ML20237D220
Text
3 ,,, , , ,
s b /' I s , . (MITED STATES
'o
' ,: y e
'y s ft NOELEAli REGULATORY COMM!SSiON
- g .i r. AsHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y
%l . ., , 'f s JUN O 31987/ ',
0 "'**' '
e' -
c :
MEMORANDUM FOR: Guy A. Arlotto, Mrector RES/DE fghiamn
@h y Denwood F. Ross, Acting Director, RES/DRAA e Brian W. Sheron, Director, RES/DRPS 4 L Bill it. Morris, Director, PES /DRA
, t ,
FROM: EricS.Bedkjord, Director}' ' '
?
0.%e of diuclear Regulatory Research '
SUBJECT:
/ SchDULE IOR RESOLVING GENERIC ISSUE NO.125.I.8, " PROCEDURES APS.5TAFFING FOR REPORTING TO NRC EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTER" x .
Thefin44ags f the Davis-Besse Incident Investigation Team as reported in NUREG-II64, " Loss of Main and Auxiliary Feedwater Event at Davis-Besse Plant on June 9,1985." wrs,(t ret @ sed by the staff to identify potential generic issues and to make Wcountkdations regarding the need for staff actions.
Twenty-nine separat \ subtd@ were identified as long-tem actions for prioritization. TV memorandum addresses the prioritization of one of these subtn ks: Issue 12 L8, " Procedures and Staffing for Reporting to NRC Emergmcy Respdase Tenter."
The prioritization of this issim shows that the safety concerns have been dQQressed in the resolution of TMI Action Plan Item III.A.3.4, "fiuclear Datg_,
b9 link," and by existing regulatory requirements. Therefore, the issue will te --
DROPPED from Verther consideration. i s
.The enclosed prioritization evaluation will be incorporated inka bREG-0933, l "A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues," and is beingunt to the regions, other offices, the ACRS, and the PDR by copy of this memorandon and its
, enclosure to allow others the opportunity to connent uit the evaluation. All comments should be sent to the Advanced Reactors and Generic Issues Branch, ',
DRA, RES. Should you have any questions memorandum, please contact Ronald Emrit X-24576). (pertaining to the contents of this A
, 7 r
j y Eric S. Beckjord, Director .
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j
Enclosure:
t g PrioritizationEvaluatlon' '
l cc: See next page ,
s t I s . i N . ty ;
s s j k 8712230115 071210 $' ]
PDR FDIA l
} PDil W SHDLLYB7-737 i
I
O cc: T. Murley, NRR J. Zerbe, DEDROGR ii. Thompson, NMSS 44*49rdanir AE00 =
W. Russell, Reg. I J. N. Grace, Reg. II J. G. Keppler, Reg. III R. D. Martin, Reg. IV l
J E. Martin, Reg. V l ACRS i PDR 1
l l
O -
O ..
9
O ENCLOSURE PRIORITIZATION EVALUATION 1ssue 125.3.8: Procedures and Staffing for Reporting to NRC Emergency Response Center l
O I
l.
O
I 1
n ITEM 125.I.8: PROCEDURES AND STAFFING FOR REPORTING TO NRC EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTER 1
DESCRIPTION Historical Background This issue arose out of the Davis-Besse incident of June 9, 1985940 and j is based upon Finding 12 of the Incident Investigation Team's reportsse which states: j "The event was not reported to the NRC Operations Center in a manner reflecting the safety significance of the event. The more )'
serious the event, the more operator ir.volvement required to maintain plant safety. For example, if the June 9 event had been protracted, knowledgeable personnel would not have been available to maintain an open telephone line with the NRC."
Safety Significance It is evident from the Incident Investigation Team's reportsse of the event that there were two problems: one associated with staffing and one 1 associated with procedures. The staffing problem was that all knowledge- l able personnel were kept busy in dealing with the event. No one could be !
p spared to keep the NRC Operations Center informed. Moreover, even if j more plant staff had been available, it is*likely that these additional j persons would have been pressed into service for plant operations. Of .
course, bringing the plant to a safe condition does and should have ,$ M ,
priority. But this also calls into question the usefulness of the h g /Aa,h A.p# L dedicated phone lines to the NRC Operations Center. < j l
The procedural problem was evident in the fact that there was confusion l because the emergency plan was silent on how to determine the emergency action level if the emergency classification changed during the event.
Obviously, the emergency procedures contained some ambiguity.
For both problems, the result is a delay in notification of the NRC An A c.
Operations Center. Although it can be argued that notification of the J u y NRC can have_ little or no effect on plant events in _the_shar.t_terj!1rtfie !
