ML20010J391
| ML20010J391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System, Satsop |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1981 |
| From: | Hernan R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010J392 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109300444 | |
| Download: ML20010J391 (11) | |
Text
-
\\,.
.R gp z 3 E1 8'
?:
e co
'Docke't Nos. 50-460/513 gg Q $
g
-and 50-508/509 n n.,
r,v g cy APPLICANT: Washington Public Power Supply System
[D 4
' "s \\
FACILITY:
WIF Units 1/4 and 3/5
SUBJECT:
SUMARY OF MEETING WITH WPPSS ON USE OF INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEWS FOR WNP-1/4 AND WNP-3/5 BackamundZ A meeting was held at the request of the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) to pursue a program of independent design reviews (IDRs) to aid in the reviews and preparation of Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) required for issuance of operating licenses for the WNP-1/4 and WNP-3/5 projects.
The meeting was held in the Phillips Building offices in Bethesda, Maryland, on August 20, 1981. The purpose of the meeting was to allow WPPSS to present their proposed program of IDR development to the staff and to allow the staff to provide its feedback as to whether the program should be pursued. WPPSS intends to submit the FSAR for WNP-1/4 in December 1981 and projects a construction completion date of early 1985 for WNP-1. The WNP-3/5 FSAR is to be submitted in April 1982 with a projected construction completion date of. late 1985 for WNP-3.
Discussion The meeting was ppened with a presentation by li. R. Denton on the NRC over-view of the IDR concept. The primary benefit of independent design reviews is the involvement required on the part of the utility in reviewing the design of systems and individual components provided by the architect / engineer. The early involvement by the utility generally provides for a smoother transition en from the construction phase to the operating phase of a nuclear power statian.
f>SE va Mr. Denton stated that approximately 40 reactors were scheduled to be licensed before WNP-l/4 and WNP-3/5 but that the NRC would comit to its best effort in 7 33 the timely licensing of these WPPSS projects.
f
- v5 82 Mr. S. L. Additon, Manager of Design and Nuclear Safety Assessment for the
- g Supply System, discussed the Supply System's ceganizational structure and stated o
the utilit,y's objectives of the proposed ME program (see viewgraphs 6, 7 and 8).
i %
In addition to assuring a complete safer.y review of the design, one of the
%go other stated primary objectives would be to establish an earlier licensing
- u review schedule. -Mr. J. W. Sale, Manager of Design Assessment, presented the
- E$9
-details of the proposed IDR program including the scope, interfaces, organizations involved, typical flow chart of the review process, system selection criteria and omer >
suauus >
one>
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024o OFF1ClAL RECORD COPY usam e-mem
.Moeting Summary 2-Washington Public ' Power Supply System (WNP-1/4 & WNP-3/5) tentative schedule for a prototype program for each of the two projects (see viewgraphs 8 thru 13). Mr. Additon then reviewed concerns that the Supply.
System has in assuring that :he proposed program would accomplish its objectives
- and listed the NRC agmements and commitments that would have to be made in
- (
order to proceed with the program (see viewgraphs 14 and 15). One of the key L- -
concerns was whether there are better ways to accelerate licensing for these two WNP projects.
Following the fomal presentation, a discussion period was held. The following specific topics were addressad:
1.
WPPSS was asked if consideration had been given to apply the IDR process to
-arus concerning the Division 'of Human Factors Safety. The response was that IDR was being proposed only for systems type reviews and human factors areas had not been considered.~ The Supply System appeared willihg to consider the IDR approach to this area in the future if it would appear to be beneficial.
2.
The question arose regardir,g whether the present or future revision to the Standard Review Plan (SRP) would be used. The response was that if Revision 3 to the SRP has been issued at the time of setting the agenda for a particular IDR.'it would be used. Otherwise Revision 2 would be used.
3.
WPPSS was asked If an overall review plan would be developed showing which areas would be myiewed by the normal process. - The reply was that an overall schedule would be established to the extent possible.
