ML20073R723
Text
O. 10 WO
(
K'AC l l
na
[p s
h' o,
UNITED STATES
[ T '.
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gg; W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 j
December 24, 1991 g
~
O MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Chairman I
Commissioner Rogers Jommissioner Curtiss N- 00 ;
Commissioner Remick l
Commissioner de Planque M- 00 r3 005 < >
l N0 FROM:
James M. Taylor q -~
Executive Director for Operations 5MO l
SUBJECT:
QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT OF ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR REVIEWS (SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 1991)
By memorandum of June 20, 1991, I had directed the staff to prepare quarterly l
reports outlining the status of NRC staff reviews of advanced reactor designs.
l The enclosed quarterly report is the second in a series and covers the period l
of September through November 1991.
l This report addresses the review status of the Electric Power Research Institute Utility Requirements Documents (EPRI URDs). for evolutionary and j
passive reactors, the General Electric Company advanced boiling water reactor (GE ABWR) design, and the Asea Brown Boveri/ Combustion Engineering System 80+
design.
Commissioner Curtiss recently requested that we include a discussion on maintenance, maintainability, the use of PRAs, and the reliability assur-ance program in our quarterly reports.
These issues will be included in the next report.
After the executive summary (Section I), the text of the report consists of three sections:
(1) a discussion of technical and policy issues that could affect the schedule for more than one reactor design (Section II), (2) the status of the review of each project (Section III), and (3) a detailed explanation of the differences between the industry's design review schedule estimates and those projected by the staff (Section IV).
The staff assessed the progress towards resolving each technical or policy issue discussed and identified possible effects on the schedules.
The staff measured the progress in reviewing an advanced reactor project against milestones established in SECY-91-161, " Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions." The staff estimated the effect on the overall schedules for each significant milestone not met and described the recovery actions that could minimize the effect on the schedules.
Finally, a table for each of the six advanced reactor design reviews (the four listed above as well as the Westinghouse AP600 and the General Electric simplified boiling water reactor) compares the estimated milestone completion dates projected by the staff and the industry to the scheduled completion dates presented in SECY-91-161.
CONTACT:
Anthony J. Mendiola, NRR
-1413 504
--+
M01MO25[]'h
~.J
_c
l The Commissioners In summary, the staff has not identified any specific slippage of significant (e.g., FSER issuance) SECY-91-161 milestones.
However, as indicated in the enclosed report, many factors have the potential for negatively impacting the current schedules.
Meeting the current schedules for Commission receipt of the FSERs for the EPRI Evolutionary URD and the GE ABWR projects, May 13, 1992, and August 20, 1992, respectively, will be difficult.
Although post-l DSER information from EPRI and GE has been and is being received, a substan-tial amount of information required to close out the open issues has yet to be submitted for NRC staff review.
For the EPRI project, an additional compli-i l
cating factor is the fact that EPRI is continuing to submit self-initiated l
revisions, which in some cases impact areas already reviewed and closed out by l
the staff.
EPRI has informed the staff that two more revisions (Nos. 4 and 5) will be submitted by the end of January 1992.
Although the staff is attempt-ing to manage our technical reviews to accommodate these revisions, it is creating difficulties which may ultimately impact the schedule.
The staff is awaiting key information from GE for the preparation of the ABWR FSER. As noted in the report, although a great deal of interaction on ITAAC l
has taken place, an initial ITAAC submittal has not been received.
The staff l
has also participated actively with GE to develop the design acceptance criteria (DAC) concept; however, GE has indicated that they will not provide DAC for piping, control room human factors design, and control room instrumen-tation prior to the SECY-91-161 intermediate milestone date.
GE has also indicated that their submittals regarding shutdown risk and PRA uncertainty analyses will not meet the SECY-91-161 date.
The GE schedule for submission of their revised PRA has not yet been established. The fact that this infor-mation is not available or will be available relatively late in the staff's review process is a schedular concern.