NRC can provide technical support and assistance over a period of _i several hours. Moreover, ple_NRC can assist in coordinating evacu_a- ,I tions, etc., if such should ever prove necessary. Finally, the NRC has !!
other responsibilities not directly related to plant safety but never- .i theless of importance, such as providing accurate and timely information 'i to the public,'other government agencies, and the governments of other l nations. l
!I o
O e 1
~
)
PRIORITY DETERMINATION O The starrias arab'e= is a o"9'icatioa' ' of the coacera or '"2 ^ctioa Plan 48 Item III.A.3.4, " Nuclear Data Link." In addition, the procedural.
problem has already been addressed in existing regulatory requirements (10 CFR 50.72) and IE Information Notice No. 85-80. Furthermore, the IE ,
~
Manual acidresses the NRC regional responsibility for assuring that these reporting requirements are met.1o03 CONCLUSION This issue consists of two problems: the first~is a duplication of TMI 3 Action Plan *8 Item III.A.3.4 (which has been resolved) and the second has been resolved independently.2003 Therefore, this issue should be DROPPED .,
from further consideration as a new and separate-issue.
REFERENCES:
886. NUREG-1154, " Loss of Main and Auxiliary Feedwater Event at the ,
- Davis-Besse Plant on June 9, 1985," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission, July 1985.
940. Memorandum from T. Speis from H. Thompson, " Longer-Term Generic Actions as a Result of the Davis-Besse Event of June 9, 1985,"
November 6, 1985. >
1003. Memorandum for W. Russell from K. Perkins, " Generic Issue 125.I.8,
' Procedures and Staffing for Reporting to NRC Operations Center,'"
O- November 25, 1986.
l l
~
1 f
\
1 l
. .r/ e 'r ERDS LICENSEE ACTIVATED. PROBABLY AT ALERT LEVF'.. . j i
DATA PROVIDED UllDER EMERGENCY. CONDITIONS ONLY.
.J l
NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO PLANT SENSORS.
DATA LIST ABOUT 60. VARIABLES,-COMPARABLE TO SPDS SET.
i RELATIVELY LOW COST'DUE TO USAGE OF EXISTING SYSTEMS.
l l MINIMAL BACKFIT, SOFTWARE FOR DATA ASSEMBLY AND MODEM ,
i ~O FOR 1 TRANSMISSION.
F. -
, LIMITED DATA LIST NECESSARY TO ASSESS PLANT SAFETY.
ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY ARE EXCELLENT.
TIMELINESS IS EXPECTED TO BE EXCELLENT. INITIATION WILL DEPEND ON SYSTEM CONFIGURATION.
COMPLETENESS IS EXPECTED TO BE EXCELLENT. SITE SURVEYS HAVE INDICATED GOOD PARAMETER COINCIDENCE.
I O -
REDUCES DATA GATHERING AND TRANSMISSION BURDEN ON LICENSEES. SUPPLEMENTAL VOICE TRANSMISSIONS'HAVE BEEN REDUCED. ,
1
\
i NDL vs ERDS
{
O NDL ERDS
- l AUTOMATIC ACTIVATION BASED LICENSEE ACTIVATED.
ON PLANT PARN1ETERS. PROBABLY AT ALERT LEVEL.
POTEtRIAL REGULATORY TOOL. ,
DATA CONTINUOUSLY RECORDED DATA PROVIDED UNDER EMERGENCY I AT OPERATIONS CEtRER. CONDITIONS ONLY. !
SOff CONNECTIONS DIRECT TO NO DIRECT CONNECTION.
PLANT SENSORS, POTENTIALLY l
DEGRADING INSTRUMENTATION.
INITIAL DATA LIST AB0lfT 400 DATA LIST ABOUT 60 VARIABLES, VARIABLES, LATER REDUCED TO COMPARABLE TO SPDS SET. {
125. !
HIGH COST DUE TO REQUIREMEra RELATIVELY LOW COST DUE TO USAGE FOP, A TOTALLY NEW SYSTEM. OF EXISTING SYSTEMS. !
EXTENSIVE BACKFIT, REQUIRING MINIMAL BACKFIT, SOFPIARE FOR DEDICATED ONSITE COMPUTER. DATA ASSEMBLY AND MODEM FOR TRANSMISSION.
t] INCREASED DATA MAY ENCOURAGE LIMITED DATA LIST NECESSARY NRC TO DIRECT PLANT OPERATION. TO ASSESS PLArU SAFETY.
ACCURACY NO RELIABILITY ARE ACCURACY AND RELIA.BILITY ARE EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT.
