ML20040A163
| ML20040A163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000561 |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1975 |
| From: | Cox T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111090060 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8201200432 | |
| Download: ML20040A163 (8) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
a e
Cwh I
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 BlI Project No. 566 g 27 VENDOR: BAB00CK 4 WI100X QNPANY (B4W)
PREAPPLICATION MEETING ON B-SAR-205 On August 15, 1975, asubers of the NRC staff met with representatives fmn B4W to discuss the future suhanission of a standard safety analysis report on the B-SAR-205 nuclear steam supply systen (NSSS). A list of attendees and a meeting agenda are attached.
Significant points discussed are sinunarized below> in the order listed in l
the attached agenda:
I.
Topics Applicable to the NRC Standardization Policy 1.
To date, NRC policy on standardization is as presented in WASH 1341 (amended).
- s 2.
B4W believes that the NRC should indicate its plans regarding
(
allowable marinne thennal power level for proposed nuclear power plants by issuing a policy statement no later than January 1977.
i 3.
B4W suggested that an applicant referencing a SSAR be allowed to use the SSAR PDA in effect at the time applicant dockets its application, without the requiranent to incorporate changes due i
to " updating" the SSAR PDA. NRC representatives pointed out that pages 9 and 27 of WASH 1341 do address this situation and embody the approach desired by B4W. 'Ihe span time of "about every i
two years" for updating was discussed. B4W suggested a longer period or one based on the nunber of applications using the SSAR.
W. Haass said that NRC experience to date does not support establishing a longer time between review periods.
It was pointed out that the actual period was not necessarily a fixed two years.
1 i
i i
7 I
8201200432 810403 PDR FOIA NADDEN80-515 PDR
~~ ~ ----
-~-
3 -;, m -
e.
n.
.%w m
--+e
~
During the period after a pIR issuance, new safety requirements will probably be identified. Those that are significant will be incorporated in the SSAR and implemented in utility applications referencing the standard design. Those that are of lesser significance will be held until the cunulative effect of a nunber of such safety requirements warrants their incorporation in the standard design. At this time a rereview, or updating, of the SSAR will be requested by the NRC. Design changes initiated by the standard design applicant will be similarly categorized and implemented.
i With regard to setting an update period based on the number of applications that use a particular standard, the NRC staff has i
decided that the identification and resolution of safety-related issues is more likely to be a direct function of elapsed tim than the nunber of standani applications reviewed.
l 4.
M. Malsch, representing the NRC Olief Regulations Counsel, described the intent of Section III of the 5/7/75 draft legislation to Congress i
on licensing refom. Titled " Advanced Planning, Early Notice and l
Surveys", this section is meant to pemit NRC encouragement of j
early planning development for sites by potential applicants, prior to filing with NRC.
his planning effort would typically
/s include site feasibility investigations, coordination with
\\ s.
state arx1 local authorities and agencies, public infomation efforts.
and land acquisitica.
M. Malsch said that Section III is not i
intended to infer that NRC would assign special priority to review schedules for standardized applications over " custom" applications.
II. Questions Pertinent to the Review of B-SAR-205 4
1.
B6W hopes to obtain NRC agreement to review a B-SAR-205 application in nine mnths based on recent completion of staff review of three custom a@lications that used the same design. NRC representatives i
agreed t1at some shortening of schedule from that shown in WASH 1341 might be appropriato, but that a decision on this could not be reached prior to a further evaluation of the material during an acceptance review.
i l
2.
The question of the length of the PIR validity before updating is 1
required was discussed again, with reference to the expected i
nunber of applications using the B-SAR-205 in the next few years.
W. Haass reiterated that an extension of the w=iul two year update period is not warranted at this time, although an extension might be indicated as the standardization process develops and i
more experience is gained.
}
5'
..-.-.v-,.
,2::. -.
es 3-3.
A proposed revision of lic.ense fee schpdules was published
^
in the Federal Register on 11/11/74. H There is no fee schedule currently in effect for standardized NSSS applications.
Accordingly, an applicant is not subject to an application fee for a PIR review if the docketing of the application is prior to the fonnal adoption of a fee schedule. If a fee schedule is adopted prior to issuance of a PIR, it is expected that review fees may be assessed.
BW questioned whether or not a final design SSAR was rectuired 4.
for each model of an NSSS PIR. B6W wants the option to include final design infonnation directly or by reference in the plant applicant's FSAR, if that particular NSSS model is one of very few or is out dated by a newer model.
