ML20040A164

Forwards Markedup Summary of 750815 Preapplication Meeting W/B&W Re Future Submission of B-SAR-205 NSSS for Comment

ML20040A164
Person / Time
Site:	05000561
Issue date:	08/21/1975
From:	Cox T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Haass W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML111090060	List: ML19208A315 ML19208A325 ML19250B014 ML19250B445 ML19250B480 ML19250B482 ML19254C975 ML19254G119 ML19254G128 ML19255K396 ML19255K397 ML19257E274 ML19257F047 ML19257F050 ML19260B823 ML19260E912 ML19260E913 ML19260E914 ML19261C469 ML19262E467 ML19262F230 ML19263D836 ML19263F605 ML19263G068 ML19268C086 ML19268C087 ML19269F130 ML19271A085 ML19271A172 ML19273B051 ML19273D308 ML19274A409 ML19274E085 ML19275B428 ML19275B444 ML19275C327 ML19275C328 ML19275G904 ML19275G918 ML19275H308 ML19275H317 ML19275H339 ML19275H341 ML19275H375 ML19275H401 ML19275H405 ML19275H493 ML19275H655 ML19275H660 ML19276D594 ... further results
References
FOIA-80-515, FOIA-80-555 NUDOCS 8201200434
Download: ML20040A164 (12)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

g j

s

....j V

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP

n=

ci c~=

' To ru..mc.

r.,s.n.,,. u ;

.. =

y.

(

,,m

..,....n..

cm.,0 4.3 E

.m.

3

'."in"

,,,,,.m 0 15 s e s.s.?v.E i

f REMARKS b

ch,Bo aA W ele e

[%. '

f c

4)ed)fcd & nsnen j

(s an a, y La)

Do NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, ions.

coneunences,

^

disapprovals, c.enrances, and similar act

/

• • 'n FROM (N d '*'

bo e oc=Uon) t e...a'Pf4 i

1 i

OPTIONAL FORM 41 ene

.es-to-alue-a us-eas 5041-101 ausustsee7 esa pesan a ascens too.gg.aoe khkI2 34 810403 p0 MADDEN 80-515 ppg

i

~

,y

~

'UNt1 ED STATES rJUCL!iAR REGULATORY COMT.115SIO*J W ASHINGTON, D.

C.

205M Project No. 566 VENDOR: BABCOCK & WILC0X COMPANY (B&W)

PREAPPLICATION ICETING ON B-SAR-205 On August 15, 1975, members of the NRC staff met with representatives from BLU to discuss the future subnission of a standard safety analysis report on the B-SAR-205 nuclear steam supply system (NSSS). A list of attendees and a reeting agenda are attached.

Significant points discussed are summarized below; in the order listed in the attached agenda:

1.

Icpics.\\pplicable to the NRC Standardization Policy 1.

To date, SRC policy on standardization is as presented in WASI! 1341

~

(amended).

\\ #

I' pGi?.C 2.

CW

' u lik to see n NRC po cy sta ment Jan ry 1 Ci tanwdnthe. lowabl hermal ve int ut reg (rd ind ti" ther ositiv r negaecuer1!NelofnuclodrpIh,to#

c, h [b 3.

B&W suggested that an applicant referenci g a SSAR be allowed t M

use the SSAR PDA in effect at the time app licant doc application, without the requirement to i corporateA" updating" h chn.;;_ ~: SSAR PDA NRC representative that pages 9 and 27 of WASil 1341 hddressay this situat' ion and - embody the m

approach desired by B&W.

The span ti=c oflbbout every two years"

. C for updating iscussed.T W. Haass said that NRC experience M

to date sup t e_stabl g f g 2 longettime betueen review v

i

~

periM&W suggested a longer period _or enn h:m n the Gumber of applications using_the SSAR. h. " :S pointed out hat the period af ter / PDA i'ss,uance,-p d= g' fI-%wil ie actual period wasmot necessarily fixed-;wo year u ng e

.ntified.

m c.ty 1 p 1-

.t

~

1. 49, : Acu sity;1y,

chartmst-be incorpka.cs ut; b ut.

