L-80-333, Forwards List of Critical Review Areas & Description of Methods/Options for Accelerated Review of OL Application. Draft SER W/Open Items List & NRC Acceptance of Unit 2 as Replicate of Unit 1 Are Among Proposed Methods

Forwards List of Critical Review Areas & Description of Methods/Options for Accelerated Review of OL Application. Draft SER W/Open Items List & NRC Acceptance of Unit 2 as Replicate of Unit 1 Are Among Proposed Methods

ML17266A272
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	10/03/1980
From:	Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-80-333, NUDOCS 8010080340
Download: ML17266A272 (13)

Text

REGULAT INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIOI

'YSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR: 8010080340 'OC ~ DATE.; 80/10/03 NOT SIZED s NO FACIL:50 389 St.

L'uc>>ie Planti Unit 2i Florida Power 8 Light Co-,.

AUTH ~ NAME AUTHOR AFF'lL'IATION UHRIG~R ~ ED

, Ftlorida. Power 8 Light Co.

REC IP ~ NAME REC>>IP IKNT AFFILIATION EISKNHUT~D.G.

Division qf, L,icensing

SUBJECT:

Forwards list>> of critical review areas 8 description of.

methods/options fo,r accelerated review of OL,. application.

Draft SER w/open items list 8

NRC accepts'nce of Unit 2 as

.replicate of Unit 1 are among proposed methods'ISTRIBUTION CODE:

BOO IS COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL>> g SIZE,'ITLE:

PSAR/FSAR AMDTS and Related Correspondence NOTES:

DOCKET 05000389 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME'CTION S

A/D LICENSNG RUSHBROOKPM ~

INTKRNALs ACCID EVALI BR26 CHEM ENG BR 08 CORE'KRF BR 10 EMERG PREP 22 GEOSC IENCES HYD/GKO-BR 15 I8E'6 LIC QUALl BR MECH KNG'R 18 NRC PDR 02

'P L>>IC BR PROC/TST RKV 20

~

R S

S

BR22, EG FIL>>

01 G

BR25 COPIES LlTTR ENCL 1

0 1

0 1

1 1,

0 1

1 2

2 3

3 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1.,

1 1

1 1

1 RECIPIENT'-

I D CODE/N AME, YOUNGBLOOD/1 BIRKEL-gR ~

04 AUX SYS BR 07 CONT SYS BR 09 EFF TR SYS BR12 EQUIP QUAL'R13 HUM FACT'NG BR I8CI SYS BR 16 LIC GUID BR MATLI ENG BR

17 MPA OELD POWER SYS BR 19 QA BR 21, REAC SYS BR 23 SIT ANAL. BR 24 SYS INTERACTS BR COPIES LTTR-ENCL 1

0 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1=

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

0-1 0

1 1

1 1

1 i'

1 1

EXTERNAL's ACRSNSIC'7 05 ib 16 1

1 LPDR 03 1

1 OCT 9 thea TOTAL NUMBER OF( COPIES REQUIRED:

LTTR 55 ENCL.

49

IP I

C t1 I I

~

A N

t, f

PI l

11 JI V

I'I

P.o. BOX 529100 MIAMI,F L 33152 g

FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY October 3,

1980 L-80-333 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

Re:

St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389

~0>eratin License Review At our September 13, 1980 meeting with you in Bethesda, Maryland, it was apparent that an "innovative" design review approach will be necessary to complete the St. Lucie Unit 2 operating license review on a schedule consi s tent with Florida Power and Light s (FPL) St. Lucie Unit 2 cons truc-.

tion schedule.

At the meeting FPL agreed to provide a list of "critical." review areas.

That list is provided in Attachment l.

1Je request that you review this list for coIIIpleteness and that you establish priorities for review of these areas based on your manpower availability.

FPL proposes the following as methods/options for an accelerated. review of the St. Lucie Unit 2 operating 'license application.

Design review presentation for certain "critical"review areas.

Draft SER with open items list.

Accelerated Ql, Q2 with accelerated responses by applicant.

NRC acceptance/review of St. Lucie Unit 2 as a replicate of St. Lucie Unit l.

(Also, comparison of St. Lucie Unit 2 with a unit of similar design which the NRC is reviewing or has recently approved.)

