ML20054H339
| ML20054H339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Indian Point |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1982 |
| From: | Conran J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A511 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-176 NUDOCS 8206230271 | |
| Download: ML20054H339 (25) | |
Text
'e
' UNITED STATES I
g
^[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
WA*,HIN GTON, D. C. 205h5 p
FEB 9 1932 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ashok Thadani, Chief RRAB. DST FROM:
James H. Conran Systems Interaction Section RRAB TtiRU:
Franklin D. Coffman, Jr., Leader Systems Interaction Section RRAB
SUBJECT:
IP-3' SYSTEMS INTERACTION EVALUATION PROGRAM - STATUS AND SCHEDULE When I sent to ycu earlier the accompanying program letter authorizing a no-cost extension to the technical assistance contract with LLL (A-0405) for support in the development and review of the IP-3 Systems Interaction Program, I indicated in'a brief note that the proposed extension simply reflected delays in that program which had resulted from competing demands imposed on PASNY's resources in areas given higher priority, e.g. (a) resolution of o~perating problems, (b) performance of the IP-3 PRA, and (c) preparation for the upcoming ASLB
~
hearing on continued operation of IP-3.
You asked for more information regarding these and other factors that have affected adversely the IP-3 SI~ Program schedule, and for justification of a proposed new end-of-contract date. This memo is in response to that specific request; the information provided here'may a' Iso prove useful in framing our response to the.recent ACRS letter on Systems Interaction',
and to the CRGR questions regarding the~ Systems Interaction Program.
The course of the IP-3 SI Evaluation effort has been characterized throughout by more-or-less' continual delay and schedule slippage, from the time it was first proposed by ACRS in July 1978.
This fact is apparent from inspection of the chronology of milestone events in the IP-3 SI saga (see Attachment 1), which shows significant intervals between milestone. events at every stage (even within-the last 6-8 months after.the program had been well-defined and agreed on in' principle between NRC and PASNY).
A number of factors have contributed to the long delays that have been seen; but it should be said here,that the sin le most important delay. factor all along has been the lack of a well-defined, un
- iguous, o
legally-enforceable regulatory reouirement that a systems interaction st dy be done at that facility within some specified time interval.
This remains the case even though a specific item (II.C.3) calling for an SI evaluation of IP-3 was included in the TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0650).
The principal factors contributing to this continuing state-of-affairs are discussed in detail. in Attachment 2; suffice it to say here in summary, however, that although on a r <mber of occasions in the past (particularly over the last year) the Systems Interaction Staff has considered some enforcement action through DL (to try to expedite submittal of 8206230271 820429 PDR FOIA MCMURRA82-176 PDR L
e e
Ashok Thadani.
PASNY's SI Evaluation Program Plan and initiation of actual work involved), the final decision each time has been to avoid confrontation with the licerisee over the matter of schedule out of concern that such pressure might cause PASNY to abandon their continuing commitment toward a seoarate SI evaluation of the IP-3 facility.
However frustrating the continual delay may have been in this. regard, this low-pressure approach appears to have achieved the. objective sought by the Systems Interaction Staff.
PASNY has not attempted to reject the notion of a separate IP-3 SI study; and on January 20,1982,PASHY finally submitted to NRC their Final IP-3 SI Evaluation Program Description.
A meeting is now firmly scheduled with the cognizant ACRS subco:renittee on February 26, 1982, to discuss PASNY's proposed program; and work at the facili.ty is expected to get underway in March 1982, coincident with.the planned IP-3 refueling shutdown.
With regardy then, to the original request that you approve a no-cost extension '
to the associated LLL technical assistance contract, the original performance period of LLL ran from 11/15/80 to 1/30/82, so some extension is obviously necessary.
PASNY plans an effort with overall cost totallings$800K (5100K has been expended to date); their planning now call.s for completion of their.
' analysis / evaluation effort by March 1983.
This appears to include generous allowance for " contingencies" that might further interfere with and delay com-pletion of PASNY's effort; my judgment is that both PASNY's and the staff's efforts could be completed easily by the end of this year (probably.. sooner);
however, for reasons discussed in detail in Attachment 2 alluded to above, I would not propose confronting PASNY for an improvement of their schedule estimate in this regard.
Use of PASNY's estimate for completion of their analysis effort, plus my judgment regarding the potential impact of the factors discus, sed in Se'etion II of Attachment 2, yields the new end-of-contract date we are proposing in the accompanying no-cost extension Program Letter package.
Details of the proposed change-of-scope for the LLL contract (referred to in item II.B of ) are -still being developed at this time; we plan to submit that proposal as a separate package for your consideration within the month. Meanwhil e, approval of the accompanying no-cost extension proposal would enable LLL to con-tinue ' currently their review of the Final IP-3 Program Description submitted recently by PASNY.
I hope this information is responsive to your questions and concerns in this regard.
