ML20246Q186
| ML20246Q186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1989 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8907210020 | |
| Download: ML20246Q186 (60) | |
Text
--
8 WM.
WWWNkd6666WWW6WpVdWp($p($p(dWp($;(p(4pppppyggggig;gg l
TP.AH5MITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips f
j ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room 7//f/f7 DATE:
l FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch k
Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related rneeting
[
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and g.
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or 2
required.
Meeting
Title:
/d4[Ld A
/r e
j f
40 A..
Meeting Date:
7//d/[9 Open
-Y Closed g:
if i
l i
ll Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS 8
to PD_R Cg l
o 4l l
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l
il a/ h lll v
l lll 2. k - F% MS a
/
1
(/
ji lm' l
3 J.
3 n,
3:".
3'1[
4.
3r 3
3!,l 3 =
3 !
5.
3 -
3 aR 3[
6-1
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY
- papers, g
I s907210020 G90710_.
m ga\\g?
a,esra
..o ;
l:
6 ~
a UNITED ST.ATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY _COMMIS SION ff(1&l BRIEFING ON STATUS OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM Location:
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND h',[6' JULY 10, 1989 h&g&$'
31 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS Af D TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Arenue, Northwest Washington, I.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433' D
pi 1
l
__~
(
l L
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' held on July 10, 1989, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by'10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
4 l
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBER $
1323 RNoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WA$NINGToN, D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600
r.__
t a
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING ON STATUS OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM PUBLIC MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Reckville, Maryland Monday, July 10, 1989 The Commission met in open session,. pursuant-to notice, at 2:00 p.m.,
Kenneth M.
Carr, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESEN T:
KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R.
CURTISS, Commissioner I
i NEAL R. GROSS i
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 l
t t-4 e
S I
I
d STAFF SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary-WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel JAMES TAYLOR, Deputy Executive Director for Operat. ions ED JORDAN, Director, Office for Analysis and Evaluat. ion of Operational Data GARY ZECH, Chief, Incident Response Branch l
I i
o _
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
4 3
1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-T-N-G-S 2
2:00 p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Good a f t ernoon, ladies and 4
gentlemen.
Commissioner Roberts will not be with us 5
today.
fi The purpose of todays meeting is for the 7
NRC staff to brief the Commission on the status of t he 8
Agency's efforts to institute the Emergency Response 9
Data System, or ERDS.
The concept of establishing an 10 electronic data link between the NRC and its retactor 11 licensees to relay essential plant parameter 12 information has been under consideration since just 13 after the accident at Three Mile Island.
It appears 14 that we are now close to closure on this important 15 initiative.
16 Copies of the slide presentation and SECY-17 89-193 pertaining to the brief should be available at 18 the entrance to the meeting room.
19 Do my fellow Commissioners have any opening 20 comments?
21 If not, Mr. Taylor, you may proceed.
l 22 MR. TAYLOR:
Good af ternoon, sir.
l 23 Before commencing the formal briefi:.g, I
l l
24 would mention to the Commission, to the members who 25 have participated at our Emergency Response Center the NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
l 16 ne s.
4 T~~
L-1 struggle that we frequently have in our monitoring 2
role even in an exercise
- cupacity, understanding 3
what's really going on within a reactor and at a
4 plant.
This data system, of course, would help NRC n 5
great deal when it's instituted in the event of an 6
accident in understanding some of the key parameters 7
and understanding the progression of an accident.
8 I know those of you who have joined us in 9
exercising I
hope would put high value on the 10 possibility of us having this type of data to perform 11 our monitoring role.
12 With that introduction, I'd like to turn the 13 briefing over to Mr. Jordan.
I 14 MR. JORDAN:
Okay.
Thank you.
15 I'd like to cover the background and Gary 16 Zech will cover the current status of the 17 considerations and the conclusions.
And then we're 18 both available to respond to questions.
19 In the background slide, the TMI lessons 20 learned indicated, as you, Mr.
Chairman, mentioned, 21 that the data collection system was important, that 22 the Agency should develop such a thing and implement 23 it.
The ERDS Program is, of
- course, in direct i
l
?
24 response to that.
25 There was considerable C o n g r e s s.i o n a l I
l t J I
l i
)
NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 l
!)
l t
5 1
controversy in the 1980s regarding funding or not 2
funding to a more elaborate data system.
Congress 3
wanted it and they didn't want it.
The key was in the 4
role de fin i t ion and the Agency defined its role in a 5
clear fashion, I think, in the middle 1980s.
SECY 6 481 was a description of the ERDS Project that clearly 7
defined the Agency's role and needs with regard to 8
data.
The Commission a pp r o v eti the ERDS concept in 9
March of 1985 and we've been proceeding down that path 10 s u, c e.
11 Congressional interest was again expressed 12 in H.R.
5192 and H.R.
1570 in 1986 and 1987 13 respectively.
As I understand at this time, there is 14 no further Congressional interest in legislating a 15 data system.
16 A prot otype of the ERD System was tested in 17 the Zion FFE in 1987
- and, in
- fact, we tested a
18 prot o t ype with Duke Power and Commonwealth Edison 19 preceding that Zion exercise.
Plant surveys were 20 conducted by a contract in 1986 and 1987 to help ihe 21 NRC understand the feasibility and the extent, scope 22 and cost of such a system.
This covered about 90 23 percent of the plants.
There's a contractor report, 24 Nt1 REG CH-4902, that describes in great detail the 25 results of that survey.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
'b P
o G
F '!
1 So then, I'd like to turn to Gary Zech and 2
ask him to give vou a briefing on the current status.
3 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Before you dc that --
4 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, sir.
5 CHAIRMAN CARR:
-- would you want to run 6
over that role defi: ition a little bit?
I wasn't here 7
when you solved
- t. h a t problem.
You said the role 8
definition was well laid out?
9 MR.
JORDAN:
Well, there was a concern, I
10 think, by Congress and by industry and the NRC as well 11 as to what our role would be in an emergency.
Were we 12 going to try to run the reactor from Washington?
13 Were we going to try to intervene. based on having an I
14 extensive data set?
The Agency clearly understood 15 that, in fact, we would not intervene from Washington, 16 but we needed to be in a position to understand the 17 nature of t he event and to assure that the appropriat e 18 protective actions were being taken and that the 19 utility itself understood the event that was 20 unfolding.
21 So, it was in coming to that understanding 22 that we then understood that the data system we needed 23 was not one that replicated the entire control room 24 data set of 1500 or so data elements, but one that 25 gave the critical parameters.
So, that's then the
(..-.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
6:
7 1
track that we switched to.
2 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
3 MR.
TAYLOR:
And we also revised our 4
procedures at the response center to try to make sure 5
to all the staff and the participants just what our 6
role
- was, which is essentially a monitoring role, 7
limits placed upon any further action to the Chairman 8
or his stand-in from the Commission itself.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
The responsibility clearly 10 lies with the utility?
11 MR. TAYLOR:
That's accepted by al1.
12 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I gather the thinking 13 on the parameters has evolved reflecting that more
.14 focused definition of the Commission's responsibi1ity.
