ML20235C926

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Expresses Concerns Re Delays in Review of Gessar,Due to Introduction of New Designs in Several Areas of Plant & Slips in Transmitting Part of Regulatory Staff Initial Request for Addl Info.Revised Review Schedule Encl
ML20235C926
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, 05000447
Issue date: 02/12/1974
From: Muntzing L
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Stathakis G
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20234E460 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707090582
Download: ML20235C926 (3)


Text

_-___

l

'#"<., DATEGORY-B DOCUhENT l t/NITED STATES F/ INFO ACRS N. bv.l {

,W(

I .

..L,4

? ". '

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C. 20545 k [ RECEiVEC Docket No. STN 50-447 1974 MAR 1 PM l 30 Mr. George J. Stathakis V

Vice President and General Manager CC I E Nuclear Energy Division P.EACTOR SAFEGUARDS General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125

Dear Mr. Stathakis:

I am concerned over delays that have occurred in the review to date of GESSAR.

These delays can be attributed to the introduction of new designs ,

I in several areas of the plant and slips in transmitting part of the Regulatory Electric. staff's initial request for additional information to General a

Of greatest concern to me is our understanding that Amendment 11 to GESSAR, involving extensive revisions to the plant control and protection systems, is scheduled to be submitted to us on February 8,1974 In our teeting on November 27, 1973, with Mr. Selby and other members of your staff, we were told that this information would be made available to us by the end of December, 1973.

The submittal of this material more than six months after docketing of GESSAR will delay our review and likely cause this '

important safety area to be the controlling part of the balance of the staff's review. Any other significant design changes contemplated on the GESSAR docket should be identified as soon as possible so that a revised realistic schedule can be developed.

I recognize that some of the cause of the delay is the result of late submittal to you of about '0% 2 of the Regulatory staff's questions. Most of these were delayed about three weeks and the remaining questions about six weeks.

I feel that delays in this area could have been recovered by extra staff work and would not have resulted in a slip to the overall schedule.

We conclude at this time that the review schedule must be slipped one

' month from the schedule sent to you in our August 31, 1973 letter. A copy of the revised schedule is enclosed for your information. It is, however, imperative that steps be taken to make up the remaining schedule deficiencies, address the outstanding staff review concerns, expedite your responses to our safety questions and accelerate the staff's review of revisions to the plant slippage.control and protective system in order to avoid a further, extensive k @;C U 7 87070905G2 870623 h[h l , 6 j i A--- -

PDR FDIA ppg '

THOMASe7-40

_ __ - _- ------ - - - ----- - --- W-

~

~

9 Mr. Ocorge J. Stathakis 2 j.i; ; , 737.;

I have directed my staff to keep me informed of the status of these critical areas. I am sure you share my concern in these matters, partic-ularly since they affect implementing standardization goals. Please let me hear from you regarding corrective actions being taken by GE to avoid further delays.

Sincerely, "

Driginal Awd by!_

L. blanning .'.Iun tzing L. Manning Munt:ing Director of Regulation to O

F 1

l l

. .c *

.s  !

,\ ..

3 .

]

-]

l i

REVISED GESSAR REVIEW SCHEDUI.E Event Date Application Docketed

, 7/30/73 Safety Questions Issued to Applicant

  • 3/19/74' (Second Round)

Receive Applicant's Response to Questions 5/9/74 Safety Evaluation Report Issued 9/9/74 ACRS Subco:::tittee Meeting Unknown ACRS Full Cocmittee Meeting 10/11/74 Receive ACRS Letter 10/18/74 Supplement to Safety Evaluation Report Issued 12/12/74 4

d e

Q 0

? e w__