W. Haass said NRC standardization policy would pennit either approach but that a decision would be made on a case-by-case basis.
A meeting to include Mr. Rusche (NRC), Mr. McMillan and Mr. Deddens (BW) and other staff members was tentatively scheduled for Septanber 3,1975.
Discussion topics would be similar to those discussed in this meeting.
' Die ageEdsiw~as 'to bs worked out in the next week be~ tween T. Cox and
~
- ~
W. Keyworth,' based on a list to be submitted by BW.
i t
fA
\\
i T. Cox, jectManager Light Water Reactors Branch Division of Reactor Licensing i
Attachments:
i 1.
Attendance List 2.
Meeting Agenda I
t
)
i 1/ F. R. Vol. 39, No. 218 &nday, November 11, 1974 pp 39734-39738 t
l (":
v--
i
,emee.
.4-w*-
+.-mw~
h4*Me*
=,-,
em m+
N4-=*
ise-"
m.
^
ATTACHMENT 1
/
ATTENDANCE LIST PREAPPLICATION MEETING ON B-SAR-205 AUGUST 15, 1975 1
NRC-DRL T. Cox W. Haass NRC-0 ELD
- M. Malsch I
B4M J. Familton R. Hogg W. Keyworth t
i
- )
\\_,,
- Denotes part-time attendance 1
t 1,
1 1
5 i
f-
.]
i I
s) a 1
6 1
l 1
1 1
1 w *w we w me mgamme -q-
+w tye - e-a p.g e,--
-wg,
- yw,- yme.
g ; pe --,
y yf-y, emg.%. y y
es
ATTAOMNr. 2 PROPOSED ACENDA I.
Topics applicable to.the NRC Standardization Policy 1.
Programmatic Information for the Licensing of Standardized Nuclear Power Plants WASH-1341, issued by the AEC in August 1974, is taken by B&W to be the official Regulatory Staff policy regarding implementation of Options 1 (standard design) and 2 (duplicate plants) of the AEC standardization
. policy for nuclear power plants. Are there any changes in this policy since the creation of HRC7 2.
Regulatory Guide 1.49, " Power Levels of Nuclear Power Plants", states the NRC will issue notice of its intent to consider applications at core 1
thermal power levels greater than 3800 megawatts at le.st two years prior rT to acceptance of such applications and also states that such acceptance will be after 1/1/79. A ' policy statement at that time will be a substantial standardization planning tool fo$ the nuclear plant suppliers and owners.
Can the nuclear industry expect a policy statement by the NRC in January 1977 regarding the acceptability of higher power level plants?
i 3.
WASH-1341 recognizes the need for-design changes, at least in the pre-I liminary design state. The handling of " updating", however, reduces incentive to go the standardization route in licensing. One incentive to f
standardization right now is a possible reduction in the financial risk i
associated with new licensing requirements in the period between contracting' for the NSS and issuance of the CP.
The present procedure provides a/mesT4.
reduction in risk for an applicant referencing a SSAR with a PDA, st' ace ne M A
- 6* A4 cf 4 p/ta m. m, = =.=,s7,A r h Z ys
" t./ ?. A revision to WASH-1340 changing the cutoff date when the applicant must incorporate changes to t
the SSAR from the CP date to the docket date is.sunsepamf. This would reduce financial risk, thus providing an incentive for utilities to use the standardization concept. Has the Staff considered such a policy? Is l
there general agreement vith this changs? Can we expect formal con-sideration of this policy in the near future (by the end of the year)?
L
a_- - -
Licensing reform changes were submitted to the Congress by Commissioner 4.
Section III, " Advanced W. A. Anders on May 7,1975, in a draf t bill.
Planning, Early Notice and Surveys", would empower the Commission with authority to establish priorities in reviewing license or permit appli-We interpret this as an extension of the Commission's endorse-cations.
ment of the nuclear plant standardization which would then be used by NRC to set all standard reviews with higher priority than custom reviews.
Custom review schedules would then be greatly extended such that the l
If this inter-custom review would therefore be made to become extinct.
pretation is incorrect, please indicate the accurate intent.
(
Questions pertinent to the review of B-SAR-205, h
II.
Programmatic Information for the Licensing of Standardized Nuclear Power _i 1.
Plants Sec. II.A states that reviews of SSAR's. submitted under Option 1 will be l
l It is further generally similar to those of SAR's for custom plants.
stated that standard designs may include a number of features that arc O
ide improvecents.
