ML20049H737
| ML20049H737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Goodwin E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049H724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203030494 | |
| Download: ML20049H737 (11) | |
Text
m...
. x..s,;.. m.v;... u.is.w:s.t... UNliED STATES. ~,C. s-r.i. c. f. T'::.~. M.m::'c. '.~..~q=w**:~q*:n.
+.
-w.f. + : w.=.s;h:i
.u=s3 c.=
r.q-2-... e..
'. :r. ~..
. :.:... ;..c
..S...t 3..'...
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONd.MyC.W5.Ej'. nd :i G :i:.~;
% :n
. O,:. i :... 1:.
.. t.: NASHINGTON,'D.b0555<
.rt..e.
g, j
s D.l.~O.' 'l'' N... D ".' 3 ? T "'~0
~
, e,.
y fi.,
Q
{
- h... '..;.
.... f :
i n
.%++*
- [-
..u.>...
.;;; ; Ji.
- ~;.,; :.
.a
.*r.
, ;;. y j.,; =.,. r j.
r, ~ g.
.- e. _.. ;..
-^
. fy)L ' -&..c.. Q: w, f.n.p @5-y..
s
~.
..::::.aa. ;.x -
.;p,.
- .~,..a
- .s.:.;,
- ,x,4....
a E.. G.',. d.%.~.....
r.
.....J.. :;,;.;;i;,c,.,:;';Q.1.g".,,,.J,,,.g.;.e., *.f.. y.a.. -t-
...$ 'f,., q;;...
-.:.....,iMORANDUM F.OR:j...
e e c.
Offi ce of Nuclear.. Di.,. ector.'W&n~%....m.emW "3l,gW
- l. A.,
.s., u.~.c.g<.r..h..
.~:. ase,-i. De,,puty C
r Reactor Regulation. m'.:. ym.n.:'
..g.....:
5:
~
. :...,... n --
s,...............;,u..,...
.~........... _... :
.m...~...,......
.As..~=...., --..
.... -.... Te c h n.. c P
5 E. Good.w,1 S6pport. cal,.
.. F,DM: :..... ;
.s
.u
.... B.ran chsi..st.an.tw........-
.,s.....-...0..-:n.. M,..:. 7. x.a ~N..... M...
...g......
!.?... g.
in s
..i e::..-.
n...
Tech..
c,. -n
. :- i ?.
.. Fl a. n1 ca..
nning and. Program Analy... '. =::m*@".. =....m.
.-. wT..,...
.~.a.,....
r2
... ~
sis -Staff.w..::--
... c. --.
.... s.- m.....
Office o.g. Nuclea.r Reactor.Re.gulation.-/ ) :-v @r <,N.. ::y. P 5.,
+.::
.,.., " %.c -
f
,2,.,.
, - 'f
--,,y
-s=
g t.r. a ;.
..., - g.
g 7
e s.
THRU:
Jesse'L. F
. # $.:2.
L...>..r2:d;:a.. CP:.;.d.:.. :.,r_. #,. P1 anni n.g;..unche. s, Acti
.a.lysi..s.d1..t'loniy_ M;e..fa-ge:s:s_y::<.:,-3 n_
u
.m.... er:.
.a......
- and..
sw..c :: ;. m - ;t
~ - -
am. An.
.. Staffs..
acto.
R.e. g.a....g ~;g. ara.. r=.e. prn.::m:2-;
t.=
m
.s s..
-, ~..,.
,.n :
,, 3.c.l e.a.yr.
g.sm.
2:
.r..
. y...;,., _....
.gg,
f.j.,
,7 -
,...,. ;..,, ; f..
., g,
. a.-,...
.....--.m...=..m.. : :.,3m=c.r s.e..s 7
n-M:..:.. g.- SUBJECTd.c..c
...,.M COST ESTIMA,TE.q.:0. R.3MPLEMENTINBl;THE'SRP; RULE J
i.vE
..:..m... g.:. 5.ac.n.n...=;
~=..:. :. w -
..a.
e 5.Q. O As yo:u; re..%:. 2.. '..:=.'d two other m. bers of NRR' staff with
.. 5.; &==..:n 5
zw.?::.,W. N.*
quested, I. aske em 5.
f 2..
n!Qgeo'nsu.1 ting 'expe'rienhef.tojrepEfe;irdepen'dintl.p estimat'edfor[impleme'ri iD
~
My.sy..v...the SRP rule. ' ' We ~ al,1 assumedf a:plantMir-the5po. st. C.P. pe.ri.o.d.w.a.t.h.i.d.e.ta_il.e. dM. 3.. M.,.E.. '.. -
i n ; g: n:;......,. design es.s.ent1 ally...
