ML20024E958
| ML20024E958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/16/1983 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E957 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-49, REF-GTECI-RV, TASK-A-49, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8309080030 | |
| Download: ML20024E958 (14) | |
Text
.
c 3
REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW I
2*""'n UsE r RM Sr a3 m ts Srs3
(
FOR USE RECINNING 4-83 4
(REV. 3-81)
IMPORTANT - READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM. DO NOT USE THE SAME SF 83 TO SIMULTANEOUSLY R EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291 REVIEW AND APPROVAL UNDER THE PAPERWORK RfDUCTION ACT.
)
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN PART 1. IF THIS REQUEST IS FOR REVIEW UNDER E.O.12291. COMPLETE PART II AND SIGN THE CERTIFICATION. IF THIS RE00EST IS FOR APPROVAL UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AND 5 CFR 1320. SKIP PART 11. COMPLETE PART !!! AND SIGN THE CERTIFilCATION.
SEND THREE COPIES OF THIS FORM. THE MATERI AL TO BE REVIEWED, AND FOR PAPERWORK -- THREE COPIES OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT TO: OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND RECU1ATORY AFFAIRS. OFFICE OF HANACEMENT AND BUDCET, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 -ATTENTION DOCKET LIBRARY ROOM 3201 PART 1.
- 1. DEPARTHENT/ AGENCY and BUREAU /0FFICE
- 2. AGENCY 3.NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON WHO ORIGINATING REQUEST CODE CAN BCST ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS REQUEST U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Felix B. Litton Commission 31 5 0 492-4576
- 4. TITLE OF INFORMATION COLLECTION OR RULEMAKING 10 CFR 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities (50.61 - Fracture Toughness)
- 5. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION OR RULE 6l AFFECTED PUBLIC (CHECK ALU THAT APPLY)
(C1TE UNITED STATES CODE. PUBLIC LAW, OR EXECUTIVE C 1. INDIVIDUALS OR HOUSEHOLDS ORDER)
U 2. STATE OR LOCAL COVERNMENTS U 3. FARMS
/ Y/ 4. BUSINESSES OF OTHER FOR-PROFIT USC OR Atomic Enerav Act D 5. FEDERAL ACENCIES OR mPLOYEES
/ / 6. NON-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS D 7. SMALL BUSINESSES OR ORCANIZATIONS PART 11. COMPLETE THIS PART ONLY IF THE REQUEST IS FOR CMS REVIEW UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291.
- 7. REGULATORY INFORMATION NUMBER (RIN)
- 9. CFR SECTION AFFECTED CFR 8..
TYPE OF SUBMISSION
~
- 10. DOES THIS RFGULATION CONTAIN NEPORTING OR RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE OMB APPROVAL.UNDER CLSSSIFICATION THE PA"ERMORK REDUCTION ACT AND 5 CFR 13207 d 1. !!AJOR YES O NO O O 2. NONMAJOR STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
- 11. IF A MJ04 RULE. IS THERE A REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS ATTACHED 7 O 1. PROPOSED OR DRAFT C 2. FINAL OR INTERIM FINAL. WITH FRIOR
- 1. YES O
- 2. NO O - IF NO DID OMB VALVE PROPOSAL THE ANALYSIST C 3. TINAL OR INTERIM FINAL. WITH0tTI PRIOR FROPOSAL
- 3. YES O
- 4. NO O TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED
- 12. DOES THIS REGULATION AFFECT ANY TRADE SENSITIVE D 1. STANDARD ACTIVITY 7 O 2. PENDING O 3. IMERGENCY YES O NO O O 4. STATUTORY OR JUDICIAL DECREE CERTIFICATION FOR REGULATORY SUBMISSIONS: IN SUBMITTING THIS REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW. THE AUTHORIZED REGULATORY CONTACT AND THE PROGRAM OFFICIAL CERTIFY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF E.O.12291 AND ANY APPLICABLE POLICY DIRECTIVES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
SICNATURE OF FROCRAM OFFICIAL DATE SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED RECUI.ATORY CONTACT
- DAtt
~
8309080030 830822 PDR ORG EUSOMBPDR
.,o, 13: AB5 TRACT - DESCRIBE NEEDS, U.., AND AFFECTED PUBUC IN 50 WORDS OR LES.
