ML19345C971
| ML19345C971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1980 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J, Muller D, Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012080691 | |
| Download: ML19345C971 (4) | |
Text
S.
C^
q
. NOV 181980 b
KMORANDUM FOR:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Componenth and g Structures Engineering, DE Vincent S. Noonan, Assistant Director for Materi'al.si U
dnd Qualifications Engineering, DE D-Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Envircrbuntal Z,
Tech.nology, CE 5
r=
Paul S. Check, Assistant Director for Plant Systems ci William 2. Kreger, Assistant Director for RadiatiAn, DSI~
=
S Proteccion, DSI Lester 3. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Reactor Systems, DSI Joel F.ramer, Acting Deputy Director, DHFS FROM:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL L'BJECT:
GRAND GULF SAFETY REVIEW SCHEDULE Attachment I su::narizes major casework milestones for the Grand Gulf OL review, based on current Bevill Schedules. As the attachment indicates, the technical reviews should be well under way, with Q-2s to have been issued in October 1980 and SER input from the technical divisions required by." arch 15, 1981. However, as of this cate a nuc.cer of branches have still not provided Q-2s to the PM.
Cue to schedule constraints, and in an effort to meet our licensing ccmmitments, we are requesting that in lieu of issuing Q-2s at this late date,1 hnical branches consider replacing second round questions with a draft SER. This procedure was utill:ed by the Mechanical Engineering Branch and proved to be an Officient and effective Rethod of licensing review. The procedure would allow the review branch to identify any unresolved issues in its review as open items to the draft SER. The open issues in the draft SER should be des-cribed in sufficient detail to allow the applicant to prepare appropriate responses. The process to be used in resolving the ooen issues contained in the draft SER will be a 3-5 day meeting held with key NRC utility, NSSS and AE personnel capable of reaching a resolution on all issues.
In this way, the reviewer's concerns may be identified and resolved without resorting to further rounds of written questions and responses. The applicant has indicated complete and enthusiastic approval of the process due in large measure to the fact that resources will be conserved. The guidelines for this procedure are outlined in Attachment 2.
In light of the fact that Harold Denton has suggested we consider innovative ways to accelerate the licensing review process, and in an effort to get the Grand Gulf review back on schedule while considering the availability of resources, it is our view that the draft SER process is a desirable alternative.
In addition, Grand Gulf is to be the lead BWR 6 Mark III plant, and this new procedure will allow a more effective means of identifying and resolving new technical issues.
8012080(9/
4 omcc)
SURNAME.
OATE h
<w ',
~'
t
NOV 131980
-2_
Therefore, we are requesting that the draft SER procedure be used for the completion of the Grand Gulf licensing review process.
In order to meet the schedule identified in the attachment, we request that all branches submit their draft SERs by Januory 5,1931. This will allow the applicant approximately six weeks to prepare draft responses to each open issue before the resolution meeting, with final SER input due from the technical branches by the end of fiarch 1981.
Should there be any questions or consnents concerning the proposed review approach or schedule, pleasa notify me as soon as possible. Specifically, please identify the reviewers assigned to the Grand Gulf OL review and any anticipated inability to meet the above schedule by November 25, 1980.
In this way we feel we can responsibly meet our licensing comitments.
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing DISTRIBUTION:
. Docket File (50-416/417)
LPDR POR LB3 File RTedesco FMiraglia JMartore A
omcc k.LB 3 : 0,L,,,,,,,
LB'
/,
ja.]1/)M0.
sumac).JM.artprpijf
.B..i W ca.
oarc > 11/.c/89lI 11/.7/.80..f.
,n 4
,n
>,3" rp (, >
.m\\
0 D
D ti g
w AM d a
e-46
-2' t.1 e
e e
e
.e s.
3 e
e e
4 l
w
-af. *2i
- l s'**
en -
7 e.i M
med I
C
%" 6, me e
~ =-
g n'
U
- "s O
A, e
l l
.e
.e M
=;;
I e
a u
e s
e e
=ws C='
- =s A. -
z 1
e s
g g
- C 8
2 t
e a
t 3
e 1
I
? q'-.
=.
w7 0.
A.
- = = ;
O =
",'""dt
% em%
O
+%.
=
E.*,-
= % % % h w
@ 2 N %
1 J
l
- >=.
"- O"
) N = c
-V
=
0 S
C %
y.
2 A w
J =>
N3
- N O
==
t M
- Ng 6
e i
3 3:
L OsmS..
.e e
g.
4 1
l
- t
=.5.'
l
]
et es s
et z.
3 m
- A
= sam
- N * * ' = = =
~~ e o 3 - +
9 N
. =. =,
=,9 e
g M
el.
I
.em
,t,
- g
=U
- h.
4 4
3 l
I I
Guidelines for SER Meeting Preparation 1.
The review branch should prepare a draf' SER which describes the open issues in its review. The review brancn must consult other branches as necessary if the issue crosses jurisdictional lines.
It may be necessary for these interfacing branches to appear at the SER meeting or to be available via conference call.
2.
The open issues in the draft SER shoulo be described in sufficient detail to allow the applicant to prepare an appropriate response. The applicant should be encouraged to request any necessary clarification by phone.
3.
The draft SER should be sent to the applicant by the project manager with explicit instructions th: the applicant be prepared to. meet until all the open issues are reseived.
In isolated cases resolution includes an agree-ment to disagree. This grcund rule has been found to be a key in setting the tone of the meetings.
4 The applicant should prepare a detailed agende issue by issue, so that one may ascertain on which day a particular issue will be discussed.
5.
The applicant should prepare draft responses to each open issue, and if possible, provide these to the NRC a few days before the SER meeting.
6.
It is essential that both sides enter this meeting with an open mind, ready to pursue a variety of alternative approaches for achieving the necessary level of safety. This may be more difficult for the NRC than the applicant if we lose sight of the f act that SRp's and Regulatory Guides present one acceptable approach. There may be others equally as acceptable.
7.
The period from receipt of the draft SER by the applicant until the SER resolution meeting is expected to average about 2 months.
,v.,,
, - - -