ML20029D689
| ML20029D689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1994 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-94-117, NUDOCS 9405090277 | |
| Download: ML20029D689 (16) | |
Text
A RELEASED TO THE PDR
/' * ~~%
5 r/r/q4
(~t b
inie
.....'eas............ V.s r,,
a;
\\...../
. POLICY ISSUE (Information)
April 29, 1994 SECY-94-ll7 EDB:
The Commissioners fBQH:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REVISED REVIEW SCHEDULES FOR THE DESIGN CERTIFICATION APPLICATIONS PURPOSE:
To provide the Commission with the staff's revised schedules for completing its reviews of the advanced light water reactor (ALWR) projects, specifically Westinghouse Electric Corporation's (Westinghouse's) AP600 and GE Nuclear Energy's (GE's) Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR). The staff also discusses the status of the reviews of the evolutionary light water reactor projects (GE's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering Corporation, Inc.'s (ABB-CE's) System 80+] and the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI's) ALWR Utility Requirements Document.
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-91-161, " Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions," May 31, 1991, and SECY-93-097, " Integrated Review Schedules for the Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Projects,"
April 14, 1993, the staff submitted its estimated schedules for completing its reviews of the evolutionary and advanced reactor designs.
In its staff requirements memoranda, the Commission directed the staff to inform it of changes to the schedules.
In its status reports and semi-annual briefings, the staff has kept the Commission informed of the status of these reviews.
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONTACT:
IN 3 WORKING DAYS FROM THE T. Kenyon, NRR DATE OF THIS PAPER 504-1120 y, r ~ c.
3 J ') 'v ser 9405090277 940429 PDR SECY
-(l ll 94-117 PDR
The Commissioners DISCUSSION:
While developing the revised schedules discussed herein for the ALWRs, the staff considered the status of the reviews of the evolutionary LWRs (GE's ABWP, and ABB-CE's System 80+), and the efforts remaining to complete the review of the EPRI's ALWR Requirements Document for passive plants.
The staff then factored in actual milestones reached since SECY-93-097 was issued, the status i
of the testing programs for the ALWRs, allocation of staff resources, the status of the reviews of policy and technical issues, and the schedular relationships among the projects. Where appropriate, the staff used the l
assumptions of SECY-93-097.
The staff evaluated several alternatives to the review process described in this paper and determined that this process will result in the most efficient use of the staff's resources.
Enclosure I shows the revised, projected dates for the ALWR projects. discusses the assumptions and considerations used to develop the revised schedules. to Enclosure 2 shows the key milestone intervals for the ALWR schedules and compares them with the assumptions of SECY-93-097. Attachment 2 to Enclosure 2 shows the timeline for the review and test program of the AP600 through the time when the proposed rule will be forwarded to the Commission using input from Westinghouse's March 28, 1994, letter on its testing schedule. Attachment 3 to Enclosure 2 shows the i
timeline for the review and test program of the SBWR through the time when the proposed rule will be forwarded to the Commission based on incomplete schedular information that has been orally provided by GE to date. to Enclosure 2 shows the steps that remain to be performed to issue the proposed rules on the evolutionary plant designs.
The schedules presented herein supersede previous schedules provided for the ALWRs.
COORDINATION:
The requests of the Office of General Counsel and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards were considered while developing these schedules.
CONCLUSIONS:
Considering the assumptions discussed in Enclosure 2, the staff proposes the schedules provided in Enclosure 1 for review of the ALWR design certification applications.
The schedular delays are the result of delays in the testing schedules and the resultant need to develop a draft safety evaluation report (DSER) supplement to address the results of the testing programs.
also discusses the status of the reviews of the evolutionary LWRs and the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document.
These milestones can be achieved only if the designers submit high-quality information in the standard safety analyses reports (SSARs) and the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) documents, and if the testing schedules are met and the test results and analyses demonstrate the adequacy of their designs. The staff will continue to assess the resources it needs to ensure that it can adequately support the schedules presented in this paper.
The Commissioners,
NOTE:
Copies of this paper will be submitted to the appropriate congressional committees.
Copies will also be submitted simultaneously to the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Energy.
The staff recommends that this paper be made publicly available within 3 workdays from the date of this paper.
//
} mes M.
or
/ Executiv
. irector
/
for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Revised Passive Plant Schedules 2.