15 So, what we have now in the system will be the 16 critical parameters that we need narrowed down from l7 what was envisioned back in the early '80s just to 18 those 1imited parameters that we need, but those that 19 are significant to carrying out our role?
20 MR. JORDAN:
That's correct.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
22 MR. JORDAN:
And it is clear that we don't 23 have the complete parameter set for every scenario 24 that's possible that we would be responding to.
We 25 have the one-that are most likely for the serious 1
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 l
l' t
, e
- p,
y c.
H.
I l-f_J i 1
events.
2 CHAIRMAN CARH:
Okay.
Proceed,-Gnry.
3 MR. ZECH:
To pick up on.that.real.quickly, 4
those are plant parameters, like-temperatures, 5
containment condit ions,- meterological ~ condi t ions and S
radiological release-information that-might'he there.
7 The current status then and'where we stand it today in picking up from where Ed let off, a contract 9.
was awarded - to EI International in January 1988 and 10 that"was a three year contract.
11
- Hardware
' procurement and software 12 development has progressed quite well since then.
It-13!
con t'inues - today and wi t h. our first few-plants has iJ'-
'14 progressed quite well.
15 We currently -- and-this is an update since 16-last week -- we now have'six licensees with a total of 17 18 units that have volunteered at this point. to 18 participate.in the program.
With the current schedule 19 that we perceive, we would expect the system to be 20 operational in early 1990.
21 (Slide)
Next slide.
22 In the meantime, as we have since a year 23
- ago, we've had a
great deal of interaction with 24 NUMARC, various meetings with them and with utilities 25 to discuss the volunteer program, what it is that we l
L_
l l
N E A I, R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
-.---,---u-----_x---
a
P a
y 0
1 would foresee it to be doing and just what would be 2
required of the licensees who would be volunteering 3
for it.
4 Concurrently with
- that, we have proceeded 5
with a proposed rulemaking which was initiated and 6
approved by the ED0's office in May of 1989.
And also 7
concurrently, we have drafted and have ready for 8
transmittal a generic letter that would be sent to the 9
remaining licensees to ask for their participation on 10 a voluntary status.
11 In either case, we would expect that the 12 connections for the plants would be spread over about 13 a three year period starting next year and would be'at 14 about 30 to 35 plants per year as we presently would 15 project.
Then, the contrnet, under the current terms, 16 would terminate in January of 1993.
17 Other considerations in responding to the 18 Commissioner's questions, you had asked about the 19 schedule, whether or not it would be independent of j
20 the Emergency Telecommunications System upgrade.
That 21 was the subject of 87-290, the SECY paper.
It clearly 22 is separate from that.
ERDS would proceed on its own 23 schedule.
It would be implemented starting this late 24
- fall, early winter on the commercini public switch l
25 network phone lines from the plants.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 iL_ __ _. -_ _
s e
o 10 j
i d
1-Concurrently then, we would proceed with our 2
ETS upgrade schedule in parallel and then us the ETS 3
system becomes operation, the media that the ERDS 4
would be transmitted over would change from the public 5
switch network to a combination of either satellite i
6 lines or the b a c k -- u p terrestrial lines which, as you 4
i 7
know, was approved by the Commission following 87-290 8
being presented to you.
9 So, we don't see the two, although it would 10 be part - of the bigger system.
ERDS would be part of 11 the ETS System, but it does not depend on ETS in order 12 to be implemented at the current schedule that we see.
13 As we see it now then, the volunteer program i
14 is progressing quite well.
That's based on the 15 interactions that we've had with the utilities, with 16 NUMARC, the various dialogues that we've been able to 17 continue with it.
We do expect that there would be 18 wide industry participation.
We believe that the 19 generic letter would continue this voluntary process.
20 The rulemaking, which I
mentioned, would 21 insure 100 percent participation if we decide to go 22 with rulemaking.
As I mentioned
'r i g h t now, it's only 23 a proposed rule.
If we decide after experience in the 24 next couple years that it's proceeding to the point 25 that it may not be necessary, we will not recommend I
s I
k NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Hhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
t 11
[:
l rulemaking.
However, parallel paths are recommended i
2-at the present time in order to make sure that we'have l
3 all contingencies covered in event that we do need a 1
4 rule to insure 100 percent participation.
5 That's where we stand at.this point.
If i
6 there are any questions, we'd sure be glad to try to l
7 answer them.
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Well, the voluntary 9
participation question.
I guess one of the questions 10 that I had originally raised when the generic letter 11 came across iny desk, is it your expectation now that a 12 rule is ui t ima t.e l y going to be required or do you 13 expect 100 percent of the utilities to participate?
j 14 MR.
ZECH:
Our feeling is that we wou l d- -
15 about 90 percent we'd feel we could get presently, 1
16 knowing what we do know about the reservations in some 17 parts of the industry out there.
But we feel that 18 once the program progressed on a voluntary status that 19 there would be a great deal of initiative or pressure 20 on all utilities to participate.
So, I think' we'd i
1 21 like to wait and see how it proceeds in the next year 22 to two years and only then, if we need it to insure 23 100 percent, would we propose a final rule.
24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I guess my interest 25 in this is -- I mean I'm a big supporter of a system NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D,C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
1.
l 12 I
LJ l
and would like to see the system in place as quickly 2
as possible.
My interest in this at this point is 3
whether we're proceeding in a manner that will bring 4
it on line as quickly as possible, given that now it's 5
been ten years and at the end of this effort it's G
going to be 14 years after the accident.
7 I
wonder if you could address whether 8
there's any way to crank this up more quickly than 9
we're doing right now and get the system on line and 10 operational at all the utilities as soon as possible.
11 MR. JORDAN:
We're proceeding as far as the 12 contrector, in fact, can support at this time.
So, he 13 has fixed resources that he's applying.
There's i
14 software that has to be developed for each new utility 15 that connects and mating hardware that is pretty much 16 standardized.
17 It's not likely we can accelerate a great 18 deal.
The method that we're going through is trying 19 to do what I call the easy ones first, so that we get 20 the larger numbers of plant' in a timely fashion.
So, l
21 numerically, we will probably exceed our goal in terms 22 of 30 percent per year.
But the last year we will be 23 attacking the ones that are physically mor e difficult.
24 Right now, the volunteers are
- r. o t our limit i
25 at all.
We have sufficient utilities to work wit.h for i
i L -
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
6
.4 6
e 13 1
the present future.
In terms of the generic letter, 2
the generic letter is needed in order to communicate 3
with mr>re than nine licensees formerly because of the 4
OMB rule.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Right.
6 MR. JORDAN:
So that's why we've gone to a 7
generic letter.
But there is -- even applying more 8
financial support I don't think would accelerate it 9
unless we opted for ar.4ther contractor.
10 MR. ZECH:
We're also trying -- if I could 11 add to that, trying to work with the utility schedules 12 so we don't impact an outage or impact changes that 13 they may already be planning on their process 14 computer.
If they want to do sc>me modifications, it's 15 probably better to wait until those modifications are 16 completed before we come :. n and ask for their 17 parameter file.