~d atu h

importance -

t e y. \\llo ever, a

aven'

- 6:1-

- Mr as these des d

n i

> v u...m coll eti'ely tum

-' stiqq

~es-v a gro e\\SS ould.epresent a signif[ic/n n M a isp vecent,

/

-C.

t~

L, u. )

v Y

s Q

)

,w-hm' l

lM

- [x.

~

n a

'1 '

g 7

Lp h&hg%

WWS, A ^l'I T

~

~

_,,.--,,..---_,---,--m,r-,.w.,-y.-._--...

+

AW WA c

BfJJ & Wac mn qM gy&

M

=-

.- u-g '71yW

.!- p A yM 4

sf54%},fwLu.4%

n n.

=

l

)

i i

j o

m 2

= "

~.*c-.

,,.er

.-m, 4

9" wdhs +-

-*M"-

W

-=

U

• • ..,P 3'O',

A'h

[

a"

^

g.

g

.T g j E

Y

~ 12 ' ;

I g

z

..~]'

- '?-

. f,, yf.. -

G Q~ 'g.

. i, 3

.ir i

,e ').

, t; t

r.

g 7,

p

.O._.

i a

....=-,

l

/

^

. n'

,. +...a. m' r _,. =.:. w.. w.

s y,

• ; c ;c.

s,.*,,

~

. q

..l Zuno aa

[,**

t =

g i-y

,e w~ y ".s' a u w,$ :* ? ; m ;

_s

}

A

1. n.~n.,e a.'#m.%,.%pv.;,.

_d.3 g.

9m g

S ev 4.pp-n - w e y n;;p e A V. %

A 3:

T_'T.

t i a

,,,,. 7,.) n p Q - 1..,[y mm =TY s::

J cQ; Mf.3l;MW~ 'y v:

,3.e.y:,

ed.1v.a-:. g..'9:fQ Mils'..QT i.

.m:a'm+'e.,L,.Q',. + M_; Oy '+.,g.;p4++f.N.,.M.n.f2 ' '-lsa w.

it

• Y

,~

. o,k g.

.') '

.,7'

's,';s',..ts

....,7, s.

e

nw'd mr O

y

. Si t

'Jc", '

7 ' ie

/e

.; w.. M u u a gw M M.:. ca.h ; %r m

._.....a..

.,3

.s..,

. 7

.. 3.<.n.w -dw $u,. a,,n. yvd.x.3;J.i m<,(;c.r..-.

e.

. + :-

s a.. ;

w s

.. r j -

f Th..kp4. %,.$,s.g,g.. < p$[)w

_ 74bEDY*ND > e, J.N"%ts g... T}

'[

D i

t x <:

n,sq, u n, a.

t.;, q

=..g, m..

ti;22 OAe S/

41Y h

? * " ~ ',Y ii W W I M '. y. " ' & *" %

,. c

.de<

A.f1AM p &~

A i

m M/4 $A/$W-.

i 4

g J'. '

\\

L odh.

-m m,_

y at'dh[Eh

!]

cA Z"_'

44%='

,i s

ab OHL 4~. a. up

(my w

@m wI

,?, ssp, m_13...(n s n [r$ y2 *m' y w:

u 4.1, lf4f G,h 'C_

m(.:.

,b "l1 ".0.t'. Q,*.?h 4 YW 'h ly.V_.....'i.$s. '

;

• rl wo. i ~

~..M.,i W1 '

hkh

$2f g&gggaIng e m.,e;.aq,m k

Ln &sy-p a t w s h a_ mgpf h 3 W higp eedhM gg 5? e M

eweww ms

.~

J x-.

%6 DQ f

p.

N g (-

x s

-u At tlig ime a rerev,cw, or tpdati. ' of the SAP will be reci + ';

~

m m 4 6,, m _.

i '-

(/1 $.

/

4l. ::_ p'n' x t'.a '70

_mi setting an updateg period y.

g based on the ' mber of appiteations that usedaparticularstandardj ghe NRC staf p ecided that the identification and resolution of safety-related issues is more likely to be a direct function of elapsed time than the number of standard applications reviewed.