The quality of these relatively late l
submittals will need to be very high to allow for staff review of FSER l
completion as currently scheduled.
=,/
J mes M. T or xecutive irector i
for Operations
Enclosure:
As Stated cc:
SDCY OGC i
1 1
i I
l ENCLOSURE QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT OF l
ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR REVIEWS i
SEPTEMBER - NOVEMBER 1991 l
1.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This is the second in a series of quarterly reports to the Commission j
outlining the status of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's design certification reviews of advanced light water reactors (ALWRs). The report addresses the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Utility Requirements Document (URD) for evolutionary and passive reactors, the General Electric Company (GE) advanced boiling water l
reactor (ABWR) design, and the Asea Brown Boveri/ Combustion Engineering l
(ABB/CE) System 80+ design. This report consists of three parts:
(1) a l
discussion of issues that could affect the schedule for more than one project, (2) an assessment and comparison of the progress of project reviews with the schedules listed in SECY-91-161, " Schedules for the Advanced Reactor Reviews and Regulatory Guidance Revisions," May 31, 1991, and (3) a detailed explanation of the differences between the i
industry's design review schedule estimates and those projected by the staff. A table for each of the six advanced reactor design reviews compares the estimated milestone completion dates projected by the staff and the industry to the scheduled completion dates presented in SECY-91-161.
This quarterly report covers the period beginning September 1, 1991, and ending November 30, 1991.
No specific slippage of significant SECY-91-161 milestones (e.g., FSER 1
issuance dates) has been identified at this time.
However, a number of l
unresolved policy and technical issues could eventually delay the sched-ules established in SECY-91-161.
Significant progress on the related i
l issues of ITAAC and design acceptance criteria will be necessary to maintain current schedules for the ABWR design.
The most significant open issues for the GE ABWfi pertain to instrumentation and controls (I&C), control room design, piping analyses, and PRA.
The staff is proceeding with its review of the EPRI URD and the CE System 80+
according to the milestones provided'in SECY-91-161.
The staff is continuing its efforts to accelerate the review for some l
areas for which delays of SECY-91-161 intermediate milestones have l
occurred or are predicted.
The difficulties are being identified as i
early as possible and appropriate corrective actions are being taken.
l The staff has compensated for the delays associated with probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) reviews for the EPRI URD and CE System 80+.
The NRC staff held a conference on ALWRs at the Mayflower Hotel in l
Washington, D.C., on November 4 and 5, 1991.
This conference provided a l
forum for informing the nuclear industry and the public of the NRC process for performing design certification reviews, and of the NRC l
process for addressing the technical safety issues concerning advanced l
light water reactors.
In addition, conference participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback on policies and processes that could impact or impede the design certification schedules.
II.
TECHNICAL AND POLICY ISSUES THAT COULD AFFECT REVIEW SCHEDULES In SECY-91-161, the staff described in detail the bases for its sched-ules for conducting ALWR project reviews.
The staff also identified a number of significant factors that could affect the schedules.
Items A through D of this section discuss the status of a number of policy issues, including key milestones associated with these issues, that could affect the schedules for reviewing advanced reactor designs.
A.
NEPA/SAMDAS j
In SECY-91-161, the staff stated that the resolution of the National Environmental Policy Act/ Severe Accident Hitigation Design Alternatives (NEPA/SAMDAS) issue may delay the projected review schedules.
]
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER On July 31, 1991, the staff submitted to the Comission SECY-91-229, " Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives for Certified Standard Designs." This paper requested that the Commission approve the staff's recommendations to (1) address SAMDAs for certified designs in a single rulemaking, (2) approve the staff's approach for considering the costs and benefits of the review of SAMDAs for standard plant design certification, and (3) approve the staff's proposal to advise applicants for design certification that they must. assess SAMDAs and provide rationale supporting their decision.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED On October 25, 1991, the Commission issued the staff require-ments memorandum (SRM) for SECY-91-229.