7;l Cw
./
yn
'/ James H. Conran Principal Systems Engineer
. Systems Interaction Section, RRAB Attachments:
Chronology off P-3 Systems Interactior) Study I
1..
2.
Factors Influencing IP-3 Schedule e
e e
A
_____A____.
s INDIAN POINT 3 SYSTEKS INTERACTION EFFORT CHRONOLOGY / STATUS ACRS recommends SI review of 'P-3 (in letter on increase 7/13/78 to full power)
ACRS follow-up letter to ED0; provided additional 10/12/79 guidance o Suggested LER review o
Recommended FMEA for int'erconnected systems and insitu examination for non-connected systems Confirmatory Order by Denton 2/11/80 o Required LER review and FMEA of RCPB components (inc.luding consideration of effects of support system outages) within 6 months o
Relationship of this requirement to IP-3 SI Evaluation Program unclear SIB formed ~and TMI-2 Action Plan issued in final April - May 1980 o
IP-3 SI study included formally in II.C.3 SIB meetings with PASNY to discuss SI study schedule 7/24/80 &
9/11/80 and approach Expected study to begin Tall 1980; estimated one o
year to complete PASNY reports difficulty in contractor selection and Nov.1980 likely delay (* months) in initiating study 4
e
~
SIB selects LLL to assist in SI review / audit Ja n.1981 PASNY selects EBASCO as SI study contractor Feb.1981 Initial PASNY submittal 3/2 6/ 81 Meeting with PASHY/EBASCO to discuss initial submittal 4/ 2/ 81 o Prelim. review indicated overall program generally acceptable Detailed review comments discussed with PASNY/EBASCO in 6/ 8/ 81 telephone conference o Non-connected systems interaction treatment very good Interconnect *ed systems interaction treatment must' include o
consideration of non-safety control systems failure effects, non-safety power systems failure effects, and instrumentation display failure effects o suggested PASNY consider use of IP simulator to treat iome (deficient) aspects identified above 4
Meeting with PASHY/EBASCO for complete discussion of staff's July 24,1981 overall review comments on Prelim. PASHY submittal (raf, Mtg. Summary dated 10/20/81)
Further detailed discussion of staff's review comments and 9/22-24/81 preliminary trials (at IP training Facility) of simulator i
for SI identification capability e
e 9
l
_3_.
a It0TE:
Following the 7/24/81 meeting with PASNY'regarding staff's review comments on Prelim. IP-3 SI Evaluation Program submittal, the following Final Submittal /ACRS Rubcommittee Meeting dates were established based on PASNY estimates:
Final Submittal ACRS Subcommittee Meeting Mid-Sept.
Early October (e'stimated, not sched.)
Mid-to-late October Mid-November (tent.sched.byACRS)
Mid-to-late November NDec. 8-10,1981 (tent. sched, by ACRS)
Mid-December Jan. 5,198'2 (firmly sched. by ACRS)
Final submittal (reflecting staffs comments on Prelim.
Jan. 20,1982 submittal) received from PASHY ACRS subcommittee meeting firmly scheduled to discuss Feb. 26,1982 Final IP-3 SI Program submittal and Generic NRC SI Program Plan.
e O
e 9
e 9
e e
(
Attachinent 1-
7- - - -
Factors Influencing IP-3 Systems Interaction Program Schedule I.
PROGRAM DEVELOPPINT PHASE (Pre-January 1982)
A.
Lack of Definition of the Systems Interaction Issue Particularly in the earlier stages of the IP-3 SI saga (e.g., first two years), there was little agreement or commor, understanding regarding exactly what the term " systems interaction" study involved.
A measure of the confusion on this point is evidenced by the fact that in October 1979 (nearly a year and a half after the initial (July 1978)
ACRS recommendation for an IP-3 SI evaluation program) the ACRS provided " additional guidance" regarding what was intended or envisioned by ACRS in that regard. To reinforce that early indication of confusion.in this matter, a major part of the staff's. effort in developing the generic program for resolution of this issue has been involved in determining the nature and bounding the scope of.the
" problem" to be resolved.
And a major effort was required on the part of PASNY in translating the general (pre-1981) guidance provided by ACRS and the staff on SI analysis into the detailed Program Descrip-tion (Preliminary) submitted for review in March 1981. Only in the last 6-9 months (e.g., following the 7/24/81 meeting) has a really good basis for understanding existed between PASNY and the staff regarding what is acceptab)e in this. regard.
B.
Lack of Enforceable Reouirement for IP-3 Study Perhaps the most constraining factor in the development of an IP-3 Study Program has been the lack of an unambiguous, legally-enforceable regulatory reouirement that such a study be done.
In this regard it should be noted that:
1.
The ACRS recommendation (letter dated 7/13/78) and additional guidance (letter dated 10/12/79) in this regard repres6nt a clear intention (unchallenged by PASNY) with~ respect to the' conduct of a comprehensive SI evaluation of the IP-3 facility; but they do not in themselves constitute an enforceable requirement. This is true even though PASNY may have agreed generally with the thrust of the ACRS concerns /vi.ews in this regard in their conversations with ACRS on this mat'ter.....(if for no other, reason than the lack of definition 'of the term noted in-(A) above).
