ML20114D507
| ML20114D507 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200003 |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1992 |
| From: | Caso C WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9209090060 | |
| Download: ML20114D507 (1) | |
Text
- - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
l Westingh0use Energy Systems gyp im'"
Electric Corporation Business IJnit m%A m m abum September 1,1992 Nam &brM Tem ma om ' '
Docket STN 52-003 Di. Biomas E. Murley Director, Office of Nuclect Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 SUlijECT: AP600 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW
Dear Dr. Murley:
On Jane 26. 1992, Wesdnghouse submitted an application, consisting of the AP600 Standard Safety Analys!s Report (SSAR) and AP600 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) report and a set of pilot inspections, Tests Analysis and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC), to the NRC for a Final Design Approval, FDA, under Appendix 0 of 10 CFR 52 and a Standard Design Certification under 10 CFR 52. Ble AP600 SSAR and PRA reports represent a significant effort on the part of Westinghouse under our contracts to the Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute to develop and cerdfy a passive pressurized ALWR by the mid 1990s. We believe that the AP600 application is the most complete application yet submitted by a plant design organliation for a FDA and Design Certification.
On August 31,1992,' Westinghouse received a letter providing the results of the NRC staff acceptability review of the AP600 submittal. Ble acceptability review resulted in the assignment of docket number STN 52-003 to the AP600 project because of the extensive amount of information in the June 26,1992 application". Ibwever, the application was considered incomplete, primarily because it did not include some topical reports and a complete set of ITAAC, We have since supplied the topical reports.
A clarification is requested concerning the staff position on the ITAAC. The industry has yet to reach agreement on svhat constitutes acceptable ITAAC after several years of intense effort. Westingnouse sees ITAAC as an industry issue end is actively participating in the NUMARC lead plant effeits to develop iTAAC. Ble decision to submit only a pilot set of AP600 ITAAC was deliberate and based on optimizing resources not only at W:stinghouse, but at the NRC, Does the NRC staff consider the lack of ITAAC to be a problem specific to the AP600 submittal or is it an issue that affects all design certification applications? Westinghouse is presently developing a complete set of AP600 ITAAC and will make submittals in early September, mid October and mid December incorporating the lessons teamed from the lead plant application in this development process.
Westinghouse is requesting clarification on this matter.
Sincerely, k'
. Wf b
C. L. Caso s,
5'
/
I'O I
9209090060 920901
[U 4
PDR PROJ d[/
l 676A ppg
_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _