ML20244D491
Text
_ _ _ _ -
October 3, 1985 F4i n Ewbs.
- MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas T. Martin, Director, DRSS, RI i
J. Phillip Stohr, Director, DRSS, RII John A. Hind, Director, DRSS, RIII O
Richard L. Bangart, Director, DRSS, RIV Ross A. Scarano, Director, DRSS, RV FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SCHEDULE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITY APPRAISALS Reference is made to my memorandum of April 4,1985 with regard to the FY 85 schedule for Emergency Response Facility (ERF) Appraisals.
All of the ERF Appraisals which were scheduled for FY 85 have been completed and we are now establishing a schedule for FY 86. Enclosed is a list of plant sites i
by region (Enclosure 1) that DL/NRR information indicates may have completed or l
will complete their ERFs by August 1986.
It is requested that you' determine the I
readiness of the ERFs at these sites for your region. A checklist of items that should be discussed with the licensee for each site is enclosed to assist you in l
your investigation for making this determination (Enclosure 2).
I The results of your review of the readiness of the listed plant sites plus any l
additional sites which you determine to have completed ERFs, should be provided to the Emergency Preparedness Branch (EPB) by no later than November 1, 1985.
I I n Also, please indicate the date in FY 86 when you wish to conduct the appraisal
' U for each plant site where the ERFs are indicated as complete. We will accommo-date your schedule within the resources available for this program.
i The individual in EPB to contact with regard to scheduling of ERF Appraisals is Ed Williams (492-7611).
I Edward L. Jordan, Director 1
7 Division of Emergency Preparedness
)
y gg U[
and Engineering Response b
Office of Inspection and Enforcement :-
DISTRIBUTION:
See next page
- 1. List of Plant Sites
- 2. ERF Completion Checklist Cl
'b B/IE f
/IE E
I h EFWilliams:sc /CRVanNiel DBMatthews wa rtz {
EL rdan
)
I9/L/85 (9/p/85 (0/L/85
,IG/3 /85
$/)/85 At i
l
Q DISTRIBUTION: Memo for Directors, DRSS, Regions I-V JMTaylor, IE RHVollmer, IE RMBernero, NRR HLThompson, NRR WHRegan, NRR 1
BKGrimes, IE JGPartlow, IE FCongel, NRR 1
LGHulman, NRR
{
WAPaulson, NRR
'l ELJordan, IE SASchwartz, IE DBMatthews,I{
i SHWe%1 ash!Eg epi iss, NRR JSpickler, NRR FKantor, IE CRVan Niel, IE EFWilliams, IE RRBellamy, RI 4
DCCollins, RII
,O CeePerieiio, RIII JBBarid, RIV q
RFFish, RV GFMartin, PNL I
GBethke, COMEX l
EWBrach, EDO l
l 1
l l
l l
i l
l
.O-1 i
________m__L_.m.__.._.___________________;
(>
LIST OF PLANT SITES AND ERF STATUS PLANT SITE STATUS
- a Region I:
1.
Calvert Cliffs Completed 2.
Haddam Neck Completed 3.
Nine Mile Point Dec. 85 4.
Dyster Creek Nov. 85 5.
Yankee (Rowe)
Sept. 85 Region II:
1.
Ha tch June 86 2.
St. Lucie Nov. 85 3.
Sequoyah Oct. 85 4.
Summer Completed 5.
Turkey Point Completed Region III:
1.
D.C. Cook Sept. 85 2.
Duane Arnold Oct. 85 3.
Lacrosse Completed 4.
Point Beach Dec. 85 5.
Zion Completed
, '()
Region IV:
1.
Fort Calhoun Nov. 85 2.
Forf St. Vrain Feb. 86 Region V:
1.
Palo Verde July 86
- Based on current DL/NRR infor ation.
m O
9
_. - ~. _. - _
ENCLOSURE 2 Checklist For Determination of Completed ERFs 1.
Physical Facilities a.
Structures completed and operational b.
Ventilation systems installed and operational c.
All furniture and hardware in place.
d.
All instrumentation and communications equipment installed and operational.
e.
All radiation and meteorological monitoring equipment and other equipment installed and operational.
2.
Data Acquisition Systems l
a.
All hardware, finnware and software designed, installed and operational b.
All detectors and indicators installed, connected to interrogation systems and operational.
All information displays and calculational models designed, installed c.
and operational.
d.
Verification of all data system displays and models complete and documented.
e.
SPDS complete and operational if part of the data acquisition system.
l 3.
All necessary procedures completed in final fonn for operation of all Q
facilities, instrumentation, equipment and functions.