2.
Incorporation of Item II.C.3 into the Commissien - approved TMI Action Plan (NUREG-0660) would seem to constitute an' enfor'ceable requirement that an IP-3 SI evaluation be done...
and well it might at some indeterminate time in the future.
The problem is that subsequent, to their approval of NUREG-0660, the Commission (in NURFG-0737) designated a discrete
~
-Attachment 2
______e
___________________-_____________________________A_________________
e subset of NUREG-0660 items "for implementation" and imposed a well-defined schedule'for performance of those items. What that does with respect to the enforceability. status.of those NUREG-0660 items (e.g., II.C.3) not included in NUREG-0737 is not completely clear. A strong implication, however, is that it relegates them to some " presently unenforceable"
., limbo....until the Commission acts aga.in approving the residuum of NUREG-0660 items for implementation and establish-ing a firm schedule for doing them.
3.
Systems Interaction was designated a generic Unresolved Safety Issue (A-17) by the staff in July 1977, prior to the ACRS recomendation for the plant-specific IP-3 study and well before inclusion of an IP-3 SI evaluation item (II.C.3) in NUREG-0660 (early 1980).
In discussions with the staff in-the course of review of their Preliminary SI Program Submittal,
, PASNY has shown some willingness (if " pushed" by the staff for some intolerable concession on their part regarding SI program content / schedule) to argue the question of whether-or-not responsibility (or even major partial responsibility) for resolution of an issue identified as " generic" by the staff is legally-assignable by recuirement to some " individual" licensee.
4.
In their Preliminary IP-3 Evaluation Program Description sub-mitted 'to NRC in March 1981, PASNY discusses the " Background" for their program in the sense'of a voluntary individual effort against a backdrop of generic concern regarding systems interaction as reflected in (a) expression of concern by the ACRS in their 1974 letter, (b) definition of systems inter-action as an Unresolved Safety Issue (Task Action Plan A-17) by the staff in 1977, and (c) designation of systems inter-action as one aspect of Item II.C.1 (IREP) in the Commission -
approved TMI Action Plan in early 1980. No explicit acknowl-edgment is made in the PASNY submittal of the July 1978 or October 1979'ACRS letters regarding an IP-3 SI evaluation, or of.the separate systems interaction evaluation concept envisioned in Item II.C'.3 of the TMI Action Plan.
Legally then, PASNY does not acknowledge explicitly in their IP-3 SI Program Plan submittal either a binding commitment (flowing out of the ACRS full-power OL review of IP-3), or an Action Plan requirement, for a seoarate, comprehensive SI evaluation of the IP-3 facility.
5.
As a final complicating factor, an item requiring." evaluation of reliability and failure modes of selected systems" was included in a Confirmatory Order dated 2/11/80, directed to G
G I
,~
I.B. 5.,(cont.)
PASHY.by the Director, NRR identifying requirements for the continued safe-operation of the IP-3 facility.
The relation-ship of this Order Item,either.to the SI evaluation of IP-3 recommended by ACRS and/or to the separate, comprehensive SI evaluation of IP-3 envisioned in Item.II.C.3 of NUREG-0550,'is
' ot 'cl ear.
The wording of that Order Item (Item 4.F), however, n
is near enough to the language of the pertinent ACRS letters and to the language of Item II.C.3-related staff documents to be construed as equivalent to either/both.
PASNY responded to Item 4.F of the Order in question in August 1980; the status of the staff's evaluation of that PASN,Y response (and even the question of which element of the NRR staff is cognizant in that regard) is also not entirely clear at this point.
Owing to the considerable legalistic uncertainties apparent from the pre-cefding (i.e., regarding whether-or-not an enforceable requirement for an IP-3 study even exists; whether-or-not such " requirement" was imposed ~
inequitably; and whether-o'r-not PASNY has responded to such " requirement"),
the SI. staff has consistently chosen simply not to confront PASNY regarding exact schedule or pace of their IP-3 SI evaluation effort, as long as PASNY maintained in their contacts with us a continuing commitment to the concept of a separate, co' prehensive SI evaluation of the IP-3, facility and.as long m
as some progress was shown toward eventual achievement of that objective.
C.
Delay Due to TMI-2 Accident Evaluation Although not mention,e[d explicitly in the preceding, it should be not'ed that staff preoccupatio(and' involvement in the various investigations and Task e
Force activities in the aftermath of the TMI-2 accident,and in development of the TMI-2 Action Plan, all but precluded any activity in other licensing-related activities (including USI's) during the period March 1979 -March 1980.
This factor alone, therefore, accounts for nearly a year's delay in the IP-3 SI program d'evelopment.
D.
