ML20128G260

Discusses Ways to Expedite Review of Design Certification Application for ABWR & Lists Scenarios for ACRS Review within One Month Review Period

ML20128G260
Person / Time
Site:	05200001
Issue date:	02/09/1993
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Shewmon P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
NUDOCS 9302120221
Download: ML20128G260 (2)

Text

,

6 2k a, f-- Lk g- #psn%q% UNITED STATES I 4g NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION

[

g g WASHINGTON, D, n. 20555

• • • • • February 9, 1993 Docket No.52-001 Mr. Paul Shewmon, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

REVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE ADVANCED BOILING WATER REACTOR (ABWR)

The staff is developing a revised estimate of the schedule for the review of the design certification application for the ABWR. We are attempting to find ways to expedite the schedule, while performing a complete and thorough review of the de:;ign.

We request that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) accept an advance copy of the final safety evaluation report (FSER) for review. The advance copy will have received approval by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation management, but will not have received final approval by the Office of General-Counsel (OGC) and the technical editor. 0GC and the technical editor will perform preliminary reviews of the advance copy and will then perform their final review in parallel with the ACRS. The staff believes that the advance-copy of the FSER will be sufficient to facilitate the ACRS's technical review.

In a memorandum dated July 18, 1991, then Chairman Ward stated that 3 months was required by the Committee to review the final SERs and FDAs of design certification applications. We request that the Comatittec complete its review of the FSER for the ABWR on a much more aggressive timetable. .The staff is proposing that the Committee review the advance copy of the FSER during the target month yet to be determined but not sooner than August 1993, The staff believes that the ACRS would identify only minor problems with the FSER during this final review because it has been interacting with the Committee continually throughout the review, and several versions of the SER have been reviewed by the Committee.

One possible scenario for the ACRS review within the one-month review period is:

. The staff makes a presentation on the resolution of major FSER issues, results of the independent QA review, and completed status of the review at the Full Committee meeting during the first week of the target month.

• Subcommittee meetings are held during the next two weeks to discuss the advance copy of the FSER.

• A :cial Full Committee meeting would be held during the fourth week of ,

the target month, where the ACRS completes its review and. writes a favorable letter. j (b@

9302120221 930209 110024 "P" ' , 'm W k i PDR ADOCK 03200001 h,, # +/ 4 .4 G d A I

'A PDR

"o

,4 Mr. Paul Shewrhon -2 Febru/iry 9,1993 We believe that this review appr2ach and the time period allotted to cornpleto your review is appropriate for the ABWR application because of the extent..to which the ABWR design has been evaluated thus far through numerous meetings-and several draft versions of the SER. However, the staff will continue.to allot three months-for the review of the other design certification. '

applications in its future schedule estimates, as those projects-are not expected to require the extensive review that the ABWR has received.

Sincerely, (Original signed by)

Dennis M. Crutchfield,- Associate Director for Advanced Reactors and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIQVll03: . .

Docket File PDST R/F JTaylor JSniezek POR- TMurley/FMiraglia DCrutchfield RPierson JNWilson RBorchardt JMoore, 15B18 GGrant, EDO ACRS (10) CPoslusny PShea 0FC:

.2 hY3 X' LA:[PDST DA . T:ADAR (SC: D:P ADAR~ S][gRR 60

)

NAME: PShea o > JN,W} son:tz RPie on D W Itchfield DATE: Ol/jj/93 Ol'(p /93 Ol/jj/93 02f)/93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY: SHEWH m.JNW i

i i

Y' __ m