ML20039F351
| ML20039F351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000561 |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1976 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rusche B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111090060 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8201120372 | |
| Download: ML20039F351 (2) | |
Text
r UNtTED STATES
[
.. J'.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSION i
j W ASH ANGTON, D. C. 20655 f
f AFli t : I3/o
%m J
M' Docket No. STN 50-561
{,
Ben C. Rusche, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
'lv RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY REVIEW SCHEDULE, BSAR-205 PROJECT The application of the Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) for the BSAR-205 Standard Nuclear Staam Supply System was docketed on March 5,1976. Your approval of the proposed radiological safety review schedule is requested.
Enclosure A is a Level "C" milestone summary and Enclosure B is the con-currence and approval copy of the Level "D" network.
The total elapsed time from the docket date to the proposed prospective decision data is 67 weeks (15.5 months). The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) is to be issued Feuruary 28, 1977, 52 weeks from the docket date.
Issuance of the Supplement and PDA is scheduled for June 13, 1977, 67 weeks from the docket date.
B&W originally wanted a schedule of no greater than 11 months span based on the previous reviews that the Regulatory staff has made on B&W plants (e.g.,
Pebble Springs, Bellefonte and WPPSS).
On January 23, 1976, we informed B&W by letter that the schedule we planned to develop would be greater than 11 months, but we did not at that time estimate what the schedule would be. The reasons for our proposed schedule instead of a reduced one are:
(1) Review will follow the scope described in the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
The SRP was not completely followed in previous custom reviews.
(2) This is B&W's first NSSS-BOP interface experience and initial deficien-cies in the PSAR were sufficient to delay the initial acceptance of BSAR-205 for review.
(3) Our experience with other standard reviews has shown that additional review and concurrence time is needed to process the SER and the PDA through OELD.
For reasons (1) and (2) alone we would propose that BSAR-205 be reviewed on essentially the same schedule as a custom 14-month review. However, for reason (3) we are adding about six weeks to_a custom 14-month review.
f f
,q~
f Qv y s
4; y
Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Level C Milestone Summary 1
2.
Level D Network 8201120372 810403 Nohh-515 PDR
{
r
... ~
- .'4LOCUaE i LEVEL C MILESTONE
SUMMARY
Milestone Description Date 01-6 PSAR Docketed 3/1/76 C 01-9 Applicant Response to Acceptance 4/5/76 Review Questions 05 Q-1 to LPM (Analysis Branch 5/21/76) 4/26/76 08 Q-1 to Applicant (Analysis Branch 5/10/76 6/4/76) 09 Applicant Response to Q-1 (Analysis 6/28/76 Branch 7/23/76) 12 Positions to LPM (Analysis Branch 8/23/76 9/3/76) 14 Positions to Applicant (Analysis 9/6/76 Branch 9/17/76) 15 Applicant's Response to Positions 10/18/76 (Analysis Branch 10/29/76) 24 Safety Evaluation Input to LPM 12/6/76 (All Branches) 24-90 Draft SE Issued by LPM 12/27/76 24-98 Final AD Review of Draft SE Complete 2/21/77 25 Safety Evaluation Issued 2/28/77 25-8 ACRS Meeting Ccmplete 4/7/77 27 ACRS Letter Received 4/14/77 28 Supplement and PDA' Issued 6/13/77
' - ~ '
-