Hicher Priority Assioned Other (Non-Systems Interaction) Activities A number of activities, assigned higher priority both by PASNY and NRC management, have competed for limit'ed PASHY resources and delayed signifi-cantly over the last year PASNY's efforts to develop a,nd initiate their
,SI evalua. tion program at IP-3.
These higher priority : activities include:
1.
Operating Problems - Serious operating ' problems, have occurred at the Indian Point facility during the last year (e.g., the IP-2 containment flooding incident, and the loss of-a main station transformer).
Since PASNY and Con Ed share technical staff resources in such circumstances, serious operational problems of either IP-2 or IP-3 draw upon PASNY's technical staff resources.
e
-7 D..(cont.)
2.
Zion / Indian Point PRA - A number of PASNY technical staff and management review personnel kere involved *7thblast year in completing a major probabilistic risk assessment effort.
PRA activity competes directly with a Systems Interaction analysis program, since both involve largely the.same -
technical disciplines and similar involvement of operating staff and management.
As a further consideration, the sheer magnitude of effort associated with bo'th a full-scope PRA and a comprehensive SI evaluation program is such as to preclude performing them (as separate programs) in ' parallel.
3.
IP-3 Hearing - Concern within PASNY regarding the impact or im'plications of SI analysis on the upcoming hearing (particu-larly the' question of the relationship between PRA and SI as noted by the staff in the 7/24/81 meeting with PASNY - see
~
Meeting Summary dated 10/20/81) appears to have been another factor in the development. coordination (by PASNY) of the schedule for these major activities over the last 6-8 months.
As a general observation in this regard, it appears that PASNY has sought to keep the systems interaction issue separate from those issues already identified / accepted as part of the upcoming he~aring. This appears to have been a factor in delaying completion of the Final Program Description and initiation of IP-3 SI evaluation work, even after agreement-in-principle was reached between PASNY and the staff regarding details ~ of the scope and content of their program in._-
September 1981.
4.
NUREG-0737 Requirements - In contrast to the uncertainty regarding an SI evaluation requirement.for the IP-3 facility.
th.ere do exist a large number of unequivocal regulatory requirements identified for implementation by the Comission (in NUREG-0737) for performance at IP!3.
These clearly have l
been given higher priority by NRC staff management and PASHY, and, accordingly, have slowed the IP-3 SI program effort.
I II.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PHASE (Future Concerns)
In additipn to the factors identified in the p' receding section (which could continue.to affect the schedule for completion of the IP-3 SI evaluation effort in the upcoming implementation phase, as they have in the develop-ment phase) the following factors deserve special attentionfemphasis in seeking to estimate the future pace / schedule of this effort:
t A.
Improved Definition /Understandino of the PRA SI Relationship d considerable part of the staff's effort over the last year has been directed toward better definition and broader understanding of the The,SI ' staff's view bas been relationship between PRA and SI analysis._
c 1
II.,A.(cont.)
that SI analysis should be considered _logi_cally as a pgquisite, f6 P'PA-~ThTs view was reinforced rec.ently_by the ACRS stateme_nt that current PRAs do not usually include systematic examinati~on qf
' sis ~a'nd cannot-be counted upon to _ provide-' adequ_aWi'5 sight rega,r_di_ng possibWimprove_ ment in safety _and reliabili_tym Th~is may result in 51 analysisTiiing given increased emphasis / priority by HRC generally, and in particular may result in higher priority being given to com-pletion of the IP-3 SI evaluation (in view of the_ implications with regard _to__thJtac. cur _a_cy_of the results of.the_IP-3 PRA sans IP-3 SI evaluation, and the potential impact on the IP-3 hearing).
B.
Plans for Monitoring / Auditing IP-3 Procram and Results Owing to the nature and complexity of the SI analysis problem itself, there remain a number. of questions regarding the fine-structure detail of the. methodology and criteria proposed by PASHY for application in the IP-3 program, as well as related questions regarding scope of systems to be included by PASNY in that effort, that are not well understood even at this point'.. (The same may be said, incidentally, with respect to analogous aspects of the staff's generic program as well; it is for this very reason that a pilot program is planned in the generic program context).
For this reason, the SI staff feels that it is advisable to monitor and keep in close touch with the IP-3 program. while it. is in progress (rather than remain aloof during per-formance and.become involved in major review effort only after com-pletion of the licensee's effort). This objective seems to run counter to the natural tendency of the PASNY organization, however, as per-ceived by the SI staff during the IP-3 SI Program Development phase I
just completed.
During that interval (roughly December 1980 -
~
January 1982) the staff experienced considerable difficulty iri communicating freely with the PASNY " working, project staff" regarding l
details of the methodology / criteria development process. The process established by the PASNY licensing organization for communication with their project personnel during this important formative stage was in-hibitive, cumbersome, and typically resulted in long intervals during which no cummunication occurred, and in inordinate delays even when communication was request.ed.