/f 4.

M. Malsch, representing the NRC Chief Regulations Counsel, described

/

the intent of Section III of the 5/7/75 draft legislation to Congress

[

k jo licensing reforrhtled " Advanced Planning, Early Notice and Surveys",

this section is meant to permit NRC encourager.cnt of early planning Fby potential applicants, prior to filing with NRC. This development ^ fort would typically include site feasibility investigations,

_.\\

planning ef d

coordination with state and local authorities and agencies, public information efforts and land acquisition.

M. Malsch said that Section III is not intended to infer that ;;RC would assign special h

priority to revieu schedules for standardized applications over I

" custom" applications.

g II.

Questions Pertinent to the Review of $3-SAR-205 gf 1.

B&W hopes to obtain NRC agreement to revi a B-SAR-205 applicatio in nine months based on recent completion o three custom application.

NRC representatives agreed that some shortening of schedule from t$at shown in WASH 1341 might be appropriate, but that a decision on this could not be re hed prior to a furt luation of the material -mo-

. w.

'4 g

1, 2.

The question of the length of the PDA validity before updating is required was discussed again, with reference to the expected number of applications using the B-SAR-205 in the next few years.

W. Haass reiterated that an extension of the nominal two year update period is not warranted at this time, although an extension might be indicated l

as the standardization process d lopsa d Af u)4 3.

A proposed revision of 1 en. -fic schedu was published in the l

Federal Register on 11/ /74.d There i ee schedule currently in effect for standardized # applications. 4ccordingly, an applitant is not subject to an application fee for a PDA review if the docketing of the application is prior to the formal adoption of a fec schedule. If a fee schedule is adopted prior to issuance of a PDA, it is expected that review fees may be assessed,C J...

2

d. -

-~

P'"

M F. R. Vol. 39, No. 218 Monday, November 11, 1974 pp 39734 ~)738

,f e-s~ a m

.~

,em s

4.

B&W questioned whether or not a final design SSAR was required for each model of an NSSS PDA.

B&W uants the option to include final design infornation 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 g'y 4.

standardization policy would perrait appro' ch g

Q Q

A meet.ing to include Mr. Rusche (NRC), Mr. MacMillan and Mr. Doddens --

,g ev-v Discussion topics would be similar to those discussed in this meeting.(B&W The agenda was to be worked out in the next week between T. Cox and W.Keyworth,basedonalist[<-W by B6W.

4 le_. sa A W T. Cox, Project Manager Light Uater Reacters 3 ranch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing Attachments:

1.

Attendance List 2.

Meeting Agenda 9

j e

4 0

e e-

~^'

c----- w + < r > v < n.-, " "W",,

/ds ;/A. m. '[g), /./gu.,,.

3 m m. :. p; -

. u' -. m i

.E g-i' lf

{

l'7 w-

~

w

~

t, c

e,

_.mm,/, g_ -., _

-*.-~~m-+----&.-

6.

A..

l

..".3

. # ' ~ M.,

.s

.. ! %... %., ', :;Q

^g.m r.+.n

.v. s -- ~~.3).,, u s-.

. + -

.~ e

- m,.

.. e

... y - p. - - -

.n a.

n..,..<;<,.----

• J; f.f. g f 2 f. g... y~ A-,, W q a p-f..,r<~;y

.3 '

s r,: ~.,.. o sa.

n;;....p:

-n~

q4

'. e a

u 7

-. +, >

"c g... *

- g -.. ~.e~. - ~

.?...t.c..n,.;~....s :., s.

..~

y p l

'!A A

s,Y O.

f

.4 t.L 'Y.,,,,+, n~

..e

,. ~ '. ',,.

.a

-l

y ;,

4 %..

y n s a..*"

s~ -

z..~~.

.-..,e

.s.

. f.. n. 4

..l..,.

h$

&hnk.

%... A. b g...

a,

. W1 a. i/W '

O

. -g 2,

~

1

..e

.i e5

,.>[e[

• ' k'.:.'y.:.. i, s,A m.'. a..