That could be a year or two in some 1
18 cases.
So, the key is to get enough utilities so we 19 can scope out the effort and schedule them over the 20 next two or three year period that our contractor 21 could handle and yet not become critical path in any 22 way to slow down the process.
23 MR.
JORDAN:
Maybe I should add that the l
24 more difficult licensees technically I mentioned are 25 those that are upgrading their process computer or NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washingtr>n, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 i
1
' hs a
,p; 14 1.l
-1 installing an SPDS where they don't have one or don't L J 2'
have an output for it that would be readily available 3
for us.
So those, where t h e r e ' ::. a technical 4
difficulty and a cost to the utility that would be 5
higher than the a v e,r a g e, we're going to wait out 6
technology, I ho1>e, by putting them at the end of that
~7 list.
8 COMMISSIONER CtfR T I S S :
To make sure I 9
understand, just on the question of the parameters, 10 exactly what you have in mind, I gather that the 11 recommendation back in
'84,
'85 was to -- having 12 identified the significant parameters that we need in 13 the system, the individual utilities were then to be 14 surveyed and identify what the J4'ities had in place.
15 But for those utilities that did not have key 16 parameters available to them that could be plugged 17 into the data link system, we would cc>ntinue to get 18 that information from those utilities over the 19 telephone.
And then subsequent to that, the survey of 20 the utilities identified in more detail what the 21 utilities have in place and that could be plugged into 22 the data link system or the ERD System, as well as 23 those parameters that were not present at the 24 utilities, it would have to be communicated over the 25 telephone.
i L -
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.a.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
s e
15 1
Two questions
/ ne, in what you saw witn 2
the survey, are there significant parameters at plants 3
that would not be available through the data link 4
system?
5
- Secondly, are there plants where the 6
percentage of the availability of parameters is so low 7
that it might make sense to go in and take a look at 8
those plants and somehow insure that the parameters 9
can be communicated through the data link?
10 MR. JORDAN:
On the significant parameters, 11 I would say that among those there are some that have 12 parameters that are unavailable.
However, the numbers 13 are small and they're not clustered at a
given 14 facility.
So, in terms of percentage, the facilities 15 that don't make our list presently are those that, in 16 fact, don't have an updated process computer or don't 17 have automated data handling to the extent that would 18 be necessary for some of the very older plants.
Many 19 of those are going through an upgrade of their own to 20 provide the SPDS function.
21 So, on the one hand, in terms of numbers of 22 parameters, the staff feels that the random missing 23 parameters among PWRs and as is acceptable and that 24 the transmittal of those data, if it were important, i
25 during that particular event sequence could be handled NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
i s
16 Id 1
by phone.
In terms of the plants that a
low 2
percentage of overall parameters available, we believe 3
that time will solve most of those.
4 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The one that jumped 5
out at me was Peach Bottom that has 55 percent of the 6
parnmeters available and a couple others that are 7
lower than that.
Big Rock is at 20 percent and H
- Lacrosse, I think, was awful low too.
B u t.
a plant 9
like Peach Bottom where only 55 percent of the 10 parameters are available.
When you say you think time 11 will solve that
- problem, does that mean that the 12 additional parameters will be added to the data link 13 system or that we will rely on telephone i
14 communications for the other 45 percent?
15 MR. JORDAN:
In most cases, additional time 16 will alleviate that.
For instance, I think in Big 17 Rock's case, that's true.
For Peach Bottom, I really 18 don't recall.
But we could verify whether they were 19 among the group that were updating their entire data 20 processing and SPDS.
But we'll get you an answer on 21 that one.
22 MR.
ZECH:
Just some round numbers I could 23 add to that.
The survey showed, I think, an average 24 between 75 and 85 percent of parameter availability, 25 depending on if it was a PWR or a BWR.
And that gave i
1 NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhodt island Avenue, N.W.
Washingtin, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 L-__________-____
.a 4
17 1
us the confidence that with the few exceptions that 2
you mentioned, that we would be able to get the 3
information we needed.
4 In Big Rock Point's case, we have advised S
Consumers Power that because of other very low numbers 6
of. parameters there, that they would not be asknd to 7
participate in the program and that we would just 8
supplement the voice communications, whatever would be 9
needed to handle the problem there.
10-CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Rogers?'
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just
- briefly, w h.a t 12 were the results of the contractor's study of the 59 13 sites?
Is there anything that you can easily say.
14 about that study?
15 MR. JORDAN:
Gary, you want to take that?
16 MR.
7.E C H :
There were a number of things.
17 One was the parameter availability, as I mentioned.
18 As a group, the PWRs and BWRs parameter availability 19 was upwards in the 70 and 80 percent area.
20 The other thing that we determined in 21 talking with the plant individuals is that there was a 22 general positive attitude toward the system in 23 general.
At least the people we talked to or our 24 contractor talked to thought that it was a
good 25 program and that they would react positively in a NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
4 p'
IR n 1
- J 1
voluntary manner.
2 The other thing t h a t.
we noted was that 3
because of some plants not having hardware 4
availability like ports even available for their 5
process computer, that that could be a substantial G
cost factor relative to what the norm would be.
In 7
other words, there may be some plants that no hardware 8
changes would be necessary and their costs would be 9
essentially zero, whereas if a port were necessary or 10 they had to go back in, it could be upwards of over 11
$100,000 in the dollars at that
- time,
$100,000 to 12
$150,000.
But those few that we saw in that category 13 we expected to be making changes anyway and would fix 7
i 14 those problems in most, if not all cases.
15 What we'll do when we go out with the 16 questionnaire, we'll reaffirm the availability of the 17 parameters and reaffirm what their problems might be 18 and go back and look at it again.
19 The other thing that we noted was that the 20 software costs that we would expect to be incurred by 21 the licensees would be relatively small as well, from 22 about $20,000 to $50,000, depending on if they did it 23 in house, like many of them would prefer to do, or if 24 they contracted out and had somebody do it for them.
25 So, in general, although it took some time, as you I
L NEAL R.
GHOSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
_b
_4 19 1
noted from the handouts, there were 90 some plants, 50 2
some utilitles represented and it took over a' year or 3
a year and a half to complete.
The information we got 4
from the survey was quite valuable, we thought.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
How would you handle G
the unlikely situation where you had two plants in 7
trouble at the same time?
Would you have ability to 8
handle that in the center?
9 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, we do.
Well, I would say 10.
that the Agency would have great difficulty responding 11 to two severe accidents simultaneously and we don't 12 really expect that just based on 'the probabilities.
13 However, we do have the capability to respond to one 14 severe accident and monitor another plant with similar 15 conditions.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, except this gets 17 turns on when there's an alert, right, of any kind?
18 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
So, that's not 20 necessarily a severe accident.
21 MR. JORDAN:
Hight.
22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Could we handle t v.
23 alerts?
24 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
25 MR. ZECH:
Yes.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 o
s o
e 20 I
I LJ l
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
We can?
2 MR. ZECH:
in fact -- excuse In e.
3 MR. JORDAN:
Go ahead.