To encourage closer contact and better communication between staff and PASNY project personnel during the implementation phase, as well as to enhance the nomal NRC staff review function / activity, the development and application of an indepe'ndent audit methodology has been proposed as an additiori to the currently approved scope of the Tech Assistance Contract withJLLL (A-0405). A particularly promising variation of.the matrix-based digraph analysis technique has been proposed for develop-ment /use in this regard.
The prospect of having the results of their own study compared with the results of an effective, ' independent, alternative staff audit methodology should help assure thorough appli-cation of their own methodology, and encourage better communications r,
O
/
II.,B. (cont.)
throughout both efforts.
If thi-s can be accomplished, much of the staff's review effort that would otherwise have to be accomplished after PASNY completed their analysis work and submitted results to NRC, can be done in. parallel with that work.
This could allow com-pletion of the SI staff's evaluation and issuance of an SER within several months of PASNY's submittal of their final report. On the other hand, if the IP-3 evaluation review is done in the manner that current PRA submittals are being reviewed (i.e., in series with the l
licensees' efforts) a realistic estimate.for completion of that review effort is more like 6-12 months following completion of PASHY's analysis effort.
.. ~.
{
[g3 -f 2. -
ENCLOSURE 1 G
QUESTIONNAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDANCE ELEMENTS RESOURCE
'VALUE 0MPATIBILITY 1
41TH IREP/
. RELATIVE
- REMARY, STEPS JTHER'PRA IMPORTANCE STEPS W9 HC N
~ ib'/a((?
f,,,,, -ka (
ga, (u f 9.
M
/ tfvu 7 MW/
Ot 10 f
/#
/{7 85 "
l i
STEP g g ((?
lo w b Dekk
((:g (
7 o
J.
//
ks d
I l
NAME:
,7J M N r,,7
.,3 PHOAE:
2 - 7iet ORGANIZATION:
//24 8 / S y. 5,,[,,,
- fee, y
- oks.
'/)
Gb s 9ff as c' n e f esse,1 ka/ in ll*Mbb E f SZ "ksis c
cau f/ Ar ens eErl/uSul As efW a-f, Nese s'
.a s ame 1' -f ;
fcb ib SW),
4, a y'tew i lic/ +.".
st 6
(en tj* sEl y
vak 4 l-
" J (a<"H:y "r f.%; sad <s 64 Teki d:b.'l:f w.1k zgcejj'yg ;y ics l
sa e ac y
ikIf m.,Ld d amr~t y-/w rwpl eb:,1 sr & s.:s w rt/a.-8, 4. U d :n M
u
~ L4 is m
. ENCLOSURE 1 OUESTIONNAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDANCE RESOURCE
.VALUE f, PA
. RELATIVE REMARK LITY STEPS
)THER'PRA IMPORTANCE s
STEPS
~
(1 to 9) m s{s essa _tc-6 h'\\
p.
)
(.. r? n STEPS
\\
~
(10 to 14) g e te, -
W(,
7,,
3
.r.
i STEP i
. 15 ev<.1 m, t s
v a,g
+
Jcu N'"g*i i c.. o
(,. m 4
t(y c
h' s
f
%>a.sik.
.M 'Y
% ry,%
I
- s. w u cs NAME:
A gpl3,,ggi,gu C W r d PHOSE:
L 7 4 4 (:>
C.. o f b c u ~Wd ' #
l ORGANIZATION:
/t :).g [3
.wtu ced, c v
Ta..... s.. n.
,wa,_< v.a u -~.n
,w,
.y nu.,n c.(a c...... c l ~'
a-]J\\~'
nsm
) t, L
l
\\
L
I EtiCLOSURE 1 OUEST20iitiAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATIriG OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO GEliERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM IliTERACTI0tt INTERIM GUIDAtiCE ELEMENTS RESOURCE
.VALUE
!@A ITY
. RELATIVE REMARK STEPS
)THER'PRA IMPORTANCE s
=
STEPS (1 to 9)
Qi Sg gg g' s a 9 9 4.
S i
M* E Ga mpts Me !h sed's [ Ni STEPS f
'O (10 to 14)
Nigh l N't h (ge.
!dt t he4 etr-b r e. e d
't h l
Rem < k y) suc hc
.Remo.rhN T R'S P a5-l I
i l
he kt u m hed'a u m N STEP bb
'Tde l! y j.
N r $4ep_
( De$ **
g 4., Qe 15 d per-n-
yn cg 0 %ul 6rmed ir 7
g ow wepse a d C, di Reme V.sl 2 g e, ng;
.c4 Analygi3}
4,6 n.4.;.cus coits eguen gg{.
- O PHOSE:
ORGANIZATION:
F 2--AB / P6T:/ MR.R-g
._ oo *
s_m____,,--
{
QUEST 10iillAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO GEliERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM ItiTERACTION IriTERIM GUIDAf4CE 1
i l
i ELEMENTS RESOURCE VALUE A B LIU
. RELATIVE
- REMARY,
)THER PRA IMPORTAMCE f
STEPS (1 to 9)
Medium Medium Totaily Essential t
i l
i STEPS i
(10 to 14)
High t
High Totally Essential 1
i t
i STEP 15 i
Low High.
