ML20005E850
| ML20005E850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/15/1989 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Michelson C, Taylor J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9001110171 | |
| Download: ML20005E850 (3) | |
Text
__
4e
}c.#
%o UNITED STATES '
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-j-
W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20666
)
%y
,M December 15, 1989 CFFICE OF THE -
SECRETARY
(
MEMORANDUM FOR:-
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations L'
Carlyle Michelson, Acting Chairman, ACRS FROM:
hnamuelJ. Chilk, Secretary p
SUBJ ECT: -
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-89-334 RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR REVIEW OF STANDARD PLANT DBSIGNS L
l This is.to advise you that the commission, with all Commissioners agreeing, has approved your proposed priority of reviews of evolutionary, passive and advanced reactor design submittals subject to the following:
1.
Should a domestic interest in one of the plant design submittals be demonstrated,: staff should reconsider the L
priorities and advance the selected design to the highest priority.
In that eventuality, staff should propose a-l i:
revised, updated priority ranking ter Commission review H
and approval.-
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
As appropriate) 2.1 Staff should use December 1991 as the target date for completing the CE System 80+ FDA, unless unforeseen difficulties arise in issuing the LRB document.
The Commission should be. advised of any significant change in the target date.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/91) 3.
Until there is a demonstrated domestic interest expressed for either the GE ABWR or CE System 80+ power stations, staff should assign equal priority in the review of the ABWR, System 80+ and the EPRI Requirements Document for Evolutionary Plant Designs, with a particular focus on resolving those evolutionary plant issues which will carry over into the passive plant requirements document. In order to provide added NRC status to the EPRI requirements document, when reviewing specific designs, the staff 0Fo >
l 0 9001110171 D91215 PDR f OCSR.
/ty.7 9DC Q
s,
??Y wc
>I
' 4' -
1
- ,7 should consider the EPRI requirements document and dedicate a section in each SER which highlights thost areas where the resolution of evolutionary plant issues is different
.than the resolution achieved through the review of the EPRI requirement.
Staff should submit-to the Commission a projection of the resources necessary to adhere to the proposed schedules,-
assuming-timely submission of the'necessary information by the vendors'and EPRI.
3 (EDO)'
(SECY Suspense:
1/26/89) 4.
Staff should ensure that the SER on Part III of the EPRI Requirements Document is completed prior to submitting to the ACRS the proposed licensing review bases for passive plants.
In the event that insufficient resources are available to review both'Part III of the EPRI Requirements
. Document'and the proposed passive designs, resources should be allocated first to the EPRI Requirements L
Document.
L The SERs on the EPRI Requirements Document for both the f
evolutionary and the passive plant designs should be L
submitted to the ACRS for review and comment and to the commission for information and for review and approval of o
L policy issues-for which the Commission has not previously decided.
(EDO/ACRS)
(SECY Suspense:
As Appropriate) 5.
Staff should confirm with the Department of Energy that the proposed schedules for the H AP-600 and GE SBWR desigt:s ars consistent with the program that DOE has in mind for these designs.
Staff:should advise the commission if the schedule proposed by the staff is incompatible with DOE's schedule.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
01/31/90) 6.
The staff's proposed review schedule of the E SP/90 design (issue a preliminary design approval by June 1990) is acceptable.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/90) 7.
With respect to the CANDU and PIUS designs, consistent with the LMR and HTGR' reviews, staff should evaluate the need for a prototype demonstration facility (either in this or another country).
8.
In regard to Staff Requirements Memorandum dated July 31, 1989 (M890620), s taff should submit responses to items col. and c.2. by December 29, 1989.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/29/89)
[;.
p sw
-.3
~
At the earliest oppo'rtunity, but no later than the time of J.
the submittal to the Commission of the FDA for the GE ABWR, staff should submit its response to item c.3.
in the
~~
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated July 31, 1989.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:- When Ready) 9.
Staff should advise the Commission at the earliest opportunity-if any of the~ review efforts are expected to fall behind schedule.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense 1-As Appropriate) cc:
Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick-OGC GPA Boards i
2.--_-----__._-__a__.,__2_m
._.m_
_ _ _ _ _ _, _ _,. _ _ _.