ML20148N753
| ML20148N753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/13/1978 |
| From: | Heltemes C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Zizza M BURNS & ROE CO. |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-427 NUDOCS 7811270216 | |
| Download: ML20148N753 (2) | |
Text
. _ _.
/
UNIT D STAf ts e s.e o
tlUCLEAR REGULATORY CGI/J.i:ESIGN e
hh f ' da {,, 5 WASW ngl oN, D. C. 20E53 o[4 NOV 1 y U18 Mr. Michael Zizza, Vice President Engineering and Design Division Burns and Roe, Inc.
185 Crossways Park Drive Woodbury, New York 11797
Dear Mr. Zizza:
SUBJECT:
STANDARDlZATION PROGRAM FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS I received your letter dated October 4,1978, in which you commented on two aspects of the Commission's standardizatior ogram for nuclear power plants. You noted that the comments were i r
ise to a presentation made by members of the Standardization Brar ne Burns and Roe, Incorporated offices on August 31, 1978.
We were pleased to have the opportunity to meet with representatives of your organization to discuss the recent changes to the Commission's standardization program.
I believe that the feedback we received at the meeting as well as the additional comments contained in your letter are important and will be considered by the staff in the development of any future changes to the standardization program.
One of your comments deals with the requirements for the scope of design in applications for design approvals under the reference system concept.
As you noted in your letter, the scope of such applications must con-stitute a major portion of a nuclear power plant design.
You suggested that we should consider as permissible, under the definition of " major portion of a nuclear power plant," the containment structure, including its foundation.
To date, reference system design applications have covered four separate scopes, namely, (1) nuclear steam supply system, (2) balance of plant, (3) nuclear island and (4) turbine island.
Ccmbining 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 wil?
result in a complete nuclear power plant application, except for site-related or utility-related matters. These are certainly not the only scopes of design we would be willing to accept under the reference system concept.
However, we would be reluctant to accept a reference system design from NSSS vendors whose scope is smaller than an NSSS, as defined in Amendment 1 to WASH-1341, or in the case of architect-engineers, the balance of plant not included in an NSSS vendor application.
7 8112 70 ;1.l b
\\
- y-Mr. "ichael Zizza NOV 15 C8
'!e believe that this will assure that the scope of reference system designs is sufficient to justify a detailed, integrated staff review which will culminate in 'a five-year approval period.
Further, it will provide for a body of designs that is consistent in scope and amenable to being combined by utility-applicants in applications for construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
We would encourage you to obtain generic approval of designs that constitute a smaller scope, such as the containment structure.
- However, we believe these should be submitted under the Commission's Topical Report Program.
We believe this program also affords a useful mc.is of obtaining staff approval of matters outside the context of a utility application.
Your otl.er comment dealt with the matter of a balance of plant design approsal preceding that for a mating nuclear steam supply system. As generally discussed in our presentations, the review of an SSAR describing a B0P design independently of NSSS information is not consistent with our past or current practice and, in fact, may not be practical.
The principal difficulty for the staff's review is establishing the validity of the NSSS interfaces used for the B0P design, since the staff will not have revicwed the NSSS design. There is a concern by many reviewers that since the interfaces cannot be confidently matched to a specific NSSS, there is the strong possibility that the staff could review and approve a B0P design, based on interfaces that may subsequently prove to be invalid.
Accordingly, our preliminary assessment is that the requirements for the interfaces between the B0P and the NSSS must be developed in order to assure the viability of this concept.
However, in theory, this concept would seem to be valid and would be consistent with the NRC standardization policy. Accordingly, as you may know, we have identified this in NUREG-0427 as an area requiring further study.
In our recent briefings of other architect-engineers on the standard-ization program, we noted a consistent interest in this concept. We would be appreciative of any additional information you have concerning the way in which this concept might be implemented, in ordar to assist us in our ongoing review of this matter. Because of higher priority activities, our study is not scheduled for completion within the next year.
We appreciate your continued interest in the standardization of nuclear power plants.
We hope you will continue to provide your recommendations for further improvements in the Commission's standardization program.
Sincerely, I
C C. J. Heltemes,1. 1, Chief StddardizationBranch Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i