Totally Optional l
i l
HAME:
Robert A. Bari PHONE:
516-282-2629 or FTS 666-2629 ORGANIZATION:
Brookhaven National Laboratory e4
+e O
e e
_ENCLOFURE 1 i
QUESTIONNAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF S0!iE IMPORTANT ELEMENTS
. APPLICABLE TO GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIN GUIDANCE
~
ELEMENTS RESOURCE VALUE A B LITY S. ELATIVE REMARK STEPS
)THEPlPRA I"IUSIS"CE I
STEPS O.to 9) ggg,
- Low High Totally Essential Resource if cc:r.bined withli Medium PRA I
i STEPS Medium **
(10 to 14)
High
- Medium High
~
Tota ~lly Essential Resource if i
combined with i
PPA l
{
l STEP p
.}
15 tog ***,
- LOW l
.High Totally Optional 8 {9 I
ce 1
NN!E:
Ioannis A. Papazoglou PHOSE:
516-282-2435 or FTS 666-2435 ORGANIZATION:
Brookhaven National Laboratory 4
- me....
4 IE ENCLOSURE 1
" ~ d-6{
/
OUESTIONfiAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATIllG OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO GENERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIM GUI0ANCE
- ELEMENTS RESOURCE
.VALUE f,OMPATIBILITY l
ITH IREP/
PELATIVE REMARK STEPS
)THER'PRA IMPORTANCE s
STEP 5 (1 to 9)
.,... 5
.~_i' STEPS l
(10 to 14) l
./
.. (.,. :
l f,
'.t-i l
STEP
((l^u l
N '$b' l
~
y HAME:
/ -
PHOSE:
~
ORGANIZATION: /'
O l ;-
~
i ENCLOSURE 1 OUEST10!itiAT RE
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS
_ APPLICABLE TO GEriERAL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDANCE M NTS f,0MDA P. ELATIVE
- REMART, RESOURCE
.VALUE ITY STEPS
)THER PRA IMPORTANCE s
STEPS S e ok4 < -
(1 to 9)
(
gi}
rQpa
' Te7e.LI) ggff.,,(
cr 11-e.s.~
l WL k #A
.- "h.rf.
i STEPS IU ^ 'l N (l\\{-
@ ft%
Vs U-d
' f%e C.. {
ll g,
4, g% i
)
i p rt,A i
i-A F W 14
~
. HeU-m n'sf ;
Pnt&.aI-ob Got N, bn L
jdd:--
\\W) Co A *
( U c & N.rl M%~A-Y j NAME':
R._ S b * * ' I :
PH0kE: AcA9 33+%
ORGANIZATION:
~) r4 L
.e
,)
9,g9,,
OUESTIONNATRE bc'#
i
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS APPLICABLE TO GENEP,AL PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM
{. cup 4
_ INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDANCE eg Y
REMEHTS RESOURCE-
'.VA'LUE f'[T
'^
I E
RELATIVE REMAPK STEPS
)THEP2PRA IMPORTANCE s
=
STEPS (1 to 9)
O \\ C ih+
~
W lod
' kd8 ?/
$ TVorJ6 L.. 3 t
~
gL WJ STEPS (10 to 14)
(_L g c\\ g j
qqgug pgggje u/- N,TlhL
~-
i l
STEP
. 15 q%
mgp wel peR9\\&
OMIC@ L.
rA D) \\J M gAgg.,
f/,_ W p O d b :
PHOSE:
ORGANIZATION: hML
~~
agse q.D t @orrivif 9 V PRg gy '.% PtLof MIb A \\ #
O rd wM
. th' *V Q.
EttM ph 6h @ kztC
\\g d <cP-1
,(p O d. O j. a N"' W 3.' g is u me el M -
@ ~y * A * *'f y
___,_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -
c ELEMENTS COMPATIBLE RELATIVE REMARK WITH IREP/
IMPORTANCE RESOURCE VALUE OTHER PRA STEPS STEP 1 HIGH HIGH TOTALLY ESSEt4TIAL STEP 2 HIGH HIGH TOTALLY ESSENTIAL STEP'3 HIGH MEDIUM TOTALLY OPTIONAL STEP 4 HIGH HIGH TOTALLY ESSENTIAL STEP 5 HIGH HIGH TOTALLY ESSENTIAL STEP 6 HIGH LOW TOTALLY NOT NECESS, (1)
STEP 7 HIGH HIGH TOTALLY ESSENTIAL STEP 8 LOW HIGH PARTIALLY OPTIONAL (2)
STEP 9 HIGH HIGH PARTIALLY OPTIONAL (2)
STEP 10 HIGH LOW NOT COMPAT, NOT NECESS STEP 11 HIGH HIGH TOTALLY ESSENTIAL STEP 12 HIGH HIGH PARTIALLY OPTIONAL STEP 13 MEDIUM HIGH NOT COMPAT.
