ML20237D451
Text
f. "%,
UNIT!c ST,. Is
/,
NUCLEAR F.EGU ATOR'/ cOMMCidN (O, j,
j j mswmon. o c. mss -
"O J
a wm g
1 MEMORANDUM FOR: Warren, Minners, Chief, Safety Program Evaluatior, Branch, Divisinn of Safety Technology, NRR i
Edwin F. Fox, Technical Assistant
[AnthonyJ.DiPalo,SeniorProjectManager Program Support Branch, Enforcement Staff. IE Pegulatory Analysis Branch, Division of Risk Analysis, RES Palpn M. Wilde, Program Assistant to the Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS Clemens Heltemes, Director Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Thomas H. Cox, Senior Program Manager Office of the Executive Director for Operations -
Robert S. Wood, Licensee Relations Analyst Office of State Programs Brenda Shelton, Chief Document Management Branch, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, ADM i
FROM:
Edwin G. Triner, Director
{
Division of Budget and Analysis Offi,.e of Resource Management i
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION REQUEST FOR THE COST ANALYSIS GROUP'S. INVENTORY OF REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES In order to plan its mandated cost-related activity more efficiently and offer timely service to those requesting its assistance, the Cost Analysis Group (CAG) is contacting you as the CAG Office Liaison.
CAG is involved in the construction of an inventory of all actions, presently underway or upcoming, that recuire cost analyses.
The CAG has begun construction of its inventory using several available data scurces, but because of incompatibilities and inconsistencies between those lists, the CAG compilation is incomplete.
Please find attached copies of those actions identified by CAG as originating from your office and requiring l
cost analyses.
In some cases, much of the pertinent information was not available and is therefore blank on the forms.
(Please note that item I.c.,
Description has not been completed and does not need to be considered as.part i
of this request.) Please complete those blank portions and correct any errors I
presently on the forms.
For those upcoming items originating in your office which are not on our list, please fill out a new form for each action. A 1
blank form is contained in the package of identified actions.
Handwritten responses will be fine.
O l
l 8712230276 871210 PDR FOIA SHOLLYB7-737 PDR XULDV&M m
1 Multiple Addressees '
.O' we would ennreciete your responses 4tn4a three weeks from rece4pt of tais Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Richter X27770.
memo.
?/
< Q'
' <i ve jpys w
.Edwin G. Triner, Director Division of Budget and Analysis Office of Resource Management
=
1 1
i l
\\
d O
l l
l c
O 9
l l
L___________________.___________
</a j
M4f w/ O A M N""
'I * ^ ", 4 * ~,y
- Oen,
,,. c,,, +,,,
r Y
$Y* Y&l YO Q/*1' /f fY l
$$l9ld$
o* O c o *=e m swo. d y sov a / fl,o / *
- e -
6
.s i+,
/ g A o e. e
/,,,.
P C **
WO en /p l & lN N
O o*w Jo a a +,
f *7 f6 *= / kvy /
C * *'
W*
'~ ** "' S " # 1
- P/* )if~ /-
fee a es,,,, y,,, c m /,' o
$ am-d,,
We w e v /d o e 4 m a*.,
s,'+ g p
O '"
Nmf es o.
[C**
+~me+
y e
,,_ )
O O.
{
t/4/ 8 0~
O C#C 7 94-58/
J se * +
G e e r, l
j M
rei.y i
c=-/
km - e-a -
in Jlm C o - + *s l
l
$ a sg v e h a o, < m Sys+em D e a o elp +o'o,
~ 't f
Sa * ** *E A/ O t f*"s e eo.+ la /
i on l 4 ** a /
fe du # e e-O
- hs e's e
f a *= r ed fo f /T *C7 S C e *w l
i Oh9 he $$9
- e ** *
- 5 ff$$*fO g
/a.m
- e a,*- - )
( yp ><pr: + t..,
s + - r /,s y s a* - a d!?
er P s
see L:< ~!
,,s iv a.,, e
,e 7
A* r
- hsup-a i + **
- ee
+ e s a + e e s,,
64 feLloNr'
.fO 0g/ # '* 6 3$ e W 69f h wl* %
YY A ** A #**
- eN 3 0 * *"o 0
de~o befeee
//st; j
o it w O
t k
0 49 I
i ke-,
?
d o c w o, e - +a p~ung :.,,
SPOS
/? o s ! w ~ s
/
t l
ue T l
Oeyie 5w#vwy e.9'ree+
1.,
8 $~ f C.
e 1
e l
1
j O
NRC Emergency Functions Requiring ERDS Parameter
]
1 In order to ensure that proper recommendations are being made for offsite protective measures during nuclear emergencies, the NRC Reactor Safety Team and Protective Measures Team continuously assess the integrity of the fuel l
cladding, reactor coolant system and containment structures, the rate of l
release of radioactivity, and the meteorological dispersion patterns which determine public exposure to any released radioactivity.