I think I know what 4
you're going to say.
5 MR.
ZECH:
In
- fact, we now have, in the 6
- design, the ability to track four di f feren t plants 7
simultaneously.
It's four channel archiving is how we 8
term it.
Th a t.
was based on, at the
- t. i m e, the fact 9
that we had -- we've had at least three alerts--
10 excuse me, three unusual events in the operation 11 center which by their nature are not significcat, but 12 could lead to a more severe situation.
So, we knew 13 that we needed the least redundancy, but also because l
~ ' "
14 if you have a plant or a multiple unit plant where a 15 problem in one could effect another one on site, you 16 surely want to be able to track both plants and not 1,
interrupt the signal from the first one.
So, that's 18 what led us that way.
19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
What happens with this 20 data when it comes into the center?
How will it be 21 used?
For
- example, will there be some kind of 22 standard templates for these parameters, operating 23 range templates that we'll be able to put that point 24 on and see where it stands in terms of normal 25 operation?
I L.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
\\
21 1
MR.
JORDAN:
We'll have time, temperature.
2 pressure time type displays.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Typical?
4 MR.
JORDAN:
- Typical, yes.
And so for a G
particular set of BWRs, Mark is will have typical 6
displays, for B&W plants we'll have typical displays, 7
and then pulled those into it.
Then, of course, we'i1 8
he able to gt off data lists simply as time.
Il u t I 9
think the principal value with be in having a display 10 that people can trend and observe, extrapolate from, 11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The general letter in 12 the packet has a statement that, "No personnel action 13 should be required for the acquisition or transmission 14 of data after activation of the system."
What about 15 just verifying its operability?
There will be a 16 necessity of doing that presumably.
17 MR.
JORDAN:
Yes.
And what I think thone 18 words were intended for was that we didn't expect a 19 utility to transmit the data by taking a disk from a 20 computer and putting it in another or having to 21 interact with the data stream in any fashion, that it 22 would be, in fact, automatic.
But you're right.
Some 23 monitoring may be necessary if there's a
trouble 24 channel or some such problem.
25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes, right.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 1
B 4
22 I
I LJ l
MR. ZECH:
We would also periodically test 2
the system, ask the utility to turn it on and make 3
sure the data stream came in and that we were still in 4
sync with what they provide to us.
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I guess that's all I 6
have.
7 CHAIRMAN CARH:
Jim, do you have any other 8
questions?
9 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Well, let me Just add 10 one other comment because I do think this system is 11 extremely valuable.
I know you have worked on it over 12 an extended period of time and against some 13 circumstances, both on the Hill and elsewhere, that i
~
14 have complicated your ability to move forward.
The 15 congress has been divided House and Senate on the 16 issue and I know you've worked long and hard to try to 17 respond to those concerns, to come up with a system 18 the.t will,, in fact, perform the needs that I think we 19 need here in the operation center with critical i
20 parameters coming in for all the plants so that in the 21 unlikely event of an emergency we've got that 22 capability.
l 23 I
think for those of us who have l
24 participated in the FFEs, that has been a shortcoming.
l l
25 Inaccurate information comes into the operation l
1 NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 l
7 q4 e
23.
1.
center.
It subsequently is determined to:
be ll 2
inaccurate.
.In short, we're not much better of f t oday s
-3 in terms of transmission of data from the licensee-I
4 than we were right after TMI.
5 MR _ JORDAN:
That's correct.
1 ~
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
We're
'still 7
transmitting the information over telephone.
It's not 8
real. time.
It 's
'not fully. automated and it has a))'
'9 the foibles that human transmission can lead' 't o.
I 10 guess'I see this program as addressing-a critical'need 11 that unfortunately over a long period. of time has 12 really gone-unset in the Agency.
13 I would like you to.know and' encourage you 14 to go forward with as much dispatch as you can; with 15 the implementation of the system.
I-do think at the 16 end of the process that we're ultimately going to have 17 to come to grips with the fact that not 100 percent of 18 the utilities will volunteer for the-system
- and, 19 either through. rule or order or some other mechanism,
'20 have to respond to that because we're not going to be 21 able to predict which facility has the accident and 22 which facility we want to communicate with.
23 I was also interested in looking at the data 24 from the utility survey.
While there's a
high 25 percentage of the parameters available, this is the NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
y-4 24 I
'l LJ l
significant group of parameters.
We've separated the 2
wheat from the chaff and this is the 1ist of 3
parameters that we think represent critical functions 4
that ought to be available in the operation center.
5 Some of the utilities are pretty low.
Peach 6
Bottom is only at 55 percent, and to the extent that 7
that percentage falls too far below 100 percent--
8 we're talking about telephonic transmission of datu 9
for those additional critical parameters.
To the 10 extent that you can respond to that in some fashion as 11 you implement the system, I
think that's the key 12 challenge and we'd like to see what we can do on that.
13 MR. TAYLOR:
I should point out, some of the 7
14 surveys are not a couple of years old too.
Data may 15 have changed as a result of what Ed pointed out.
16 One thing you mentioned to, Commissioner 17
- Curtiss, was in terms of operations at our own 18 response center.
Not having this data makes us ask 19 lots of questions that we would otherwise not have to 20 ask and complicates, therefore, the voice transmission 21 of very important things that that might be restricted 22 to.
We continually are concerned with the basic 23 parameters.
l 24 So, hopefully, this would cut down the need 25 to ask what I
would think would become useful i
L _.
I NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 I
i L_________-.____________.________________.___________________________
__J
l I
25 1-questions if we have this data, make us function more 1
2 efficiently than what we.do get by voice.
3 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Wel1, I'm prepared to 4
see the generic letter go forward.
I think it i-l l:
5 reflects sort of the culmination of a lot of work that l
6 1 know Ed and Gary have done with licensees.
To get 7
18 reactors to volunteer to do anything sometimes is 8
difficult.
So, I encourage you to, to the extent that 9
you can, to get all of them to volunteer for the 10 system.
I would like you to keep an eye as you go 11 through that on the potential that we may not get 100 12 percent participation or that we get into the 13 individual plans and get the responses from the 14 generic letter, that it may turn out the critical 15 parameters that we want to have on the system might 16 not be available or in the manner that we wanted 17 available.
If that should happen, keep the Commission 18 posted on it.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
We will do that.
20 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, I certainly agree that 21 what you've got is certainly better than what we have 22 now.
I see no reason to wait to try to build a Rolls 23 Royce if you're going to get a good Buick in there 24 right now.
25 As far as those parameters you've
- got, NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
o' o
a e
2 Fi 1
whether they're critical or nice to have, I would 2
probably disagree that they're all critical.
3 Certainly a lot of them are interacting.
You can tell 4
f r on: some of them whether you've got the others or 5
not.
But what it really does is it cuts down a lot of 6
communication.
If you cut down any cononunica tion in 7
those events, why you've helped the p1oblem 8
considerably.
But right now, not only what you get is 9
time late, but you can't get very much of it.
10 I'd say that proceeding is certainly a good 11 thing t.o do.
I also ag,ee though that I think we 12 ought to go ahead and proceed with the rule.