The provisions of 10 CFR 50.61 establish fracture toughness criteria for reactor vessel materials in pressurized water reactors (PWRs) to mitigate the effect of pressurized thermal shock (PTS) transients.
- 14. TYPE OF INIORMATION COLLECTION (CHECK ONE ONLY) 2. CURRENT (MOST RECENT) OMB CONTROL NUMBER OR COMMENT
~ '
NUMBER INFORMATION COLLECTIONS NOT CONTAINED IN RULES ZI7 1. RsCutAR SUBMISSION 3150-001 O 2. D ERCDICT SUBMISSION (CERTIFICATION ATTACHED)
- 21. REQUESTED EXPIRATION DATE INFORMATION COLLECTIONS CONTAINED IN RULES O 3. EXISTING REGUIATION (NO CRANCE PROPOSED)
.4-30-85 O 4. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NPRM) lI7 5. FINAL, NPRM WAS PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED
- 22. PURPOSE OF INFORMATION COLLECTION (CHECK AS MANY
C A. RECULAR SUBMISSION O B. MERGENCY SUBMISSION O 1. APPLICATION FOR BENEFITS (CERTIFICATION ATTACHED)
O 2. PROGRAM EVALUATION O 3. CDdERAL PURPOSE STATISTICS DATE OF EXPECTED OR ACTUAL FEDERAL RECISTER D4 REGULATORY OR COMPLIANCE PUBLICATION AT THIS STACE OF RULEMAKING --
U 5. PROGRAM PLANNING OR MANACDiENT I
19 O 6. RESEARCH O 7. AUDIT
- 15. TYPE OF REVIEW REQUESTED (CHECK ONE ONLY)
G 1. NEW COLLECTION
- 23. FREQUENCY OF RECORDKEEPING OR REPORTING (CHECK ALL O.2.
REVISION OF A CURRENTLY APPROVED COLLECTION THAT APPLY)
O 3. EXTENSION OF THE EXPIRATION DATE OF A CURRENTLY APPROVED COLLECTION WITHOUT ANY O 1. RECORDKEEPING CHANGE IN THE SUBSTANCE OR IN THE METHOD REPORTING OF COLLECTION O 2. ON OCCASION Q
E.' SEMI-ANNUALLY C 4. REINSTATDiENT OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
O 3. WEEKLY G 7, ANNUALLY COLLECTION FOR WHICH APPROVAL 11AS EXPIRED D 4. MONTHLY O 8. BIENNUALLY O 5. EX1hTING COLLECTION IN USE WITHOUT AN OMB O 5. QUARTERLY O 9. OTHER -DESCRIBE CONTROL NUMBER
- 16. AGENCY REPORT FORM NUMBER (5)
N/A
- 24. RESPONDENTS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY (CHECK THE
- 17. ANNUAL REPORTING OR DISCLOSURE BURDEN STRONCEST OBLICATION THAT APPLIES) b4
- 1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS O 1. VOLUNTARY O 2. REQtIIRED TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN A BENEFIT
- 2. NUMBER OF RESPONSES PER RESPONDENT l
2[7 3. MANDATORY
- 3. TOTAL ANNUAL RESPONSES (1 x 2) b4
- 4. HOURS PER RESPONSE 109.4
- 25. ARE THE RESPONDENTS PRIMARILY EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES OR INSTITUTIONS OR 15 THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE i
- 5. TQTAL HOURS (3 x 4)
,.7,000 COLLECTION RELATED TO FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAM 57 18. ANNUAL RECORDKEEP]NG BURDEN YES O NO U
- 1. NUMBER OF RECORDKEEPERS N /A
- 26. DOES THE AGENCY USE SAMPLING TO SELECT RESPONDENTS
- 3. TOTAL RECORDKEEPING HOURS (1 x 2) 0F SAMPLING OR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY RESPONDENT 5T
- 4. RECORDKEEPING RETErfrION PERIOD YEARS YES O NO ZT 19. TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN i
7,000_
- 27. ' REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
- 1. REQUESTED (17-5 + 18-3)
~
- 2. IN CUR 5ENT OMB INVENTORY 6.073.501 10 50.61 cy, G)6',080,505
- 3. DIFFERENCE (1
'2)
FR
, or EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCE OTHER (SPECIFY) Atomir-Fnprny Ar-t -
PAPDERK CBTIFICAT10h IN SUBMITTING THIS REQUEST FOR OMB APPROVAL, THE AGENCY HEAD. THE SENIOR OFFICIAL OR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, CERTIFIES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRIVACY ACT AND OMB DIRECTIVES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH INCLUDING PAPERWORK REGULATIONS, STATISTICAL STANDARDS OR DIRECTIVES, AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION POLICY, DIRECT PROMULGATED UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1930.