4.
When asked if a " peer review" approach w'ould be used, WPPSS stated that peer design reviews were already used and that IDR's would provide additional desinn review.
S.
A lengthy discussion ensued relative to options to using the IDR process.
The newly established techniques of limiting the rounds of questions to one round, issuing " direct SER's" with open items in lieu of questions, issuing draft SER's after one round of questions and using intensive working meetings to resolve open items' prior to SER finalization were discussed and stated as having been very effective since implementatien early in 1981.
It was agreed that the IDR concept had more applicability to some SRP sections 4
and branches than to others. WPPSS had established four prospective systems for each project to be considered for IDR. The staff made the statement that, in selecting a system for IDR,' WPPSS must carefully consider what benefits the utility itself expects to obtain from the IDR process.
- After pursuing recent successes in speeding up the review process end issuing SER's under the recant guidelines, the morning session of the meeting was 1
adjourned..
OFFICE )
.....a
..a.....
..a
. an a
.a
....~.aa.
a.~
. ~ a a
.a
==a.
- "a"
~~. "".
SUR NJ.ME )
...............a
. a.a a.a o n a.
.a anna a.
a.a. a"
- anaaaa a aa"
""""a""""*
ouE)
..~..... -
.. ~.. -. -
~~.
-a..
..~... ~~ --
aa---
NRC FORM 318 00 80) NRCM ONO OFFICIAL RECOF'D COPY uso m e - m aso
i a
Moeting Suneiery Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP-/14 & WNP-3/5) l
~
As scheduled in the agenda, working meetings were held in the afternoon with four of the NRR Technical Branches which might benefit from IDR reviews on the subject dockets.- These branches were selected on the basis of the systems i
Proposed by the Supply System. The results of the working meetings were as follows:
Power Systems Branch-(PSB)
The section leader representing C stated that his recent experiences with the IDR process were that much time had to be expended by his branch to assist the contractor.in properly conducting the review and that he, therefore, did not consider IDR's to be manpower-effective for his branch. On the basis of a December 1981 FSAR submittal, PSB stated they would be able to start review of the i
FSAR sections assigned to them in early 1982.
Auxiliary Systems Branch (ASB)
The 'ASB representative had been peinnally involved in a number of IDR's and made l
the stateunent that their success is largely a function of the knowledge level and interest of the utility and consultant personnel involved. The ASB Branch Chief i
had expressed.a preference during the morning discussion period that the IDR concept not be applied to the systems under his cognizance. The overall conclusion was that, although the IDR concept has been successful for some auxiliary systems on some projects, there are some pitfalls which favor performing these reviews in the normal manner. ASB foresaw no major delays in reviewing the WNP FSAR's, once docketed..
Chemical Engineering Branch (CMEB)
WPPSS had proposed the IDR process for the fire protection review on both WNP-1/4
-and WNP-3/5. The CEB Chief and the cognizant Section Leader stated that the i
fire protection reviews would probably not lend themselves -to independent design review because of the number of changes. in design that typically occur and because of the sf acialized nature of this area. CMEB stated that they will be
-.able to support early review of the WNP fire protection plans and will use the draft SER/ meeting concept to resolve open items.
Instrumentationand Control Systems Branch (ICSB)
On the basis of recent successes in shortening the length of ICSB reviews, the Section Leader fmm this branch was of the opinion that the instrumentation and control system reviews for the WNP proj" cts could be more efficiently performed by the staff without an IDR.
ICSB stated they would be able to provide a timely review and cited recent projects that required only 5 months for the IC3B review.
1' I'
U DFFICE )
sunu m >
................l.................
oue>
NRC FORM 315 00 S0pRCM Ovo.