Then 13 you've got both bases covered.
If they muster up, 14 fine.
If they don't muster up, fine.
15 Have you kept close track with NUMARC on the 16 voluntary thing?
They're tracking closely with our 17 information on what percentage -- that 90 percent 18 voluntary figure that you quoted?
19 MR.
ZECH:
I don't think they would 20 disagree.
I think with our working with them, 21 although they haven't formally endorsed it as a 22
- policy, they have gone raublic and said that they 23 recommend that utilities participate.
That 24 recommendation is one that we appreciate and that we 25 continue to work with NUMARC and the utilities to try 1
1 NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 I
(202) 234-4433 1
m_______.__________.
J
4 s
27 1
to rest our concerns.
2 I
think they are optimistic.
Otherwise,
'3 they would not be working to the extent that they'are 4
with us.
5 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
I notice that--
G excuse me.
7 MR. JORDAN:
I would add that we have a very 8
good working relationship with NUMARC in going through 9
this process.
They iden t i fi ed some issues that we 10 needed to pay some attention to and it helped develop 11 the Os and As that are in back of this generic --
12 CHAIRMAN CaRR:
- Well, if I were a plant 13
- manecer, I'd certainly want it in place beenuse it 14 would keep you from asking me questions while I was so 15 busy.
16 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, that's right.
17 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I was carious.
It says, 18 "The NRC will be responsible for maintenance of all 19 parts of the ERD System installed starting at the 20 input port of the first ERD specific piece of 21 hardware, that is the modem."
So, we're responsible 22 from that modem to our office, is that correct?
23 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, sir.
24 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Are we going to do t l. u t with 25 contractor maintenance?
How many guys is it going to NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
L l
g 28-1 take to maintain this system?
That's a lot of dollars
"--~
2 involved in ihat maintenance.
'l
'MR.
JORDAN:
We've estimated, I believe, 4
about $350,000 a year ns the' maintenance expense once S
the program is implemented.
That's assuming a failure G
rate of modems or the hardware at the end.
.The other 7
part is simply a telepnone line.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
And we budgeted for that?
9 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I noticed, and it's a couple 11 of places in here.
One says the connections will all 12 be made in early '92 and then another says everybody 13 will be hooked up in January
'93.
Which is the right I
14 date?
15 MR.
ZECH:
I think the latter one is the 16 correct one.
We anticipate now it will take about 17 three years to hook up, although we will push to 18 expedite it during that three year period.
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
So we're talking January 20
'93?
21 MR. ZECH:
Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
If we have to go with the 23 rulemaking and we don't get the final rule out until 24 March
'91, in that going to still get us there by 25 January '93?
I L _.
NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
i j
)
29 1
MR. JORDAN:
We believe so.
It will be.a-2 small group of utilities that would remain and there f
3 would still be a
reasonable time to make it an 4
effective implementation on their part.
5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
So, we should have 6
100 percent participation by January of '93 then?
7 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, sir.
8 COMMISSIONER CUPTISS:
Either tbrough the 9
rule or through the voluntary --
10 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN CARR:
And some of that still may 12 he phone.
We want to have 100 percent of all the --
13 MR.
ZECH:
There's an overlap period we 14 anticipate.
there again -- you're talking about p- '
15 what the ETS is doing?
Ifi CHAIRMAN 6ARR:
No, I'm talking about 17 whether we're going to get all the data from all the 18 plants that we'd like to have by your two lists here.
19 Some of those will still probably be voice 20 transmission.
21 MR. JORDAN:
That's right.
22 MR. ZECH:
That's correct.
23 MR, JORDAN:
And the full implemented 24 system, as we understand it now, would be transmitting 25 something like the 85 or so percent of those data NEAL R.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
e
<a b
4 30 I
IJ l
points by the ERD System and getting the rest of them 2
verbally.
3 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Okay.
4 Do you all have any other questions?
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
No more.
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, I'd like to thank you 7
for the briefing.
As I say, we're long overdue in 8
getting on with this program.
It's one of t hose where 9
the first data point helps.
When you start getting 10 them in, even at an 85 percent, why the knowledge that 11 suddenly appears in that response center down there is 12 multiplied by infinity because right now usually what 13 you get you have to ask for.
That's a tough way to 14 run it.
15 I
think if we can bring this issue to 16 closure in three years, then we'll have made quite e 17 hit of progress.
18 I'm also encouraged by the fact that we do 19 have 18 plants that have volunteered.
I would 20 encourage the rest of them to go ahead and volunteer 21 and save both of us a lot of work.
I look to NUMARC 22 to continue to provide strong encouragement along 23 these 1ines, and I encourage you to continue to work 24 closely with them because it will enable both them and 25 I,
I think, to respond more effectively to any off-I t _
NEAL H.
GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433
31 1
normal actions.
2 If
.v o u have no other comments, we stand 3
adjourned, i
4 (Whereupon, at 2:37 p.m.,
the above entitled 5
matter was concluded.)
6 7
8 9
.)
10 j
11 i
12 13 14 15 i
i 16 17 i
18 l
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAI, R.
GROSS 1
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 i
E_______.._..____
___.__.___J
__. -.y y
' 4 -.
.4 h
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the: attached events of a meeting
~
of the United-States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:~ BRIEFING ON STATUS: 0F EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
JULY 10, 1989 were transcribed by me.'I further certify that said transcription is accurate.and complete, to the best of my ability,'and that'the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
?fL 114 r $
gi.} ' ~
~
Reporter's name:
Peter Lynch O
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REN3eTER$ AND TRAN$CRitfR$
1323 RMoot ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. 0.C.
20005 (202) 232 6600 t
4
l: '.
.4 1
l l
COMMISSION PRESENTATION ON EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM (ERDS)
JULY 10, 1989 CONTACT:
GARY G. ZECH, AE0D 49-24193 l
I l
.--,-----n-,----
4 4
6 BACKGROUND CURRENT STATUS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS l
l f
I i
L j
.-s j..
t't' I
s BACKGROUND TMI LESSON LEARNED DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM-
- - CONGRESSIONAL. CONTROVERSY IN EARLY 1980'S
- *- COMMISSION APPROVED ERDS CONCEPT IN MARCH 1985 CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST AGAIN EXPRESSED IN!1986/1987 PROTOTYPE TESTED IN. ZION FFE -L1987 PLANT SURVEYS CONDUCTED.IN 1986-1987 (59 SITES 92 UNITS).
. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. ISSUED IN MARCH 1987 l
1 l
l
7-
- I :.
i e; 4
g c
1 t
CURRENT' STATUS CONTRACT ~ AWARDED TO El INTERNATIONAL
'IN~ JANUARY 1988-HARDWARE PROCUREMENT & SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN PROGRESS FIVE LICENSEES-(17 UNITS) HAVE VOLUNTEERED OPERATIONAL SYSTEM EXPECTED IN JANUARY 1990 l
- .s c
1 i
i j
CURRENT STATUS (CONTINUED) h0 hup TILITY INTERACTIONS TAL MI N
I E
Mht hkhyFOR 1990-1992 D
AND CONTRACT TERMINATI hfR 1993-Li
e i
e OTHER CONSIDERATIONS SCHEDULE INDEPENDENT OF EMERGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM (SECY-87-290)
INITIAL ERDS TRANSMISSIONS ON COMMERCIAL PUBLIC SWITCHED NETWORK ERDS TRANSMISSIONS WILL BE SWITCHED AS ETS UPGRADE OCCURS - 1991/1992 l
l l
w
___-_.._._-.,,.._-y_
y
~
..g l.