[

f

• • /

7 J

6 s...:'..

-,.,,...,a 1

/

. M. z'.%.;.;.'

. w::::.:.u.u.Lwa,.,

.; O..,.'. w./.a.

~...

4 3* f ';f.,s.;l. 9 r.

..g E

b*h p,,,o l

' tl '.N

---,----'....'gh...-

a g7'

~

7[y.,; "

,i.y g e

. i a

,~s.. '. f 44 i

S 5.

i

, i <

(

.,,, ~ ~c.c g n~,, y'-m w ~... -

n

p m,. >...+.. y'

t..

7- *

i,

.,.,e it' L

A f. %,f,.k w~ x'2.**.w -Y.,v w. W[

A m % e,:2w. n : w m e an e.

4

,+q g &*W e.=---k';g a.%_i w gv;4m &c..

a

-yr+W+.u~~~h3--~~r'. &

m-mMm.?-n

' p:-%,~ ;.,7;; r,,

w

)

fi

~

E k

• , w s.) *

• k

$.u..g

.... Ih ' Q'

. ' V 0%

. 144.... 3 3, '

.y

.w,

m.

...., ~',...

,.' '.' 3:

'*'M*

. ~, n-.m k,' /p'M I t h'#*.m.f ff[J;;,x[ h,/C 4

v,/

v:

g

- n.

.t m.n

, %g

. p-s-

p' Ii }[4 g

• /

,,,r.

-... gm.n

,, n.nr..-

k O

• • ^

'y~~

a'

'~

Q]...

'~

.f -

. tw w~ '- i ' *y a / e "n

[m m% m.

~. -~;-~. g..,g[m q.;;g.

e *r

A m

.,"; r c

~ r;'

-f.- -

b y %,... X4.ygg.g;;.Q,..

[114.

. QRt;;lue.k,.y$n;p).c,1.,a,m.m,e,.,c p.:..t y,q,y%

L* -

T a.--l (r,q q.

. m :y.

, c y.

%..t m?)f p$._h d

.s w M./

q n

=-

-m

.n ~,. L

.u

.~ A e ' ;%,'{*

w %1 ~ ;.d

. ~ ' '..-

T.s..N

, T s r 3,, '.: p Q #

G t.

,'s.-

'P%

p 'V' as p,.'c L. 0 e, m'.*

4

,..j o.

.i

+'

e n WS

...t

.mv, 4 5 o 45

.,: n

.**h.

,e c

r,,----w,.

e+

f s,,

3

-r-

/M(yf NA, n

nb., - <

Y. ~

.,... -a }.T. _yg~% ;/r.@+.V,m.

esp $+,fl h #.. m.

-.-v

,, y

.J 9,

m.

k

~

o,p@.. W._'

... s::. -

m

%w..k_, W..y.yMm.

,m.. ~m n

.m

-w.-

, w,gw wm.4.m m j.y" ** iD,1 M.4 h.,

.y..,y ;.; r r.y. w r

.a m.,.

v

.-.4.f.Mfil 1,. "d.C.h@ ". - df.Si Ms....b 4 d,.u.44J:,p m, sapQw2%w swMw,med.

b e& g % %l5, &g u&l y&, ~w$ w,U W W

~p i$

~.

-Q&W&

44

% v.ys w n.y m.. w.: n.g.s y %. w. m,,.w. w. h nyh;s.,h n

.+

m ww

..,, m

..u*w

~

M***. -

Q

• - f ^'"*.I Y M h 4*.P-*f*4+-

n3%d*"*etYtr'*y;T ~~

9'%Q~Q*a'r 4*p+ ;%;

• • 1

• -*-**i.--*

n, el@n'M %&:n ;

wn.isJ.G..k...g$,M...e.4,6,M;&.e w..CW1,.v 97.:'

G.hi; c.

3C l

L.

..a s a,.va%a v

-, wi

-. s ;O U h m q 7. &.- [..S. 3 W&}Q4.l

~

+r l

Q~&.?w.5 YX.