ESSENTIAL Y
STEP 14 MEDIUM MEDIUM NOT COMPAT.
OPTIONAL STEP 15
?
O N
p4 C, E.
(1)
Not required if Step 11 is done.
(2)
Very expensive to do.
Not done adequately on IREP.
Could be significant.
4
~
j p
~ ~ - -
,A
'j-, m,
- - /
UUdl10NNAIRE
SUMMARY
OF RATItiG OF SOME IMPORTAfiT ELEMENTS g
APPLICABLE TO GiliERAL PROCEDUP.E OF SYSTEM INTERACT 10fi INTERIM GUIDAriCE l
REMARK RESOUP.CE VALU-
- 0MPATIBILITY JITH IP.EP/
J. ELATIVE STEPS JTHER PRA IMPORTANCE l
Il)
EPS High High Fully Essential g) compatible EPS High(I)
High Fully l' Essential
)
compatible (2) l':
i i
! edium Fully 10ptional (3)
STEP Medium M
compatible i
E l
-l l
1 NAME:
Mr. Peter Cybulskis PHONE:
(614)424-7509o-(FTS)g76-7509 l
ORGANIZATION: Battelle's Columbus Laboratories (1)
Existence of PRA; generated system models and results will greatly decrease the systems interaction resource requirements.
(2)
Systems interaction coverage may be far greater than that of limited scope PRA's.
(3)
Identification of systems interactions may be as important as their evaluation; qualitative as well as quantitative evaluation may be useful.
4
!a + C-YO[
.' ENCLOSURE 5
$fD./
SUMMARY
OF RATINGS OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS VNV hY APPLICABLE TO ILLUSTRATE PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM
/
INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDAfiCE l
~
ELEMENTS RESOURCE VALUE C0"PATIBILITY RELATIVE REMARKi WITH.IREP/
IMPORTANCE
}
OWER M STEPS I
i STEPS HIGH HIGH.
. TOTALLY ESSENTIAL COMPATIBLE (1 to 9) l i
j i
STEPS MEDIUM i HIGH 1/
! ESSENTIAL (10 to 14)
I
~
j j
i i
{
I STEP MEDIUM MEDIUM-TOTALLY OPTIONAL OMPATIBLE 15 1
i' 1/ RELATIVE TO IREP, IT IS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON NOTE: -
DEPENDENT FAULTS.
~m o
e
2
,m f
. ENCLOSURE 5
~
I;4)?
SUmMRY OF RATINGS OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS
'>T-APPLICABLE TO ILLUSTRATE PROCEDURE OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDANCE ELEME!!TS RESOURCE VALUE COMPATIBILITY RELATIVE REl%RKi WITH.IREP/
IMPORTANCE
, STEPS i
I STkPS HIGH HIGR -
TOTALLY ESSEliTIAL COMPATIBLE (1 to 9) l I
(
i I HIGH 1/
! ESSENTIAL STEPS MEDIUM (10 to 14) l I
g I
i 5TEP MEDIUM MEDIUM TOTALLY OPT 10NAL COMPATIBLE 15 J
1/ RELATIVE TO IREP, IT IS PRIl%RILY FOCUSED ON NOTE: -
DEPENDENT FAULTS. '
d 8
e 4
ea S
S*
D 6
4 4
y RE Ev tT5 cc-R E. Sv R.v C Y oc
SUMMARY
OF RATING OF SOME IMPORTANT ELEMENTS
~
APPLICABLE TO GENERAL PROCEDUP.E OF SYSTEM INTERACTION INTERIM GUIDANCE
~
".NTS RESOURCE.
. val.UE ATIB ITY RELATIVE REMARK ST
.. EPS
)THEfPRA IMPORTANCE STEPS 4 5 I U
9.
C = \\L-E = IO (1 to 9)
M-
\\
M=
2 r> g e _ 'z, o
L ~'- )
L- :
l F C'.
2
%o o
STEPS at ib
'Tc _ w '
gg '
p, (10 to 14) q3 i
~~
-r lM-o PC >
\\
(
^
oc e.
L OC j l. - s o g c, ;
I q
g i
STEP N=
0 M* b Tc. = 4
'c-2-
15
~
N ' I ~/
W4 D
c,. -
3 e,,
L
_-* f L. :. 2 MC-1
- M=
\\
1 NAME':.
- 9. C H E L. u ').1A PH0ffE: M.253$
ORGANIZATION:
ftR.#-IL / D ST./ t4 E.12 N tri E ,
Ter A t iW puT3
\\2
~~'
Q (Q T C. - T o T 4 L l. Y Co U1 D I T ) BLE_ -
E - E.:56Es Tu L
~
[
W Pc PAmhy W @N-o _ o p ri,s u t M-m,g 3 g v p i L-*
Lo W H C, t4 o f
(_e M,PA O B L F.,
W r4 pet a gggy
, gy p (;
Even one senior NRC official expressed concern about NDL development." Budgetary details are stui to be worked out. We are talking about a system costing 510-millioni20-million. Where is the money coming from? In FY.80 we have money for the feasibility work. In I'Y-81 we have budgeted 53 million,"he told Imide NRC."Where's the other 517-million coming from? Is Congress Eoiry, to fund it? We don't have our
'82 budget yet.We will fund '82 and '83 money from OMB [the Office of Manapment & Budget] and Con-gress, to pay for some ofit. It wi!! be up to Congress to dctermine whether we get that money o not."