In this SRM, the Commission approved the staff's three recommendations.
Additionally, the Commission expressed the desire to be apprised of the staff's progress for defining " remote and speculative" as it reviews the ABWR submittals.
Commissioner Curtiss requested that the staff review its conclusion on parallel rulemaking.
Commissioner Curtiss stated that, by conducting a parallel rulemaking to identify and settle those SAMDA issues that can be dealt with generi-cally, the NRC can resolve SAMDA is. sues efficiently.
The staff is preparing a response to Commissioner Curtiss' com-l ments.
Consistent with the third recommendation in SECY-91-229, the staff prepared letters to the applicant vendors, requesting that they assess SAMDAs and provide their rationale for determining whether the SAMDAs would improve the safety of 1
their designs.
The staff issued these SAMDA letters to Westinghouse, General Electric, and Combustion Engineering on November 21, 1991.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY The milestones for last quarter have been accomplished as planned. The staff has not yet identified specific effects of the NEPA/SAMDA issues on the schedules for reviewing advanced reactor designs.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER i
The staff plans to analyze the app 1'. ants' responses to the SAMDA letters and their applicable decision rationale, which are due to the NRC 30 days after the applicant receives the request.
B.
ITAAC In SECY-91-161, the staff stated that the resolution of the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) may delay the projected review schedules.
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Review the draft ITAAC submittals when they are received from the vendors.
GE has indicated that they will submit a com-plete draft ITAAC, incorporating staff comments, for the ABWR by the end of 1991.
The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) has identified GE as the industry lead for ITAAC. Thus, CE plans to submit their ITAAC after GE submits their ITAAC.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
GE submitted six draft ITAACs at a meeting with the staff on August 22, 1991.
The staff provided comments to GE on their ITAACs on September 11, 1991.
b.
GE submitted nine draft ITAACs in a letter dated i
September 20, 1991.
The draft ITAACs represented a l;
cross section of ABWR systems that required ITAACs.
1 The staff met with GE on the draft ITAACs on October 16 and 17, 1991, and sent preliminary review comments to GE on October 23, 1991.
The NRC staff gave GE its detailed comments on December 6, 1991.
These comments reflected the staff's concern for additional details in the ITAAC.
i l
I i
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED l
None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY The staff has met its current milestones for the ITAAC.
However, neither GE nor CE have yet submitted a complete ITAAC for the staff to review.
CE currently expects to submit its ITAAC by May 1992.
As stated in SECY-91-210,
" Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) Requirements for Design Review and Issuance of a Final Design Approval (FDA)," and during the August 21, 1991, Commission briefing, the schedule for design certification
)
will be delayed if ITAAC submittals are significantly delayed j
l
.or incomplete.
The staff informed GE in a letter on i
October 23, 1991, that a complete draft ITAAC with sufficient detail had to be submitted by the end of the year or the review schedule would be affected.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER' 1
The staff will review GE's ITAAC submittals when they are -
received.
The staff received an SRM dated September 24, i
1991, for SECY-91-178.
The staff is working on its response, which is due March 1992.
C.
RULEMAKING RELATED TO DESIGN CERTIFICATION 1.
MILESTONES FROM LAST QUARTER On August 16, 1991, the staff submitted to the Commission SECY-91-262, " Resolution of Selected Technical and Severe l
Accident Issues fo" Evolutionary Light Water Reactor (LWR)
(
Designs."
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED l
None, the staff is awaiting the SRM from the Commission on SECY-91-262.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY
'The staff has not identified specific impacts from the generic rulemaking-issues on the schedules for reviewing advanced reactor designs.
l l
(
l 5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER l
l The staff will schedule its action on the SRM for SECY-91-262 l
when it is received.
An ACRS subcommittee meeting presenta--
tion on design certification is scheduled for December 1991.
D.