\\
, novel or different from prior designs in order to prov 4
Continuing, it is stated that thes'e new features will very likely require v
experimental and/or analytical verification to provide the needed conf
'dence in the design and that it i's anticipated therefore that a fairly heavy review effort by the staff may be necessary during the past PDA I
f phase.
In keeping with the spirit of the NRC standardization policy, B&W's B-SAR-205 describes a plant essentially identical with a design aircady Since sub-reviewed through the SER stage on three custom applications.
d and stantial NRC review for this model plant has already been performe no novel or different features from prior B-205 designs have been incorporated, B&W anticipates a much shorter review schedule for j
l r
l and FDA'than is indicated in Section II.A of the Programmatic Inform B&W believes 9 t
l for the Licensing of Standardized Nuclear Power Plants.
Picase months to be an adequate and sufficient review period for the PDA.
1 indicate your agreement or an alternate review schedule.
~
i
,s 4
m
!l
- ~ - -,
l
~
2( rogratratic Infornation for the Licensing of Standardized Nuclear _
awer Plants-s.
Sec. II.A, "Impicmentation of the Standardization Policy", gives a schedule i
for obtaining the PDA and FDA for a standardized design.
Applied to the B-SAR-205 filing in the fourth quarter of 1975 a PDA would be received in early 1977 and the FDA in mid-1982.
Sections II,B,3 and 4 state that af ter the PDA the standard plant will be changed in about 2-year intervals to incorporate ucv regulatory requirements, cach change resulting in a new model of the standard plant. ' Further, each nodel must have a separate standard FSAR.
B6U projects sales of approximately.
- L-205 plants between 1975 and 1983, the aliove projected date for the FDA.
Over that' period the B-SAR-205 would have the original codel in 1977, nodel 1. in 1979, co'dcl 2 in 1981, and model 3 in 1983.
Tnus, 4 separate final.SSAR's uould be required f rom BLW for sales or
- plants, per SSAR.
E5U believen for standardization to be about
- truly beneficial to the industry that at least 12 to 15 plants should reference one SSAR.
Vicued in this context uc reco:= cud that the two-year interval bc changed to cover a specified nucher of p]5nts with a taxiuum interval of 4
(
Does the NRC ogrec with this concept?
If no, will the Programmatic
/ cars.
Information for the Licensing of Standardized Nuc1 car Power Plant be changed to so indicate and if not, why?
For our The AEC proposed n' licensing fee sci cdule for standard SAR's in 1974.
3.
financial planning in 1975 and 1976 we are assuming that if the B-SAR-205 is filed before the proposed rule is made effective, B6W will not be subject to It is necessary that any licensing fees for the initial review of this S-SAR.
we confirm the validity of this assumption.
If this is incorrect, the extent of charges and payment schedule necd's to be known.
The mechanism of producing a standard FSAR in Section II.B.4 of VASH-1341 4.
appears to lead to a proliferation of B-SAR's which will not be submitted for final design approval for new plants, but only to support OL's on an older nede It is suggested a conventional FSAR for the first plant I
of standard plant.
would suffice, uith follow-on plants of the same coac1 referencing the standard 7 USS portions of the FSAR.
lies this been considered?
1 d
- Deleted, to pmtect company - confidential b
i DISTRIBUTION OF MEETING
SUMMARY
AUG. 2 71975 nATED i
Babcock 6 Wilcox CoLpany Nuclear Power Generation i
P. O. Box 1260 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 I
I ATTN:
J. Hamilton R. Hogg W. Keyworth i
Docket Files SVarga IGtC PDR NWilliams
~'
/'
LFDR 29gheggdeg 1
(
NRR Rdge (M.,Groff)'
RHaccary 5
LWR 2-3 Reading File HDenton i
YAHoore RTedesco RCDeYoung VStello i
DHuller JKnight EGoller SPawlicki DSkovholt LShao i
RDenise BGrimes JStolz WGammaill
[
KKniel MSpangler ASchwencer JKastner DVassallo RBallard OParr JCollins WButler GLainas BToungblood VBenaroya WRegan TNovak GDicker TIppolito GKnighton Dross GLear OELD RFurple I&E (3)
DZiemann RS (3)
PCollins M oulbourne WBouston ACRS (16)
RYollmer RHeineman
/-
RIreland TCox V
RClark WHaass s
. _. - ~..,...
=
e
+-
wi.
.,, _.