TIMELINESS IS EXCELLENT. TIMELINESS IS EXPECTED TO BE EXCELLENT. INITIATION WILL DEPEND ON SYSTEM CONFIGURATION.
COMPLETENESS IS POTErRIALLY C0ffLETENESS IS EXPECTED TO BE EXCELLEt6 DUE TO PARAMETER EXCELLENT. SITE SURVEYS IW/E AVAILABILITY. INDICATED GOOD PARAMETER COINCIDENCE.
REDUCES DATA GATHERING AND REDUCES DATA GATHERING AND TRANSMISSION BURDEN ON TRANSMISSION BURDEN ON LICENSEES. LICENSEES. SUPPLEMENTAL VOICE TRANSMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REDUCED.
1 i
O l l
4
l I
THE ERDS REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS HAS JUST RECENTLY BEEN CONCLUDED O
l BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS CONSISTED OF VISITS TO THE LICENSEES BY NRC STAFF TO REFLECT AGENCY POLICY, AND BY CONTRACTOR STAFF TO DETERMINE THE DESIGN OF THE DATA SYSTEMS ON 4 SITE AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DATA TO BE PROVIDED TO THE NRC. !
THE REPORT ON THE SURVEY WAS SUBMITTED IN MARCH 1987. SOME ITEMS NOTED DURING THE SURVEY INCLUDE: )
THE AVERAGE AVAILABILITY OF POINTS FOR APPLICABLE PARAMETERS AT PWRS SURVEYED IS 92.6%. OF NOTE IS THE FACT THAT ELEVEN !
PWRS HAD 100% AVAILABILITY, THE AVERAGE AVAILABILITY OF POINTS FOR APPLICABLE PARAMETERS AT BWRG SURVEYED IS 78.7%. NO BWRS HAD 100% OF THE APPLICABLE PARAMETERS AVAILABLE AS TRANSMITTABLE COMPUTER POINTS.
APPROXIMATELY 5 TO 10% OF LICENSEE SYSTEMS ARE RUNNING AT CLOSE TO 100% PROCESSING CAPACITY NOW IN THE POST TRIP OR INCIDENT O ENVIRONMENT.
APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15% OF THE LICENSEE SYSTEMS ARE HARDWARE LIMITED (E.G., NO AVAILABLE OUTPUT PORT FOR AN ERDS CONNECTION).
- BASED UPON SURVEY-COLLECTED DATA, 33% OF THE POINTS SELECTED UNDERGO SOME TYPE OF SOPHISTICATED VALIDATION CHECKING (E.G., DIVERGENCE CHECKS BETWEEN COMPANION POINTS, STANDARD DEVIATION CHECKS, RATE OF CHANGE LIMITS, ETC.). 58% OF THE POINTS SELECTED UNDERGO ONLY A SIMPLE RANGE CHECK (USUALLY TO DETERMINE IF THE ANALOG INPUT SIGNAL FALLS WITHIN THE MAXIMUM / MINIMUM OUTPUT RANGE OF THE INSTRUMENTS LOOP DETECTOR).
THE REMAINING 9% OF THE POINTS HAVE NO VALIDATION OR RANGE-CHECKING APPLIED.
O m
l THE CONTRACTOR THEN DEVELOPED A CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM DESIGN POR RECEP-() TION, STORAGE, AND DISPLAY OF THE DATA AND SUBMITTED THE ERDS i
REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS REPORT IN APRIL 1987. THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A CONTRACTOR FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ERDS SYSTEM HAS BEGUN, WITH ;
AWARD EXPECTED NEAR THE END OF FY 1987. PRIORITIZATION OF THE PLANTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IS TO BE DECIDED BASED ON THE EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION, COST, COOPERATIVENESS OF LICENSEE, AND OPERATIONAL HISTORY OF THE FACILITY. ONLY LIMITED PLANT CONNECTIONS ARE EXPECTED THE FIRST YEAR DUE TO HIGH INITIAL COSTS FOR THE PROCESSING HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE AT HEADQUARTERS. HOWEVER, COMPLETION OF THE SYSTEM IS EXPECTED IN 5 YEARS.
1
. 1 I
l
)
1 (2)
O
.f/ 8 Y O
EROS Implementation FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 Total Budget 1,000 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,030 350 5,470 -
ERDS 6 20 20 20 20 7 93 Connections Scheduled to begin 4th quarter FY 1987. Does not include telecommunications costs.