LEVEL OF DESIGN DETAIL The staff identified several areas in the ABWR application for which it needs additional information to resolve its safety concerns.
The design detail resulting from the resolution of all of the staff's safety concerns will constitute the level of detail needed to support design certification in accordance with the SRM for SECY-90-377, " Requirements for Design Certification under 10 CFR Part 52."
The level of design detail ultimately required by the staff could affect the schedules for all of the standard plant applications that the NRC has received to date.
In a meeting with GE the week of October 8, 1991, senior NRC managers and GE representatives discussed certain areas of the review for which the designer has not provided final design i
details.
These areas include piping design, leak-before-break, control room design, and advanced instrumentation and controls.
The staff and GE agreed to pursue the development of design acceptance criteria, with associated NRC " check points," as a substitute for detailed design information for a few limited areas of the design.
To accomplish this the NRC safety determination at design certification would be based on acceptance criteria that are general in nature, but measurable and observable.
The " check l
points" would serve as milestones to confirm compliance with l
system requirements and the acceptance criteria.
These issues would be documented in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) and the i
ITAAC, as appropriate.
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Conduct technical and management meetings with GE and CE to resolve level of detail and design acceptance criteria issues including instrumentation and control, piping design, human factors, leak-before-break, and control room design.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED a.
Conducted multiple meetings in November with CE to discuss available level of detail for I&C design and i
human factors engineering, piping design, electrical distribution and design modifications, and seismic issues.
b.
Conducted multiple meetings in October and November with GE to discuss I&C design and human factors engi-neering, piping design, control room design, and leak-before-break issues.
l
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY The use of design acceptance criteria as a substitute for detailed design information in limited areas is currently being evaluated by both the vendors and the NRC.
Resolution of this policy issue and, as appropriate, the development and review of specific design acceptance criteria for certifica-tion may impact the SECY-91-161 schedules.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Conduct follow-up meeting with GE in December 1991.
b.
Conduct a meeting between senior NRC managers and CE l
in January 1992 on the level of detail for the I&C, the piping, and.the control room design.
c.
Prepare a Commission paper on Design Acceptance Crite-ria.
III.
ALWR PROJECT MILESTONES A.
ABWR In September 1987, GE submitted to the NRC its initial application l
j for certification of the ABWR design.
GE has amended the standard-l SAR for the ABWR 18 times.
The staff issued requests for addi-tional information (RAls) from February 1988 through December 1990.
GE responded to them through July of 1991.
4 l
1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER 4
Continue the issuance of DSERs.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED The staff has completed issuance of the DSERs and has begun the FSER stage of the review.
The staff issued six DSERs l
during the last quarter.
l 3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY With the staff's issuance of all remaining DSERs, a signifi-cant amount of information from GE is required to maintain the current schedules.
Maintaining the schedule for f
submitting the FSER to the Commission (August 20, 1992) is expected to be difficult due to the absence of GE i
submittals/resubmittals on ITAAC, DAC, PRA, and shutdown risk.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Assign priorities to open issues and resolve each
)
l issue according to its assigned priority.
b.
Submit information about advanced reactors to the ACRS 1
and its subcommittees to support meetings for the next j
quarter.
B.
CE SYSTEM 80+
On March 4, 1991, ABB/CE submitted its appl cation for design certification review.
In a letter dated May 1, 1991, the staff j
informed the applicant that it had reviewed and docketed the CE System 80+ design certification application.
However, this l
application does not include ITAAC, the reliability assurance i
program, or a detailed analysis of fire hazards.
l 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Issue all RAls.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED All RAls have been issued.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED l
None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND REC 0VERY Timely and complete responses to the staff's RAls are re-quired from CE to maintain current schedules.
For a signifi-l cant fraction of responses, CE is not meeting the timeliness assumptions in SECY-91-161.
Their responses to staff RAls are not currently being submitted at a rate needed to support the SECY-91-161 intermediate milestones. The staff is track-ing this activity closely.
