ML20071L883
Text
_
dr80 f'
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Nf g
<g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
\\...../
AUG 2 41ggo MEMORANDUM FOR:
Jack Guttman, OCH/FR FROM:
James L. Blaha, A0/0ED0
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON COMBUSTION ENGINEERING'S SYSTEM 80+ DESIGN In response to your request, I have enclosed the staff's responses to the
.luestions on staffing and schedules for the Combustion Engineering's System 80+
design.
J
!s L.
aha s-'stant for Operations O
ce of the Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
' As stated cc:
L. Norrholm, OCM/KC J.Scarborough,f0/KR J. Gray, OCM/JC SECY OGC J. Taylor, EDO J. Sniezek, DEDR E
o CD
~..
~.
s 2
~
9400030310 940629 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR n
~.
RESPONSE TO C0f1MISSIONER REftICK'S QUESTIONS ON COMBUSTION ENGINEERING'S SYSTEM 80+ DESIGN 1.
How ra y staff personnel are presently assigned to review System 80+?
C'
.tly,17 principal staff reviewers and one project manager are par-t t.
pating in the CE System 80+ design review.
Except for the full-time pioject manager, the staff reviewers are committed on a part-time basis, as appropriate.
2.
Is that the maximum level anticipated?
If not, how many additional individuals will be assigned and when will they be assigned to this review?
The staff presently does not plan to increase the number of review personnel assigned to participate in the review. However, review time expended by these reviewers is projected to increase as CE's submittal of design information is completed.
3.
What is the latest projected date for the FDA?
As discussed in SECY-90-065, " Evolutionary and Passive Light Water Reactor Resources and Schedules," the staff projects that it will issue the final design approval (FDA) in August 1993 (Case 1). The date for the FDA could range to May 1994 (Case 2).
It should be noted, however, that these projections could be affected by a Comission decision on the issue of level of detail required for design certification.
4.
Any message that the Comissioner should convey to CE?
None.