ML19211D275

Discusses NRC Delay in Review of FSAR & OL Application. Review Schedule Should Be Established Promptly

ML19211D275
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek, Callaway, Sterling
Issue date:	01/14/1980
From:	Petrick N STANDARDIZED NUCLEAR UNIT POWER PLANT SYSTEM
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
SLNRC-80-3, NUDOCS 8001170396
Download: ML19211D275 (2)

Text

e w 4 SNUPPS Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System 5 Choke Cherry Road Nicholas A. Petrick Rockville, Maryland 20850 Executive Director mu ssmo January 14, 1980 SLNRC 80-3 FILE: 0540 SUBJ: SNUPPS FSAR Review Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docket Ncs. STN 50-482, STN 50-483, STN 50-485, STN 50-486 Ref.: NRC letter from Olan D. Parr, dated November 20, 1979, to J. K. Bryan - Union Electric Co.

Dear Mr. Denton:

The referenced letter indicated that the NRC was not able to perform an acceptance review of the SNUPPS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the Callaway operating license (0L) application. The reason given for the review delay was related to the Three Mile Island accident that ,

occurred over nine months ago. The SNUPPS Utilities believe that the NRC should have made the necessary adjustments in order to be able to proceed with the reviews of license applications. A review to determine if the SNUPPS FSAR and Callaway OL application are complete and acceptable for docketing should have been conducted within 30 days of receipt. This review should now be conducted immediately.

The SNUPN FSAR is a complete document and rigorous attention was given to NRC requirements during the FSAR preparation. The SNUPPS FSAR includes the info:Tnation requirements of Revision 3 to the Standard Format and Content for Safety Analysis Reports. All of the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee's Category 2, 3, and 4 items have been addressed and are indexed in FSAR Section 1.9. Questions asked by the NRC of applicants that referenced RESAR-3 during their construction permit review have been answered in SNUPPS FSAR Section 1.10. Appendix 3A provides responses to all Division 1 Regulatory Guides through 1.144 and the most recent revi-sion to the Regulatory Guides through April 1979. Appendix 3B provides the results of integrated hazards analyses that were performed to assure that the SNUPPS design provides protection against tornadoes, floods, missiles, pipe breaks, fires, and seismic events. FSAR Section 1.3 com-pares parameters and features of SNUPPS with other nuclear plants and also provides all significant changes that have been made in the plant since the review of the PSAR was completed.

1762 266 6 6 sf 3

$a 8001170 M6

. e.

SLNRC 80-3 January 14, 1980 Page Two Sections 3.10 and 3.11 provide much more detailed information on equip-ment seismic and environmental qualification than has been provided in other recent FSARs. .

Efforts to improve and add to the FSAR are continuing. As noted in the foreword to the SNUPPS FSAR, Section 15.6.5 describes the methods and models used in the loss-of-coolant accident analysis. The actual anal-ysis results which were not available for incorporation in the FSAR are now available, show compliance with the 10CFR50.46 acceptance criteria, and will be incorporated in the first SNUPPS FSAR revision. FSAR ma-terial is being prepared to address the TMI short-term lessons learned and to address the NRC's October 18, 1979 requests for additional infor-mation concerning the SNUPPS fire protection system.

Throughout the two-year preparation period of the SNUPPS FSAR, consider-able use was made of the NRC Standard Review Plan for each FSAR section.

In addition, NRC requests for additional information issued to other OL applicants were used to provide a complete FSAR and to enhance the OL review process. After receiving the referenced letter, acceptance re-view questions for previous FSARs were again reviewed in detail to determine applicability to the SNUPPS FSAR. This review involved 885 questions asked of five recent applications. Only six percent of these were considered to request applicable information that may not already .

be addressed in the SNUPPS FSAR. Therefore, it is apparent that the SNUPPS FSAR is more responsive to NRC requirements than other tendered FSARs . Any additional information that the NRC may require will be pro-vided during the course of the review.

The SNUPPS Utilities have submitted a complete and thorough FSAR that is applicable to four duplicate plants. The remainder of the Callaway appli-cation was submitted in October 1979 and the Wolf Creek application will be tendered in the very near future. The NRC should docket the SNUPPS FSAR and the Callaway OL application, and should establish a review schedule promptly. Your attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Ver- truly yours,

-% 6 C Nicholas A. Petrick RLS:dck cc: J. E. Arthur RGE J. K. Bryan UE G. L. Koester KGE D. T. McPhee KCPL -

.1762 267