OFFiClAL RECORD COPY us e oa m - us
- o
. =-
N-2 Meeting Summary Washington Public Power Sup ly System (WNP-1/4 & WNP-3/5 Sumary At the conclusion of the mornin3 'iscussion and afternoon working meetings, the Supply System representatives corx luded that, at this point in time, an adequate amount of agreement and commitment ')y the NRC staff on the application of IDR's to WNP-1/4 and WNP-3/5 does not exist to justify implementing the proposed prototype program. The staff did encourage the Supply System insofar as timely reviews of the FSAR's for these plants using the more efficient techniques recently implemented.
It was recomended that WPPSS make a detailed final review of their FSAR's prior to submittal for docketing to ensure the FSAR's are as complete as possible, thereby reducing review time by the staff.
It was specifically suggested that arty " lessons learned" as the result of requests for additional information on the WNP-2 FSAR be factored into the submittals for WNP-1/4 and WNP-3/5.
Finally, it was suggested that WPPSS consider applying the IDR conceptyareas to be reviewed by the Division of Human Factors Safety.
4o Originalsigned byf R. W. Hernan, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing Enclosures :
As stated DISTRIBUTION Dockets NRC PDR LB#4 Reading (see next page for additional listing) 0, o
omco..DL.; LBf.4 Di.IljBfT h,L,,k.,
- - - >.RHg;g,an,31b EA@nham RL
- esc, 9/...../.81
../..ilJ1 3/..\\.l. /81 9
em>
t..
o n,,, m,.
i CFFICIAL RECORD COPY uwami-mm
cwm
.s
'e o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULA, TORY COMMISSION n
.i
- p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~
l ggp 2 3 EM Docket Nos. 50-460/513 and 50-508/509 APPLICANT: Washington Public Power Supply System FACILITY:
WNP Units 1/4 and 3/5
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH WPPSS ON USE OF INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEWS FOR WNP-1/4 AND WNP-3/5
Background
A meeting was held at the request of the Washington Public Power 3upply System (WPPSS) to pursue a program of independent design reviews (IDRs) to aid in the reviews and preparation of Safety Evaluation Reportr (SERs) required for issuance of. operating licenses for the WNP-1/4 and W3P-3/5 projects.
The meeting was held in the Phillips Building offices in Bethesda, l
Marylar.d, on August 20, 1981.
The purpose of the meeting was to allow WPPSS to present their proposed program of IDR development to the staff and to allow the staff to provide its feedback as to whether the program should be pursued. WPPSS intends to submit the FSAR for WNP-1/4 in December 1981 and projects a construction completion date of early 1985 for WNP-1. The WNP-3/5 FSAR is to be submitted in April 1982 with a projected construction completion date of late 1985 for WNP-3.
l Discussion The meeting was opened with a presentation by H. R. Denton on the NRC over-view of the IDR concept. The primary benefit of independent design reviews i
is the involvement required on the part of the utility in reviewing the design of systems and individual components provided by the architect / engineer. The early involvement by the utility generally provides for a smoother transition from the construction phase to the operating phase of a nuclear power station.
Mr. Denton stated that approximately 40 reactors were scheduled to be licensed before WhP-l/4 and WNP-3/5 but that the NRC would conmit to its best effort in
'the timely licensing of these WPPSS projects.
Mr. S. L. Additon, Manager of Design and Nuclear Safety Assessment for the Supply System, discussed the Supply System's organizational structure and stated the utility's objectives of the proposed IDR program (see viewgraphs 6, 7 and 8).
In addition to assuring a complete safety review of the design, one of the other stated primary objectives would be to establish an earlier licensing review schedule.
Mr. J. W. Sale, Manager of Design Assessment, presented the details of the proposed IDR program including the scope, interfaces, organizations involved, typical flow chart of the review process, system selection criteria and t
rg109300'445 8109233
~ ~
' PDR ADOCK 05000460i
%b
a
~
Meeting Suninary. Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP-1/4 & WNP-3/5) 4*
tentative schedule for a prototype program for each of the two projects (see viewgraphs 8 thru 13). Mr. Additon then reviewed concerns that the Supply System has in assuring that the proposed program would accomplish its objectives and listed the NRC agreements and commitments that would have to be made in order to proceed with the program (see viewgraphs 14 and 15).