W &.-Q f*n. m*! $w % :

-* M.. W.:,,,7.m*.D.mL.-L' +...-,. p*M,:{v..G

. 1

.wn

... g f:*N D'F M

i

"'WV ?. t-fW ***

Ct.%,u_.r,.... g.,, M.,v"*..m. _.%m. g.i_.%, qh._c<s,..

' a. Q :e a,r...

p l

_ w'~ :/. n.m 1

u-u c

.w. m -

1 m I

l

..p i

e I

~.

~

f'

, l

,,* =. -

- \\

' 'l t

{

e i

w

,A

+.eF,...

+

s s

t

,/.,

'a 1

y s

5 2

, g r.

' j t.

__._...,.,a

1. b.

T-"**--*

,.e e

I-

-e in.

.L1

' ?*;

. a :,[. c.. k.M.o m,.;.,.,1.,..:G, : ;,, T;' W., &, ;

l'

. L x.,.

...,. m,. : ;

i

. ~:

,w.

/,,.:.;

',f

,.,,,M,

v.

g'.x >..

' +

t

,N

..f.,,,5 se.

s p.,

• -..6.*

g s.

O w,1r;Q-w.iG, l.'.v',f 27~'@m']W".-*._ eMNn ' - gD p.~.= - a+ u.4 g

,.9*_w%_**D*g-'

O'.--

f w

f t

g g.,.

,, k 4.D N 8%

e p*W> t"$;7=ll;W7-M M

-UFO

• M.

M d'

I,o.,;;. e,t,v.

m Q. -- -- - p m ti-

.e r :.&.-- w +., y L.

b

. - - - g-- k ~

N&,,.o=~ -. 3. w --llQ f f gl.-

f ;;.[,[,~

2.# ~~

}

' ;&'&c?~

..[ m'.-

.m,

- w e-

- -. '.-.-. j* [.

... ' '.:.hg fj i

e *

... ~..,.n,

,. o,.L.i

.m g,

h. w +*'

s M. n.

z

" ? 1. 4, A4.,.

3*

J6., -

t

.,6

_...'w$

..e e

y_

.ap, g -

.,,g g,-

r b, _

,a..-

~-

...-,n

..',..,e.?.,.

'^$

I,. Wi

);j i...,-

~~

' i.., ',

a:

dk O,.

~

.\\..:^. &.d. h.,k,.:hw.$n.&,. h5 ' T?

w C

' /

...,....y,.-.a g= M..e

• • 4m +-1

-4+ rg -e,,..N' s'.' M ;.

41.

A.

7.A > ' 4.-

y ~M

• A

+4

. sis a

h. 'c.I 'e,- ' y$g' t*., M 4> '"4

. ',. 4 6'

'A g A ! l.* t)? p - -

g f

['f, -

-n-

~

-M- ~.M ? % Mg:.

- c l

k.,g;,'.

$) / <'

v

<as. ;..; %, m. *N. P *e:r Q. g f %.', r.f., V,,' f ' C u Q i'. h..~?s

.x'

. l - *fn.

b.

s j,";w.K' N

['~: M* $

.s 2

y - _

=w,%,,,,;.o r.

s_

u.

-a.1".

1 Tf " ? M.t.

'.1%'. / 's

~ :+, c y n7l l.n.

e

~

','k" ' #.'s ]

n'f.*U',Y E*..

,-D,'(p' 'e s

.me

.. 'y&, '.,f' '. f4ec 4M.

• 1i ^ ^' y f i *;

.v n 1. >

t a<

>p*-

3. c. ~ ev,s; ]y.s.

c

~. g q s.

m ;,. n-n.,w

.f.

a.?

• w 2 p

~

~

?

-?

• !__ %'*l.

.' r' - 4. i.

'l

4. I.

.'% '.y%..WRC {,,

~

.u.,. m.

g

.,. g ]

,'N. i l 4 i $

As ".s/ A [ 8 - d.h{h,2 e('sg'

.j i g '-l s' [ f) '.