SUMMARY
.AND CONCLUSIONS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM PROGRESSING WELL WIDE' INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION CONSIDERED LIKELY.
GENERIC LETTER WILL CONTINUE VOLUNTARY PROCESS-
- * - RULEMAKING WILL ENSURE 100 PERCENT PARTICIPATION-PARALLEL PATHS RECOMMENDED TO EXPEDITE. IMPLEMENTATION
_-_____m
_m2__.___m__m_._
______-____s
,WSSNNNNMMMMMMMMMM 9
na v
p-5 oj
\\....+/
POLICY ISSUE June 28, 1989 (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
SECY-89-193 For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM Furpose:
To address the questions of the Commission as set forth in the SECY memorandum dated June 20, 1989, iegarding the implementation of the Emerpncy Response Data System (ERDS).
Backaround:
A nuclear power plant data collection system to assist in emergency response was recommended as a TMI lesson learned, but was controversial from a congressional funding stand-point in the early 1980's. The funding issues were generally resolved when the scope and planned use of a data system were clarified and defined in SECY 84-481 and approved by the Comission in March 1985. Further congressional interest was expressed in 1986 and 1987 in the method of implementation and design features via proposed legislation (HR 5192 and HR 1570). In general, those bills, in addition to legislating implementation, prescribed features that were at various times different from those previously approved by the Comission. Those proposed differences were responded to in congressional responses and testimony sponsored by the Commission.
Subsequent to Commission approval, NRC staff conducted prototype ERDS testing with Duke Power and Commonwealth Edison reactor units. For example, data was transmitted and beneficially used via an ERDS prototype during the Zion Full Federal Exercise in June 1987. Also during 1985 and 1986, detailed surveys of existing hardware and software that would interface with ERDS were conducted at 59 sites (92 units) and reported by a contractor as the first step toward implementation. Based on that survey report, a request for proposal was issued, a contractor was selected, and a contract was awarded in January 1988. The contract award was contested by one of the competitors and resolved through litigation in favor of the staff.
Contact:
Gary G. Zech, AE0D 49-24193 VMMMMMMMMMMMMNSSNd
.. c s.
4 3
The Commiss> loners Discussion:
ERDS Status Hardware procurement and software development,are in progress, and delivery of an operational system at the NRC Operations Center is expected in January 1990. Currently, five licensees, representing 17. reactor units have volunteered to participate in the ERDS program.- Extensive interactions with industry representatives through NUMARC =
and with individua1' utilities have provided for initial implementation throuch a voluntary program. The staff-has ' established credibility and trust with industry 4'
representatives and the interactions have been valuable to the staff in assuring that the issues associated with ERDS implementation have been addressed. The ERDS program has been discussed with industry in other forums including the April _1989 Regulatory Information Conference, and a number-of these issues are formalized through the questions and answers attached in the proposed generic letter (Enclosure).
Staff plans to send the proposed generic letter to the remaining licensees to request their voluntary participation-in the program. This generic letter has been favorably reviewed by CRGR and has received the concurrences of AE00, NRR, and 0GC. Concurrent with the voluntary program,.
rulemaking for ERDS was initiated in May 1989.
Target Dates July 1989:
Issue generic letter January 1990:
ERDS operational at NRC Headquarters Operations Center with initial units 1990-1992: Approximately one-third of the operating reactor units will be connected to the ERDS each calendar year January 1993:
ERDS implementation complete and contract terminated Rulemaking May 1989: ERDS rulemaking initiated August 1989:
Proposed rule for Division review December 1989: Office concurrence on proposed rule completed
9 Tne Commissioners March 1990:
Proposed rule to EDO April.1990:
Proposed rule to Commission May 1990:
Proposed rule published March 1991:
Final rule published Emergency Telecommunications System Upgrade Impact The schedule for implementation of ERDS at reactor units is independent of the Emergency Telecommunications System (ETS) upgrade.
Initially, the EROS data will be transmitted over the commercial public switched network. Where practical, a leased line will be utilized from the reactor site to a distant telephone Central Office (foreign exchange) to minimize the probability of blockage resulting from increased telephone traffic related to a reactor event.
As the upgrade to the ETS progresses, the transmission media will be transferred from the public switched network to the new ETS. As currently planned, the ETS network will consist of a combination of terrestrial and satellite communication channels. The ETS system concept, approved by the Commission in January 1988, is described in SECY-87-290.
Rationale for Approach to Implement ERDS Upon receipt of Commission approval in March 1985 to proceed with the ERDS concept, an indepth requirements analysis was performed to determine the feasibility, scope, andcostsofsuchaproject. Through the site survey program it was determined that the necessary parameter availability existed to a sufficient extent on the licensees' computer systems that the ERDS concept was a viable approach for providing the data necessary for NRC to accomplish its emergency response mission.
Feedback during the site survey process, together with subsequent dialogue with NUMARC and the industry, indicated a positive attitude, in general, that suggested an approach of a voluntary program in order to avoid delays in implementation associated with rulemaking.
.nus, in order to expedite ERDS implementation, the voluntary program was initiated with an initial set of receptive utilities, to be followed with a generic letter to the remainoer of the industry.
Realizing that 100 percent voluntary participation may not occur, the staff also initiated rulemaking in May 1989, to ensure full industry participation.
l
- k-m The Commissioners.
- 4.-
==
Conclusions:==
The staff considers thatlits concurrent efforts via the
.. generic letter (voluntary participation) and rulemaking -
(required participation) will ensure an expeditious and' successful implementation of the ERDS program.1 Unless the Commission indicates otherwise, the staff intends to issue-the generic letter on July 28, 1989, or as soon there after-as possible, and to continue with rulemaking.
/
V ctor Stel
, Jr.
Executive Director or Operations
Enclosure:
Draft Generic Lette-cc w/ encl:
SECY OGC.
SECY NOTE:
A Commission meeting is scheduled on this issue on-Monday, July 10, 1989.
In the absence'of. instructions to the. contrary, SECY will notify the staff.on
-Monday, July 17, 1989, that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the' action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OIG GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS ACNW ASLBP ASLAP SECY
.I
1 ENCLOSURE
[pm c
UNITED STATES
~,
{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
r wAsHtwoTow. o. c. rosas t
f.
%.... /
l Generic Letter Addressees:
The Commission is in the process of implementing an Emergency Response Data System (ERDS). The ERDS will provide direct electronic transmission of a limited set of parameters from a licensee computer to the NRC during an emergency at a licensed nuclear power facility.