Attachment 2 (taken from the September 18, 1980 FPL slide presentation) provides a more complete description of these methods/options.

FPL is closely following the Palo Verde and lJaterford-3 licensing reviews, and v/ill adapt any lessons learned from these reviews (or others) to the St. Lucie Unit 2 review.

$0O/

s As part of the design review presentation

option, and for other systems/

5 review areas where required, FPL will provide a lineup of the St. Lucie Unit 2 design against the current regulatory requirements (Standard Revieu /)/

Plans, Branch Technical Positions, Regulatory Guides, Standards, et al.)

It was clear that this will be required for the St.

t ucie Unit 2 review.

sm.0080 PEOIILEE

~

~ SESWIUImGP EINICEE

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Licensing Page 2

Me would like to meet.;with you or your staff again as soon as possible, preferably the week of October 13, 1980, to discuss the St. Lucie Unit 2 operating license review and to schedule the first of the design review presentations.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call.

Very Cruly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems 8 Technoligy REU TCG:cf cc:

llarold F. Reis

ATTACHMENT 1 "Critical" Review Areas l.

AC Power Systems 2.

DC Power Systems 3.

Auxiliary Feedwater System 4.

Fire Protection 5.

Environmental qualification 6.

Chapter 15 "Matrix" Approach 7.

Loss of AC Power 8.

Containment Cooling/Spray System

ATTACHMENT 2 DESIGN REVIEW PRESENTATION 4 REVIEW OF SYSTEM TECHNICAL BASES IN LIGHT OF STANDARD REVIEW PLAN, APPLICABLE REGULATORY GUIDES, BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITIONS, GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA, STANDARDS, ETC.

~ SYSTEM/LAYOUT5 DESIGN BASES PRESENTATION TO FACILITATEDESIGN REVIEW

~ ADVANCE COPY OF PRESENTATION TO NRC FOR REVIEW/COMMENT

~ NRC COGNIZANT BRANCH PERSONNEL PRESENT AT ALL MEETINGS

~ ALLOWS NRC TO WRITE SERS'DVANTAGES

~ SHOULD ELIMINATEROUND 1 AND 2 QUESTIONS

~ ESTABLISHES DIRECT DIALOGUE BETWEEN NRC AND APP I ICANT

~ ASSIST REVIEWER IN UNDERSTANDING COMPLEX DESIGNS

/"

V 1

SAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF REVIEW PROPOSED 1.

LOGIC DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED REVIEW SYSTEM TECHNICAL BASES GENERAL DESIGN

CRITERIA, REGULATORYCUIDES, BRANCHTECHNICAL POSITION, CODES AND STANDARDS

STANDARD REVIEW PLAN ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

. REVIEW PROCEDURE CHECKLIST F

EVALUATION OF ACCEPTAB ILITY I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT OPEN ITEN'I IN SER LEGEND:

FULLCOMPLIANCE PARTIALCOMPLIANCE YES NO RESOLUTION OF OPEN ITEM IN SER

P C

DRAFT SER WITH OPEN ITENlS L(ST o MEB IS ACCOMPLISHING NOW ON WATERFORD.3

~ SUBMIT DRAFT SER AND OPEN ITEMS LIST

~ MEETING TO REVIEW/RESOLVE DRAFT SER AND OPEN ITEMS

~ FINAL SER ISSUED

~ OUTSTANDING ITEMS GOING TO ACRS ADVANTAGES

~ SHOULD ELIMINATE ROUND 1 AND 2 QUESTIONS

~ ESTABLISHES DIRECT DIALOGUE BETWEEN NRC AND APPLICANT

ACCELERATED ROUND-1 AND 2 QUESTIONS/RESPONSES

~ BEING DONE ON

'ATERFORD-3 PRESENTLY (AS OF 8/13/80)

ADVANTAGES

~ SPEED UP THE REVIEW PROCESS

REPLICATION BETVfEEN ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2

~ DESIGN IS A REPLICATION OF ST LUCIE UNIT 1

~ FP&L WILL IDENTIFY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2

~ NRC WOULD AGREE TO REVIEW ONLY DIFFERENCES

~ COULD LEND ITSELF TO ACCELERATED REVIEW AS OUTLINED ABOVE

'DVANTAGE

~ REVIEW OF A DELTA DESIGN SHOULD ACCELERATE REVIEW