In addition, the Teams monitor conditions and trends in the plant systems and buildings to assess the probability of failure for the various fission product barriors.
They predict the times until failures occur, the probable magnitudes of any l
resultant releases, and the potential doses to the public.
l l
These NRC functions are listed below, each follnwed by a tabulation of the j
ERDS parameters that are important to that assessment.
Assess Reactor Coolant Systems integrity.
I PWRS:
containment sump level f
containment temperature containment pressure containment radiation level RCS pressure lI RCS hot leg temperature O
pressurizer level I ;'
i l
PORV statas l
Safety Valve status condensor air removal radiation level BWRs:
drywell sump level drywell radiation level drywell pressure drywell temperature Safety-Relief Valve status reactor pressure reactor level Assess core / fuel cladding integrity.
PWRs:
RCS activity levels l
core exit thermocouple temperatures containment radiation level SRM count rate BWRs:
steamline radiation level drywell radiation level lv 1
~
s
.g.
so Assess ability to cool core.
Estimate time to fuel cladding failure.
PWRs:
core criticality status (SRM count rate) reactor vessel level subcooling margin charging / makeup flows safety injection flows RHR/LPCI flows refueling storage tamk level containment sump level reactor coolant loop flows not leg temperatures cold leg temperatures steam generator levels feedwater flows (auxiliary and main) condensate storage tank level i
j electrical power availability BWRsi core criticality status reactor water level fcedwater flow HPCI/HPCS flow RCIC flow l
LPCI flow O
core sPrey fio-condensate storage tank leve.!
suppression pool level bypass valve status electrical power availability Assess containment integrity and failure potential.
PWRs:
containment pressure containment temperature H concentration 7eTectrical power availability BWRs:
drywell pressure drywell temperature drywell H, and 0 concentrations 2
suppression pool temperature suppression pool pressure suppression pool level electrical pcwer availability lO
- O Assess pctential sources for radioactivity releases.
l l
PWRs:
containment radiation level RCS activity level secondary activity level l
BWRs:
drywell radiation level i
Hain steamline radiation level Identification of actual and potential release pathways PWRs and BWRs:
process radiation monitors
,I effluent radiaticn monitors j]
'l Determine actual radioactivity release rates and estimate constituents of release (i.e., noble gas, radioiodine and particulate compcnents).
condensor off gas system activity and flows i
building vent activities and flows I
gaseous radwaste buildings and flows i
liquid radwaste discharge activities and flows process radiation monitors (in potentiai l
unmonitored release pathways)
O ewas:
etmospher4c steem doen ectivity eod flows q
PWRs:
standby Gas Treatment System activity and flows.
l Determine distribution of actual or potential doses to the public.
1
- \\
l PWRs and 8WRs:
wind speed
'j wind direction atmospheric stabi~lity (o0 or AT)
{
I 1
i O
i
l
+
l O
NDL PROS AND CONS HOW ERDS ADDRESSEES EACH PROS Accuracy is excellent because Accuracy is excellent because th9re are no hurean interfaces.
there are no human interfaces.
Reliability is excellent because Reliability is excellent because there are ne human interfaces, there are no human interfaces, and tany systems (such as SPDS) will incorporate automatic data validation.
Timeliness is excellent because Timeliness is excellent because
! I system is immediately available the system is immediately available and capable of rapid transmission ana capable of rapid transmission l
l with frequent updating.
with frequent updating. Promptness I
of initiation may vary depending upon licensees' system configurations-l In some cases, activation may not I
occur until the licensee mans its Technical Support Center.
l) l Completeness is potentially Completeness is expected to be excellent because any necessary generally excelle:1t because the parameter can be accessed.
pritnary objective of the SPDS l (^
requirement is to provide the I '-
licensee with a tool for quickly assessing the overall health of the I
plant, i.e, the same need that the NRC faces.
It is expected that there would be minima'l requests I
for supplemental information to j,'
be transmitted by voice.
4 No personnel are required for No personnel are required for l
l acquisition, transmission, or acquisition, transmission, or i
receipt of data.
receipt of data on SPDS. Supple-mental voice transmissions are not expected to overburde'n existing voic'a links. Licensee burden reduced due to automation.
l l
Reduces data gathering and trans-P, educes data gathering and trans-i mission burden on licensee since mission burden en licensee since reliable source of information reliable source of information to NRC allows NRC to act as to NRC allows NRC to act as nozzle of information for other nozzle of information for other Federal agencies.
Federal agencies.
l O
1 l
l CONS HOW ERDS ADDRESSEES EACH Read out triggered by pre-set Licensee activated.
alarms on plant parameter thres-holds. Licensees viewed as a l
potential for use as a regulatory tool.
]
Data continuously recorded at Data provided under emergency Cperations Ccnter.
conditions only.
l Some data acquired directly from No direct connection to sensors.
f plant sensors. Even with isolation, this presents a potential for degrading plant instrumentation.