SIGNATURE OF PROGRAM OITICIAL DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENCY HEAD OR TliE SENIOR
,DATE OFFICIAL OR,AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE j
i 47
[ /C f, N/A Patricia G. Norry
-v
.(~i
~
SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED 10 CFR 50.61,
" FRACTURE TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST' PRESSURIZED THERMAL SH0CK EVENTS" 1.
Justification (a) Need for the Information Collection The issue of pressurized thermal shock (PTS) arises because in pressurized water reactors (PWRs) transients and accidents can occur that result in severe overcooling (thermal shock) of the reactor pressure vessel, concurrent with or followed by repressurization.
In these PTS events, rapid cooling of the reactor vessel internal surface results in thermal stress with a maximum tensile stress at the inside surface of the vessel.
The magnitude of the thermal stress depends on the temperature profile across the reactor vessel wall as a function of time.
The effects of this thermal stress are compounded by pressure stresses if the vessel is pressurized.
1 Severe reactor system overcooling events which could be accompanied by pressurization or repressurization of the reactor vessel '(PTS events) can result from a variety of causes. - These include system transients, some of which are initiated by instrumentation and control system malfunctions including stuck open valves in either the primary or secondary system,'and postulated accidents such as small break loss-of-poolant accidents, main steam line breaks, and feedwater pipe breaks.
\\
~
.v
~
(
.( 3 2-
. As long as the' fracture resistance of the reactor vessel material is relatively high, such events are not expected to cause vessel failure.
However, the fracture resistance of reactor vessel materials decrease' with exposure to iast neutrons during th'e life of a nuclear power plant.
'The rate of decrease is dependent on the metallurgical composition of the vessel wall and welds.
If the fracture resistance of the vessel has.been reduced sufficiently by neutron irradiation, severe PTS events could cause propagation of fairly small flaws that might exist near the inner surface.
The assumed initial flaw might initiate and propagate into a crack through the vessel wall of sufficient extent to threaten vessel integrity an'd, therefore, core cooling' capability.
i
-The data collection aspects of the proposed 10 CFR'50.61, " Fracture r
Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock i
(PTS)~ Events" are as follows:
50.61(b) to require each PWR licensee to determine the plant RTNDT (Reference Temperature for. Nil Ductility Transition) according to a method. uniformly defined for all pl' ants; 50.61(c) to require analyses of. flux reduction options that will prevent or delay the' plant -from operating above the defined RTNDT I and
~
50.61(d)' to require. plant-specific. PTS risk analyses be submitted before is considered.
operation beyond the defined RTNDT Collection and analysis of jhe information is necessary to identify
- needed corrective actions before operation above the identified RTNDT
- value can be considered.
s vc,.n+-
,,vv
-,.--r
,-i-n
.n.n,~
- - +-..
r,
,.-wa--r-~~-,.
(7
(
(b) Practical Utility of the Information Collection The information and analyses will be reported on the plant's docket through the NRC Licensing Project fianager (LPH).
The LPit and the
. Generic Issues Branch Task Manager will coordinate review of the information and analyses by the appropriate branch (depending upon technical. subjects covered) leading to a coordiitated NRC staff recommendation to the Commission regarding necessary corrective values actions before plant operation can be considered at RTNDT above the screening value.
The review will be performed by the staff on a schedule that will ensure adequate time for implementation of any corrective requirement prior'to reaching the screening' criterion.