Implementation is proceeding on a voluntary basis and efforts are being taken to minimize the burden on the participating facilities. We believe that the implementation of this system will be beneficial to both the NRC and licensees for the reasons explained below.
The Commission has defined the NRC's primary role in an emergency at a licensed nuclear facility as one of monitoring the licensee to assure that appropriate recommendations are made with respect to offsite protective actions. Other aspects of our role include supporting the licensee with technical analysis and logistic support, supporting offsite authorities including confirming the licensee's recommendations to offsite authorities,-
keeping other Federal agencies and entities informed of the status of the incident, and keeping the media informed of the NRC's knowledge of the status
'of the incident.
To fulfill the NRC's role, the NRC requires accurate, timely data on four types of parameters:
(1) core and coolant system conditions must be known well enough to assess the extent or likelihood of core damage; (2) conditions
' l inside the containment building must be known well enough to assess its status; (3) radioactivity release rates must be available promptly to assess the immediacy and degree of public danger by these pathways; and (4) the data from the-plant's meteorological tower is necessary to provide insight into the potential distribution of a release.
Experience with the voice-only emergency communications link, currently utilized for data transmission, has demonstrated that excessive amounts of time are needed for the routine transmission of data and for verification or correction of data that appear questionable. Error rates have been excessive and the frequency of updates has been unreliable.
The ERDS concept is a direct electronic transmission of selected parameters (Attachments 1 and 2) from existing facility electronic data systems which have been established by the licensees. The ERDS would be for use only during emergencies at the facilities and would be activated by the licensees upon declaration of an ALERT or higher emergency classification to begin transmission to the NRC Operations Center.
The ERDS would be supplemented with voice transmission over the existing Emergency Notification System (EKS) of essential data not available on licensees' systems, rather than requiring Modifications to existing systems.
The utility is expected to provide an output port on the appropriate data system and the necessary software to assemble the data to be transmit'ed. No personnel action should be required for the acquisition or transmission. of data after activation of the system.
I
w x
i
-)
.. 1 3
Accuracy and reliability are expected to be exceller.t because there are no human interfaces and many data systems, such as the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS), will incorporate automatic data validation. Timeliness should be' excellent-because the system would be immediately available and capable of rapid transmission with frequent updating. Parametric coverage is expected to be excellent because the primary objective of the SPDS requirement is to provide the licensee with a tool for quickly assessing the overall status of the plant, i.e., the same need that the NRC faces. Therefore, voice i
communications would be directed toward plant conditions and plant response rather than individual instrument readings.
Tests of the ERDS concept have been conducted with Duke Power Company (McGuire)-
and with Commonwealth Edison (LaSalle and Zion). These tests have demonstrated that there is great value in using electronic data transmission for obtaining a limited set of reliable, time tagged data. The NRC response teams functioned more efficiently and their assessments were more timely. Major improvements in the ability to focus on significant factors and to predict the course of events were noted. The questions that were asked of the licensee were focused on the overall status and corrective actions being considered rather than simple data requests, thereby reducing the volume of voice communications.
Actual work on the ERDS project began in 1985 with an initial feasibility survey conducted at approximately 80 percent of the licensed nuclear facilities in the United States.
An ERDS implementation contractor began work in January 1988. The initial activities of the contractor have focused on an indepth review of the survey results, the production of final NRC hardware and software designs and the procurement of the necessary hardware and software. We are currently working with an initial iet of utilities that have agreed to participate and we expect to establish initial plant connections in 1989. The lessons learned in implementation with this initial group will be fed back to the subsequent participants.
Extensive interactions were held with NUMARC. Additionally, the ERDS program was discussed at the NRC Regulatory Conference with industry in April, 1989. We hope to complete all plant connections by early 1992. Attached is a list of frequently asked questions and our answers to assist you in a better understanding of the ERDS program.
This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget Clearance Number 3150-0011 which expires December 31, 1989. The estimated average burden hours is 150 man-hours per licensee response, including staff and management review, formulation of licensees' position, and preparation of the requested response.
These estimated average burden hours pertain only to these identified response-related matters and do not include the time for any follow on implementation.
Comments on the accuracy of this estimate and suggestions to reduce the burden.
may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20503, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and Reports Management Branch, Of fice of Administration and Resources Management, Washington, D.C.
20555.
l
s
. We believe the benefits'to the overall incident response capability are.
substantial and the costs to each utility are small. We would like to continue implementation.on a voluntary basis. The purpose of this generic letter is to solicit the participation of those utilities which have not yet volunteered in the ERDS program.
Since we also plan to contact each utility individually, please provide an appropriate contact in your organization for followup discussion.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call Gary Zech, Chief, Incident Response Branch at (301) 492-4193 or have your staff call John Jolicoeur, ERDS Project Manager at (301) 492-4155.
Sincerely, James G. Partlow AssociateDirectorforProjects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attachments:
1.
PWR Parameter List 2..
BWR Parameter List 3.
Questions and Answers List
ATTACHMENT 1 6
4 PWR Parameter List Primarv Coolant Svstem Pressure Temperatures - Hot Leg Temperatures - Cold Leg Temperatures - Core Exit Thermocouple Subcooling Margin Pressurizer Level RCS Charging / Makeup Flow Reactor Vessel Level (When Available)
Reactor Coolant flow Reactor Power Seconcarv Coolant Svstem Steam Generator Levels Steam Generator Pressures Main Feedwater Flows Auxiliary / Emergency feeawater Flows Safetv Injection HighPressureSafetyInjectionFlows lowPressureSafetyInjectionFlows i
SafetyInjectionFlows(Westinghouse) t Borated Water Storage Tank Level containment Containment Pressure Containment Temperatures Hydrogen Concentration Containment Sump Levels Radiation Monitorino Svstem Reactor Coolant Radioactivity
~
Containment Radiation Level Condenser Air Removal Radiation Level Effluent Radiation Monitors Process Radiation Monitor Levels Meteorological Wind Speed Wind Direction Atmospheric Stability
n.
A_TTACHMENT 2 1
BWR Parameter List Primarv Coolant System Reactor Pressure Reactor Vessel Level Feedwater Flow Reactor Power Safety Iniection RCIC Flow HPCI/HPCS Flow Core Spray Flow LPCI Flow Condensate Storage Tank Level Containment Drywell Pressure Drywell Temperatures Hydrogen and Oxygen Concentration Drywell Sump Levels Suppression Pool Temperature Suppression Pool Level Radiation Monitorino System Reactor Coolant Radioactivity Level Primary Containment Radiation Level Condenser Off-Gas Radiation Level Effluent Radiation Monitor Process Radiation Levels Meteorological Wind Speed Wind Directicn Atmospheric Stability 4
-4 ATTACHMENT 3 g
DatedT/20/89 ERDS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1.
Will the implementation of the ERDS affect the NRC response role or the way that role is fulfilled?
No. The NRC response role was defined and approved by the Commission and would not change cat to the ERDS. Current response activities, including discussions with the licensee, will be done more quickly and efficiently due to ERDS implementation but would not materially change.
2.
What communication protocol will be set up to accomplish the ERDS implementation?
