ML19308B905
| ML19308B905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Kennedy, Kintigh A, Mcgill P ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY, NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORP., STONE & WEBSTER, INC. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308B903 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001170555 | |
| Download: ML19308B905 (7) | |
Text
'
f * * ' %'q f
4 UtilT E D LT/.TES
~
- g{, ge i:UCL E A P. R E G U L A T O R Y CO.*.*?.*J E S I ON "g., y V.I.SH1?oGT Ord. D C. 20:.55 Q
%[T. ?<,5 Mr. A. E. Kintigh, Vice President - Generation flew York State Electric & Gas Corporation Singhampton, flew York 13902
Dear Mr. Kintigh:
SUBJECT:
PROCEDURE FOR C0:iDUCTING SAFETY REVIEW 0F fiEW HAVEt
),&2 C0ftSTRUCTI0f! PERiilT APPLICATION I
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our procedure for conduct-i ing the safety review of your !!ew Haven 1 & 2 CP application.
I In general, the staff's safety review of any CP application, whether it l
be custom or standard, can be broken down into four areas.
These are the
(
site, nuclear steam supply system (NSSS), balance of plant (B0P), and l
utility-related matters.
Staff approvals of each of these areas are normally required prior to the issuance of a CP.
The first th~ree of these areas are such 1 hat staff level approvals mily be obtained outside of the context'of a CP application.
In the case of New Haven 1 & 2, you elected to reference the CESSAR NSSS o..d SWESSAR/CESSAR 80P reference system designs which have received Pre-liminary. Design Approvals (PDA's).
You also identified certain exceptions to these staff-approved designs, thereby creating a fifth review area.
The necessity for and time required to conduct a review of such exceptions will seriously detract from the advantages of standardization.
Thus, we should note at this point that we strongly discourage exceptions to approved standard ' designs during their approval period.
Further in this -
regard, we would appreciate a serious reconsideration on your part of your perceived need for these exceptions in the New Haven design, and to advise us of the results of this reconsideration at the earliest possible time.
In conducting our review of utility CP a'pplications, we use that regulatory guidance in effect as of the regulatory requirements cutoff date (RRCOD) for the review.
Typically, the RRCOD corresponds to the date that 'we l
issue our round two requests for additional information and positions. ~
However, in the event that a utility CP application references one or more I
standard designs, the RRC0D's established during the review of those standard designs are used.
For New Haven 1 & 2, the RRC0D's for the review of the NSSS and BOP are Aucust 19, 1974 and April 25, 1975, which are the respective RRCOD's established for the review of the CESSAR and SWESSAR/
CESSAR PDA applications.
For the other review areas, the RRCOD will be established during the review of the New Haven 1 & 2 CP apolication.
80 e.11e s 5
. "r. A.E. Kintigh The purpose of establishing the RRCOD at the con.truction pennit stage is to allow applicants to finalize their preliminary designs in conjunction with the completion of the staff's review.
It does not preclude the staff from imposing additional requirements on' the designs if they are considered to be significant to safety.
However, we plan to review the implementation o.f regulatory requirements established af ter the RRCOD at the final design stage unless we determine that any are of such a nature that they must be addressed imiediately in order to assure that alterna-tives are not foreclosed.
Similarly, for reference system designs such as CESSAR and SWESSAR/CESSAR, the staff review of any matters issued after the RRCOD's for those applications would also take place at the final design stage.
However, we will require a commitment from NYSE&G to the effect that the FSAR for New Haven 1 & 2 will address regulatory require-ments issued subsequent to the CESSAR and SWESSAR/CESSAR PDA RRCOD's in accordance with our standard practice of considering Category II, III, and IV matters, and, if any instances are detected where conformance to such regulatory positions may be precluded, you will inform the staff immediately.
I The new matters approved for consideration for all plants and plant designs are the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee (RRRC) Category I, II and III matters,,and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Category IV j
a matters.
Those matters issued in the intervals between the RRCOD's for the CESSAR and SWESSAR/CESSAR designs and August 1978 are identified in letters from R. Boyd to P. McGill of Combustion Engineering, dated October 19, 1978 and from R. Boyd to H. Kennedy of Stone & Webster Engin-eering Corporation dated January 24, 1979.
You will be advised periodic-ally of any additional matters that are placed in these categories.
We have provided in the enclosure to this letter a table that summarizes the situation described herein for the review of RRRC Category I, II, and III matters and NRR Category IV matters for each review area as it is to be applied to the New Haven 1 & 2 CP application.
If you require any clarification of the matters discussed in this letter please contact the staff's assigned licensing project manager.