One of the key concerns was whether there are better ways to accelerate licensing for these two WNP projects.
Following the formal presentation, a discussion period was held. The following specific topics were addressed:
1.
WPPSS was asked if consideration had been given to apply the IDR process to areas concerning the Division of Human Factors Safety. The response was that IDR was being proposed only for systems type reviews and human factors areas had not been considered. The Supply System appeared willing to consider the IDR approach to this area in the future if it would appear to be beneficial.
2.
The question arose regarding whether the preseni. '
future revision to the Standard Review Plan (SRP) would be used. The rr anse was that if Revision 3 to the SRP has been issued at the time of seti.ing the agenda for a particular IDR, it would be used. Otherwise Revision 2 would be used.
3.
WPPSS was asked if an overall review plan would be developed showing which i
areas would be reviewed by the normal process.
The reply was that an l
overall schedule would be established to the extent possible.
4.
When asked if a " peer review" approach would be used, WPPSS stated that peer design reviews were already used and that IDR's would provide i
additional design review.
5.
A lengthy discussion ensued relative to options to using the IDR process.
The newly established techniques of limiting the rounds of questions to one l
round, issuing " direct SER's" with open items in lieu of questions, issuing draft SER's after one round of questions and using 1ntensive working meetings to resolve open items prior to SER finalization were discussed and stated as having been very effective since implementation early in 1981.
It was agreed that the IDR concept had more applicability to some SRP sections and branches than to others. WPPSS had established four prospective systems for each project to be considered for IDR. The staff made the statement that, in selecting a system for IDR, WPPSS must carefully consider what benefits the utility itself expects to obtain from, the IDR process.
After pursuing recent successes in speeding up the review process and issuing SER's under the recent guidelines, the mornina session of the meeting was adjourned.
t
o.
m Meeting Sumary 23-
- Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP-/14 & WNP-3/5)
As scheduled in the agenda, working meetings were held in the afternoon with four of the NRR Technical Branches which might benefit from IDR reviews on the subject dockets.
These branches were selected on the basis of the systems proposed by the Supply System. The results of the working meetings were as follows:
Power Systems Branch (PSB)
The section leader representing PSB stated that his recent e.xperiences with the IDR process were that much time had to be expended by his branch to assist the contractor in properly conducting the review and that he, therefore, did not consider IDR's to be manpower-effective for his branch.
On the basis of a December 1981 FSAR submittal, PSB stated they would be able to start review of the FSAR sections assigned to them in early 1982.
Auxiliary Systems Branch (ASB)
The ASB representative had been personally involved in a number of IDR's and mace the statement that their success is largely a function of the knowledge level and interest of the utility and consultant personnel involved.
The ASB Branch Chief had expressed a preference during the morning discussion period that the IDR concept not be applied to the systems under his cognizance.
The overall conclusion was that, although the IDR concept has been successful for some auxiliary systems on some projects, there are some pitfalls which favor performing these reviews in the normal manner. ASB foresaw no major delays in reviewing the WNP FSAR's, once docketed.
Chemical Engineering Branch (CMEB)
WPPSS had proposed the IDR process for the fire protection review on both WNP-1/4 and WNP-3/5. The CMEB Chief and the cognizant Section Leader stated that the fire protection reviews would probably not lend themselves to independent design review because of the number of changes in design that typically occur and because of the specialized nature of this area.
CMEB stated that they will be able to support early review of the WNP fire protection plans and will use the draft SER/ meeting concept to resolve open items.
Instrumentationand Control Systems Branch (ICSB)
On the basis of recent successes in shortening the length of ICSB reviews, the Section Leader from this branch was of the opinion that the instrumentation aid control system reviews for the WNP projects could be more efficiently performed by the staff without an IDR.
ICSB stated they would be able to provide a timely i
review and cited recent projects that required only 5 months for the ICSB review.
d 1
~
a.