lie said the NDL must be completed by 1982 but may now be s!!pping to '83.nc idea h ad been to obtain as much data as reasonable from as many facuities as possible by hn.1,1982. A comp'icationis the fact that the NRC action plan require
- all nuclear plants to have an on-site technical support canter. "It is logical that whateser information we get through our data link should be fed into the center... and thea to NRC. You want all that to be compatible.You have 70 odd reactors now and more ahead.Ilow do you have it all in place to make sure that the utility data is compatible with what we have here? And who will pay for it?" the NRC official said. lie noted that arranging the compatibility and deciding how much of the cost will be picked up by the industry will determine the ourall cost of the NDL and its implementation timing.
According to draft Nureg 0696 " Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Faailities"- the com-puterized nuclear data link is a data transmission system designed to send a specified set of variables from the plant to the NRC Operations Center in Bethesda, Md. Plant systems, meteorological, and radiologicalinferms.
tion is to be transmitted.Using the NDL data system and repo-ts from the plant operator,"NRC management must be able to make independent assessments of the actions taken by tha licensee and offsite at.thorities to protect the public health and safety," the Nureg document says. "De NDL data also will help NRC head-quarters personnel provide timely support to regional NRC personnel at the plant site."
Each licensee must provide a unifonnly formatted data stream for the NDL meeting these conditions:
- 1. the licensee shall provide the same data as the variableslis ed in regulatory guide 1.9712. the licensee shall provide the multiplexirq;, digitizing, unit conversion, calibration and formatting, using a separate and indepen.
dent data acquisition system for all regulatory guide 1.97 variables;and 3. the digitized data stream to the NRC terminal shall be sampled once per minute with a 12-bit minimum resolution. Data shall be transmitted in American Society for Communication Interchange code serial form. The system shall meet the environ-mental specifications required for the on-site technical support center.
The NRC terminal will be capable of supportingitself by battery pack up to a miningm of two l'ours and will be responsible for checking the validity of thc data sent from the data acquisition system. The exist-f
\\.
i ing voice communication system between sites and the NRC Operations Center will be used to mpplement NDL information exchanges.
Ecre must be provision for detection and observation of certain rapid data transients, impossible to detect at the one per minute sampling rate specified for the NDL. Basic design of the data acquisition system shallbe capable of possible expansion of up to 140 data parameter items.
SINGLE-FAILURE CRITERlON INADEQUATE AND SHOULD BE REPLACED, ACRS SAYS The ACRS wants NRC to take up the single-failure criterion as an unresolved safety issue,it says in an Aug.12 letter to NRC.The criterion's " inadequacy is widely recognized," ACRS maintains, and the new one should instead consider the contributiw.s to risk of multiple failures.
The ACRSletter also calls for development of standards for control system reliability, adding that too little attention has been paid to the fact that failure of the system "may actually produce an unsafe mode of reactor behavior." ne third item that ACRS says should be placed on the list of unreso!ved safety issues, "until resolution is clearly achieved,"is &c.. pwer supply availability.
He ACRS also wamed that the s 7 muhod of choosing unresolved safety issues may cause the staff l
to skip over complex prc,blems no' tet c aly & fined. Also, ACRS said, the possibility that a problem may be resolved within six montle
. ex - e grounds for its exclusion from the list.
SEOUOYAll HAD THE VOTt,, BUi.6fARNE ELECTED TO POSTPONE OL DECISION Sequoyah l nearly became the second reactor to be licensed for fu!! power last week. Two of the three NRC commissioners present at last Thursday's meeting - chairman John Ahearne and commissioner Joseph llendrie - said they felt comfortable in issuing the operatinglicense. But Ahearne decided that in deference to commissioner Victor Gilinsky's " principal" role in exploring the hydrogen question for PWR ice condenser containments he wculd put off the vote until after the Sept. 4 FRS meeting on hydrogen. lly that time, also, comminioner Peter Bradford wi!! be back from vacation.
(,
In another surprise move, the NRC staff recommended a full-powerlicense for the TVA unit instead of.
the 507c of power they had suggested the week before (see p. S). Gilinsky, who told the commission he would prefer that no sote be taken last nursday, said before voting affirmatively he wanted " reasonable assurance" that Sequoyah could handle the quantity of hydrogen experienced at T.'.!I-2. Gilinsky termed the ice condenser I.NSIDE N.R.C. - Aupst 25.19SO 5
--