Schedule Assumptions For the Review of the Advanced Light Water Reactor Designs DISTRIBUTION:
Cormnissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP EDO ACRS SECY l
i I
I
Enclosura 1 REVISED PASSIVE PLANT SCHEDULES W AP600 SBWR MILESTONE
)!AP600 Revised SBWR Revised SECY-93-097 Dates SECY-93-097 Dates RAIs to PM 6/93 Ongoing 10/93 Ongoing RAIs Issued to Applicant 6/93 Ongoing 10/93 Ongoing Policy Paper to Commission /ACRS 6/93 Source Term 6/93 Source Term 12/94 12/94 Applicant Responds to RAIs 9/93 Ongoing 1/94 12/94 DSER to PM 2/94 8/94 6/94 5/95 DSER to Com/ACRS 5/94 11/94 9/94 8/95 Applicant Responds to DSER 12/94 6/95 3/95 2/96 Final Test Report Submitted 5/95 7/95 DSER Supplement to PM 9/95 11/95 DSER Supplement to Com/ACRS 11/95 1/96 Applicant Responds to DSER Supplement 2/96 4/96 FSER to PH 4/95 6/96 7/95 8/96 FSER to Com/ACRS 7/95 9/96 10/95 11/96 FSER Issued for Publication 11/95 1/97 3/96 3/97 FDA/FR Notice Issued 1/96 4/97 5/96 6/97 Rule /FR Notice Issued 2/96 5/97 6/96 7/97
- SECY-94-084 (RTNSS) issued March 28, 1994; Draft Comission Paper on Source Term, February 10, 1994.
G SCHEDULE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGNS
~
INTRODUCTION Discussed below are the process and assumptions the staff used in establishing the schedules for completing its reviews of the advanced light water reactor (ALWR) projects, specifically Westinghouse Electric Corporation's (Westing-house's) AP600 and GE Nuclear Energy's (GE's) Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR). Also discussed is the status of the reviews of the evolutionary LWR projects (GE's Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) and Asea Brown Boveri-Combustion Engineering, Inc.'s (ABB-CE's) System 80+], and the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI's) ALWR Requirements Document for passive plants.
BACKGROUND In SECY-91-161, " Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions," May 31, 1991, and SECY-93-097, " Integrated Review Schedules for the Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Projects,"
April 14, 1993, the staff submitted its estimated schedules for completing its reviews of the evolutionary and advanced reactor designs.
In its staff requirements memoranda, the Commission directed the staff to inform it or changes to the schedules.
In its status reports and semi-annual briefings, the staff has kept the Commission informed of the current status of these reviews.
DISCUSSION While developing the revised schedules discussed herein for the ALWRs, the staff considered the status of the reviews of the evolutionary LWRs (GE's ABWR and ABB-CE's System 80+), and the efforts remaining to complete the review of the EPRI's ALWR Requirements Document for passive plants.
The staff then factored in actual milestones reached since SECY-93-097 was issued, the status of the testing programs for the ALWRs, availability of staff resources, the status of the reviews of policy and technical issues, and the schedular relationships among the projects. Where appropriate, the staff used the assumptions of SECY-93-097. The staff evaluated several alternatives to the review process described herein, and determined that this process will result in the most efficient use of the staff's resources. of this Commission paper shows the revised, projected dates for the ALWR projects. shows the key milestone intervals for the ALWR schedules and compares them with the assumptions of SECY-93-097.
Because the staff has maintained the same key milestone intervals of SECY-93-097, the schedular delays shown result from testing concerns.
Testing delays have also resulted in the need for a DSER supplement that was not part of the previous schedule. shows the timeline for the review and test program of the AP600 through the time when the proposed rule will be forwarded to the Commission e
using input from Westinghouse's March 28, 1994, letter on its testing sched-ule. Attachment 3 shows the timeline for the review and test program of the SBWR through the time when the proposed rule will be forwarded to the Comis-sion based on incomplete schedular information that has been orally provided by GE to date.
STATUS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY DESIGN REVIEWS The staff expects to complete its reviews in support of the final design approvals (FDAs) for the evolutionary designs during the first half of 1994. shows the steps that remain to be performed tc issue the proposed rules on the evolutionary plant designs. The near-term et w ts for these projects are on a schedule consistent with those projected in SECY-93-097.