4.
Personnel trained to carry out.ERF functions and operation of all data systems, communications, instrumentation and equipment.
5.
All plant records, drawing and other infonnation essential for determining plant accident status available to ERFs.
O
l ERDS FY 86 REQUIREMENTS O
The proposed adjustment to the FY 86 budget includes a reduction in the funding of the ERDS project by $315K with $200K retained to fund ERDS implementation at
~4-5 sites.
This proposal will not allow effective implementation for two reasons:
1.
$200K only addresses the site costs of the ERDS system.
At ~$42K per site only 5 site systems could be implemented for $200K.
The remaining $315K is necessary to fund implementation of the corresponding Headquarters portion of the system.
O 2.
Actual implementation of a working system will require an increased expenditure in the initial phases for the Headquarters portion of the i
i system. A working Headquarters portion of the system, currently estimated at ~$723K, is necessary to effectively use the transmitted data from those sites where ERDS has been installed.
This makes the preservation of funding in initial years of the project that much more essential.
While there exists a possibility that this effort may not be initiated by September 1986, we do not want our efforts to be restricted by a lack of funding.
It is essential to timely implementation of a working ERDS system that current funding level be n.aintained.
d Contract Signedfor More In-Stack Monitors A pioneering nuclear saftry program stantaneously, which allows agency cz-install them at Zion, in 1.2ke County,
>1> 6e r <**e>
r==aea i= n>>=et, rett > <e desi te
>e>> re<e=> ere6-a o<e de i= or a ce=='v -i12 v
O during the next year, with state of the-lems without waiting for the utility to cost IDNS 81.7 million.
art in stack tuonitors at the Zion and analyze its own readings and contact IDNS placed the first in stack moni-Dresden nuclear power pints"
the proper authorities, according to tot, also provided by SAIC, at the
~~ he in stack monitors, which serve IDNS Direcwr Tbrry lash.
LaSalle County nuclear power plant in T
as early-warning systems to the State in "Providing information directly to 1983. The first monitor was used as a the event of a release of radioactivity the agency allows the state to respond test project,%1th IDNS studying the et one of the plants, will be furnished more quickly in the event of an acci-reliability of the monitor and the infor-by Science Applications International dental release of radioactivity at the mation transtnitted to Springfield.
lash said, "I'm very excited about Corp. (SAIC)of San Diego under a con-plant," Lash said.
tract approved June 25 by the Blinois "In addition, the detailed informa-the entire plant monitoring program, Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS).
tion available on the type and quantity since we are constantly breaking new In-stack monitors willbe in place at of radiation would allow the state to ground. There will be a lot of interest all nuclear power plants in the state recommend protective actions, such as in our efforts to protect the public within seven years. A monitor was evacuation or sheltering, with greater health and safety, especially as we start _
plac3d_at_tht125211e County NicTiar confidence" to use artificialintelligence to analyze
~
- Power Station near Marseilles in 1983.
The Governor gave much of the ~ data sent to Springfield."
the first such monitor installCby a credit for the completion of the in-
~The in-stack monitors complement state government agency.
stack monitoring program to two state IDNS's remote monitoring program Announcing the contract approval, legislators.
currently in place at each nuclear Gov. James R. Thompson said, "Illi-
"Much of the credit for this aspect power plant. Tbc remote monitors, nois is a national leader in nuclear safe-of our safety program must go to Sena-which ring the plants at varying dis-ry and emergency preparedness, and tor Adeline Geo Karis and Representa cances between 1.5 and 2 miles, are us-the expansion of the in stack monitor-tive Robert Churchill, legislators who ed to measure radiation levels away ing program is a major reason for that have the Zion plant in their districts from the plant site.
reputation."
and who have been active participants The final unuysecat ofIDNS's clee-Tbc in-stack monitor periodically in the work to develop the State's nuc-tronic plant-monitoring system is the takes air samples duectly fmm a power lear safety plan," Thompson said.
s'ignals program. This program is the y
plant's stack, through which gases are Funding for the early warning sys-latest and most ambitious facet of the released into the emosphere. The tems comes frorn legislation signed by Department's monitoring system.
g monitor identifies and measures a vari-Thompson in 1984 and sponsored by Consisting of a computer link be-ety of radioacuve substances that could Geo-Karis and Churchill. That measure tween the power plants' control room '
1 unintentionally be released with the allowed the state to levy a capital sur-and IDNS, between 750 and 1,200 sig-gaseous effluent.
charge totaling $1 A million for each nals relating to plant status and safety Through an on-site computer,the in-nuclear power plant over the next six systems for each reactor are transmit-ted on a moment-by-moment basis.
