ML20071L675
Text
-
UNITED STATES jo,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
)
(; ^ g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 t
,uf.l.
APR 06 390 2
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Carr l
Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers /
Comissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations ADVANCED STANDARD PLANT REVIEWS
SUBJECT:
I regret to say that the information I provided you as an enclosure toUnfortunately, the my memo of April 2, 1990 on this subject was in error. staff used reso were made and the budget was submitted to Congress.
The information in the enclosure reflects current staff plans and is consistent with responses provided to Congressman Bevill and Congresswoman Lloyd.
/
Wf
.Taydr J
es xecutive Dfrector for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
SECY OGC i
a
~l m'
- o i
C)
. 47 y
=
9400030218 940629 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
.~ -
M8[ - NR 89 U
b f
g ENCLOSURE (14 t
4/3/90 i
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON ADVANCED STANDARD PLANT REVIEWS l
The following table reflects resources to be devoted to all of the standard ALWR reviews. The FTE listed for FY90 and FY91 are those currently l
l budgeted. Those resources listed for FY92 and FY93 will be requested during I
In addition, during this fiscal year, NRR is the current budget process.
supplementing its current resource allocations'for standard plant reviews with l
additional resources (approximately 1 FTE).
(FTE,Directcosts)
Fiscal Year Project FY90 FY91 FY92
,F_Y93 j
p q
EPRI Requirements Document MY Evolutionary Project 4.5 5.5 Passive Project 0.5 5.5 8.0 5.0 7.5 7.5 7.2 1
f CE System 80+
3.9 7.5 7.5 7.2 k
W RESAR SP/90 3.0 W AP-600 0.7 1.5 3.5 7.8-
[c 35g I
t 0.4 1.5 3.5 7.8 L GE SBWR ew.> sa ~
fu As j
g
- 0. 5,
0.5
.5'
.5 pkg.>fyA,ySTAgARDIJA110N i
LICENSINGCRITERIA[0R(sp M ge M ADVANCED REACTORS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 l
Aggg fREVIEWINGADVANCEDj REACTOR CONCEPTS 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Total 24.0 35.0 36.0 36.0
[_gg If the resources outlined above are provided, the NRR staff should be able to f
/j provide review and comments on the EPRI Requirements Documen gig (A To a large ALWR designs without unduly delaying the applicants' schedules.
extent, the promptness of our feedback of the review results to the industry
,3 -QO ;
will depend upon the timeliness of carrying out the staff, ACRS,
- Work being performed in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
l I
l
J 4
ECNLOSURE I
2-4 and, Commission review process described in SECY-90-065, " Evolutionary and As described Passive Advanced Light Water Reactor Resources and Schedules."
a in that paper, the staff is now evaluating ways to streamline the review j
process and improve upon the schedules.
In addition, NRR is currently evaluating the level of design detail provided by GE thus far.
If this level of detail is not found to be sufficient to meet the standardization intent of i
10 CFR Part 52, schedule delays could occur. The staff has determined that the issue of level of detail is a policy question for which the staff will be i
preparing a paper to seek Commission guidance in the near future, Given that requested resources are provided and that technically qualified i
skills can be applied by the staff and technical assistance contractors, other programs should not be significantly affected by these reviews.
l i
l 1
a 5
k