The following is the status of these reviews:
i ABWR:
In December 1993, the staff submitted an advance copy of the safety evaluation report (SER) to the Comission and the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The ACRS completed its review in April 1994. The May 1994 FDA schedule may slip about one month to formally close open items and resolve policy issues affecting the FDA.
The proposed rule is expected to be sent to the Comission in August 1994, after the staff completes its review of the design control document (DCD).
System 80+:
In March 1994, the staff submitted an advance copy of the SER to the Comission and the ACRS.
The staff expects to publish the final SER in June 1994, with a goal of issuing the FDA in August 1994. The proposed rule is expected to be sent to the Commission in September 1994, after the staff completes its review of the DCD.
To meet the due dates, the staff will need to devote significant resources to complete three major actions for both the ABWR and System 80+ design reviews:
revise the SER to incorporate coments from the legal staff and technical editor, review final SSAR amendments, and review the DCD.
In addition, the staff must perform an independent audit of the certified design material and a technical rMcification audit on the System 80+ application. The staff will give these efforts priority over the passive LWR reviews and has factored the effect of these actions into the passive LWR schedules.
STATUS OF REVIEW OF THE EPRI ALWR REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT The review effort on the EPRI ALWR Requirements Document for passive plants has been essentially complete since December 1993, when the staff received the letter from the ACRS. The staff has recently submitted Comission papers on the revised source term and regulatory treatment of non-safety-related systems (RTNSS) that will be included in the FSER. The staff expects to publish the FSER in June 1994.
i
. REVISED SCHEDULES FOR THE ALWR DESIGNS General The review of the ALWRs involves a number of first-of-a-kind issues that are unique to the design of the passive plants.
However, the issues having the most effect on the reviews are (1) the evaluation of the designers' implemen-tation of the approach to evaluating RTNSS developed by the staff and EPRI, and (2) the completion and evaluation of the testing and analyses programs that are required to support certification of advanced designs in accordance with 10 CFR 52.47(b)(2).
Effect of Resolution of Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety-Related Systems on the Schedules SECY-94-084, " Policy and Technical Issues Associated with the Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems in Passive Plant Designs," dated March 28, i
1994, discusses the approach to resolving this issue that was developed by the staff and EPRI. The staff is developing guidance providing criteria against which to review the RTNSS-identified systems. This review guidance will be available to support the draft safety evaluation reports (DSERs) for the ALWRs.
Effect of the Testing Programs on the Schedules
)
The testing and analyses performed by the designers to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 52.47(b)(2) have the greatest effect on the review schedule for the ALWRs. Although the staff expects to issue DSERs on the passive LWRs before the test and analyses programs are complete, the DSERs will reflect the unreviewed status of the technical areas where testing could affect the design.
These technical areas are addressed in a significant portion of the SER, including:
Section Title 1.5 Requirements for Further Technical Information 3.9 Mechanical Systems and Components (AP600 only) 5.4 Component and Subsystem Design [of the Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems]
6.2 Containment Systems 6.3 Passive Core Cooling Systems (AP600) 6.3 Emergency Core Cooling Systems (SBWR) 15.0 Accident Analyses 19.0 Severe Accident and Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)
The results of the testing programs could also have profound effects on the other portions of the SER, if the testing results demonstrate the need for design modifications.
Furthermore, the staff believes that the results of the I
test programs could have an impact on the analytical codes that the staff will use to assess the margins associated with the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) success criteria and affect the staff's review of the issue of the enhanced regulatory treatment of certain non-safety-related systems.
. The staff will develop a supplement to the DSER for these SER sections after the testing necessary to support design certification is completed and the test results are submitted, but before all of the associrted analyses are complete.
This supplement will discuss the testing that has been performed, the staff's evaluation of the testing program, the effect of the test results on the design and associated analyses codes, and how the testing results 4
address issues raised by the staff during the review.
The staff's review of the applicant's revisions to analytical codes and reevaluation of accident i
analyses resulting from the test program will be performed to support develop-
)
ment of the final SER. This could be a significant effort depending on the test results.
]
Review of the test results and analyses is necessary for the staff to make its safety findings regarding the adequacy of the design.
