ML19347C661: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:. . _ _
{{#Wiki_filter:. . _ _
  ,  *
  ,  ,    .
SNUPPS Standardiaod Nuc8est Urut Power Ptent System 5 Choke Cherry Road                                                Nicholas A. Petrick noekvisse, me,viend 20s50                                          Executive Director                  s m assem                                December 23, 1980                                            .
SNUPPS Standardiaod Nuc8est Urut Power Ptent System 5 Choke Cherry Road                                                Nicholas A. Petrick noekvisse, me,viend 20s50                                          Executive Director                  s m assem                                December 23, 1980                                            .
                                                                                                                , . .
SLNRC 80 55        FILE: 0290 SUBJ: FSAR Review Meeting                            _
SLNRC 80 55        FILE: 0290 SUBJ: FSAR Review Meeting                            _
         / Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director                                                                .7, Office & Nuclear Reactor Regulation                                                            ,
         / Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director                                                                .7, Office & Nuclear Reactor Regulation                                                            ,
                                                                                                          ''
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555                                                                      --
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555                                                                      --
                                                                                                           ~
                                                                                                           ~
Line 35: Line 31:
The referenced letter invited the NRC to attend a SNUPPS review meeting on FSAR Chapter 8. The meeting was held in Gaithersburg, Maryland on December 9 and 10 and was attended by members of the NRC staff and its consultants, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The purpose of this letter.
The referenced letter invited the NRC to attend a SNUPPS review meeting on FSAR Chapter 8. The meeting was held in Gaithersburg, Maryland on December 9 and 10 and was attended by members of the NRC staff and its consultants, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The purpose of this letter.
is to coment on that meeting and to suggest measures that can be taken to further expedite and facilitate the review of the SNUPPS FSAR and the Callaway and Wolf Creek applications.
is to coment on that meeting and to suggest measures that can be taken to further expedite and facilitate the review of the SNUPPS FSAR and the Callaway and Wolf Creek applications.
4 During the past seven years, the SNUPPS Utilities have held numerous de-l          sign review meetings with the architect-erigineer, NSSS vendor, and other contractors. At this stage of the SNUPPS project, the utilities have had
4 During the past seven years, the SNUPPS Utilities have held numerous de-l          sign review meetings with the architect-erigineer, NSSS vendor, and other contractors. At this stage of the SNUPPS project, the utilities have had considerable input to, and have a good understanding of, the SNUPPS design.
'
considerable input to, and have a good understanding of, the SNUPPS design.
The December 9,10 meeting was of limited value to the Utility personnel on the review panel. The meeting format, wherein utility representatives question and discuss the design bases with the A/E or NSSS vendor is appro-priate for the construction permit stage of a licensing review when uti-
The December 9,10 meeting was of limited value to the Utility personnel on the review panel. The meeting format, wherein utility representatives question and discuss the design bases with the A/E or NSSS vendor is appro-priate for the construction permit stage of a licensing review when uti-
,          lity personnel are not as familiar with the design being proposed by the l          contractors .
,          lity personnel are not as familiar with the design being proposed by the l          contractors .
l
l Tne December 9,10 meeting was of value because of the participation of the two NRC Staff reviewers. They asked a number of questions, indicated Staff positions, and pointed out areas where additional infomation was required in the FSAR in order for them to be able to reach the required i
'
conclusions. SNUPPS intends to provide a transcript of the meeting, supple-mental infomation for the FSAR, and an evaluation of Chapter 8 prepared by the review panel . It is expected that the information obtained by the NRC reviewers during the meeting along with the materials that will be submitted later, will facilitate the NRC review of Chapter 8.                            68l 3
Tne December 9,10 meeting was of value because of the participation of the two NRC Staff reviewers. They asked a number of questions, indicated Staff positions, and pointed out areas where additional infomation was required in the FSAR in order for them to be able to reach the required i
conclusions. SNUPPS intends to provide a transcript of the meeting, supple-mental infomation for the FSAR, and an evaluation of Chapter 8 prepared
!
'
by the review panel . It is expected that the information obtained by the NRC reviewers during the meeting along with the materials that will be submitted later, will facilitate the NRC review of Chapter 8.                            68l 3
l
l
                                                                                                         /I 8$un os2.                  A
                                                                                                         /I 8$un os2.                  A


  .
    -
SLNRC 80-55 Page Two Based on the above evaluation of the December 9,10 meeting, consideration should be given to additional review meetings, but with some format change.
SLNRC 80-55 Page Two Based on the above evaluation of the December 9,10 meeting, consideration should be given to additional review meetings, but with some format change.
It is felt that meetings can expedite the review process by reducing the number of written questions normally involved in an NRC safety review and by exchanging information in a face-to-face manner with the NRC. During these subsequent meetings Utility representatives would assume a stronger role in describing the design and questions would be posed by a panel of NRC re-viewers . Meetings in this format were held during the CP stage review of the Palo Verde 4 & 5 application in late 1978 and proved to be useful in completing that review in an expedited manner.
It is felt that meetings can expedite the review process by reducing the number of written questions normally involved in an NRC safety review and by exchanging information in a face-to-face manner with the NRC. During these subsequent meetings Utility representatives would assume a stronger role in describing the design and questions would be posed by a panel of NRC re-viewers . Meetings in this format were held during the CP stage review of the Palo Verde 4 & 5 application in late 1978 and proved to be useful in completing that review in an expedited manner.
Line 59: Line 46:
WL                    , L_
WL                    , L_
Nicholas A. ' trick RLS/vas cc:    J. K. Bryan        UE G. L. Koester      KGE D. T. McPhee        KCPL W. A. Hansen        NRC/ Cal T. A. Vandel        NRC/WC l
Nicholas A. ' trick RLS/vas cc:    J. K. Bryan        UE G. L. Koester      KGE D. T. McPhee        KCPL W. A. Hansen        NRC/ Cal T. A. Vandel        NRC/WC l
l i
t l
l
l
,
i t
!
l l


