REACTOR LICENSING FOR FUTURE APPLICATIONS Having reviewed this paper and the' stakeholder comments on it and bearing in mind the overall resource constraints on the Commission. I would take a different^ aparoach from the Commission's Preliminary Vi.ews. to the extent I understand t1ose views.
I would favor Option 1 (Reassess-Reprioritize) with one element of Option 2. namely that the existing design certification application for the Westinghouse AP-600 would continue to fall in the top priority category until final Commission action on it is taken.
I believe that the efforts which the Commission and its staff have undertaken l
since 1986 to encourage standardization:in the next generation of nuclear reactors have.been laudable and will play a crucial role in the reestablishment of the nuclear oation for this nation's utilities sometime in the next century.
However, as t v disconsion of Option-1' indicates, there is virtually no chance of NRC receiving an application for a site permit or combined license under 10 CFR Part 52 in a realistic planning horizon of five to seven years..It strikes me, therefore, that the proposals in Option 1.
such as to focus resources after completion of tne Westinghouse AP-600 design certification review on a small subset of issues that potentially would result u
- ilemaking, are fundamentally sound.
Even industry stakeholders had conceins about elements of the Preliminary Views that leaned toward Option 2.
such au maintenance of the Utility Requirements Document and the certified design through first-of-a-kind engineering.
Stakeholders'also raised legitimate concerns about who would pay for closecut of the work performed on the truncated design certification reviews.
That work should only be carried out if the vendor (such as General Electric in the SBWR case or General Atomics in the MHTGR case) is willing to fund such close-out work.
Whatever option or combination of options the Commission ultimately settles upon. I believe that the staff should provide a plan for reallocating FTE resources from this area to other Commission needs at times when the workload,
l 9704030267,970401
~
l :
would so warrant, but with a view to building back up promptly should the Comission unexpectedly receive an application for a site permit or combined iicense fur one of the certified designs or an application from a vendor for a new design certification.
cc:
4 i
e I
,