The staff intends to i
evaluate the test program and consider its implications to the design one time in order to minimize the areas of the design to be reassessed to address testing results.
The revised schedules do not account for additional testing, inconclusive or failed tests (and subsequent reruns), or review of design changes resulting from test results.
The dates used for developing the review schedule are based on information recently received from the applicants on their testing and analyses schedules.
SDecific Matters Affectina the AP600 Review Schedule Review of Areas Not Affected by the Testing Program i
The staff issued approximately 1400 requests for additional information (RAIs) i on the AP600 design, representing about two-thirds of those expected to be 1
issued in support of the DSER.
In September 1993, Westinghouse submitted its focused PRA to address the RTNSS j
issue.
The staff is developing guidance providing criteria against which to review the RTNSS-identified systems.
This review guidance will be available i
to support the DSERs for the ALWRs.
i Based on the status of the AP600 review, the evolutionary projects, and the 4
EPRI project, the staff estimates that it can complete its review of the technical areas not affected by testing by November 1994.
Testing and Analyses Westinghouse has a mature, comprehensive testing program underway to support the AP600 design review with a clear understanding of the test objectives and technical needs.
However, the testing schedules for the integrated test facilities have been delayed by as much as 13 months since SECY-93-097 was issued.
These delays can be attributed to design changes, responses to the staff's concerns, and modifications and repairs to the testing facilities.
In addition, certain test result evaluations including application to code development will take as much as 13 months longer than originally anticipated.
l l l The Westinghouse test results and the PRA recently prompted the applicant to modify the AP600 design, including significant changes to the passive safety features. These changes include modifications to the actTtion logic and setpoints of the automatic depressurization system (ADS), ADS valve design characteristics, and fourth stage ADS piping design.
The applicant is j
modifying the core makeup tank (CMT) design, including the actuation setpoints l
and logic, a steam inlet defuser, and a direct vessel injection (DVI) nozzle l
venturi. Westinghouse also announced changes to the passive residual heat removal (PRHR) system, pressurizer heaters, makeup pump actuation setpoints, and the PRHR heat exchanger inlet valve.
In addition, during an April 7, 1994 meeting, Westinghouse announced that it was planning to remove the pressure j
balance line from the pressurizer to the CMT. These design changes, while improvements to the design, result in reevaluation of the design and modifica-tion to the staff's confirmatory analyses and testing program, and, therefore, continues to impact the staff's review schedule. Although it remains the intent of the staff to conduct its review and issue its safety evaluation reports in a timely and efficient manner, it will conduct its review when there is reasonable assurance that the review will not need to be significant-ly redone because of future testing, testing analyses, or design changes resulting from testing.
The staff is working with Westinghouse to ensure that interim information on the results of the testing programs and code development are submitted to the staff so that the staff can continue the review and the staff's evaluation of the testing program can be appropriately reflected in the DSER and its supplement.
Based on Westinghouse's March 28, 1994, letter, the staff antici-pates receiving the final test results on the Oregon State University integral l
test facility in May 1995. This submittal is on the critical path to complet-ing the supplement to the DSER.
SDecific Matters Affectino the SBWR Review Schedule Review of Areas Not Affected by the Testing Program The staff issued approximately 700 RAls, but has not completed issuance of the SBWR RAls in accordance with SECY-93-097 because of the extended review of the ABWR, concerns with the SBWR testing program, and the need for GE to submit, and the staff to evaluate, the results of the implementation of the RTNSS approach developed by the staff and EPRI.
GE has proposed that the staff use a similarities document that identifies where the SBWR SSAR is technically identical or similar to the ABWR to limit its focus to those technical areas where the SBWR and ABWR are technically different. GE expects this proposal to reduce the number of RAls from the staff, GE's response time, and the time for the staff to develop the DSER.
However, the staff believes that the savings from using the similarities document may be offset by the time needed to review the test program, its results and the associated analyses (including application of the results to the review and approval of the TRACG code), and the review of the implementa-tion of the RTNSS approach.
, GE has indicated that they will provide their proposed implementation of the RTNSS approach in late 1994. The staff does not believe that it can perform a detailed review of the SBWR design until receiving this information. There-fore, the staff has adjusted the date to issue the DSER based on a RTNSS submittal date of December 1994.