.a
. Meeting Sunnary Washington Public Power Supply System (WNP-1/4 & WNP-3/5)
Summary At the conclusion of the morning discussion and afternoon working meetings, the Supply System representatives concluded that, at this point in time, an adequate amount of agreement and commitment by the NRC staff on the application of IDR's to WNP-1/4 and WNP-3/5 does not exist to justify implementing the proposed prototype program.
The staff did encourage the Supply System insofar as timely reviews of the FSAR's for these plants using the more efficient techniques recently implemented.
It was reconnended that WPPSS make a detailed final review of their FSAR's prior to submittal for docketing to ensure the FSAR's are as complete as possible, thereby reducing review time by the staff.
It was specifically suggested that any " lessons learned" as the result of requests for additional information on the WNP-2 FSAR be factored into the submittals for WNP-1/4 and WNP-3/5.
Finally, it was suggested that WPPSS consider applying the IDR concept to areas to be reviewed by the Division of Human Factors Safety.
. W. Hernan, Project Manager Licensing Branch #4 Division of Licensing Enclosures :
As stated w
[I "rM52 s
ENCLOSURE 1 b
LIST OF ATTENDEES MEETING WITH WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY (WPPSS)
AUGUST 20, 1981 i
NRC WPPSS L
H.
R.- Denton S. Additon S. Hanauer D. Mazur R. Mattson J. Sale R. Vollmer C. Organ R. Tedesco J. Werle W. Kreger K. Cook L. Rubenstein l
D. Muller J. P. Knight W. Johnston UE&C l
- 0. Parr i
V. Benaroya H. Grov l
E. Adensam H. Kreider l
F. Miraglia l
A. Ungaro J. Pearring D. Gupta R. Ferguson i
L. Wheeler l
T. Dunning
(
J. Wermiel R. Hernan
q ENCLOS' ORE 2 AGENDA MEETING ON INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEWS FOR
}.]h-1/4andWNP-3/5 Thursday, August 20 Room P-118, Phillips Building 10:00 a.m.
WPPSS PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM FOR WNP-1/4 AND WNP-3/5 PROJECTS 1.
Purpose, objective, and scope of proposed IDR Program 2.
Proposed IDR process, including close-out and reporting 3.
Tentative systems and schedule 4.
Concerns from Supply System perspective
~
5.
Requested NRC comiinu. t DISCUSSION PERIOD ON THE FOLLOWING TOPICS 1.
NRC Philosophy on IDR (Purpose, objective, and scope
' using SECY-81-161 as the basis) 2.
NRC Role in IDR Process Selecting of Systems from WPPSS Nuclear Projects for review Preparing Agenda for System under review Participating in the review process for resolution of open items and drafting of SER sections for each system reviewed
~
3.
Lessons learned from Palo Verde IDR's 4.
Ways to maximize effectiveness of IDR's (i.e. minimize NRC staff review manpower requirements) 5.
Concerns from NRC perspective.
- 6. - Requested Supply System co:rctiitmbnts 1:00 - 3:00 p.m.
INDIVIDUAL WORKING MEETINGS WITH LPM'S AND REVIEWERS' BRANCH SUBJECT (Potential IDR systems) 1:00-1:30 PSB (Ungaro)
On-site Class IE Elect. Syst., Emerg Power Supplis 1:30-2:00 ASB (Parr)
Aux Feed Water Syst, dry cooling tower 2:00-2:30 CMEB (Ferguson) Fire Protection Systems 2:30-3:00 ICSB (Rosa, I&C Systems (Chapter 7)
Dunning) t t
g_.:
_ --n _
f.
9 y.:
e b.*
g ENCLOSURE 3 4
w w,..,
g'j..
?,%.
6-
.: 4 a
a-9
+8
- y y
- I t1
(
T-P g
../.
