ML20236X931
| ML20236X931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/07/1987 |
| From: | Vissing G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Scherer A ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| References | |
| PROJECT-675A NUDOCS 8712100387 | |
| Download: ML20236X931 (5) | |
Text
I December 7, 1987 l
l i
l
(
Project No. 675 j
l Mr. A. E. Scherer, Director I
Nuclear Licensing l
Combustion Engineering 100 Prospect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 I
Dear Mr. Scherer:
We have given your draft Licensing Review Bases (LRB) for the System 80+
Design for design certification, which was provided in our meeting of October 29, 1987, an initial review. We have compared it with the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Licensing Review Bases and found it to be deficient in several areas. Also in our meeting of October 29, 1987, one of our comments was that the LRB would need expansion in the design areas. The enclosed comments are provided to aid you in the redrafting of the LRB.
Sincere'iy, original signed by Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
i As Stated l
cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
- Central File.;'
NRC PDR PDSNP Reading GVissing EHylton g21gggs,7871207 r n h
JPartlow 675A PDR
.,f
(
ACRS (10)
OGC-BETH p
PDSt(P,h PDS f I PDSNP (kyl n
LRubenstein GVisy.
T2/ /87 12/ 7 /87 12/4/ /87
p uouq'o UNITED STATES m
-(
~,,
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
i o
'4 E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 7, 1987 J
Project No. 675 Mr. A. E. Scherer, Director Nuclear Licensing Combustion Engineering 100 Prospect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500
Dear Mr. Scherer:
We have given your draft Licensing Review Bases (LRB) for the System 80+
Design for design certific. tion, which was provided in our meeting of October 29, 1987, an initial review. We have compared it with the GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Licensing Review Bases and found it to be deficient in several l
areas. Also in our meeting of October 29, 1987, one of our comments was that i
the LRB would need expansion in the design areas.
The enclosed comments are provided to aid you in the redrafting of the LRB.
Sincerely, 4
Guy Vissing, Pro' ct Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
1
Enclosure:
{
As Stated i
cc: See next page
)
J J
t 9,
ISSUES WHICH CE DOES NOT ADDRESS IN THE I
LICENSING REVIEW-BASIS 1.
~If there would be technical disagreement between NRC method of analysis and the MAAP code, CE should propose an alternate method.
CE should propose a method to compute potential consequences of fission product release.
2.
Severe Accident Goals a.
CE should propose a core damage frequency goal.
b.
No mitigation of Core Damage is proposed. CE should address:
1.
Measures to reduce early failure of containment 2.
Measures to accommodate hydrogen production 3.
Heat removal systems for containment 4.
. Measures to prevent hydrogen detonation CE should address dose limits and maximum probability per year of experiencing the limits considering internal and external events.
Containment design should have a failure frequency of equal to or less than 1/10.
3.
CE should address Physical Security.
Consideration should be given to specific design requirements such as:
Physical Security Organization Detection Aids Testing and Maintenance Communication Requirements Response Requirements 4.
CE should provide discussions on site parameters or soil-structure interaction analysis.
5.
CE should address details on defining major design components and include the result of sufficient engineering to identify:
i Design basis criteria Analysis and design methods Physical arrangement of auxiliary, BOP and NSSS system Physical arrangement of plent Performance specifications 6.
CE should address details on instrumentation and controls.
7.
CE should address details on designing for maintenance and surveillance.
l 8.
i l
I
2-y 9.
CE's Safety Goa? Policy Statement provides no concrete commitment. CE should be more specific.
- 10. CE should address the application of 10 CFR 50.34g, the Standard Review Plan in the review.
- 11. The LRB should define the scope of the System 80+ Design which is proposed for design certification, i.e., those systems which will be included and those systems which represent the remainder of the plant.
- 12. The LRB should discuss in greater detail the Standard Functional Requirements of the balance of the plant.
C.
6 W
e l'
i
't
- Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Project No. 675 l
Advanced'CESSAR l
cc: Mr. A. E. Scherer, Director Nuclear Licensing Combustion Engineering, Inc.
1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095 Mr. C. B. Brinkman, Manager Washington Nuclear Operations Combustion Engineering, Inc.
7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 1310 Bethesda, Marylard 20814 4
s O
as O
M i
- _ _ _ _ - _ -