I 5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER Conduct meetings with CE to provide guidance and direction for responding to RAls.
l l
l l
C.
EPRI UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT FOR EVOLUTIONARY REACTORS 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER Issue all the DSERs to the applicant.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED The staff has completed all the DSERs for the EPRI Utility Requirements Document for evolutionary reactors. The staff has been meeting with EPRI and the ACRS to discuss the open issues in the DSERs.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED None 4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY The staff has begun to prepare the FSER.
However, the abili-ty of the staff to prepare the FSER on schedule is dependent on the submittal of information' from EPRI in response to the issued DSERs.
As discussed in Section III.D of this report, many of the RAls on the EPRI URD for passive reactors apply to the EPRI URD for evolutionary reactors.
The. impact of this on the evolutionary reactor review schedule is undetermined.
However, the staff is attempting to-accelerate the schedules l
for review of the EPRI URDs and will be factoring EPRI's l
responses to the RAls for the EPRI URD for passive reactors I
into resolving the open issues and preparing the FSER for the l
EPRI URD-for evolutionary reactors.
i An additional complicating factor is the fact that EPRI is i
continuing to submit self-initiated revisions, which in some cases impact areas already reviewed and closed out by the staff.
EPRI has informed the staff that two more revisions (Nos. 4 and 5) will be submitted by the end of January 1992.
Although the staff is attempting to manage our technical l
reviews to accommodate these revisions, it is creating diffi-l culties which may ultimately impact the schedule.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER The staff is developing the FSER, which is expected to be submitted to the Commission in the third quarter of FY 1992.
l
l D.
EPRI UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT FOR PASSIVE REACTORS 1.
MILESTONES FOR LAST QUARTER a ~.
Issue RAls for the EPRI Requirements Document for l
passive reactors, b.
Prepare Commission paper on policy issues.
2.
MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED The staff issued all the RAls for EPRI URD for passive reac-i I
tors.
3.
MILESTONES NOT ACCOMPLISHED a.
In SECY-91-161, the applicant responses to the RAls were scheduled to be received October 14, 1991; however, these responses are now expected to be re-ceived by December 13, 1991.
l b.
The staff is preparing a Commission paper on policy issues which is expected to be submitted in December 1991.
4.
EFFECT ON SCHEDULE AND RECOVERY Because EPRI has previously responded to a majority of the RAls, the staff expects that the delay in receiving the applicant responses to the remaining RAls will not affect the projected date the NRC is to issue the FSER.
5.
MILESTONES PLANNED FOR NEXT QUARTER a.
Prepare Commission papers dealing with policy issues that affect the staff's review of the EPRI Utility Requirements Document for passive reactors.
b.
Begin to prepare the DSER.
E.
RESOURCES Figure 1 shows the staff's actual resource expenditures for all of FY 1991.
The expenditures are expressed in direct (no overhead) full time equivalents (FTEs) against budgeted resources for each project discussed above.
The staff increased budgeted resources for CE System 80+ and the GE ABWR to about 9 FTE each for FY 1992.
FTE budgeted for FY 1992 for the EPRI Requirements Document for Evolutionary Reactors will remain constant (5 FTE) while the FTE budgeted for FY 1992 l
for the EPRI Requirements Document for Passive Reactors will increase by l
I
l i
Advanced Reactors FY 1991 Budgeted vs Actual Direct FTE Only FTE 10 Budgeted eel Actual 8
WT l$
6 mg sissi:2 2
'gg'
' $$Ji 5
s 8-.
EPRI Evol.
EPRI Pass.
OSignS Figure 1 4
i
l l
i IV.
EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INDUSTRY REVIEW SCHEDULE ESTI-MATES AND THE STAFF ESTIMATES FOR THE COMPLETION OF ADVANCED LIGHT WATER REACTOR DESIGN REVIEWS l
In July 1991, the staff requested that each applicant for standard design certification and EPRI provide schedule assumptions and " error bars" for their respective advanced reactor reviews.
