ML20235A964
| ML20235A964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/15/1987 |
| From: | Kerr W Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1272, NUDOCS 8709230478 | |
| Download: ML20235A964 (2) | |
Text
. ffu, De y
f J,)f j
f 1-y_
'yg 44
'.. $ t
(
1 i
n e.j.
'o UNITED STATES.
. h5 j
!{
g
'7[ ']
NUCLEAR REGULATORY.COMMISSON.-
n
^
{
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RFACTOR SAFEGUARDS.
p C( pix j
o a
wash WoToN, o, c.:tossr, a R f-
/- a e3 4
y/g n# t September 15 1987 e
P s y>
-l l
i.
p.
(.
y
};
n y
e r
y The' Honorable Lando 'W. Zech, Jr.
s Chairman e
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Q...
Washington, D.C. 20555
- x
-t i.
Dear Chairman Zech:
[,
-j
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON IMPROVED SAFETY FN N UTURE M cHT PA %.,
j, 4
REACTORS f
0-
.r
./>
lj During the 329th meeting of the ACRS, Septeuter 10;12,1GEw d'gussaitto'
'a reouests transmitted in the memorandum-from Johry C; Hoy,le, Assff. tant Seceis c
r tary,(NRC, to Raymond F. Fraley, Executivei DIreRor,. FE 4et#d Abril 72,see Refere The ACRS Subcommittee on h' uref}.i@t, Water 7r,teto-(
1987 Designs had previously discussed these rrquests du' rig a meting on SepVn-ber 9, 1987.
l j
~
,o s
c
.' w.
The first request was that "the ACRS pursue.its review of,tte. expertpnce arlf 4
design features of some of the European pla6th"t ~ We intend'tcNeorminue'secn l
- j a review and will keep the Commission informed 'af our fin @gms' appropri--
t V'
ate.
0
,r...
N,. g 1
t The second request was that the ACRS "adQess 4ne, feasibility,;brineht,xand 1
I costLeffectiveness of selected and combined 4ystuas recommended in thpiefe',
to Chairman Zech ' letter dated January 1E,; 4987.
The review shouln/ i#civpo (,
{
plant reliability, challenges, complexity, end. burden on plant. an6 mainT6,
~
l nance personnel."
We believe.that such d< study e<learly frldesirab'ej j
However, it would require consideration of many agects 61 desigr/ otheritMn-H safety and is beyond our capabilities anc ittoegtes.
For y m reasons, it j
1s.more appropriate as a task for the NRC StUf at e contro'cMr.'
l e<
i We would be pleased to discuss this with you;further.,
y j
Additional comments by ACRS Member Glenn fi,iReed aro'presentu0 0n the follcu-;3
("
ing page.
Sir.cerely,.
',n
[
5 l p
E J
William Kerr
..3 i
t o
.4 d
Chairman 4
l 1
i A \\
1
~7 y
3 4-i aC E-m
~n Sc
,m
!}j
,j)
?
c
.t..,
c
'l m
l
' 4 V
j ;3
.o
,y We
.;/
,.The Honordle Lando'WkZech, Jr. September 15, 1987 o
i '
e
/
/
c 4 t
Alditionh1 Codments bt WRS Member Glenn A. Reed As you kncvi,both tfde General Electric Company and Westinghouse Electric Corporation hive stated that their advanced LWR designs (on - the drawing boardsk do indeed it car;) orate most or all.of the features mentioned in the ACRS let,ter of.Jarnary 15, 1987. As should be realized, there's a long path-M,.
recordund that th(g toard and a built operating reactor, and therefore I be b:cen. tk 1*awirMC sponsor an in-depth study as a follow-on to USI TAP
- A-45 that, cddesnt 'the trost important reconnendation of the ACRS January 15, 1987. letter, Shi T recommendation on a dedicated decay heat removal system.
The ?cilth-on strdy (hould address decay heat removal for future LWRs'and the sy virr., didrsity, of systems, redundancy of components, and the. other corp;er safety inthencing aspects such as security and. fire.
The operating mectoi: KONVOI. should'not be excluded from. the study.
It is my opinion-that N-(d.-1 udepth study; may. reveal cost savings and improved operating and emer-genc r poteatial for 'fsture LWRs.
In particular, I feel that the use of a het sp ~ ni imary bkadown (dedicated) depressurization and decay heat removal My! tan for,ty owands, and reduced core melt probability. provide improved operation P'E will e '
fewer securi Referv.c4:
4:
Femorendum dned April 22, 1987 to Raymond F. Fraley,. ACRS, from John C.
Hoyie, Assistants. Secretary,
Subject:
Staff Requirements - Periodic Meeting j
with1 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards j
~
l l
1 I
6, s
y
)
't 1
(
l 4
s.
g e6 N --
3
\\
\\'
i e
,D d 3 s
e I
.,i.
4 4