ML20149G771
| ML20149G771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/1997 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707240055 | |
| Download: ML20149G771 (3) | |
Text
__
@ it?
\\
UNITED STATES -
(J p
s-j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-0001
- J**
July 17, 1997-
~Mr. David A. Lochbaum' Suite 310~
Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street. NW Washington DC 20036-1495
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
I am responding to your letter to the Commission dated May 27, 1997. regarding the recently issued design certifications.
You sought answers to the follow-ing questions:
1.
Who paid for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and System 80+ design certification reviews? If it was not the reactor vendors. how can the.NRC justify making American ratepayers pick up the tab especially when no domestic applications are on the horizon?
Response: The ap)licants for design certification, such as GE Nuclear Energy, were billed for tie costs of the NRC staff's review.
2.
Why is the NRC staff able to complete design certifications for reactors that may be built overseas before it is able to close out "high priority" safety issues at nuclear power plants operating in this country? How does the NRC staff justify not closing out generic safety issues which it designates "high priority?"
Response: The NRC has sufficient resources to review both generic safety issues and a)plications for design certification.
In addition, the identifi-cation of a ligh-priority generic safety issue does not mean that it repre-sents an immediate safety concern. The resources necessary to implement resolutions to generic safety issues are the responsibility of licensees. The resources needed to verify licensee implementation of solutions to generic safety issues are provided by the NRC's inspection staff. The NRC resources applied to review applications for design certification do not affect the NRC
- resources needed to verify licensee resolution of generic safety issues.
The high-priority safety issues that were identified before 1986 include Three Mile Island (THI) safety issues unresolved safety issues (USIs), and generic safety issues (GSIs). The NRC staff has reviewed and approved most of the licensee responses to TMI safety issues. USIs. and GSIs: the resolutions for more than 99 percent of these issues (about 17.000) have been implemented by the licensees.
Browns Ferry Unit 1, which is in long-term shutdown, accounts i
for about 20 percent of the unimplemented issues, and these would have to be g
ES78$2855 !!?y; 77-N.3 M
r NRC IRE CNE O gg
.~
Mr. David A. Lochbaum 2
addressed before its restart. About 40 percent of the unimplemented issues are related to the closecut of USI A-46, " Seismic Oualification of Equipment in Operating Plants." The majority of the licensees' evaluations of USI A-46 have been transmitted to the staff and are currently under review.
The licensees are implementing steps to resolve conditions that do not meet the guidance of the generic implementation procedure that was established for USI A-46.
Most of the remaining unimplemented issues occur at the frequency of 1 or 2 issues per plant at about 60 percent of the licensed plants.
For plant-specific reasons (e.g., unique engineering design, procurement, schedule of refueling outages), some issue resolutions take longer to implement than others.
Completion of the staff's reviews and closecut of these safety issues are commensurate with the safety significance of the issue.
In addition, the NRC staff is continually looking at such factors as operating experience, events, and research results, to determine if new generic safety issues need to be addressed by licensees.
In 1996, the NRC issued a number of generic letters and bulletins,10 of which requested specific licensee actions to address safety issues. The responses to those are tracked as " multi-plant actions."
In each case, the NRC has determined an appropriate response time.
Therefore, at any given time, it is expected that most plants would have some generic issues open.
3.
Now that these two design certifications needed to support sales to foreign countries are completed, will the NRC staff have sufficient resources to now pursue actions necessary to assure the health and safety of the American public?
Response: The NRC continues to have sufficient resources to ensure public health and safety, irrespective of the resources required for design certifi-cation reviews.
4.
Is the NRC staff's emphasis on certifying design for possible foreign sales consistent with the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 that split the Atomic Energy Commission into the Energy Research and Development Agency (now Department of Energy) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
Is the certification of reactor designs, without even the hint of a domestic application, actually a promotion of nuclear power?
Response: The NRC is responsible for reviewing all applications for permits, licenses, and certifications and for determining acceptability based upon compliance with applicable regulations.
This is not promotion of nuclear Jower: rather it is an implementation of the fGC's mandate under the Energy leorganization Act of 1974 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The level of priority assigned to the NRC's review of design certification applications was consistent with the Commission's Advanced Reactor and Standardization Policy Statements. Congressional guidance (or direction), and requests from the Department of Energy and U.S. utilities.
l
i-Mr. David A. Lochbaum 3
In its Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining. Initiative, the Commission recently examined the full range of internal and external factors affecting reactor licensing for future applicants. Within the framework of the strate-gic assessment, the Commission developed a range of options in this area and vigorously solicited the views of all stakeholders.
In its decision on this direction-setting issue, the Commission recognized that the fundamental economic decisions by license applicants will determine the level of support necessary for the licensing of future reactors.
It directed the staff to continue to give priority for reviewing standard and advanced reactor designs (with emphasis on the completion of the AP600 design certification), early site' permits, and new
-funding is available. plant license applications to the extent that external It also directed the staff to begin an orderly closeout of design certification activities with an evaluation of lessons learned.
Sincerely.
Originalc!gnedby SamuelJ.Couins Samuel J. Collins Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
gDocket File g PDST R/F PUBLIC EDO GT970409 LCallan, 0-5 E6
.HThompson. 0-5 E6 EJordan, 0-5 E6 PNorry. 0-5 E6 JBlaha, 0-5 E6 SBurns. 0-15 B18 JFunches, CF0 SCollins/FMiraglia, 0-12 G18 RZimmerman, 0-12 G18 TTMartin 0-12 G18 MMSlosson SWeiss TRQuay JNWilson DScaletti MThadani. 0-14 B21 MBoyle (e-mail only MLB4)
BJSweeney, GT-970409 NRR Mail room, GT-970409 OGC OPA OCA EDO r/f DOCUMENT NAME: A:GT97040
- See previous concurrence
- r. r...i
...,, oe ini. oocom.ni. iosec.i. gi no.: c copy.itnout.et. chm.ntioncio.ur.
s - copy witn.ti.cnm.nti ncio.ur.
u - no copy 0FFICE PA:PDST fRPpf9F D:PDST:DRPM (A)D:DRPM ADPR:NRR l
OGC l
NAME JNW11soffsg ( /
TR0uay*
MMS 1osson*
RZimmerman*
LChandler*
DATE 06/so/97,(h M i 06/11/97 06/18/97 06/20/97 06/17/97 0FFICE-D:NRR [ M CF0 EDO CHAIRMAN NAME MJColl1 % \\%
JFunches*
LJCallan*
SAJackson DATE 06/27/97 06/18/97 07/la/97 07//7/97 I
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i