ML20036A100
| ML20036A100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1993 |
| From: | Fox J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Poslusny C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305100044 | |
| Download: ML20036A100 (2) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
GE Nuclear Energy senew neam cen, es cov s.ru. :.< xw. cA us us April 29,1993 Docket No. STN 52-001 Chet Poslusny, Senior Project Manager Standardization Project Directorate Associate Directorate for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of the Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Subject:
Submittal Supporting Accelerated ABWR Review Schedule - DFSER Open Item 1.1-1
Dear Chet:
In the December 15,1989 Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) relating to SECY-89-334,
" Recommended Priorities for Review of Standard Plant Designs," the Commission provided the following guidance to the Staff:
In order to provide added NRC status to the ALWR Requirements Document, when reviewing the specific designs, the Staff should consider the ALWR Requirements Document and dedicate a section in each SER which highlights those areas where the resolution of evolutionary plant issues is different than the resolution achieved through the review of the ALWR Requirements.
On June 12,1990, GE provided a list and a comparison of the differences between the ABWR design and the ALWR Requirements. On June 15,1990, Mr. John Taylor wrote to confirm EPRI's agreement with the GE assessment. In its September 20,1990 SECY-90-329,
" Comparison of the General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design and the Electric Power Research Institute's Advanced Light Water Reactor Requirements Document," the Staff addressed the differences identified in the GE letter of June 12,1990 and concluded _that the -
differences did not require policy decisions. The Staff went on to state that,if the Staff identifies possible policy issues in the future, it will inform the Commission so it can determine if evolutionary ALWR designs should address these issues.
In the October 20,1992 Draft Final Safety Evaluation Report on the ABWR, Section 1.1, the Staff states...."Since both the ABWR design and the EPRI document have changed since June 1990, GE needs to provide for the Staff's review a comprehensive evaluation of the current ABWR design to identify and explain all differences from the EPRI document. This is Open Item 1.1-1."
9305100044'930429 0
PDR ADOCK 05200001 A
PDR g g.
GE believes that the ABWR SSAR satisfies the objectives of the policy guidance provided by the Commission in the referenced Staff Requirements Memorandum. GE's active participation in the Requirement Program from its onset has resulted in a high level of consistency between the ABWR SSAR and the ALWR Requirements. This is reflected in GE's comparative assessment of June 12,1990 and its confirmation by EPRI. While changes to the ABWR SSAR and the I
Requirements Document have occurred since June of 1990, GE does not believe that these changes raise policy issues warranting Commission decision. Following the June 1990 assessmem there has been continuing coordination between GE and EPRI and its consultants.
Each has been kept informed ofissues that could affect the other's program, and positions have been adopted that take due account of those of the other. As a result, any differences that have arisen are believed to be modest both in number and in nature. Accordingly, we believe that further assessment should be left to future project applications, such as during commercial bidding, or, perhaps, during First-Of-A-Kind activity.
Please provide a copy of this transmittal to Jerry Wilson.
i l
Sincerely, be)O ack Fox Advanced Reactor Programs cc: Norman Fletcher (DOE)
Joe Quirk i
Ji93418
.