I Sincerely, s
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Enclosure:
1 Summary of Staff Procedure for Review of RRRC Category I, II & III and NRR l
Category IV "atters for New Haven 1 & 2 Application
e e
e e
e l
t t
t i
t l
u p
e p
e e
p e
e w
i t
ni l
n l
l nn l
nn a
o p
o p
p i
n t
c ni c
ni c
n i
o i
f c
S n
o n
o n
o n
n I
C C
C i
c i
i i
2 l
e
/
nt R
1 d
R ea A
0 e
Avi e
S e
e v
S ar l
S r2t l
A Sl p b
A E o1 a b
l i o a
D W
1 i o
P D
E a
P P
s C
P Cwr c
P, SA r
c G
C e
ep D np i
i R
o o
oN p l
o oF eo o
o l
t t
t a
p t
t vr p
t t
S n
r p
R R
e r
r ros A
r rAllap p
p A
r r
E h
o o
o a
o oS A
o T
W i
i iA t
i i S w t-i o
T r
r rDL o
r rE os o
r ir A
P P
PFO N
P PCN a P
l l
f P
i F V O
I NO W Y I
E R T i
s I
O A l 2' V G C n
p&G E E I
o s
pl &
R T i
A E
A P tLG nS R C P P
aO&
A AeY O
A C
c E
D DvN F R d
i 2S P
F R 2 e
2 l &Y la 2
E N v
p1 N R
R i n n
R l
p A
A wo
& o 2 o n U d o
An; d
S S ei d
i D
n 1
s 6i 1 n n
en e
S~n SNt e
1 t 1 t E
a e
o Ao Avo r
E o E
a r
a C
N R
ni Di D ai i
Ci C rc i
nc nc a O
I E
et Pt Fl t u
/t
/oi u
ei R
I V
e va a
i a q
R a R
l q
vl ei P
1 A
r lac R c Rwcn e
Ac A npn e
a p vl H
e i
Ai A ei o R
Si S opo R
p lap l
t F d h
l Sl SNl i Sl SiAi A
l A
p I
F n W W
wp S p S
pt t
E p Et t
t w
w A a E ep E p E rpp o
Wp WaLp o
eP eP*
T N
NA CA C oAO N
NC NC S
I N
F I
O O
R A
d0 n
Y I
S d
n0 d
e V
)
R V
V S w ed V
aC e
v I
4 A Y I o I o E e vn I o R
v la o,
r 7
M R t
t VCN oa2 t0 V
01 oAl d t
/
M O d
d I
r d
0 d o I
0 rD n
9 U G s
nr nr ro p0&
nrC rC2 pP w ar ni 1
a ra S E r
ao ao/
d et p0 aoR d eR8 p
e o0 T
e i
i r0 I r af r
'AC1 iR ntR1 ARN
,i0
,Pr nt 8
A t
I dv R
I r af A
I rC P(
,Ao sR n IPA
,AAn C
t I
I P0 I
sS o I PR I e a
I C
I i
r e
I D
De rSt I
R C
l I v
,dR
,dD I d r eAv
,dP dP v eE
,d o
f I
R eP0 tDa eR eO I
e I e a
tCr e2
,r-R e
I v I vC I v 0
tPl I vR vRl R
l I o2 I oR odC a
I oA oA l t/o I
v I
f I
p-aRi I
o&
I p b
r5 rR
,rnR MR w*
rS rS w NAr r
p1
,A a
,p1
,p I
par Ae
,pS I pS e SP c
I p I pA I p I SN I pE I pEi I S I p t
I s An AD A02 S
AC)
AC EdD hn r
i y
e y
P y
0&
yE o y
/5 y
/o yW n O y
e l
yea p
rsv rs rsC1 rCt rsR7 rsRt rS aC rsv rt p
ora orR orR o
ora /geSorA o
R ora ot A
gel geA geR n grr0 l
geS5 r
gr0R g eIt ga et etS et e
eeo0 etS 2 et S o ee0 et t
tt w ttS ttA v ttiC ttE/t tEi t tC2 t tw el -
t aae aaE aaD a af rR aaW4 aaWi afR5 aae aV,
Cil Cl C Cl Pi C aPR CMS ( CMSP car 1 C. M t CI,
l i
l i i
i m_e a
o t
r A
sd S
ne w
e S
p y
ov e
t S
g t
i o
i i
N g
i t r v
S l
pp e
ep y, i
R t
ca,
J xce y'e r t
[e' " :.,%
U*.t i t :: :, T AT ES t *. *
..~ 1 f.*UCLE AR REGULAT ORY CO!".HSSION f,. '
'.,[
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20535
' % czh/ :
s, s.-.....#
P. L. McGill, Vice President Combustion Engineering, Incorporated 1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 05095
~~
Dear Mr. McGill:
SUBbECT:
STAFF SAFETY REVIEW 0F NEW HAVEN 182 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the staff procedures for conducting the safety review of the New Haven 1&2 construction permit (CP) application. These procedures are documented in a letter i
from H. Denton to dated
'As you know, the New Haven 182 CP application references the CESSAR System 80 I
nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) for?which the staff issued PDA-2 in December 1975.
Therefcre, our procedures for conducting the review of the New Havsn 1&2 CP application potential.ly may impact your CESSAR NSSS design.
Since the New Haven l&2 CP application was docketed prior to the expir-j ation of PDA-2 in December 1978, we, plan no review of the CESSAR NSSS l
on the New Haven l&2 CP application.