3 INDEPENDENT-DESIGN REVIEW
^
PROGRAM
-FOR WNP-1/4 & WNP-3/5 SUPPLY SYSTEM IlEETING wiTH NRC AUGUST 20, 1981 BETHESDA, MD i
9 i
I Y
- w.. '
~
ZlN u
- a. :
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM 4-HEETING AGENDA 0
INTRODUCTIONS & SUPPLY SYSTEM ORGANIZATION S. L. ADDITON PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM FOR WWP-1/4 E WNP-3/5 P,ROJECTS J. W. SALE O
PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND SCOPE 10F IDR PROGRAM PROPOSED IDR PROCESS, ORGANITATIONS INVOLVED, & DOCUMENTATION POSSIBLE SYSTEMS PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR PROTOTYPE IDRS O
REQUESTED NRC COMMITMENTS S. L. ADDITON O
SUPPLY SYSTEM CONCERNS ON IDR PROGRAM S. L. ADDITON O
DISCUSSION O
STATCMENTS OF UNDERSTANDING (NRC & SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMITMENTS)
O e
+r WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
' nAni i AV 1988 MANAGING DIRECTOR t
R. L FERGUSON
'i GEPUTY MANAGING OIRECTOR A. SQUf flE NUCo. EAR SAFETY INTEHNAL AUDIDNG s,
J J WEht!
G O BouCHEY Mahat tA DeMg r BOA I
O*AAI 3 CMaAl e OUAtlTV ASSUHAt4CE EXECullvE,
ASSISTANT o a THonesaw n a ciassCoCm thmitlOn CatARI 3 Wr4P l,4 PflOGRAM WNP 2 Pf40GflAM Wr4P 3'S Pf10GilAM POWEH GENE:tAllOrd o w untun n a uartoCs a s S t DoeCm a s Panmeses EdHt CIOct EMH4(IOR DsHttION DeMt titMt CHAAI6 CHAMI I CHAAIG CHAAB9 MANAGEMEN1 POLICY IECllNOLOGY PUBLIC Af f AtHS ADMINISTRAllON CONIRACTS &
THEASURV
& SYSTEMS
& INIOHMAllON MATERIALS MGI W D JANstN P a SHEN I $ P,uNT O A f hen 05 W G anguaNutR J O PisesO DeHECIOn Demacton game (lon tanacion cent olose Ing abunt a (HAMIs (HAASto (HAAI B B CHARE 32 (eeAnl t 3 CHAAI34 N
9
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CHART 2 MAY1981 NUCLEAR SAFETY G.D.BOUCHEY DIRECTOR UCENSING OPERATIONAL DESIGN & NUCLEAR NUCLEAR SAFETY SAFETY ASSESSMENT o c somemstm o t eAimo s t Aooevow MahAGtM MahAGE R MANAGt R 8
4 LICENSING SAFEIV ENGHG DESIGN WNP-2 PROJECT GROUP-WNP 2 ASSESSMENI ft M hitsoN C n M6GHTON JW sal f MANAutR MANAbtR M A44ue n LICENSING SAFETY ENGRG NUCLEAR SAFETY ANALYSIS WNP 1 4 PROJECT GROUP WNP 1 4 a o nosasa s c othesom a vossmuncu UaNAbtM MAhas93 A M ANA.* R
.__I LICE NSING SAF LIV I NGHG NtsC SAF S10S WNP 3 5 PHOJECl GROUP WNP 3 5
& IECHNOLOGY a w coom n w coteMaw s M maatn MAhat.4 H M A444at M M AA.WG H I
9
_o 9
Y
- t PROPOSED IDR PROGRV1 OBJECTIVES UTILITY OWNERSHIP OF THE DESIGN PROCESS 0
ASSURE THAT THE DESIGN CONTAINS FEATURES THAT WILL PERMIT SAFE PLANT OPERATION 0
ASSURE THAT DESIGilS SATISFY REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ENGINEERING CRITERIA O
IMPROVE PLANT OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY AND AVAILABILITY ISSUE RESOLUTIOrl 0
ADDRESS OPEN ITEMS EARLY IN THE REVIEW PROCESS o
PUBLICLY DOCUMENT ISSUE RESOLUTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESULTS 4
9 J
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAll l
OBJECTIVES SCHEDULE CONTROL 0
ESTABLISH All EARLIER LICENSING REVIEW SCHEDULE EARLYIDENTIFICATIONOFLICENSINGIMPACTSbNDESIGNANDCONSTRUCTION
?