.. compi et....
construction well. u. dema..;..y.c.=p '.g..:-E ?,:7.:. u.,.Mrw-2:s -
e
=.,-. :. v.m.u,.. a n d.
n m.
n.:. e;.:.v.s:.v.
- = m.p,s....
- w. 2.m....::.u.:.e.w:w-;sc..: 7. x.;...m:n-,. r
. e..
- g., o.
... r- --.
2.:.,,:..
-. ;1
. ;- =. ~ 3.. :
- =.=-...
i.. '._..
The individuals I.consulte.d wer:e Al D' Agazio and ' Bob Licciardo bothlof.L..n::r....
.: m.....
.:..e R c;.., OR/ DOL.. Mr..D'Agaz'io.has worked.for WestinghoTase,.CEfand NUS._E ' < ..i k:. " ' ' '
" Mr. Licciardo for Bechtel. San Francisco and HUS'and I for Bechtel,-
~
Gaithersburg, and NUS.
i-
./: <
.=
a..
p :
The other individuals.have more'than twenty years experience with'-
_J consultants and A-E's, I more than ten. All of us have worked on similar types of comparative.revi'ews and have drawn up proposals for this type of work..she three estimates were based on difrerent den-..tionsi ni Mr. D' Agazio worked on a total man-year basis (2080 hours0.0241 days <br />0.578 hours <br />0.00344 weeks <br />7.9144e-4 months <br />), I worked on a consultant productive man-year. basis (about 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br />) and Mr. Licciardo on_an A-E productive man-year (about 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br />).
a.
Our resul. t's are therefore:
2 L1cciardo 7' man-years Goodwin 12 man-years
.'D'Agazio 2'1 man-years 1
13 man-years Average
.v-
)
,8 1
e e
B203030494 820301 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR PDR
$..h,.i
.-.y.'.k::.?... h. n * .*;;b.. 7:q :::..:..
g~ :?$
s.;
v.
.. 's,,.. ~-..n..:.....;::;
I Si 5:.
o..g- '.,-
- ,.s.
.s
- . w. :-,;%... ~. -:-- <-.
.'.s
~.
--n 4.* *~. :.*
i
..; )4:
'. y W.; ?. e r::-.,::"7. M :, Y%., mY;-.v.* 1. ~~;;C.h' i.- #,'f:. *. : *^:. ;:,,,- e
- - : ~.,,'.'. '.%%.../', :.: --
-n - *.'.~ ;. :'...
l
-.. - - ~ -
.w.
r
. 1.
..... ~--:.y _-
5..
I
~
=- -
~
4.
--..Y..:.. ~:E.. f.. " C
- y:g:i
~-;-
_ 3. -
...-; r -
~.
fEB 19'1932 ~ ?.'l*;;??: - '.~
~
l
. - O '.. - -
5~
s~..-.=...
-v- =5.* ; '.,
1
- l :.
7:2.***::
t - M9 w} :.. ?-:'i.*..:..r:--.-: *..J.r
~,,: p.;: +. &,;.%.T:.'.';t;.
- a c
n s '.-
r.-
m-T*. ^
,,m,.
...... : - :.. g
.,m~..
..c.z.
.-y. g
- 79. -
.. =
~
~
5550,000} $1,350,000 and -$3,500,0.00.;:@+:f; -
The equivalent cost estimates are
. JE Details of each estimate a're attachid. ' Nots thatinke'of the estimates
- r. b M '<.
~
include major efforts required to defend a position widely at variance....
.:be the auxiliary feedwater..o,f;.t..h.is.,itype o.f.: w. idel
.v. ari.did n.ositi.on~F..oul.d M:-d.,WT
-c..
fi h the SRP.:. An exampl.e ~
.. g.,.. v. t
~
antFp
- sy tem;at Palo Verd.c.. It
-.d..~-M....
q
~
ot have.the..c:.v.
.m.-
s
= :.. -
I saf6ty-grade redu'ndancy re' uired byfthe Branch.Techni.c~al Position 3nd."-
. required a detailed, reliability analysis.21 ' estimate. each
'have.five to ten of.theseNariant"positionrand each would" plant ~would require ~on the average 6 man-months of applicant effort.to resolve.
