ML20056H528
| ML20056H528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/15/1993 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rasin W NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H529 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309090493 | |
| Download: ML20056H528 (4) | |
Text
~
O o
c%
%'o UNITED STATES
~g
["
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 p
r,,
k...../
July 15,1993 Mr. William H. Rasin Vice President and Director, Technical Division Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006-3706
Dear Mr. Rasin:
I am responding to your letter of June 22, 1993, in which you provided comments on SECY-93-097, " Integrated Review Schedules for the Evolutionary and Advanced Light Water Reactor Projects."
In this letter, you directed your comments principally to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's discussion of procedural considerations, and identified two concerns:
one regarding the independent staff review to verify internal consistency among the Standard Safety Analyses Report (SSAR), the Inspections, Testing, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) document, and Tier 1 and Tier 2 information for the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design, and the other regarding the review of the design control document (DCD).
Your letter raised the concern that the reviewers performing the consistency review should be knowledgeable of 10 CFR Part 52 and the design fundamentals of the ABWR to ensure that the schedule is met and that issues are not inappropriately re-opened.
The staff intends to establish a review team that will understand the fundamentals of this regulation and BWR designs.
This verification is not a de novo review and this group has received instructions in that regard.
We are not expecting to see any new technical areas from this review.
Concerns that may re-open issues will be addressed by the ABWR review staff after they are identified by the review team, and should not impact the review schedule.
Your letter also expressed the opinion that review of the DCD does not need to be completed before issuing the final design epproval (FDA). As discussed in SECY-93-097, the DCD controls the design of all plants that reference the certification.
Because the staff will be able to make changes to the design after the FDA is issued only by meeting the change standards for Tier 1, the staff concludes that it is prudent to verify that the DCD conforms to the SSAR and the final safety evaluation report before the FDA is issued.
This type of document has not been developed previously, and the staff has concluded that its review should be performed on the ABWR application before the FDA is issued to ensure that any unforeseen problems that may be identified during its review of the DCD can be incorporated into the FDA before it is issued.
After the ABWR review is completed, the staff will evaluate the lessons learned from that review and determine whether it is necessary to perform the DCD reviews for the other evolutionary and advanced light water reactor (LWR) designs before issuing the FDA.
pmn --
5 N
\\
f( je ll i
w
/ A Y E U,, ) ?,
9309090493 930715 J
+
PDR REVCP ERCNUMRC f
f (l1 e /L.- '
~ 0,u G )
PDR y
O O
Mr. William H. Rasin July 15,1993 We agree with you that issuance of an FDA in a timely manner will demonstrate that meaningful progress is being made on 10 CFR Part 52. However, the staff believes that the precedent being set in the first review is more important.
Also, the schedules and review process described in SECY-93-097 are such that the staff can verify that the design certification applications comply with the Commission's regulations, regulatory guidance, and policies to ensure that there is no undue risk to the health and safety of the public or to the environment. The staff will make every effort to expedite the review of the evolutionary and advanced LWR designs provided such action does not affect the above stated mission of this agency.
Sincerely, Origha18bd 5f l
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
Central File PDR (w/ incoming)
ED0 # (GT-0009068)
EDO R/F JMTaylor, 17G21 JSniezek, 17G21 JBlaha, 17G21 HThompson, 17G21 TEMurley/FJMiraglia,12G18 WTRussell, 12G18 DMCrutchfield JNWilson RBorchardt PShea JMoore, 15B18 OPA NRR Mail Room (GT-0009068), 12G18 BToms, (GT-0009068)
PMaganelli, (GT-0009068)
PDST R/F
^
OPC:
PM:PDkT[ADAR LA:PDST:ADAR (A)SC:PDST:ADAR (A)PDSI:ADAR ADARv TKdnhnlsg PShea (A 6 TEssig JNWIIson McNd NAME:
DATE:
07/Y/93 07//I/9b 07/ /93 07//h3 07//((93 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY:
DOCUMENT NAME:
GT9068
9 Q
e as i
UNITED STATES I8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION uf[
'[gj' n
. r, t
WASHINGTON, D. C. 70555 j;
[
g j
l
- o,,
EDO Principal Corresponde"ce Control
~ -
y a
((7 G3 EDO CONTROL: 0009068 FROM:
DUE:
DOC DT: 06/22/93 i
FINAL REPLY.-
William H. Rasin i
NUMARC l
TO:
Samuel J. Chilk FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN CRC NO: 93-0579-i l
i DESC:
ROUTING:
COMMENTS ON SECY-93-097, INTEGRATED REVIEW Taylor SCHEDULES FOR THE EVOLUTIONARY AND ADVANCED LIGHT Sniezek 3
WATER REACTOR PROJECTS Thompson Blaha i
DATE: 06/2.5/93
~
j ASSIGNED TO:
CCJTACT-
)
JRR Murley l
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS-FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION P
f i
4 l
f y'"1
{
1 i
i d
I f
I i
.~.
=
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
<,p PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-93-0579 LOGGING DATE: Jun 25 93 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO s
AUTHOR:
WILLIAM RASIN AFFILIATION:
NUMARC i
ADDRESSEE:
SAMUEL CHILK, SECRETARY /NRC l
LETTER DATE:
Jun 22 93 FILE CODE:
SUBJECT:
SECY 93-097, INTEGRATED REVIEW SCHEDULES FOR THE l
EVOLUTIONARY AND ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR PROJECTS ACTION:
Appropriate I
DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, COMRS, OGC, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE CONSTITUENT-NOTES:
i DATE DUE:
l SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
i t
l t
l l
EDO --- 009068 5 3-cP 7p_ g i
.