ML20246D627
| ML20246D627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246D630 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, MARKEY-890315, NUDOCS 8907110378 | |
| Download: ML20246D627 (3) | |
Text
_
h
-4,
- 4 Response to Ouestions from Congressman Markey - Followuo from March 15, 1989 Hearino en' Advanced Reactors QUESTION 1..
In your prepared statement you say that (quote) "The MHTGR has the potential to achieve a level of safety at least equivalent to that of current generation LWRs (light water reactors) and, in some areas, has the potential to provide enhanced safety beyond that of current generations LWRs."
A)
Why should this nation commit billions of dollars to developing MHTGR if best NRC can tell us is that it has the " potential" to be as safe as the existing generation and only has the " potential" to be safer in certain areas?
ANSWER The use of the word " potential" in the testimony in describing the safety of the MHTGR should not be taken to mean that the design has little promise to actually achieve enhanced safety in many areas. The word was chosen to reflect the current status of the design, its supporting research and development, and the NRC review.
l Our review of the MHTGR was conducted at the conceptual (preapplication)
{
design stage with the purpose of providing early guidance on the
??? lO378 890502 CoRREshhhhENbhc E________
.N $ -
x,,
QUESTION 1.
(Continued) I acceptability'of the design. As such, our review was not directed toward approving the design or making a final safety determination, but rather on identifying the major design and research and development-related items which would need to be addressed if such a design is to be licensed, i
Completion of the design and its supporting research and development, coupled with a formal NRC licensing review, would be required before we could make any final determinations on the safety of the MHTGR.
Accordingly, we used the word
- potential" to characterize the results of our evaluation at the cone'aptual design stage while recognizing that a significant amount of work remains to be done before a final determination can be made.
1
______________________J
p,.
-4 I
OUESTION 1.
(Continued) B)
In what areas does NRC believe MHTGR has the least i
potential to be as' safe'as existing technologies?
ANSWER The results of the staff's review to date on the MHTGR can be characterized as falling into two basic areas:
(1) those which show the potential for enhanced safety beyond current generation reactors and (2) those which show the potential for equivalent safety.
The major items in each of these categories are as follows:
l (1) Enhanced Safety:
l l
plant response to severe challenges-plant dependence on human action plant response time under transient conditions plant dependence on electric power and active systems 1
\\
(2) Equivalent Safety:
i plant response to anticipated operational occurrences However, many specific design and research and development items remain to be completed before final judgment on the safety of the MHTGR can be made.
These items are discussed in our draft safety evaluation report for the MHTGR (NUREG-1338).
J