O RESOURCE UTILIZATION 0
IMPROVE USE OF AVAILABLE TECHNICAL RESOURCES O
BROADEN THE DESIGN REVIEW PERSPECTIVE O
REDUCE DEMAND ON NRC TEt.HNICAL REVIEW
~
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM SYSTEM DESIGN REVIEWS SYSTEM 0
IN-DEPTil, MULTI-DISCIPLINE DESIGN reviews REVIEW O
ALL OWMER REQUIREMENTS 0
INDUSTRY CODES & STANDARDS 0
FEDERAL a STATE REGULATIONS 0
MAJOR PLANT SYSTEMS IDR
~
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 0
IN-DEPTH, MULTI-DISCIPLINE REVIEW O
FEDERAL & STATE REGULATIONS O
UAJOR SYSTEMS THAT AFFECT PLANT SAFETY AND/OR LICENSABILITY 0
NRC PARTICIPATION i
x 3.
Kpf?
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAN REVIEW SCOPE EACH AGENDA WILL BE-ESTABLISHED IN COOPERATION WITH THE NRC STAFF AND WILL INCLUDE:
O SYSTEM OVERVIEW LAYOUT OPERATION O
REGULATORY CRITERIA
, STANDARD REVIEW PLANS REGULATORY GUIDES GENERIC LETTERS I&E BULLETINS 0
SYSTEM INTERFACES 1
O IEST PROG'? Aft 4
1 f
.l
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAtt ORGANIZATIONS IfWOLVED a
SUPPLY SYSTEM l
o NRC o
AE o
NSSS VENDOR o
OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS 1
l Y
o
- ---- -J
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS (20)
(5)
~(30)
INDEPENDEtlT DESIGN INDEPENDENT PEN ITE LO O
REVIEW COMMITTEE h
PORT /
llEETING FAMILIARIZATI0rl A
h (5)
(20)
(5)
(5)
AE AE PROJECT AE 31SCIPLINE SSSEMBLE
-NGILEERING
'jPDATED 3
JATA
]ACKAGE RE-CEVIEW y
J'lATRIX &
ATA
+
+
3ACKAGE PLANNING
(
) = ESTIMATED WORK DAYS
)
h
1-j t
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM IDR SELECTION CRITERIA INITI ATE SYSTEM SELCTION IN PARALLEL WITH FSAR ACCEPTANCE REVIEW SELECT SYSTEMS:
0 FOR WHICil NRC REVIEW IS HAMPERED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT MANPOWER.
O WHOSE LICENSABILITY HAS BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE NRC.
0 WHICH HAVE USED A NEW OR INNOVATIVE APPROACH.
0 'NOT REVIENiD AS GENERIC PLANT DESIGN.
O WHERE UNCERTAINTIES MAY INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT COST OR SCHEDULE IMPACTS.
A e
15.
PROPOSEDIDRPROGRAM T E ll T A T I V E SCHEDULE FOR PROTOTYPE IDR PROGRAM 12/81 3/82 6/82 9/82
.12/82 I
i i
1 1
2 3
4 0
PROTOTYPE IDR WNP-1/fl V
V U
U PLAN IDR CLOSEOUT 1.
SusMIT FSAR (12/81) 2.
DOCKET FSAR (3/82) 3.
COMPLETE IDR (6/82)
II.
OPEt1 ITEM CLOSE0UT &
SER PREPARATION (10/82) 1 2
3 0
PROTGTYPE IDR lillP-3/5 V
V U
PLAN IDR 1.