,', / [ ?j E

]U

'I**

m

.m 7 3'h ; '. P i n, -,,

g

,y.~.-.u

.&u.Q :.i W M.c q!Me:^: u.9. yY, %, Y :..! ' Q.,; W,,,.

j.'

c O

n e.w'.

m..

7

,N._.cm._n;m. py,#@s@__@

. e. p d.. ~ pd, m

....rM,pHh%,8 4!bi #

l%f@

if e

4 c:. w %r,r w y.. - - :

-m m, _,

m..

e.e -

e e.

Y h Y.y y ghw g.&

w w w g s w d..;., % % w,w @h W.

h,Y ih mph wx gn@g a

n l'

Nj l*

k

.an;

~

• D* ' N, @~s :l' D

• ~. N (%$

a.

o.h.

t.J Wp

'..MWJ'. '+ f.,. %D.

f(

. i. % :.b, - "

g

a. * -. g.. q., _ <

A e

1

.. e m JF -.

8

.a.

Cf

'.f e 7 k..k' $q-.a

.4+

,-,_.p_...

9, q-.

r 9 arh N.

f 49 '...Mgdy.,.lg ("bg

< M T.E Th*kC,

i'. '

%3

"$ i e, '

e Pat f 'v L. :

M.; ; M.' %.,.,p["M

'4 f/

e,;, &f 4.'.9 7.$' f.,

' h n.Mgit,,;GJg,}.k's.,;, M:, p,.

4

...a.,. )t p s x+ V a y *w +.. Q-(~ X Q ; 4.. w *-

e tr

. ::kW =,*.'Q

- ;'.s.~.

h t +#vfs n

4.go4-Q3 fpO 9

.tc.

--* '.?. gvgY. v sw$( M...ht.A #.% l Q:

A-7 ' ' '. ' ~v' t -

P.

?

30.

--~,

~

.n

.s M..

.rM W a w. @ 7.

• J-*

(

-A>-

+ u t.. s i. i.. ai.4cN e na%% % & o$ Q E9 % m% 2 Y M M My@

n a

! jd M

?n%.W.n%%y M *N.V,F 3 oA WsAcE m MMd:.%:~;1L T$$Ndd$h%__ u.2 HAM;Wnga&n& ~MWY n.

.n Mu'NA i

.,..+ 4 %

-w.*.m

~" -.* *-

v'**'**-r-

• ~ ~ ' * '

Q Q

.]

+

t i

FDA MoDA1el 1 Model 2 Moriel 2 Hodel 3 P

Standard

• D - - - Y-

~ W P- - - Y -

5 Design I

FDA p

Model 1 t

t.

~

CP i

U-1-1 l

l

. i

.i CP CP U.l-2' I

I i

U-2-1 i

'i U-2-2 C,P u

i f

h CP U-3-1 J

CP U-3-2 i

i i

' i CP l

U-4-1 l

,' i i

?

E t

)

CP U-n-1 1

O!

i, f

. LICENSING SEQUENCE FOR-STANDARD DESIGNS AND U

.l UTILITY APPLICATIONS 0

s,/w PROPOSED ACENDA I.

Topf es applicable to the NRC Standardization Policy 1.

Program natic Information for the Licensing of Standardized Nuclear Power Plants WASH-1341, issued by the 'IC 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 NRC7 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 thermal power levels greater than 3800 megawatts at le.st two years prior to acceptance of such applications and also states that such acceptan-e will be af ter 1/1/79. A policy statement at that time will be a substantial standardization planning tool for 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?

3.

WASH-1341 recognizes the need for-design changes, at least in the pre-liminary design state. The handling of " updating", however, recluces incentive to go the standardization route in licensing. One incentive to standardization right now is a possible reduction in the financial risk associated with new licensing requirements in the period between contracting for the NSS and issuance of the CP.

The present procedure provides a/mest'4<,

~

reduction in risk for an applicant referencing a SSAR with a PDA, stue T^e k.2 77., (. 4, u. agte.r.%,.,.a..,r,/ th 2 y<u %;./..?.