As of December 5, 1991, EPRI and CE had provided a formal response to this request.
EPRI and CE declined to submit " error bar" information and the staff is also unable to provide meaningful " error bar" information.
However, through (1) continued staff dialogue with the applicants, (2) recent schedule I
information presented at the NRC Conference on Advanced Light Water l
Reactors, and (3) the first annual update to the Strategic Plan for l
Building New Nuclear Power Plants (dated November 1991), the staff has an adequate basis for schedular estimates.
Concerning the EPRI URD for evolutionary reactors, the staff estimates differ only slightly from the industry estimates for completing the reviews.
Both the staff and the industry estimated slippage from the l
SECY-91-161 projected completion dates for the Policy Issue Identifica-tion and the Applicant Response to the DSER review phases.
However, the l
industry and the NRC have been able to compensate for these minor SECY-91-161 projected schedule slippages, and the NRC staf# expects to l
l be able to issue the FSER to EPRI by August 18, 1992.
The industry estimated that the FSER would be issued 1 month before the SECY-91-161 projected date.
This industry estimate is based on the FSER being completed in the first quarter of 1992 and its Commission review and final release in the-second quarter of 1992.
j Similarly, the staff and the industry estimate minor slippage in the l
review schedule for the EPRI URD for passive reactors in the Policy Issue Identification and Applicant Responds to RAls review phases.
These minor estimated schedule slippages result from additional time required to develop passive reactor policy issues and prepare complete and thorough RAls.
However, these minor estimated schedule slippages are recoverable and should not adversely impact the schedule for completion of the remaining review phases.
The industry estimated dates for completion of the remaining reviews associated with the EPRI URD for passive reactors are earlier than those projected in SECY-91-161.
Most notably, the industry assumes that no "new policy issues" will be identified after completion of the responses to the DSER.
Consequently, the industry estimates that the FSER will be issued approximately 7 months earlier than the projected SECY-91-161 date.
The industry dates in the review schedule for the GE ABWR are approxi-mately 3 months earlier than those projected in SECY-91-161.
In this case, the industry appears to have assumed less time for the ACRS l
reviews.
In addition, the industry estimates do not include final issue resolution and review of ITAAC.
Industry dates in review schedules for the CE System 80+ are I to 3 months earlier than those the staff estimates for each of the defined review phases.
Overall, the industry estimates that the CE System 80+
review will be completed approximately 6 months before the date projected in-SECY-91-161.
As with the GE ABWR industry estimates, the CE System 80+ estimates appear to have assumed less time for ACRS reviews and have not included ITAAC issue resolution and review.
The industry estimated review schedules for the GE SBWR and the Westinghouse AP600 assume approximately 2 months to respond to RAls, approximately 5 months to issue the DSER after NRC receives the responses to the RAls, and approximately 9 months from the issuance of the DSER to the issuance of the FSER.
Overall, the industry estimates that the reviews on the Westinghouse AP600 and on the GE SBWR will be completed 7 to 10 months before the projected dates in SECY-91-161.
The staff notes that the ACRS has indicated in memoranda dated July 18, 1991, and August 13, 1991, that they will require 3 months to review the FSER.
If the ACRS review does require 3 months, instead of the 2 months allotted for in the schedules specified in SECY-91-161, then the issuance of the FSER to the applicant may be delayed by one month.