Without the SRP
.. rule,. these problems would.be caught during.the review process andpE;. -:l..'
. f;..i ih-treated as open items 'hTherefofe the applicant res~o6rces associsted withy? ' -@*j
- .~
...' resolving them 1s not pro....
perly.:...
.. f the SRP rule........
,a.-cost o
. ~.
.- =
- sm -
+
- w
. -?5-.
- .:.m -.
g..n.R.-?
' -" ~ It is my psrsona.1 belief 'that'a typical?c%.: =: : -:^.:oilsultant"would bid thsiese :ral " - *.'
SRP task at just less than one million'.and would add language to the bid
~
][!
proposing c~ost plus fee adders to the bid. price for all detailed Y-6.,.
e.
- c :. - ' quantitative' analyses,'..such as. seismic reinalysis;,3 required to~ justifye(
2.:.. -
.c.
~
-1Q:.{.
. :3.;7:.lg.'^
i 13f&'G.:.%:f.$Q(.%.?Cl=: et=-;;.c..:.....:.......... c 9 yQ
.L -
j.?.,.f:..P.ot ti0.ns.g. ::.;.Mg::
)_-
'. t :'-N.:=: ;. 9l s.,,:
f.;.t:./ q.R.~ ).
T-m..
H c:. -
E. GoodwiG. Technical Assistant'.~ F. ~-
i
~
F-
^
Technical Support Branch Planning add Progra::t Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated C
6 O
l L.
l l'
.s 6,
I t
t l
- i, '.#r, 'j yf, *:.k.c.1:MJ.' -.*'#.dWs45...* pr,. 4",. :lQ: ;;. :.i. : ;J 2. -ai-rJ :...Si-G y.-w.;:: y.3, W!.. '.
f
-j
. i.,A*
- L-pq::&q:.~i.n.;,-Q y 794:.:.<: --.q-p: ;
4 :.,4*
- .
- ....j-
- n..,.
r-
-Q
$...,A _.,. _
+.'. : :.,.
~-
3,
, -y
..;,. u :. ;;._ - r......-...... w :2 -
- ?
n -:...
.: =. :.
.-.-2,. :.r...,
.,,..... -- w. ;
.-w
.... ~.
ESTIMATES. -
s -
s
.s.
-l
...,.~
z -
1.3CCiardo
.. s.
.. y
- m.m:..-~_,f..~s.P.e...'.~. ". ^, :* :~. :.?v;. ~. < t ;.-
-. :. ::c,. --... -.- r,. '
- i-we
,a.,
.y.-...
....c.,
a~
..p...>.
. _. -..,.. -. -. ~-. -
1.
To identify and describe differences 275" sections @ 20 man-hours
~
c.
. each with 15% contingency 10%.. fee and.15% management participation 1.. -
r 5.f.. ' ' '- by uti1.1ty y1 elds 2.:. %- F.>=-=.Q7
.- s - -,-
- Qg.g.L. w9 ':e ::f3:7:*.5.'. i * ' ' ?
- ?g,. t.
1:-
8,000 m-,h E
~
y j,
.~.
2..
To justify acceptability of alternatives in a generally. qualitative.
~
~
~
manner for 1/3 of sections requiring ~an additional 200% effort each.
5,500 m-h
. c..
- .;; - u.s....
C? E c.-;- Y T '....:.-.13,500lm y. { -
- ?'6 ',
.,..;..=....,
.,.a
. :.. :;; =..
- Jj...3.
Yielding' a total. ffort of.V;.p; e
u.
.. -: y.
"..'. 4.
Note that this. estimate does not include the defense of items widely variant from the staff's general ~ interpretation of the intent of ~the SRP.
~.
. Goodvn.n.
u.
-.u...c. ::.. -:. ::
- i..-...c e -: ":y..
~ - -
- " ':.. N'
~
's " -
'.* n. -
_. - L;.i -. *..
- .~.L.
- r.. ;:, ~.. : e,-. '
~~
1.
There are roughly 300 sections and Branch Technical Positions.'-;~.}.2."'
a.
In conformance, compare
~ ~ ' '
4,800 m-h~
-200 X 24 m-h b.
In general conformance, justify
[
.~
70 X 80 m-h.
5,600 m.-h Cbnforms with intent, analyze c.