A generic letter providing information about the ERDS and plans for its implementation will be promulgated to all licensees requesting their participation in the program.
Once a utility has committed to participate in the ERDS project, it will be contacted by telephone by the AE00 ERDS project manager and the NRC contractor to make arrangements for a site specific implementation schedule.
The NRC will send a questionnaire to the licensee to obtain necessary preliminary information about the licensee's computer system and the ERDS parameters.
For many licensees this questionnaire will also serve to
= _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
2.
, f *
'e-3
~2~
r confirm data obtained during the ERDS feasibility study conducted in 1987.
Response to this questionnaire should be forwarded to the NRC and its-contractor. lAny questions or problems concerning the questionnaire.should be referred to John R.'Jolicoeur, AE00 ERDS Project Manager at (301)-
492-4155 or Tony LaRosa, ERDS Project Manager, EI International at (208) 529-1000.
After this:information has been reviewed, we will proceed with the system implementation process as described in the response to the following question.
3.
How will the plant specific design and implementation aspects of ERDS be finalized with a facility?
OnceautilityhascommittedtoparticipateintheERDSproject,aninitial meeting will be held at the licensee's facilities.with the NRC and our implementation contractor. The topics to be discussed include:
The data points available on the licensee's computer to be-transmitted that best satisfy the NRC parameter list.
The computer or computers that will be sending the data stream and their operating characteristics.
The data stream characteristics and communications method (ASCII, EBCDIC) to be used to transmit the data.
l
__E___________.__
i 4
. Any hardware and software required for the ERDS implementation. The plant specific implementation schedule based on plant capabilities, the need for hardware additions or modifications, and software-development requirements.
Subsequent ERDS development and initial testing will be done. based on-the agreed upon schedule.
4.
What is the current program schedule?
Software is being developed by the NRC's contractor and should be completed by late summer 1989. The first utility on line to the NRC,
Operations Center in Bethesda is scheduled for early 1990 with subsequent connections scheduled over a 2 to 3 year period.
5.
Will the implementation of the ERDS require significant equipment modification or addition by licensees?
The only equipment requirements are for the hardware that is needed to provide the data stream from the current licensee equipment that processes the requested data.
Should the computer system not be capable of producing the data stream for transmittal, then the ERDS will be implemented as site j
equipment modifications permit. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the licensee's systems are running at close to 100 percent processing capacity in the post trip or incident environment, and approximately 10 to i
Ij i
4, 15 percent of the licensee systems are hardware limited (e.g. net available output port for an ERDS connection). The ERDS will follow, not drive, licensee equipment modifications.
For those licensees where no new hardware is required, the costs per reactor unit are estimated in the range of $20K to $50K.
This estimate includes labor costs associated.
with software development, design change notice documentation, testing, and procedure development. At the. upper end of the cost spectrum, the survey revealed that two plant sites would require additional computer equipment to provide the necessary ERDS feed. The hardware costs were estimated'at $150K plus licensee staff time required to set up a custom system development effort with the appropriate contractor.
6.
Will the ERDS be considered safety grade or require redundant equipment?
No. The ERDS feed will be as reliable as the current licensee equipment providing data to the licensee's own TSC and EOF. The addition of new plant instrumentation or computer data points to provide ERDS data will not be required.
7.
Will the current data list be expanded?
No. The issue has been well studied since the Nuclear Data Link was originally proposed after TMI. The development of the data list followed our determination of our role in an emergency and provides the information i
we need to perform that role. Needed data not transmitted over ERDS will still b(. passed oser the ENS.
l4 4
a e
. 8.
Must the ERDS be used to transmit drill data?
That is not a design requirement.
For those system configurations which only allow the transmission of real data, no modification will be expected.
However, if the licensee system is used for drills and can provide the transmission of the drill data, we would like to use the capability for our drill participation.
9.
Will the ERDS be an LCO or Tech Spec item?
No.
- 10. How soon does the NRC expect the system to be initiated after an Alert declaration?
The ERD 3 should be initiated when the licensee notifies the NRC of the declaration of an Alert or higher emergency classification.
11.
Will the transmission of data point values for times prior to the time of the ERDS activation be reouired?
No.
Only the data values from the time of the transmission initiation will be required over the ERDS.
Information on initiating conditions and J
plant status will be provided over the verbal communication line as 1
necessary.
Specifically, earlier parameter values will not be required.
i
e.
g 6
e If a licensee system has the capability to transmit earlier, data point values the NRC would like to utilize that feature but it clearly is not a design requirement.
Yes. The ERDS will not eliminate the need for verbal transmission of information such as licensee actions, recommended protective actions,.and supplemental event-specific data not provided by ERDS. Emphasis will t,e' given to producing no new impact on Control Room personnel due to the transmission of data over the ERDS.
- 13. What procedures and system controls will be required for the ERDS?
A procedure will be required for activation of the system during emergencies, probably an emergency plan implementing procedure, and for.
1 conducting system tests with the NRC. Any procedures or controls for system verification and validation or configuration control should be done in conformance with existing plant procedures as modified to require prompt notification of the NRC for any changt which affects ERDS parameters or the ERDS data stream.
f a
L I
'1 p
1',
' t.
l.
s-l.
1-
- 14. Will the ERDS cata be provided to State authorities?
Although the NRC is not soliciting or recommending State participation in the ERDS program, one provision of the systems design is user ports for States within the 10 mile plume exposure EPZ. This provision was made to reduce the likelihood of different data being provided to the NRC and a State becaust c' differing data sets where the State has decided to collect data. This prosision is not expected to affect States that already have a data collectier system.
If a State expresses a desire to participate in the ERDS program, the NRC will provide ERDS data to that State under a specific Memoranoum of Understanding. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding would be to specify communication protocols for clarifica-tion of ERDS data and data security requirements. The NRC would provide those States with contractor developed software and make one output port available to the State from the NRC Operations Center. The States would have to obtain compatible PC hardware and licensed software used in the ERDS system to receive the data. This will ensure that all parties involved are using the same data base for their analysis. Any request made by a State to set up the capability to receive the data will be discussed with the utility.
- 15. Will the NRC recuire a oeriodic test of the ERDS, and if so how frequently?
The NRC does expect that periodic testing will be required to ensure system operability. Currently we expect that testing will be done quarterly.
Should system reliability parait, the frequency of testing may l
l
- n,
4 t.
.. & i*
A
.... t>e recuced.
Testing of a State' link portion of the system sill be done with the NRC. Therefore, no licensee participation will be required for this test.
. 16. Will participation in the ERDS program remain voluntary?
The NRC is reviewing the need for rulemaking to require the implementation of ERDS at all. nuclear power plants in the event the voluntary program is not achievable. It is anticipated that the provisions of a proposed rule would be the same as those.of the voluntary implementation program currently in effect.
- 17. What will be the boundary of system maintenance responsibility?
The NRC will be responsible for maintenance of all parts of the ERDS system installed starting at the input port of the first ERDS-specific piece of hardware (e.g. modem for single feeder plants and multiplexer for mt'ti-feeder plants).
-