Initial data list about 400 variables, Data list about 60 variables, 3
later triavned to 125.
limited to those necessary for
)
evaluating plant safety only.
Comparable in size and content with the data set for plant SPDSs.
j 1
Cost is high because a totally new Cost is relatively low because n
system must be developed for each most licensees are already install-plant. Estimated total system cost ing systems to transmit data among i
about $25 million (in FY 82).
their own ERFS, but there will be j
O substantial hardware and software interface requirements at the Operatiens Center to receive the diverse signals and formats.
Estimated total system cost about i
$6 million.
j Backfitting requirements would be Backfitting on plant systems would j
extensive on licensees for equipuent be minimal in that licensees only at plants. Dedicated computer would have to provide one additional onsite permits NRC to interact.
output port on the SPDS or other Licensee required to meet NRC data ERF data system. All data to be
)
needs in standardized NRC format.
provided from existing plant computers; no interaction initiated by Operations Center.
Licensee will provide site-specific data in own j
format. NRC will translate for NRC i
use.
Increased data may encourage NRC Data list is limited to that l
to direct operation of plant.
necessary to assess plant safety.
l hI; i
1 I
i 02 kfhcuttas
%ke J.clev Eng M
.s am
~
g
( o o f e.'
G-E~/Pa L
'f ? %
I
~
d4vj;s - (}ege DEC
///.r y cdbs b douse
[J M
( Asht )
z D. C.
Coc /c Rr Ic v> es h lo m PJ Sn (pg) t
$ c u a;un e e y
koney w r s
,t TM E (1 oO C o s1
~~
(
twP pp3m c, y n j
d u.ane
,4rna/9 -
VM t'
v4R z
At c Gube j
3 O c cone.
~'
vs e l
z Cdu l r VA x
~
i Mne Il1ile f/ -
None x(f V'r 00 1
l z
Sa fe ~
Se / $
f A./ g-7 o 5 i
v}
ni[c,
~
l SM
.e (an -
bec y/m z
u-(es.u a n os ~ )
PnMkdes
(,ua)*~
connecA) t (Nb t Mu,, )
i Crin ac<
9 8
78 e
O
Ii
)
e Te/eeem l*IY G #e)
R e g e ".*
w O
a Good f ee/; y s abeo+
A /F P e " l ~y m
/ L9 e +
- f'e v a l
- y em ~ y ns4l *. y weqa4? W*
Ce m ~ e ~S r J
- s. a e
e
}WC' & y $ ** f h y Y ll 3O
/3e s 4
-f a
/o a ep a # -f e --
&^n+
I.f n e e ce o A by 9 fo # to Vh9*
ma$ 4
& He w cc
.c*en YY
(
O O
i N Y.f A
3
- p'..,,a'%
- cl9lg j
4 e
,.j j
UNIThiD STATES i
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTO'ni, D.C. 20SS.)
G c = ~ + "' "
'+
N
[p 3) l IR8 Ge+
-f'e e s feu e 3,4 3
)
wA404 i
W fYOY
$ r-e
/Togers
( A a rs e 313 = C ? 4 0
{
)
(ATF dj Nst-[
l P i e x-cea + e fo-E /T D S o
Demo ee ep a C*
3 e*
bbN i
h 1
i
- ~ ~ ~..
m()
I e v' d >
h**
fa/4 ecQ to hg rv c +.
j n.,
v:,; +
ro e x-
.na rto 7.Y C A EOM f3 e o,m 4
f o ad at m + =
I ** +o sys4em
.c.
....a.
E6' Ons c er s on t' A O k Co mm O"*
I l
~
i l
l l
1 1
V i
- ----- J
1 l
Sept. 21,1984 O
Meeting at AIF on (EROS)
Concerns expressed by the uti1ity representatives:
Impact to the plant of i mpl ernent ing such a system, Direct cost of installation, particularly where the current data
{
system has no provisions for providing a direct electronic data feed.
Back f i t requ i rernen t, how soon must such a system he in placei
)
i Total data needs.
Will providing these parameters on a direct 1 ink lead to the ENS being used to request even more, less easily available, data.
Therefore, increasing rather than decreasing the communications burden on the 1ictnsee.
i Access to the data.
l Who will be provided access to th is data strearn. If the State or other government body requests access wil1 the NRC provide it to t h ern.
1 The very existence of such a systern rnay encourage the State to f
request access to it.
l
{
l NRC Role.
l Will the increased data provided to the NRC lead them to feel that l
they tan adequately assess the situa t ion wi thout confirming wi th the 1itensee. Therefore, making the NRC's assesstnent a competing 1
rather than a supporting function.
I l
)
l 4
(
l 1
1 i
,1 i
}'
i O
L l
l l
_ _ -. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ ________j