(c) Duplication with Other Collections of Information 4
There are no other NRC requirements regarding analyses for flux reduction or plant PTS safety analyses.
However, materials information leading to calculation of an RT value for the NDT reactor vessel is submitted in response to the requirements of Appendices G and H, 10 CFR Part 50.
For new plants, it appears in the FSAR.
During the operating life, the information is updated by the individual plant submittals that support requests for changes in the pressure-temperature' limits given in Technical Specifica-tions.
The new request for materials information (RT values) contained NDT in this proposed regulgtion is required because:
(1) the calculation of RT f r PTS involves a new trend curve formula NDT
.that contains nickel;as one variable, and this represents a change from past practice which has yet to be adopted for normal f r PTS purposes operation; and (2) the calculation of RTNDT
. require precise, updated data obtained in many cases by the licensee in response to NRC concerns regarding PTS.
In normal operation, there are cases where upper-bound estimates are used in
(
-4 the absence of complet data.
For PTS, this can, in some-cases, be unnecessarily conservative, and an extra effort to obtain the data is required. 'For plants where complete data were available initially, 'this request will resulE in a verification (with quality assurance acceptable for PTS use) of earlier submittals.
-(d) Consultations 'Outside NRC We have reviewed our overall PTS recommendations on several occasions with the Advisory Committee cn Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
including the information gathering aspects.
The ACRS was in basic agreement with our recommendations (letter to Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman, NRC, from P. Shewmon, Chairman, ACRS, October 14, 1982).-
We have also reviewed our recommendations with consultants under contract with us at Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Their recommendations are similar to ours.~(NUREG/CR-2837, July 1982.)
(c)- Other Supporting Information None 2.
Description of Information Collection j-
'(a) Number and Type of Respondents
'The licensees of all PWR plants would be subject to the regulation.
Withrespgettothethreedatacollectionaspectsof the proposed regulation, it is estimated that forty seven plants would be affected by item (1), RT assessment; approximately NDT fifteen plants would be affected by item (2), flux reduction analyses; and from between one and four plants would be affected by item (3), plant specific analyses.
(
(
(b) Reasonableness of Schedule for Collecting Information The schedule is stated in 10 CFR 50.61.
50.61(b) The initial RT determination "must be submitted NDT (three months after the effective date of the regulation) and must be updated whenever changes in core loadings, surveillance measurements, or other information indicate a significant change in projected values."
We feel that it is vital to quickly assess, with reliable information, which PWR plants are nearest the screening criterion so that we know as early as possible which plants most quickly need to complete the flux reduction analyses (see 50.61(c)) and the safety analyses (see 50.61(d)) which results in identification of necessary corrective actions.
Appendix H, " Reactor Vessel fiaterial Surveillance Program Requirements," 10 CFR Part 50, requires monitoring the change in the fracture toughness properties of ferritic materials in the reactor beltline region resulting from exposure to r.eutron irradiation and thermal environment. This information is available to both the licensee and to the Commission.
It would require only verification by the licensee and submittal to the NRC by letter to the docket.
Therefore, the proposed schedule is reasonable.
50.61(c)
"For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor for which the value of RT is projected to exceed the PTS T4DT screening criterion before the expiration date of the operating license, the licensee shall submit by (six months
Q'
(
. 1 after the effective date of the' regulation) an analysis and schedule for implementation of such flux' reduction progre'ris as are reasonably practicable to avoid exceeding the' PTS
~
screening criterion."
s The flux reduction option must be implemented as soon as possible for maximum effectiveness. Nithout this early reporting of, flux reduction analyses, when the PiS safety analyses (see 50.61(d)) are submitted, it may be too late to make use of this option.
~I Due to their own i~nterest in safety dnd' economy, licensees-will have already analyzed flux reductica options before this-rule is promulgated.
Therefore, the schedule proposed "to e
prepare and submit a report ~cn the docket is reasonable.
~
m 50.61(d)
"For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor-for which the analysis required by 50.61(c) indicates that no reasonably practicable flux reduction program will prevent the values of RT from exceeding the PTS screening criterion t4DT before the expiration date of the operating license, the licensee shall submit a safety analysis to determine what, if any, modifications to equipment, systems, and procedures are l
necessary to provide-acceptable protection against potential failure of the reactor vessel as a result of postulated pressurized thermal shock events. 'This analjsis shall be submitted at least three years befo're the value of RT i s.
f1DT projected to exceed the PTS screening crit'erion or by (one l
\\
s year after the effective date of the regulation) whichever is s
later."
l n
l
~
[.
