NUREG-1206, Comments on NUREG-1206, Analysis of French (Paluel) PWR Design Differences Compared to Current Us PWR Designs, Dtd June 1986.ACRS Recommends Continuation of Program to Study Safety Design Differences Between Us & Foreign Plants
| ML20214E045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1986 |
| From: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1206 ACRS-R-1227, NUDOCS 8611240335 | |
| Download: ML20214E045 (1) | |
Text
- #
/JcRS R-Ic% ]
- 'o UNITED STATES
! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 0, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
' s ,,, s *#,g November 12, 1986 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON NUREG-1206, " ANALYSIS OF FRENCH (PALUEL)
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR DESIGN DIFFERENCES COMPARED TO CURRENT U.S. PWR DESIGNS" DATED JUNE 1986 During its 319th meeting, November 6-8, 1986, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was briefed by members of the NRC Staff concerning the Staff's review of the safety differences between a typical French pressurized water reactor (Paluel) and a typical U.S. four-loop PWR -- a SNUPPS plant. A subcommittee meeting was previously held to discuss this subject on September 25, 1986. NUREG-1206, which has been pub-lished by the Staff, is an excellent report on this subject.
The NRC Staff had previously performed a review of the safety differ-ences between the British Sizewell 8 design and the SNUPPS plants.
These efforts were in part pursuant to an ACRS recommendation that the Staff perform such studies of the differences in safety design between U.S. plants and those in other countries.
We believe that these efforts by the Staff have been worthwhile and should be continued. The Staff representatives suggested that the KONVOI series of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) might be a good next choice to study. We agree that KONVOI is a good candidate, and suggest that the comparisen might involve a more recent U.S. design such as the South Texas project. We would also like to see a boiling water reactor (FRG, Swedish, or a Japanese design) compared with U.S. BWRs.
In any event, the ACRS recomends continuation of this program.
Sincerely, d
. 4.4 David A. Ward 8611240335 861112 Chairman PDR ACRS i R-1227 PDR \
w 1
I O
'