ML19256A453

Forwards Revised Schedule for Review of Essar,Submitted as Part of Vendors Application for Preliminary Design Approval of a Balance of Plant Design

ML19256A453
Person / Time
Site:	05000591
Issue date:	12/29/1978
From:	Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Odonnell E EBASCO SERVICES, INC.
References
NUDOCS 7901080168
Download: ML19256A453 (3)

Text

{ (' 'f [

(

[

UNITED STATES y

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON j

%.I j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\.)7

• DEC 2 91978 Docket No. STN 50-591 Mr. E. P. O'Donnell, Nuclear Licensing Ebasco Services, Inc.

Two Rector Street New York, New York 10006

SUBJECT:

ESSAR REVIEW SCHEDULE (STN 50-591)

We have established a revised schedule for review of the Standard Safety Analysis Report, ESSAR, which was submitted as part of the Ebasco Services Application for Preliminary Design Approval (PDA) of a balance-of-plant (80P) design. A summary of the key target milestone dates of that schedule in network format is provided as an enclosure for ytor information.

As discussed in a meeting between your representatives and members of the NRC staff on October 27, 1978, this revised schedule reflects the staff's best efforts to utilize manpower, as available in 1979-1980, for review of your design. Serious concern was expressed by your representatives at that time that the projected PDA date for ESSAR established ender this schedule was many months later than had been planned by Ebasco at the time the ESSAR application was submitted. We recognize, of course, that this is a legiti-mate concern and regret the delay involved. As was discussed at the October meeting, this delayed schedule reflects principally (1) delays which have occurred in completing the review of, and in establishing staff positions in critical interface areas for, one of the mating NSSS designs (RESAR-414) referenced in ESSAR, (2) delay in initiating the ESSAR review, even after completion of the RESAR-414 review, due to serious resource problems in some critical review areas within the staff, and (3) the priority ranking assigned to standardized designs which have not been referenced by a utility in a CP application.

Further consideration was given, subsequent to the October 27 meeting, to the question of relative priority ranking and scheduling of the project with respect to other bala7ce-of,,lant, construction permit and operating license applications curre tly in-hcuse. The conclusion again, however, was that the priority which has been a:. signed to the ESSAR project (currert,1v 30 out of 32), and the review schedule which has been established for it (culminating in PDA issuance in August 1980), do properly reflect all of the demands of the current situation.

I regret that this schedule cannot be improved upon, given the current staff workload and available resources.

I 790108c(g

Mr. E s P. O'Donnell can assure you, however, that the status of the ESSAR project will be monitored closely by the cognizant project management staff and reviewed periodically, as required by the recently established Licensing Schedule Review Comittee, to help assure that no further significant slippages occur in the ESSAR Schedule.

As a final point, although not indicated explicitly on the sumary schedule enclosed, the ESSAR design will be reviewed concurrently with respect to the three mating NSSS designs referenced; the combined sumar; thedule enclosed will be broken out into three separate networks when the staff review resumes.

Any matters of disagreement or areas of uncertainty regarding the ESSAR review which might arise should be discussed with the Licensing Project Manager, Mr. James C. Snell.

If Mr. Snell cannot resolve such matters himself, he will arrange for a meeting with appropriate management to discuss them. This will also help to avoid further unnecesary schedule delays.

Many of the milestones of the staff review require specific input, preparation, or participation from you, such as re sponses to questions, ACRS meetings, and responses to public and agency comments. For this reason, and also in view of the nature of the discussions at the October meeting, we believe that you should critically review the dates associated with these key milestones and advise us as to whether you feel the dates are realistic or should be adjusted.

If you feel that any further discussion is required regarding any aspect of this sc'._'ule, please feel free to contact me, or arrangements for any further d.scussions can be made through Mr. Snell, if you prefer.

Sincerely, Roger S. Boyd, Direc Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

ESSAR Sumary Review Schedule