|
Starting a Reactor Design Review the Right Wayby Moderator |
Scott Burnell
Public Affairs Officer
While
most of the application’s sections and chapters have enough information
for the NRC to review, there are important exceptions. For example, our
technical experts don’t see a clear path for predictably and
efficiently reviewing important areas such as instruments and controls,
how human actions affect reactor operations, and assessing risk.
A
few months ago, Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co. gave the NRC an
application to certify the company’s Advanced Power Reactor 1400 design
for use in the U.S. We’d been having “pre-application” discussions with
the company since April 2010.
In
September of this year, the company felt its information was ready for a
full review. After our acceptance check of the application, however,
we’ve decided the process should remain at the pre-application stage.
While
most of the application’s sections and chapters have enough information
for the NRC to review, there are important exceptions. For example, our
technical experts don’t see a clear path for predictably and
efficiently reviewing important areas such as instruments and controls,
how human actions affect reactor operations, and assessing risk.
We
also didn’t see enough detail for some specific technical issues, such
as reactor coolant pump design, potential corrosion of some internal
reactor parts and protecting plant staff from radiation. Other areas
referenced technical reports to be submitted in the future.
At
this point it’s the company’s decision on how to proceed – if they wish
to continue pre-application meetings and related discussions, we’ll
certainly do so. The formal review, however, will have to wait until the
NRC is satisfied the application has enough information for our staff
to create a reasonable, reliable schedule and milestones for the
certification process.
Let’s
be clear – none of this represents any sort of NRC technical conclusion
regarding the Korean reactor design. We’re well aware that other
countries are building or considering the design, and we continue to
work with a multinational group discussing this and other new reactor
designs. This decision doesn’t set any precedents, either. We’ve
previously decided against accepting the initial applications for both a
U.S.-based design certification and a new reactor operating license.
The NRC also followed this path for a couple of applications to renew
existing U.S. reactor licenses.
The
bottom line is that the NRC must ensure proposed reactor designs can
meet our safety requirements. We owe it not only to the public to do
that job properly, but also to applicants to do so effectively and
predictably. The best way to do that is to have the appropriate
information in hand before we begin our work.
No comments:
Post a Comment