A revision to WASH-1340 changing the cutoff date when the applicant must incorporate changes to the SSAR from the CP date to the docket date is suces/M. This would reduce financial risk, thus providing an incentive for utilities to use the standardization concept. Has the Staff considered such a policy? Is there general agreement with this change? Can we expect formal con-sideration of this policy in the near future (by the end of the year)?

==

• • -p 4

-=

w a

==.

~

1

~~

~

t

~

(~

t 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.

l Planning, Early Notice and Surveys", would empower the Commission with authority to establish priorities in reviewing license or permit appli-f 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 highe~r priority than custom reviews.

Custom review schedules would then be greatly extended such that the If this inter-custom review would therefore be made to become extinct.

pretation is incorrect, please indicate the accurate intent.

I Questions pertinent to the review of B-SAR-205, t

II.

i 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 It is further generally similar to those of SAR's for custom plants.

stated that standard designs may include a number of features that are l

novel or different from prior designs in order to provide improvements.

Continuing, it is stated that these new features will very likely require l

experimental and/or analytical verification to provide the needed confi-I

'dence in the design and that it i's anticipated therefore that a fairly t

heavy review effort by the staff may be necessary during the past PDA phase.

l In keeping with the spirit of the NRC standardization policy, B&W's f

B-SAR-205 describes a plant essentially identical with a design already I

Since sub-l reviewed through the SER stage on three. custom applications.

i stantial NRC review for this model plant has already been performed and

}

no novel or different features from prior B-205 designs have been I

incorporated, B&W anticipates a much sh'orter review schedule for the P and FDA than is indicated in Section II. A of the Programmatic Infornation B&W believes 9 for the Licensing of Standardized Nucicar Pcuer Plants.

Picase j

months to be an adequate and sufficient review period for the PDA.

f

{

indicate your agreement or an alternate review schedule.

j 1

i s

}

e em

• ww.%...

m.

=rw*

.c.

.-r--

r..

e,.,

i p

Prograc:matic Information for the Licensing of Standardized Nuclear _

2.

t Power Plants _

I Sec. II. A. " Implementation 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 I

Sections II,B,3 and 4 state that after early 1977 and the FDA in mid-1982.

the 1 DA the standard plant will be changed in about 2-year intervals to incorporate new regulatory requirements, each change resulting in a new model Further, each model must have a separate standard of the standard plant.

B&W projects sales of approximately 25 B-205 plants between 1975 and FSAR.

Over that~ period the B-SAR-205 1983, the above projected date for the FDA.

would have the original model in 1977, model 1.in 1979, mcl del 2 in 1981, and Thus, 4 separate final SSAR's would be required from B&W for model 3 in 1983.

I B&W believes for standardization to be about 25 sales or 6 plants per SSAR.

truly beneficial to the industry that at least 12.to 15 plants should reference

" * " " " ' ' " ' " * " " " ' * * * " " ' " " " " * " ' ' " " ' ' " " ' " ~ "

"" **^^

(~/ changed to cover a specified number of plants with a maximum interval of 4 Does the NRC agree with this concept? If so, will the Programmatic years.

Information for the Licensing of Standardi::ed Nuclear Power Plant _ be changed to so indicate and if not, why?

For our The AEC proposed a' licensing fe~e schedule for standard-SAR's in 1974 f

3.

financial planning in 1975 and 1976 we' are assuming that if the B-SAR-205 is l

filed before the proposed rule is made effective, B&W will not be subject to It is necessary that any licensing fees for the initial review of this S-SAR.

If this is incorrect, the extent we confirm the validity of this assumption.

of charges and payment schedule needs to be known.

/ [* g l

The mechanism of producing a standard FSAR in Section II.B.4 of WASH-1341 4.

appears to lead to a proliferation of B-SAR's which will not be submitted final design approval for new plants, but only to support OL's on an older mod I

It is suggested a conventional FSAR for the first plant of standard plant.

would suf fice, with follow-on plants of' the same model referencing the stand A

NSS portions of the FSAR. Has this been considered?

/U l

pA

~,

. - ~

,