SusttIT FSAR (3/82) 2.
DOCKET FSAR (6/82) 3.
COMPLETE IDR (9/82) 1 2
3 4
0 NRC SUPPORT MEETINGS 9
9 9
9 1.
IlNP-1/fl SYSTEM SELECTION /
AGENDA (2/82) 2.
IlNP-3/,5 SYSTEM SELECTION /
AGENDA (5/82) 3.
ilflP-1/ft IDR CRITIQUE (6/82) 11.
SUPPLY SYSTEM IDR PROGRAM REVIEW (10/82) 6
14
~3 PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM REQUESTED NRC COMMITi1ENTS o
NRC COMMITTMENT TO SUPPORT THE REVIEW TEAM WITil Me.;iP0WER AND TO PARTICIPATE IN TiiE EFFORT UNTIL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITil Tile SYSTEM UNDER REVIEW ARE ADE00ATELY RESOLVED TO ALLOW FOR ISSUANCE OF AN SER SECTION.
o APPLICANT WILL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO AN NRC REVIEW 0F A SELECTED SYSTEM OUTSIDE Tile EFFORT OF Ti1E REVIEW TEAil, I.E., TilERE WILL BE ONLY ONE NRC REVIEW 0F A SELECTED SYSTEM AND TilAT WILL BE TiiE NRC/ APPLICANT TEAM.
o AT TiiE CONCLUSION OF THE REVIEW TEAll'S EFFORT, THE APPLICANT WILL DOCUMENT IT'S COMMITTMENT TO AjiY AGREED TO CilANGE AND THE NRC WILL DOCl! MENT TI EIR CONCLUSION THAT ISSUES FOR THE SYSTEM UNDER REVIEW ARE SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF AN SER SECTION.
e
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM E
CONCERNS FROM A SUPPLY SYSTEi1 PERSPECTIVE
-0 IS THE IDR PROCESS COST EFFECTIVE?
0-IS THERE A DIRECT. LICENSING BENEFIT?
O ARE THERE BETTER llAYS TO ACCELERATE LICENSING?
O WILL THE IDR CLOSE-0UT A SYSTEM REVIEW?
O WIL'L AN SER SECTION BE GENERATED FROM THE IDR?
O DOEs NRC SUPPORT EXIST AT ALL LEVELS?
O HOW NILL REVISIG!S TO THE SRP AFFECT THE IDR PROCESS AND COMPLETNDR2 VIEW?*
O ASSIGNMENT OF SENIU? NRC REVIEWERS.
O APS AND MIDLAND EXPERIENCES 4
L p*
^*
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAli CANDIDATES FOR-WNP-1/4 PROTOTYPE IDR SYSTEMS
-SYSTEM BASIS r
0 ESFAS/RPS/ECI/ SCI SYSTEMS POSSIBLE NRC MANPOWER PROBLEMS (FSAR CHAPTER 7)
O' FIRE PORTECTION SYSTEM DESIGN UNCERTAINTIES MAY INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT COST OR SCHEDULE IMPACTS ON-SITE IE POWER SYSTEM POSSIBLE NRC MANPOWER PROBLEMS O
AUXILIARY FEEDWATER LICENSING QUESTIONS SYSTEM O
Y
7
- v I
PROPOSED IDR PROGRAM.
CANDIDATES FOR WilP-3/5PROTOTYPEIDRSYSTED_S SYSTEM BASIS 0
EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY POSSIBLE NRC MANPOWER PROBLEMS s
t' FIRE PROTECTION DESIGrl UNCERTAINTIES MAY. INVOLVE O
SIGNIFICANT COST OR SCHEDULE IMPACTS AUXILIARY FEEDWATER POSSIBLE LICENSIllG QUESTIONS 0
SYSTEM DRY COOLING TOWER IlEW, IllNOVATIVE DESIGN 0
8
-