25 X 160 m-h 4,000 m-h d.
Total 14,400 m-h with 20% contingency 18,050m-h D'Agazio 1.,. There are 295 sections & RTP Read 3 m-d Com*,.a re 5 m-d Analyze and Writeup 50% at 4 m-d 50% at 10 m-d Average 7 m-d 15 m-d X 8 hrs X 295 = 35,400 m-h 2.
Assume a. contingency for utility and independ.ent consultsnts of 25%
44,250 m-h
~
L
S S
t ENCLOSURE 3 l
l i
,a l
[PROPOSEDRULE]
i e
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 RULE TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO EVALUATE DIFFERENCES FROM THE STANDARD REVIEW ~ PLAN AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a rule that would require future applicants for operating licenses, construction permits, manufacturing licenses, and preliminary or final design approvals for standard plants to identify and evaluate differences from the acceptance criteria of t'he applicable revision.of the' Standard Review Plan (SRP) as part of the technical information to be submitted as part of an application. The SRP was originally issued in 1975 as NUREG-75/087; it describes an acceptable basis and criteria for conclusions presented in a staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for an application. The most recent revision td the SRP was issued in September 1981.
The purpose of this rule is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC safety reviews.
DATES:
Comment period expires (30 days after publication).
Comments received after that time will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of their consideration cannot be given.
ADDRESSES: All interested persons who wish to submit comments or suggestions in connection with the proposed amendments should send them to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of comments received may be examined in the
e..-
i j
Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H. Street, N.W., Washing ~ ton, D.C. 20555.
.~ e FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, Division of Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (301) 492-7425.
4!
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On October 9,1980, the NRC Published in the c
FEDERAL REGISTER [45'FR 67099] a Notice of Prop 6 sed Rulemaking that would require all commercial nuclear power plant licensees and applicants to document and evaluate differences from the Standard Review Plan (SRP). Interested persons were invited 24, 1980.
to submit written comments to the Secretary of the Commission by November
~"
i.-
After consideration of the comments and other Numerous comments were received.
if 7.;;j factors involved, the Commission is considering issuance of a revised rule that would limit the applicability of the requirements to nuclear power plant applications docketed. after the effective date of the rule.
The majority of the comments on the proposec rule (1) questioned the time permitted to comply with the requirements of the rule in consideration of the significant short-term impact on engineering resources, (2) questioned the. applicability of.
the requirements to operating reactors, and (3) questioned why pending applications for coristruction permits should be subject to significantly different documentation requiiements that similarly situated pending applications for operating licenses.
4e
d 1
~
I To allow further considerition of'these" comments;'the%mmission has decided'to exclude operating reactors and pending applications'for operating licenses from the requirements of the proposed rule, at this time. The pending operating license applicants have proceeded far enough in the licensing process that the applicati~on of the rule at this time could delay Ticensing decisions.
Further, excluding the operating reactors and pending operating license applicants would significantly reduce the impact on available short-term engineering resources.
In addition, the Commission has decided to exclude pending applications for construction permits and manufacturing licenses docketed prior to the effective date of the rule, since the evaluation
' required of these applications could add significantly to the length of their licensing process while the evaluation could be performed later at the. operating
~
license review stage without this disadvantage. The Commission is also clarifying that the requirements of the rule are explicitly applicable to new applications for preliminary and final design approvals of standard plants and the applicants for these approvals must evaluate their application against the SRP.
In the earlier proposed rule, such requirements for standard plant applicaticns were implicit in that it was proposed to include all CP and OL applications (including those. referencing standard plants) within the scope of the rule.
The Commission has decided that the requirements for standard plants should be explicit to-avoid ariy misunderstanding on this point.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT REVIEW:
The proposed rule will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance of the application requirements as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (P.O.96-511). The SFF-83, " Request for Clearance," Supporting Statement, and related documentation submitted' to 0MB will
7
. be available for public inspection and copying in 'the NRC Public D'ocument Room at 1717 H. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act'of 1954, as amended, the' Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 552 and 553, Title 5 of the United States Code, the following proposed rule is published subject to codification.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 reads as follows:
AUTHORITY; Secs.103,104,161,182,189, 68 Stat. 936; 937, 948, 953, 954, 956; as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2239); secs. 201, 202, 206; 88 Stat.1243,1244,1246; (43 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted. Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Section 50.78 - 50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Sectons 50.100 - 50.102 issued under see 186; 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), 550.41(i) issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C.
2201(i)); 5550.70, 50.71 and 50.78 issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)), and the laws referred to in Appendic'es.
2.
