ML20114D509
| ML20114D509 | |
| 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 |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114D510 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9209090060 | |
| Download: ML20114D509 (1) | |
Text
.
[
\\
Westingtiouse Energy Systems gg5**L' W Eleetric Corporatton Busmess Unit
,mg n a m h.M,3,,
September 1,1992 W::er & 1:,r:t:
1e:in ot, b w Docket SN 52 003 Dr. Thoma E Murley Director. Of6ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Urdted States Nuclect Regulatory Commisdon Was!dngton, DC 20555 SUlijECT: AP600 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW
Dear Dr. Murley:
On June 26, 1992, Westinghouse subadued an application, consisting of de AP600 Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) and AP600 Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) report and a set of pilot Inspections. Tests Analysis and Acceptance Criteria OTAAC), to the NRC for a Final Design Approval, FDA. under Appendix 0 of 10 CFR 52 and a Standard Design Certi6 cation under 10 CFR 52. The AP600 SSAR and PRA reports represent a sign;0 cant effort on the part of Wesdnghouse under our contracts to the Department of Energy and the Elecuic Power Research Institute to develop and certify a passive pessurhed ALWR by the mid 1990s. We believe that the AP600 application is the most complete application yet subcutted by a plant design organization for a FDA and DerJgn Certi0 cation.
On August 31,1992, Westinghouse received a letter providing the results of the NRC staff acteptability review of the AP6(O submittal. The acceptability review resulted in the assignment of docket nutaber STN $2 003 to the AP600 project "because of the extensive amount of informadon in the June 26,1992 appkation", llowever, the applicadon was considered incornpleu, prima:ily because it did not include some topical reports and a complete set of ITAAC. We have since supplied the topical reports.
A clarification is requested concerning the staff osition on the ITAAC. The industry has yet to reach J
agreement on what constitutes acceptable ITAAC after several years of intense effort. Westinghoase sees ITAAC as an ladustry issue and is artnely participating in the NUMARC lead plant efforts to develop ITAAC, The ded. don to submit only a pilot set of AP600 ITAAC was deliberate and based on optimizing teiowces not only at Westinghouse, but at the NRC. Does the NRC staff considet the lack of ITAAC to be a poblem sped 6c to the AP600 submittal or is it an issue that affects all design certi$ cation applications? Westirthoc< is geiently develqing a complete set of AP600 ITAAC and will raake submittals in early SeNemhr, mid Ocmber ud t@ Wember incorpormng the lessons learned from the lead plant application in Ods developrnent proccu.
Westinghouse is requesntig clari0 cation on this mattet.
jp k ~
Sincerely, d(jk
- p. R,*1@.P C. L Caso
}
'(9209o90o60. -
_--- w ~ ~.,S Y R kFf5 1
qbo
.080010
.