However, in instances where the applicant, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), has taken i
exception to CESSAR, we plan to review the proposed revised design on i
the New Haven 1&2 CP application and require resolution prior to issuance of the CP.
In our review of such exceptions we will establish a regula-I tory requirements cutoff date (RRCOD) for that review.
We anticipate that l
the RRCOD will be the date we transmit the second round of requests for additional information and positions on the iiew Haven 1&2 CP application.
j I
Another matter that is relevant to CESSAR. is the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee (RRRC) Cl egory I, II,,and III matters and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Category IV matters applicable to the CESSAR design that were approved subsequent to the RRCOD for the CESSAR PDA review.
We have informed NYSEG that resolution of the l
RRRC Category I matters applicable to the CESSAR design need not be resolved on the New Haven 182 CP application.
With respect to the i
e M
W
d 2-P. L. I'cGill RRRC Category II and III and NRR Category IV matters, we have infor. red NYSEG that we plan to defer our review of such r.atters until the final design stage, except for any matter that must be addressed immediately j
in order to assure that alternatives are not foreclosed.
For matters
~
within the CESSAR design scope, our review for New Haven 132 would be conducted in the context of the recently filed CESSAR FCA-1 application or the New Haven 1&2 OL application, at NYSEG's option.
In this regard, we have informed NYSEG that we will require a commitment to the effect that the final design of New Haven 182 will address regulatory requirements l
i issued subsequent to the CESSAR PDA RRCOD and, if any instances are detected where conformance to such regulatory requirements may be pre-cluded, NYSEG will inform the staff immediately.
If you require any clarification of the matters discussed in this i
let ter please contact the staff's assigned licensing project manager.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e
e O
G e
9 O
G e
1 e
Y r
[
- t. '.: T ;:: :,; e.1 : s
.:' '. a A.* t NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO..".utiloN f kh f
WASHmGloN, D. c. m 55 c., %.@s!1/ f rj W. J. L. Kennedy, Vice President Stone & Uebster Engineering Corpo-ation P. O. Box 2325 Boston, Massachusetts 02107
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
SUBJECT:
STAFF SAFETY REVIEW 0F NEW HAVEft 1&2 C0f1STRUCTI0ti PERMIT APPLICAT10ti The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the staff procedures for conducting the safety review of the tiew Haven 1&2 construction permit (CP) application.
These procedures are doct:nented in a letter from H. Denton to dated As you know, the tiew Haven 182 CP application references the SWESSAR/
CESSAR balance of plant (BOP), for which the staff issued PDA-6 in i
August 1976.
Therefore, our procedres for conducting the review I
of the tiew Haven 182 CP application potentially may impact your SWESSAR/CESSAR 80P design.
9 Since the 1cw Haven 1&2 CP application was docketed prior to the expiration of PDA-6 in August 1979, we plan no review of the SWESSAR/
CESSAR B0P on the tiew Haven 1&2 CP application. However, in instances where the applicant, flew York State Electric & Gas Corporation (fiYSEG),
has taken exception to SWESSAR/CESSAR, we plan to review the proposed revised design on the itew Haven 132 CP application and require resolu-tion prior to issuance of the CP.
In our review of such exceptions, we will establish a regulatory requirements cutoff date (RRCOD) for that review. We anticipate that,
the RRCOD will be the date we transmit the second round of requests for additional information and positions on the tiew Haven 1&2 CP application.
Another matter that i.s relevant to SWESSAR/CESSAR is the Regulatory Requirements Review Comittee (RRRC) Category I, II, and III matters and the Of fice of iuclear Reactor Regulation (T RR) Category IV matters applicable to the SWESSAR/CESSAR design that were approved subse-quent to the RRCOD for the SWESSAR/CESSAR PDA review. We have informed NYSEG that resolution of the RRRC Category I clatters applicable to the SWESSAR/CESSAR BGP design need not be resolved on the New Haven 1&2 CP application.
With respect to the RRRC Category II and III l
and 1RR Category IV matters, we have informed NYSEG that we plan to cefer our review of such matters until the final design stage ex' cept for any matter that must be addressed immediately in order to assure o
F. J. L. !:ennedi that alternatives are not foreclosed.
For matters within the SUESSAR/
CESSAR design scope, our review for I:cw Haven 182 would be conducted in the context of a S'<!ESSAR/CESSAR FDA-1 applicaticn, if filed, or the flew Haven 1&2 OL a; plication, at NYSEG's option.
In this recard, we have informed NYSEG that we will require a conmitment to the effect that the final design of i:ew Haven 182 will address regulatory requirements issued subsequent to the SWESSAR/CESSAR PDA RRCOD, and, if any instances are detected Chere conformance to such regulatory recuirements may be precluded, NYSEG will inform.the staff immediately.
If you require any clarification of the matters discussed in this letter please contact the staff's assigned licensing project manager.
Sincerely, 4
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactot Regulation 1
e
)
3 e
e 6
e G
e
.