A new paragraph (f) is added to 150.34 to read.as foll'ows:
550.3'4 Contents of applications; technical information.
(f)
Conformance with the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
~
,(1)(a) Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant opera, ting licenses docketed after [ effective date of this amendment]
shall include an evaluation of the facility against the Standard Review Plan (SRP) in effect on [ effective date of this amendment]
or the SRP revision in effect six months prior to-the. docket date of the application, whichever is later.
(1)(b) Applications for light water cooled nuclear power plant construction permits, manufacturing licenses, and preliminary or final design approvals for standard plants do_cketed after [ effective date of this amendment] shall include an evaluation. of the facility against the SRP in effect on [ effective date of the rule] or the SRP revision in effect six months prior to the docket date of the application, whichever is later.
(2)
The evaluation required by this section shall include an identification and description of all differences in design features, analytical techniques, and procedural measures proposed for a facility and those corresponding features, techniques, and measures given in l
the SRP acceptance criteria. Where such a difference exists,'the evaluation shall discuss how the alternative proposed provides an acceptable method of complying with those rules or regulations of
' - s 6:-
Commission, or portions thereof, that u.nderlie the corresponding SRP acceptance criteria.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this day of.
, 1982.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission O
4 4
6 O
O 4
h
i I
9 ENCLOSURE 4 i
e s
4
, _ _ _ _ - - _. - _ _ - -. - - _ - - - - _ - _. ~. _ - _ - _
~
f ENCLOSURE 4 I:
Pending OL Applications Ready for Units FL Dates Docket Date
'l La Salle 1/2 (03/82, 01/83) 05/12/77 Sumer 1 (03/82) 02/24/77 Grand Gulf './2 (04/82.-N/S) 06/30/78 Susquehanna 1/2 (07/82,07/83) 07/31/78 Diablo Canyon 2 (07/82) 10/02/73
}
Zimmer (07/82) 09/10/75 Watts Bar.1/2 (08/82, 06/83) 10/04/76 Shoreham 1 (09/82) 01/26/76 Waterford 3 (10/82) 12/18/78 l
St. Lucie 2 (10/82) 02/17/81 Fermi 2 (11/82) 04/04/75 Palo Verde 1/2/3_
(11/82,11/83, 06/20/80 11/85)
San Onofre 3 (11/82) 03/23/77 Clinton 1/2 (01/83,N/S) 09/08/80 I
WNP-2 (03/83) 06/22/78 Byron 1/2 (04/83,12/84) 11/30/78 McGuire 2 (04/83) 07/07/74 Comhnche Peak 1/2 (06/83, 12/84) 04/25/78 Callaway 1 (06/83) 07/31/80 Midland 2/1 (07/83, 12/83) 11/17/77 Catawba 1/2 (08/83, 02/85) 06/11/81 Bellefonte 1/2 (09/83,02/85) 06/09/78 Perry 1/2 (11/83,11/86) 01/28/81 Seabrook 1/2 (11/83,N/S) 10/05/81 Wolf Creek 1 (12/83) 07/31/80 South Texas 1/2 (07/84, 12/85) 07/17/78 Limerick 1/2 (10/84,10/87) 07/27/81 Harris 1/2 (12/84, 06/87) 12/22/81 Braidwood 1/2 (04/85,04/86) 11/30/78 River Bend 1/2 (04/85,N/S) 08/25/81
e i
9 ENCLOSURE 5 D
D
.n
ENCLOSURE 5 g
Expected OL Applications Not Docketed as of March 1 c
Ready for Units FL Dates Expected Docket Dates WNP-1 (06/85)
(N/S)
Millstone 3 (12/85)
(N/S)
WNP-3 (12/85)
(N/S) l Beaver Va'11ey 2 (12/85)
(N/S)
Nine Mile Point 2 (03/86)
(N/S)
Marble Hill 1/2 (06/86,06/87)
(10/82)
Hope Creek 1 (06/86)
(N/S)
Vogtle 1/2 (09/86,03/88)
(N/S).
Hartsville A-1, A-2 (02/88,09/89 (06/86)
B-1, B-2 N/S,N/S)
North Anna 3 (04/88)
(N/S)
Yellow Creek 1/,2 (01/90,N/S)
(N/S)
Phipps Bend 1/2 (06/91, N/S)
(N/S)
Cherokee 1-3 (N/S,N/S,N/S)
'(N/S) 1.
Dates in parenthesis are current applicant estimates.
2.
N/S means Not Scheduled.
_ _ _