l I
l J
l l
I l
4 l-l
t a
SUMMARIES OF THE STATUS OF DESIGN CERTIFICATION REVIEWS
,l EPRI EVOLUTIONARY UTILITY RE0VIREMENTS DOCUMENT STAFF INDUSTRY REVIEW PHASE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE SECY-91-161 Preliminary Evaluation Complete Complete Complete Policy Issue Identification 12/31/91 12/30/91 06/17/91 Applicant Responds To RAls Complete Complete Complete DSER Preparation / Issuance Complete Complete Complete Applicant Responds to DSER 01/15/92 01/15/92 11/01/91 FSER Preparation / Issuance 08/17/92 07/17/92 08/17/92 FSER Issued to Applicant 08/18/92 07/17/92f 08/18/92 l
EPRI PASSIVE UTILITY RE0VIREMENTS DOCUMENT STAFF INDUSTRY REVIEW PHASE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE SECY-91-161 l
Preliminary Evaluation Complete Complete Complete Policy Issue Identification 12/31/91 03/01/92 12/17/91 Applicant Responds To RAls 12/13/91 12/13/91 10/14/91 DSER Preparation / Issuance 05/13/92 06/01/92 05/13/92 Applicant Responds to DSER 09/02/92 07/15/92 09/02/92 FSER Preparation / Issuance 09/23/93 02/15/93 09/23/93 New Policy Issue 03/18/93 NA 03/18/93 Identification FSER Issued to Applicant 09/24/93 02/15/93 I 09/24/93 l
l l
SUMMARIES OF THE STATUS OF DESIGN CERTIFICATION REVIEWS (CONTINUED)
GENERAL ELECTRIC (GE) ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR (ABWR)
STAFF INDUSTRY REVIEW PHASE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE SECY-91-161 Preliminary Evaluation Complete Complete Complete Policy Issue Identification Complete Complete Complete Applicant Responds To RAIs Complete Complete Complete DSER Preparation / Issuance Complete Complete Complete Applicant Responds to DSER 02/21/92 02/92*
02/21/92 FSER Preparation / Issuance 12/03/92 09/92*
12/03/92 FSER Issued to Applicant 12/07/92 09/92*-
12/07/92 ~
- - DOES NOT INCLUDE ITAAC DSER/FSER COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SYSTEM 80+
STAFF INDUSTRY REVIEW PHASE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE SECY-91-161 Preliminary Evaluation Complete Complete Complete Policy Issue Identification Complete Complete Complete Applicant Responds To RAls 02/19/92 02/92 02/19/92 DSER Preparation / Issuance 09/23/92 07/92*
09/23/92 Applicant Responds to DSER 01/21/93 10/92*
01/21/93 i
I
/
FSER Preparation / Issuance 11/02/93,
05/93 11/02/93 FSER Issued to Applicant 11/04/93' 05/9) 11/04/93
- - DOES NOT INCLUDE ITAAC DSER l
l l
SUMMARIES OF THE STATUS OF DESIGN CERTIFICATION REVIEWS (CONTINUED)
WESTINGHOUSE AP600 STAFF INDUSTRY REVIEW PHASE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE SECY-91-161 Preliminary Evaluation 10/09/92 09/92 10/09/92 Policy Issue Identification 12/08/92 02/93**
12/08/92 Applicant Responds To RAls 02/19/93 11/92 02/19/93 DSER Preparation / Issuance 09/28/93 04/93 09/28/93 Applicant Responds to DSER 01/24/94 07/93 01/24/94 FSER Preparation / Issuance 11/03/94 01/94 11/03/94 FSER Issued to Applicant 11/07/94 01/94 11/07/94
STAFF INDUSTRY REVIEW PHASE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE SECY-91-161 Preliminary Evaluation 12/15/92 01/93 12/15/92 i
Policy Issue Identification 02/11/93 02/93**
02/11/93 Applicant Responds To RAls 04/22/93 04/93 04/22/93 DSER Preparation / Issuance 12/02/93 09/93 12/02/93 Applicant Responds to DSER 03/28/94 11/93 03/28/94 FSER Preparation / Issuance 01/10/95 06/94 01/10/95 FSER Issued to Applicant 01/12/95 06/94' 01/12/95 l
PASSIVE UTILITY REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT l
l
l l
i M
G g
i
'i r
I I
i I
I i
l
[
r