(
7;,
inis is the final step to which all others lead, the
' sidentification of needed corrective actions.
We believe the three year " lead time" before the screening criterion RTt1DT IS
_ exceeded represents the minimum time necessary to review the analyses, recommend actions, promulgate a requirement by Commission action (if necessary), and have the licensee
~
implement the necessary corrective actions.
If less than three. years are allowed and the required actions are not complete, plant shutdown could be necessary.
Since this would be a plant-specific analysis, we believe a report on the plant's docket to be the most efficient submittal.
_(c) liethod of Collecting the Information The data and analyses are plant-specific and plant-unique and must be required fr'om each plant.
They are. vitally necessary for the fiRC C
staff'~s'use in evaluating a potential safety concern and identifying' corrective actions that may be required to alleviate that concern. The A
staff members that will perform the. evaluation are in the Washington, D.C. (f1RC Headquarters) area and are in several different NRC y -
e
' ~
organizational units.
Reports filed on the plant docket and subsequently
~ distributed to the reviewers appear to be the most efficient method.
g a
The flux reduction analyses and the RT analyses would probably be t1DT performed by different technical personnel within the licensee's (or
[
^
~
vendor's) organization.
If the licensee wished to combine the two reports into a single report with two major sections, that would be acceptable.
This would require, however, that the entire report be submitted on a schedule compatible with the schedule of the RT
'~
ilDT
'[
assessment -(the earliest due section).
We would distribute copies of 1' * '
the proper sections to the appropriate f4RC organizations.
9
\\
z
~
~
/
t
~
c.,.
():
{:
t f
(d)
Record Retention Period Compliance'to the' requirements of Section IV, " Report of Test Results" history is of-Appendix H of'10 CFR Part 50 ensures that the RTNDT retained-for the life of the plant.. Therefore, this, regulation will-
~
not impose an'sdditional licensee burden.
The flux' reduction and safety. analyses should also be retained'until and unless the analyses are modified or revised.
m4 (e) ' Reporting Period 1
4 The RT and flux reduction information would be re-reported only when NDT significant changes are indicated, as already discussed.
.,(f ) C_opies Required to be Submitted l
The required analyses will.be prepared by the licensees and the report submitted for the docket.
If additional copies 'are required of portions
~
of the r'eport(s) due to the, number of reviewers involved, then they would b'e made in'ternally.
~
4
-'3..
Estimate of Licensee Burden-d 1.
The. licensees 6f all Ph'R ~ plants would b' v,t@ct to the regulation.
Our estimate is that forty seven r)*
- de be subject to RTNDT c
assessment and fifteen plants wot.'d de - -6 ect to flux reduction
' analyses.
Depending'on the succes:i of these analyses, we estimate that from"onetofour.plantswouldbesubjecttoPTS[safetyanalyses.
The
^'
- estimates-shown below apply only to costs due to the actual. reporting
. requirenents.
That is,'they'do not include costs of performing the
' assessments which would still be necessary even if. there were no
~ requirements to submit reports to the NRC.
t e
h.
5v d
r..___.m.-.,...
~ h h
(a) _ Estimated staff-hours-
-1). RT assessment - 100 staff hours per_ plant - (47 x 100 =
NDT 4,700 staff hours total)
- 2) Flux redu'ction' analyses - 100 staff hours per plant - (15'x 100 =
1,500 staff hours total) i -
- 3) PTS safety analyses - 400 staff hours'per plant (Estimate 2
~
plants = 800 staff hours).
Therefore,'our total estimated annual staft' hours will be 2,333 based on a total-estimated staff hours expenditure of 7,000 staff-hours distributed over a three year period.
(b) Estimated cost 1)~ RT assessment - $5,000 per plant - $235,000 total NDT 2)
Flux reduction analyses - $5,000 per plant - $80,000 total 3)
PTS safety analyses - $20,000 per plant - from $20,000 to $80,000'(average' of $40,000 for two plants).