      '
  . .  .
#
SLNRC 80-55 bec: A. C. Passwater UE G. P. Rathbun  KGE J. H. Smi th    B A. F. Jost      E' D. W. Capone    UE J. A. Bailey    KGE J. L. Miller    KCPL
SLNRC 80-55 bec: A. C. Passwater UE G. P. Rathbun  KGE J. H. Smi th    B A. F. Jost      E' D. W. Capone    UE J. A. Bailey    KGE J. L. Miller    KCPL
_
_, _
                                           ,}}
                                           ,}}

Latest revision as of 02:45, 31 January 2020

Comments on 801209-10 Meeting W/Nrc & Lll.Recommends Measures to Be Taken to Further Expedite & Facilitate FSAR Review.More Technical Review Meetings Should Be Held.Format Revision Provided
ML19347C661
Person / Time
Site: Wolf Creek, Callaway  Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation icon.png
Issue date: 12/23/1980
From: Petrick N
STANDARDIZED NUCLEAR UNIT POWER PLANT SYSTEM
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
0290, SLNRC-80-55, NUDOCS 8101050052
Download: ML19347C661 (1)
v • d • e


Text

. . _ _

SNUPPS Standardiaod Nuc8est Urut Power Ptent System 5 Choke Cherry Road Nicholas A. Petrick noekvisse, me,viend 20s50 Executive Director s m assem December 23, 1980 .

SLNRC 80 55 FILE: 0290 SUBJ: FSAR Review Meeting _

/ Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director .7, Office & Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 --

~

Docket Nos.: STN 50-482, STN 50-483, STN 50-486 - " _: 1 s , =d

Reference:

SLNRC 80-48, dated October 17, 1980, Review of .G 5 SNUPPS FSAR Chapter 8 " ,3 ~

Dear Mr. Denton:

The referenced letter invited the NRC to attend a SNUPPS review meeting on FSAR Chapter 8. The meeting was held in Gaithersburg, Maryland on December 9 and 10 and was attended by members of the NRC staff and its consultants, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The purpose of this letter.

is to coment on that meeting and to suggest measures that can be taken to further expedite and facilitate the review of the SNUPPS FSAR and the Callaway and Wolf Creek applications.

4 During the past seven years, the SNUPPS Utilities have held numerous de-l sign review meetings with the architect-erigineer, NSSS vendor, and other contractors. At this stage of the SNUPPS project, the utilities have had considerable input to, and have a good understanding of, the SNUPPS design.

The December 9,10 meeting was of limited value to the Utility personnel on the review panel. The meeting format, wherein utility representatives question and discuss the design bases with the A/E or NSSS vendor is appro-priate for the construction permit stage of a licensing review when uti-

, lity personnel are not as familiar with the design being proposed by the l contractors .

l Tne December 9,10 meeting was of value because of the participation of the two NRC Staff reviewers. They asked a number of questions, indicated Staff positions, and pointed out areas where additional infomation was required in the FSAR in order for them to be able to reach the required i

conclusions. SNUPPS intends to provide a transcript of the meeting, supple-mental infomation for the FSAR, and an evaluation of Chapter 8 prepared by the review panel . It is expected that the information obtained by the NRC reviewers during the meeting along with the materials that will be submitted later, will facilitate the NRC review of Chapter 8. 68l 3

l

/I 8$un os2. A

SLNRC 80-55 Page Two Based on the above evaluation of the December 9,10 meeting, consideration should be given to additional review meetings, but with some format change.

It is felt that meetings can expedite the review process by reducing the number of written questions normally involved in an NRC safety review and by exchanging information in a face-to-face manner with the NRC. During these subsequent meetings Utility representatives would assume a stronger role in describing the design and questions would be posed by a panel of NRC re-viewers . Meetings in this format were held during the CP stage review of the Palo Verde 4 & 5 application in late 1978 and proved to be useful in completing that review in an expedited manner.

It would be useful to the SNUPPS Utilities to know the NRC's evaluation of the December 9,10 meeting. More technical review meetings should be con-ducted and the above suggestion for a format change should be considered.

It is expected that the NRC's schedule for the review of the SNUPPS applica-tions will be issued soon and that the schedule will include provisions for a series of technical meetings with the NRC staff.

Very truly yours, D

WL , L_

Nicholas A. ' trick RLS/vas cc: J. K. Bryan UE G. L. Koester KGE D. T. McPhee KCPL W. A. Hansen NRC/ Cal T. A. Vandel NRC/WC l

l i

t l

l

SLNRC 80-55 bec: A. C. Passwater UE G. P. Rathbun KGE J. H. Smi th B A. F. Jost E' D. W. Capone UE J. A. Bailey KGE J. L. Miller KCPL

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19347C661&oldid=2346879"