)
stack monitoring system feeds data by
- years, dedicated telephone lines to IDNS's Most of this surcharge will be used l
central cornputer in Springfield.
to install in-stack toonitors at each nuc-The information is transmitted in-lear power plant in Illinois by 1992. To l
1 l
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety BULK RATE 1035 Outer Park Drive U.S. POSTAG E Springfield, IL 62704 PAID IMIT 925 6*
U ME EERR IINGFIELD. ll.
DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STATE FROGRAMS U.S. NUCLEAR REGLLATCFY CChMISSIch
.# A S H1 h G T O N DC E05H 4185903 0
1 STATUE OF ERDS DEMONSTRATIONS O
July 19,1984 Duke Power Company Mc Gu i r e Successfully conducted test of data transmissions from the Duke system. Data set limited to a list of 69 specific data points to j
test the appropriateness of the NRC's parameter. list. System.has 1
been maintained and allows access to all Duke f ac il i ties dur ing even ts and e>:.erc i ses.
1 August 13,1985 Commonwealth Edison Co.
LaSalle Successfu'ly cercuctec. test of cate transmission from the LaSalle.
system. As osrt of thia teet the LaSalle computer called our l
computer tc initiate the transmission. I r, addition.this transmission required thet we translate the data from an incoming.
ASC:: character str inc to text. The data set consisted of 60 specific data coints. System is expected to be maintained at both facilities for possible future use.
.()
- Ongoing Pennsylvania Power & Light Susquehanna
{
We have conducted preliminary meetings with PP&L to discuss the project and identify the effort involved. PP&L is currently assessing the data handling modifications required. Susquehanna is unique in that two computers are used f or handl ing emer gency
)
response data and all computer communications are done over f i b er-l optics.
l l
I Initiating Toledo Edison Davis Besse l
l 1
Toledc Edison has expressed an interest in meeting with us to j
discess the possible implementation of a data transmission system
)
similar to the one with Duke Power.
l l
1
(:)
l i
s
GENERIC ISSUE MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM O
Issue Issve Action Tesk Number Type Level Office /Div/Br Manager Tac No III.A.3.4 Safety /
Active-L1 IE/DEPER/EPB L--Long-None Medium
<f,j Q Title ----------------
Emergency Response Data System Work Authorization ---
Commission decisions 4/,2S/81 and 3/3/83 (Congressional hold in' Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1983.)
Contract Title -------
No ccntract issued since Commission decisions Contractor Name/
FIN No. ------------
To be determined Work Scope -----------
Determine, through in-house effort, practical options for implanting 2 method of acquiring and transmitting data based on each licensee's existing electronic data systems (e.g.,
SPDS).
Affected Documents ---
None Status ---------------
A paper describing new approach has been prepared to inform the Commission and to recommend that the Commission direct the Office of Congressional Affairs to inform the appropriate O
Congressional committees.
Problem / Resolution ---
None.
Technical Resolution -
j Milestones Original Current Actual Prepare and submit new 10/84 12/07/84 prooosal to EDO for Commission approval.
EDO concurrence and 01/85 transmit proposal to Commission.
~N Commission approval.
03/85 Ch2 ca me*
j,/ f
& 5D0 i
/*
f l
!}
In addition, preliminary investigation for the Emergency Response Data System Project into the type of computers used for licensee SPOSs has shown a great diversity of equipment but with the most frequent type being DEC equipinent.
I f
n l
1 l
\\
4
)
a l
l t
l O
l L______________________
j
y,,)
)
'g f
s s
's Plant No. of haits SPDS inputer
'l>
i;..s i
1
('
Arkansas (2)'
System Engineering Lhas i
l Cooper (1)
GE/ PAC 4200 N.
's r
Davis Besse (1) e DEC 11/34 q
['
Westinghouse P2500 D.C. Cook (2) i s's i
Farley (2) i Westinghouse P2500 l
)
Kewauhee (1)
(
,A TMI (1)
Mod Com
\\s l
WPN (1)
Prine C700 j
l Duane Arnold (1)
VAX McGuire (2)
VAX l
Oconee (3)
VAX Cataba (2)
VAX l
Nine Mile Point (2)
Honeywell 4400
/
Salem (2)
SEL 32/8705 4
Susquehanna (2)
DEC 11/24, PRIME LaSalle (2)
PRIME L,
s i
San Onofre (3)
SEL 8600 7&
l n s
i
,ss
,,a s
i,
's
! o I..
k
_