~
Therefore, _ our estimated annual cost will be $118,300 based on a total expenditure of $355,000 distributed over a three year period.
i
- The annual recordkeeping burden is included in our estimate.
(c) Source and method for estimating:
RT assessment and flux reduction analyses.
NDT The basic information,is available to each licensee through ongoing reactor vessel integrity and surveillance programs.
The method for estimating-is based on ' engineering judgment by the NRC staff and our. understanding of the assessment of the integrity of the vessel.
The cos_t estimate is based on $100,000 per staff year.
4 f gW g
1-p3
--+m-w g
e y---rww p-eN -
py er v-y
- 9 -,-
-m-sq
+t-
--gsy,-
y e,
-ye og e
m
~
(?)
(~ ~
s PTS safety analysis The estimate is based on the.use of existing computer codes and modeling procedures. Theestimatelsbasedontheuseoften man-years, plant-specific modeling time, and twelve transient calculation.s.
Engineering judgment by the NRC staff and their consultants was the method used for the estimates.
(d) Reasonableness of estimate The estimates given above represent the best judgment of the NRC staff, and are based on actual experience with the costs of such PTS analyses now being performed by NRC/RES contractors at ORNL, INEL, and LANL.
4.
Estimate of Cost to Federal Government The submittals by the licensee will be evalua'id by the staff, at the estimated cost given below.
Our estimate is based on the use of a charge of $100,000 per staff man-year, an average currently used by the national laboratories for estimation purpose.
1)
RT assessment NDT bha estimate that an RT determinations will be submitted by NDT I
forty seven licensees three months after the effective date of the regulation.
An RTNDjassessmentwascompletedbythestaffas part of the FTS projecy and reported in Appendix P of the "NRC Staff Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock," November 1982.
The submittals will be evaluated by the Materials Engineering Branch and the Core = Performance Branch.
The total review time is estimated at 400 staff hours at an estimated cost of $20,000. The expenditure will be equally divided in FY-83 and FY-84.
=.
. O
(~
\\
- 2) Flux reduction It is estimated that an analysis and schedule for implementation of flux reduction program will be iubmitted by fifteen licensees six months after the effective date of the regulation.
The submittals will be reviewed and evaluated by the Core Performance Branch with assistance from Consultants and the Materials Engineering Branch.
The total review time is estimated to be 600 staff hours at a cost of $33,000.
The expenditure will be made in FY-84.
- 3) PTS safety analysis
.It is estimated that a PTS safety analyses will be submitted by from one to four licensees three years prior to the reactor vessel reaching the screening criterion or one year after the effective date of the regulation, whichever is later.
The PTS safety analyses will be reviewed and evaluated by the Core Performance Branch, Materials Engineering Branch, Reactor Systems Branch., Reliability and Risk Assessment Branch, and Procedures and Test Review Branch. We estimate the total review time for one submittal as follows:
Branch Staff Hours Consultant Total CPB 240
$50,000
$ 30,000*
MTEB 100 5,000 RSB 1,500
$100,000 195,000**
RRAB 500 25,000 PTRB 100 5,000 Total 2,440
$150,000
$260,000
- $3,000 computer time
- $40,000 computer time
a Q
(
The expenditure will be made in FY-85 at an estimated cost from
$260,000 to approximately $1,000,000 depending on the number of submittal for review.
In summary, we estimate the annual cost to the Government at
$155,000, based on a total estimated expenditure of $463,000 distributed over a three year period.
The total cost to the government is $463,000.
Staff Staff Consultant Total Task Branch Hours-Cost Cost Cost.
RTNDT Assessment itTEB/CPB 400
$20,000
$20,000
~ Flux Reduction _
CPB/MTEB 600
$33,000
$33,000 PTS CPB 240
$30,000*
$50,000
$80,000*
MTEB-100 5,000 5,000 RSB 1,500 195,000 100,000 295,000**
RRAB 500 25,000 25,000 PTRB 100 5,000 5,000 TOTAL 2,440
$313,000
$150,000
$463,000
'T
\\
- Plus $3,000 computer time.
- Plus $40,000 computer time.
.