Testing and Analyses On March 7,1994, the staff issued a letter indicating that GE has not adequately addressed the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52.47(2)(b) regarding:
The performance of each design safety feature through either analysis, appropriate test programs, experience, or a combination of these.
The interdependent effects among the design safety features using analysis, appropriate test programs, experience, or a combination of these.
Data on the design safety features that will be used to assess the analytical tools used for safety analyses over a sufficient range of normal operating conditions, transient conditions, and accident sequences.
The staff indicated that specific issues involve:
The acceptability of the data from the Gravity-Driven Cooling System Integral Systems Test facility as the sole integral experimental basis for demonstrating the performance of the passive safety injection system of the SBWR and for validating the TRACG modeling of that system's behavior.
The requirement for additional test data from the PANDA facility.
The requirement for data on the performance of the isolation condenser.
The requirement for test data demonstrating the performance of the passive containment cooling system in the presence of lighter-than-air noncondensible gases.
Availability of data from the GIRAFFE experimental test facility and other experiments run on behalf of GE.
The staff requested GE to provide a comprehensive submittal for the SBWR that l
l presents the applicant's overall approach to testing and analyses in a manner l
that more clearly addresses the regulatory requirements and the issues l
described above.
GE must submit a description of its resolution approach to the issues identified by the staff to date with a comprehensive schedule for I
l implementation.
In its April 1,1994, letter, GE stated that it will conduct a systematic reassessment of the SBWR test and analysis program, and submit the results in July 1994.
l l
i
4 I
. The staff revised its estimate of the review schedule for the SBWR based on the incomplete schedular information that has been orally provided by GE to date. The staff understands that GE's main steam line break (MSLB) tests at the PANDA facility are expected to be completed by March 1995.
Only the MSLB tests have been identified by GE as necessary far the certification of the design.
However, GE will conduct other PANDA tests in its " confirmatory test program" throughout 1995 and 1996. The staff believes that other portions of the PANDA test program may be necessary to support design certification.
However, to schedule the staff's design certification review at this time, the staff assumes that the test results from the MSLB PANDA tests will be avail-able in July 1995.
The staff expects that additional testing at the PANDA facility will be necessary to support design certification, which will extend the review schedule for developing the FSER. Also, the review schedule will be signifi-cantly impacted if GE cannot modify its test facilities to address the staff's concerns, and is required to build an integral test facility to do so.
HEARING SCHEDULE The time required for the rulemaking hearings is difficult to estimate without previous experience. The staff discussed possible hearing schedules in SECY-92-170, "Rulemaking Procedures for Design Certification," May 8,1992, and SECY-92-381, "Rulemaking Procedures for Design Certification," November 10, 1992, estimating that a hearing could take from 1 to 2 years to complete.
As discussed in the November 23, 1992, Commission meeting with the Office of General Counsel (0GC) on this subject,18 months is a good estimate of the time to complete the rulemaking hearings.
COORDINATION The requests of OGC and the ACRS were considered while developing these schedules.
FACTORS THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SCHEDULES The design certification reviews are the first of their kind, for which many of the assumptions are best estimates that have little historical precedent.
The staff assumes that all open items will be resolved before the final SSARs, ITAACs, and Technical Specifications are submitted.
The schedular milestones can be achieved only if the designers submit high-quality SSAR, ITAAC, and Technical Specification information, and if the testing schedules are met and the test results and analyses demonstrate the adequacy of the designs. Additional testing necessary to support the design certification of the SBWR is expected to extend the review schedule for developing the FSER.
Assumptions have been made regarding external forces that are not controlled by the staff (schedules that must be met by the applicants and the ACRS).
These aggressive schedules are optimistic and have no margin; therefore, any perturbation could cause them to slip.
l ATTACHMENT 1 KEY MILESTONE INTERVALS FOR THE ADVANCED LWR SCHEDULES Months SECY-Milestone 93-097 AP600 11LWH*
Ongoing Ongoing PM Issues RAIs 0.25 Ongoing-Ongoing Applicant Responds 3
Ongoing RTNSS Submit.
to RAls 12/94 DSER to PM 5
5 5
L PM Prepares DSER PM Prepares DSER (in-2 2
2 cluding chapter-by-chapter edit & OGC review)
DSER to ACRS/ Commission 1
1 1
DSER to Applicant 0.1 0.1 0.1 Applicant Responds to 6
6 6
DSER Final Test Results Submitted ***
5/95 7/95 DSER Supplement to PM***
4 4
PM Prepares DSER Supplement ***
PM Prepares DSER Supplement 1
1 l
(including chapter-by-chapter edit & OGC l
revi ew)***
DSER Suppleme,qt to ACRS/
1 1
Commission DSER Supplement to Applicant ***
0.1 0.1 Applicant Responds to 2
2 DSER Supplement (final SSA
&ITAACupdatesubmitted)j Schedule milestones are based on NRC estimates and incomplete information received orally from GE.
