ML20041B679
| ML20041B679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000447, 05000531, 05000550, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1982 |
| From: | Faulkner H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202250048 | |
| Download: ML20041B679 (4) | |
Text
^
t e
o UNITED STATES
['
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
ti
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\... e $'
FEB 9 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: James R. Miller, Chief, Standardization and Special Projects l
Branch, DL l
FROM:
H. J. Faulkner, Project Manager, Standardization and Special l
Projects Branch l
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ON JANUARY 6, 1982 On January 6, 1982, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland, between the NRC staff and representstives of the General Electric Co. to discuss docketing and review of the GESSAl. II Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR).
An attendance list for the meeting is provided as Enclosure 1.
Mr. Bray stated that it is GE's view that a pre-approved standard plant design is the most likely means of restoring sufficient utility confidence to 'ead to the resumption of domestic reactor orders.
Because of the importance of this effort, GE is proposing an accelerated review schedule for GE SSAR II.
In the future GE intends to market only a nuclear island (GESSAR II) ard not an NSSS.
GE proposed a review schedule of seven ruonths between the time of docketing and the SER issuance.
During consideration of the GE seven month review proposal, there was extensive discussion of the similarities between the 238 nuclear island (GESSAR II) and other near-term BWR/6-Mark III plants such as Grand Gulf, Clinton, Perry and River Bend.
Mr. Bray stated that GE would commit the necessary resources and manpower to meet such a short review schedule.
Mr. Eisenhut suggested that one convenient means of aiding the review would be to index pages by color to identify material which is different from material that has been reviewed previously.
Since Revision 2 of the standard review plan has been issued only recen,tly, GE is still reviewing GESSAR II against Revision 2.
GE estimates that a document aJdressing deviations from SRP Revision 2 can be submitted about May, 1982.
i l
(E has pt rformed a probabilistic risk assessment on the BWR/6-Mark III design, and will submit it for review in February.
Additionally, an IREP analysis has l
been performed on Grand Gulf.
Mr. Sherwood stated that the results of the GE i
analysis demonstrate that the BWR/6-Mark III design mee-s the proposed quantitative safety goals.
Mr. Denton noted that the Commissioners seem to l
want a la ge, strong containment for BWR reactars, independent of PRA results.
With regard to the proposed schedule, Mr. Denton suggested that GE review a chapter of GESSAR II and generate a matrix of the material addressed in GESSAR II, including its similarity to other near-term BWR plants. After this comparative matrix is ueveloped, he suggested that GE uet with the licensing staff to discuss and review it prior to establishing a review schedule.
8202250048 820209 PDR ADOCK 05000437 A
PDR f
t.
s
)
' James R. Miller 2
FEB P 1982 Mr. Vollmer stated that environmental qualification of equipment has been a problem in the past for BWRs.
GE is planning to submit an environmental qualification program plan soon.
Even though not specifically required by the standard review plan, Jr. Hanauer stated that GE should address the unresolved safety issues in connection with the GESSAR II application.
([
l W-n.,
H.
aulkner Stan ardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Attendance list l
l i
l l
1
--w
1 s--
-e
- . January 6,1982 1
PRE-DOCKETING MEETING FOR GESSAR-II ATTENDANCE LIST s
A NAME ORGANIZATION H. Denton NRR D. Eisenhut.
DL/NRR
+
H. Faulkner.
DL/NRR/SSPB i
R. Tedesco DL/NRR
~
J. Miller.
DL/NRR/SSPB G. Sherwood GE A. Bray GE R. Vollmer DE/NRR i
R. Mattson -
DSI/NRR~
.H. Thompson DHFS/NRR i
R. Villa GE R. Purple DL/NRR J. Stapleton GE' ENGR L. Gifford GE J. Fox GE R. Burch W Monroeville R. Ketchel GE R. Gilbert DL/NRR/LB#2 J. Stefano DL/NRR/LB#2 S. Hanauer NRR I
i i
i 7
I
-m.-g t
mA y
ss m
v+
w awr+w
n.
O FEB 9 1982 FEB o 1992 FEB :
1982 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James R. Miller, Chief, Standardization and Special Projects Branch, DL FROM:
H. J. Faulkner, Project Manager, Standardization and Special Projects Branch
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ON JANUARY 6, 1982 On January 6, 1982, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland, between the NRC l
staff and representatives of the General Electric Co. to discuss docketing and l
review of the GESSAR II Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR).
An attendance list for the meeting is provided as Enclosure 1.
Mr. Bray stated that it is GE's view that'a pre-approved standard plant design is the most likely means of restoring sufficient utility confidence to lead to the resumption of l
domestic reactor orders.
Because of the importance of this effort, GE is proposing an accelerated review schedule for GESSAR II.
In the future CE intends to market only a nuclear island (GESSAR II) and not an NSSS.
GE proposed a review schedule of seven months between the time of docketing i
and the SER issuance.
During consideration of the GE seven month review l
proposal, there was extensive discussion of the similarities between the 238 nuclear island (GESSAR II) and other.near-term BWR/6-Mark III plants such as Grand Gulf, Clinton, Perry and River Bend.
"c. Bray stated that GE would commit the necessary resources and manpower to meet such a short review schedule.
Mr. Eisenhut suggested that one convenient means of aiding the review would be to index pages by color to identify material which is different from material that has been reviewed previously.
l Since Revision 2 of the standard review plan has beer. issued only recently, GE is still reviewing GESSAR II against Revision 2.
GE estimates that a document addressing deviations f om SRP Revision 2 can be submitted about May, 1982.
GE has performed a probabilistic risk assessment on the BWR/6-Mark III design, and will submit it-for review in February.
Additionally, an IREP analysis has been performed on Grand Gulf.
Mr. Sherwood stated that the results of the GE analysis demonstrate that the BWR/6-Mark III design meets the proposed quantitative safety goals.
Mr. Denton noted that the Commissioners seem to want a large, strong containment for BWR reactors, independent of PRA results.
With regard to the proposed schedule, Mr. Denton suggested that GE review a chapter of GESSAR II and generate a matrix of the material addressed in GESSAR II, including its similarity to other near-term BWR plants.
After this comparative matrix is developed, he. suggested that GE meet with the licensing staff to discuss and review it prior to establishing a review schedule.
t M ames R. Miller 2
TEB9 1982 Mr. Vollmer stated that environmental qualification of equipment has been a problers in the past for BWRs.
GE is planning to submit an environmental qualification program plan soon.
Even though not specifically required by the standard review plan, Dr. Hanauer
[
stated that GE should address the unresolved safety issues in connection with i
the GESSAR II application.
gSIGusDW8 H. J. Faulkner Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing i
Enclosure:
Attendance list i
l I
Q A
@p
s.
x,
' t 9
e MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION
(
R. D. Burch, Westinghouse NRC'PDR TERA NSIC' TIC ACRS (16) l SSPB Rdg.
H. Denton/E. Case D. Eisenhut/R. Purple T. Nov'ak i
S. Varja D. Vassallo C 'l l o f
R. Clark Service List for:
3 i
J. Stolz
/
T. Ippolito GESSAR II
'2d 3
CpfE'60 I' R. Tedesco.
E_-
- fg E
J._ Youngblood 7
'S
-A. Schwencer
{A F. Miraglia
- E. Adensam
(;
G. Lainas N
R. Vollmer 4
0 i
.R. Mattson S. Hanauer J. Knight-W. Johnston D. Muller T. Speis p
.L. Rubenstein.
F. Schroeder M. Ernst ISE (3) 1 OELD Region I-i -
Region.II Region III Region-IV H. Faul kner
+
P.' Anderson l
I e
6 4
- - - -