ML20072B691
Text
-..
l
-4 I
f
~
'"]*4#
se us.q
/*74 h.
UMTED STATES i
f I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\,,,,,/
p jp '
- ^ $*=
o c **$
g, y j
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 13, 1991 I
i FOR OPERATIONS T0:
D. Rathbun, OCM/IS J. Scarborough, OCM/KR l
g Trimble, OCM/JC J. Guttman, OCM/FR t
FROM:
James L. Blaha, A0/0EDO a
SUBJECT:
ITAAC FOR THE ABWR Enclosed are staff letters to General Electric l
on the subject of Pilot Inspection, Test, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the Advanced l
BoilingWaterReactor(ABWR).
I 1
l l
l Ja s L. Blaha, A0/0ED0 l
~
I
Enclosure:
As stated
[
M cc: SECY J. Taylor, EDO J. Sniezek, DEDR T. Murley, NRR
~
A i
O i
O o *m
'..Ii I
2 9408160205 940629 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPCNDENCE PDR i
[ Docket l.
psus UNITED STATES 2.
'3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
3 wasmotow. o.c. anses October 23, 1991 f
j Docket No. STN 50-605~
i Mr. Patrick W. Marriott, Manager Licensing & Consulting Services j
GE Nuclear Energy 7
General Electric Cogany 175 Curtner Avenue i
i San Jose, California 95125 i
Dear Mr. Marriott:
FRELIMINARY REVIEW 0F PILOT INSPECTION, TEST, ANALYSIS, AND
}
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (ITAAC) FOR THE ADVANCED BOILING WAT l
REACTOR (ABWR) 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff has completed a preliminary I
reviewoftheninepilotGeneralElectricCompany(GE)ABWRITAACssubmittedto 20, 1991.
I am writing to provide GE with i
the staff in a letter of September the NRC staff's initial reaction and general coments on the proposed ITAAC i
i submittal.
The NRC staff believes that the proposed ITAAC lacks the level of detail and I
specific acceptance criteria appropriate for inclusion in. Tier 1 design certifi-Section 52.203(c) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regula-i cation material.
tions (10 CFR 52.103(c)) requires that the Comission must be able to find that jl j
'the acceptance criteria in the combined license have been met and that, accordingly, the facility has been constructed and will operate in conformity J
~
The staff cannot with the Atomic Energy Act and the Comission's regulations."
i adequately review the proposed system-level ITAAC since you have not submitted 1
your approach to the construction-related or ' generic' ITAAC.
In addition, the staff has not received your methodology and principles used to These will provide a basis to understand develop the pilot ITAAC submittals.the development process, and will fac j
j The staff will provide specific comments on the pilot ITAAC submittels within 1
j However, after having held seven meetings on ITAAC the next three weeks.
it is discouraging that we do not have a complete pilot j
j development this year, f agreement cannot be reached on these pilots by the end submittal to review. I of 1991, the ITAAC review and approval will. affect the s 4
i i
Revision."
~
Sincerely, 4
i N.
Dennis M. Crutchfield, ector l
Division of Advanced Rea tors and Special Projects 2
j Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g[
p cc: See next page 1:.
.