ML19283B689
| ML19283B689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000480, 05000572 |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1978 |
| From: | Oreilly P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Heltemes C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903060589 | |
| Download: ML19283B689 (5) | |
Text
-,
ne:
F:s
/
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON g*
,4 h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20055
. y. a 8
g. [,
p ie $78 MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. J. Heltemes, Jr., Chief, Standardization Branch, DPM FROM:
Patrick D. O'Reilly, Standardization Branch DPM
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
- WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION AT NRC, BETHESDA, - DECEMBER 1,1978 On December 1,1978, members of the NRC staff met with representatives of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (W), at their request at NRC Headquarters in Bethesda. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss W's future plans for standardized designs.
Enclosure No. 1 contains a list of the meeting attendees.
Westinghouse opened the meeting by noting that (a) work on the final design evolution for the RESAR-414 application has been postponed indefinitely, (b) Westinghouse is proceeding with the preparation of an application for a final design approval (FDA-2) for the RESAR-412 design (the RESAR 412 design features and W's licensing plans for RESAR-412 are summarized in Enclosure No. 2),~(c) W intends to submit the FDA-2 application on July 13,1979 for staff review, and (d) this FDA-2 application may then be referenced by a construction permit application (to date unidentified) in October 1979.
Since the referencing CP application would request a six-month review under the so-called "NUREG-0292 licensing approach," W proposed that the FDA-2 application should receive the same consideration to maintain a compatible schedule. W claimed that the RESAR-412 design is in essence the RESAR-414 design witfi a twelve-foot long core instead of the fourteen-foot long core used in RESAR-414. W also stated that most of the RESAR-412 design features have already been or will be reviewed by the staff in other reviews.
A number of questior.+ were raised about the rationale for W's proposal to submit an FDA-2 application without first obtaining a PDA for that design. W replied that, since an FDA-2 application can be referenced by both CP and OL applications, they would have a definite marketing advan-tage if they could obtain an FDA-2. The staff noted that the idea of an FDA-2 application, as such, was certainly accaptable since it is explicitly addressed in NUREG-0427 and the Commission's Policy Statement of August 22, 1J78. However, the idea of an FDA application which would not be based on 790306058T
,-a e
C. J. Heltemes, Jr. DEC 13 1973 an existing PDA is not explicitly addressed. The staff indicated that the proposal for a staff safety review of an FD.;-2 application which would not be based on an existing PDA within a six-month time frame was totally unrealistic.
The staff also noted that the six-month licensing review approach described in NUREG-0432 was meant to apply to CP reviews, and in answer to W's inquiry, that the "NUREG-0292" six-month licensing review is not yet common staff policy.
The staff explained to W that it is currently trying to perform the six-month review on a few selected applications on a trial basis.
The problem of a CP application "piggybacking" the review of an FDA-2 application was discussed. The staff has never had to review a CP application which referenced an approved final reference system design, let alone at the same time that it was reviewing the FDA application.
W could not discuss any details about the CP application which might reference the RESAR-412 FDA-2 application. While it was noted that a CP applicant could reference, on a " piggyback" basis, an FDA-2 applica-tion which was not based on an existing PDA, this action would incur great risk from a review schedule standpoint.
It was indicated that the MA would have to be issued before issuance of the CP. This sequence of cvents could take as long as three to four years. W reiterated that the final design details for RESAR-412 would be submitted to the staff via other dockets and topical reports, independent of a standardized FSAR.
This could conceivably shorten the FDA-2 application review schedule.
A number of possible alternatives to the W proposal were mentioned.
These included a PDA applicatico for RESAR-412, which an applicant for a CP could subsequently reference; a custom application for the CP appli-cation; and amending the RESAR-414 i'OA to incorporate the RESAR-412 features, allowing a CP applicant to use the amended PDA. The staff was unable to give W any conclusions about the acceptability or feasibility of any partic-ular approach without further study. At one point, it was suggested that the Standardization Branch examine a number of licensing alternatives and provide a realistic estimate of the reliability of each one. NRC managcnent could then estimate what type of review sdedules would be feasible,
.or.-
sidering current manpower and resourcq problems. However, this suggestion was not acted upon at this meeting As a result of the discussion, the staff agreed to provide W with an estimate of how long it would take for a staff review of an FDA-2 applica-tion independent of any referencing CP application which might be " piggy-backing" it.
This information was to be provided by the Standardization Branch to W by telephone on or before December 8,1978.
.u i t d'
.. S ;'
Patrick D. O'Reilly, Project Manager Standardization Branch Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
Aystated
,e D E ' ' " "-
MEETING 12/1/78 Westinghouse Standardized Designs - Future Licensing Plans Affiliation Name NRC P. D. O'Reilly NRC W. P. Gammill NRC R. Mattson NRC R. S. Boyd NRC F. Schroeder NRC C. J. Heltemes NRC R. DeYoung NRC D. Bunch W
D. Call W
D. Rawlins W
W. Luce
--e
/,
n-cc FDA WESTIf1GHOUSE MODEL 412 FILE:
JULY 13, 1979 DOCKET NEEDED IN SEPTEMBER 1979 REFERENCED ON A C.P. APPLICATION TO BE FILED OCTOBER 1, 1979 3425 MWT POWER LEVEL' LOOPS 4
17 X 17 OPTIMIZED FUEL CORE HYBRID B C/AG-IN-CD; CONTROL RODS q
NO PART LENGTH RODS IMPROVED LOAD FOLLOW PACKAGE INTEGRATED PROTEC710N SYSTEM, lEC INTEGRATED CONTROL SYSTEM, ADVANCED CONTROL ROOM STEAM GENERATOR MODEL F (FEEDRING TYPE) 93A-1 PUMP 2 TRAIN ECCS WITH SEPARATE SI AND ESF CHARGING PUMPS, REMOVAL OF BORON INJECTION TANK e
J FDA STRUCTURE 3
REVISION [FORMATAf!DCONTENT e
c CHAPTERS 4, 15, AND 16 TO CONTAIN SINGLE REFERENCE TO WCAP-9500 "0PTIMIZED FUEL.
WCAP-9500 TO BE FILED IN JUNE 1979.
e CHAPTER 7 TO CONTsIN A SINGLE REFERENCE TO AN IPS TOPICAL REPORT WHICH INCLUDES THE VERIFICATION PROGRAM TESTS AND ANALYSES AS APPEf1 DICES.
THE TOPICAL WILL BE SUBMITTED IN JULY 1979.
FDA APPROACH e
0292 APPROACH e
SERIES OF PRETErlDERING DISCUSSIONS ON OPTIMIZED FUEL, IPS VERIFICATION PROGRAM, AND ECCS CHANGES.
=
.