6 months for AP600, 7 months for SBWR These steps were not included in the SECY-93-097 schedule assumptions.
Page 1 of 2 i
{
)
KEY MILESTONE INTERVALS FOR THE ADVANCED LWR SCHEDULES (CONTINUED)
Months SECY-Milestone 93-097 AP600 JJWB' FSER to PM 4
4 4
l PM Prepares FSER PM Prepares FSER (in-2 2
2 cluding chapter-by chapter edit & OGC review)
FSER to ACRS/ Commission 1
1 1
FSER to Applicant 0.1 0.1 0.1 l
ACRS Review (with con-3 3
3 current integrated editorial & OGC review)
Comission Decision 1
1 1
FSER Issued for 0.5 0.5 0.5 Publication DCD Submitted by 0.5 0.5 0.5 Applicant l
Staff Drafts FDA &
1 1
1 8 Notice FDA & B Notice 0.75 0.75 0.75 Issued Staff Drafts Proposed 0.5 0.5 0.5 Rule Commission Review of 0.5 0.5 0.5 Proposed Rule Proposed Rule & B 0.1 0.1 0.1 i
Notice Issued i
1 Schedule milestones are based on NRC estimates and incomplete i. formation received orally from GE.
Page 2 of 2
~
ATTACHMENT 2 AP600 CERTIFICATION AND TEST SCHEDULE
- IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIi 1994 1995 1996 1997 Staff RAls W DSER Staff Suppl.
W FSER FDA/
& W Resp.
Staff DSER
Response
to DSER Rsp Staff FSER Publ.
Rule PCCS Tests i
A CMT Tests -
4 A
DNB Tests i
A SPES-2 Tests i
A OSU Tests I
~A ADS Tests Phase 1 Phase 2 Integrated NRC-Spons. ROSA-5 Tests Analysis IIIIIIIIII!
IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII I
!lII 1994 1995 1996
.697
'Teet schedules beeed on March 28,1994 letter from Weetinghouse t = Denotes submittet of Quick Look reporte Denotes eubmittet of final test reeuhe to the NRC a =
Shaded Arees = Denote time from test completion to endyeio report to the NRC 3/30/94
ATTACHMENT 3 SBWR CERTIFICATION AND TEST SCHEDULE
- IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII l l l l 1IIIIII IIIIIII 1994 1995 1996 1997 Staff RAls GE Rsp. &
& GE Resp.
Staff DSER DSER Suppl.
Rsp Publ.
Rule PANTHERS PCCS Tests PANTHERS isolation Condenser Tests" A-PANDA MSLB Tests NRC-Sponsored PURDUE Tests l IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIl 1III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIi 1994 1995 1996 1997
' Test schedules beoed on NRC estimates and incomplete Information received cre#y from GE.
"Information incornplete regarding PANTHERS test schedule.
Estirneted date for submittas of final test reeutre to the NRC (NRC estimate)
- =
Shaded Atees = Estimeted tirne from test completion to onetyeio repoet to the NRC (NRC estimetel 3'30/94 L
l
Attcchmsnt 4 REMAINING STEPS TO PROPOSED RULE (EVOLUTIONARY PLANTS)
,._.__1___
i ri.....
I 1
COMPLETE i
i M
TECH EDITOR i
I REVIEW REQUEST Y
ADVANCE PUBLISH v
PROPOSED I
-+
RULE TO 4
COPY APPROVAL n
FDA FSER NUREG COMMISSION OF FSER HEARING COMPLETE OGC REVIEW VERIFY LAST
__.__p AMENDMENT, TECH SPEC, &
CDM DRAFT FDA NRR REVIEW OGC REVIEW
- -