("
(
J l
.l G
] ,
I
1
- I l
6 H.R.1570 vs. CURRENT VOLUNTARY IMPLEMENTATION i
MANDATORY SYSTEM VOLUNTARY SYSTEM-REQUIRES IMPLEMENTATION ESTIMATED 5-YEAR WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PASSAGE IMPLEMENTATION BASED OF BILL. ON FUNDING AVAILABILITY.
AND LICENSEE EQUIPMENT UPGRADES.
ESTABLISHES ERDS FUND FOR NORMAL AGENCY FUNDING.
REIMBURSEMENT OF ERDS COSTS WITHOUT FISCAL YEAR LIMITATIONS.
($)
- PRECLUDES IMPOSITION BY OTHER POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES OF AN ADDITIONAL REQUIRED SYSTEMS.
DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ON LICENSEES. (PERMITS EXISTING SYSTEMS TO BE GRANDFATHERED AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE SHARING PERTINENT DATA WITH OTHER OFFSITE ORGANIZATIONS.) I J
J O
t'[ P EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM (ERDS)
,O ERDS Concept: (Unchanged)
The Emergency Response Data System concept is a direct electronic data line to the electronic data systems of nuclear power facilities for use l only during emergencies at the facilities. The data to be transmitted would be a limited set most likely available on the existing data f computers at the sites. NRC would accept the data in a transmission format and at an update frequency convenient to the licensee and the licensee
\
would control activation of the system.
Status of Implementation:
O The ERDS Requirements Analysis has just recently been concluded by the
]
contractor. The requirements analysis consisted of visits to the licensees by NRC staff to reflect agency policy, and by contractor staff to determine the design of the data systems on site and the availability of the data to be provided to the NRC. The report on the survey was submitted in March 1987. The contractor then developed a system design for i reception, storage, and display of the data and submitted the ERDS Requirement Analysis Report in April 1987. The process of selecting a contractor for implementation of the ERDS system has begun, with award expected near the end of FY 1987. Prioritization of the plants to be implemented is to be decided based on Ease of implementation / cost, cooperativeness of licensee, and operational history of the facility. Only limited plant connections are expected the first year due to high initial costs for the processing hardware and software at Headquarters. However, completion of the system is expected in five years.
ENCLOSURE 1
^
. C. ERDS - GENERAL
- 1. Nuclear Data Link Funding and Legislative Histroy, not dated.
- 2. Five Year Plan - Diagnosite Detail: Mission Area to Activity by Office, dated August 5, 1987.
- 3. Memorandum for G. Arlotto, D. Ross, B. Sheron and B. Morris from E. Beckjord, dated June 3,1987; subject: Schedule for Resolving Generic Issue No.
125.I.8, " Procedures and Staffing- for Reporting to NRC Emergency Response Center. "
- 4. ERDS, dated May, 1987.
- 5. ERDS, dated April, 1987. ,
- 6. Letter to W. N. Stasiuk from T. E. Murley, dated March 17, 1987.
- 7. Lette'r to D. M. Scott from P. H. Lohaus, dated February 24, 1987.
- 8. Memorandum for J. Taylor from T. Murley, dated February 4,1987; subject:
January 16 Meeting with State Representatives on ERDS.
- 9. List of Participants, not dated.
^
- 10. Agenda - Meeting with New York State Representatives on Emergency Response lh l
Data System, dated January 16, 1987.
l
- 11. Note to J. M. Taylor from K. Perkins, dated January 16, 1987; subject:
Notes for EDO Staff Meeting.
1
- 12. Conceptual Design of Incident Resonse Data Link System, dated August, 1986.
- 13. ERDS, note dated.
- 14. Memorandum for J. Hickman from F. Young, dated December 16, 1986; subject:
Participation in December 10, 1986 - Meeting with the Regional State Liaison Officers.
- 15. Memorandum for J. Hickman from R. Virgilio, dated November 24, 1986; subject:
Participation in the Regional State Liaison Officers' Counterpart Meeting -
December 10, 1986.
- 16. Letter to W. E. Davis from T. E. Murley, dated September 11, 1986. ,
- 17. ERDS FY87 Budget Requirements, dated August,1986. '
- 18. Rehe #5, ERDS, dated May 27. ,
- 19. Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action, dated May 2,1986. ;
- 20. AIF Briefing, not dated.
t
- 21. Memorandom for J. G. Keppler from E. L. Jordan, dated April 17, 1986; subject: Survey of Licensees for Interface with the Emergency Response Data System.
- 22. ERDS, dated March,1986.
- 23. Letter to P. Collins from J. Hickman, dated March 19, 1986.
- 24. Information Notice No. 86-10: Safety Parameter Display System Malfunctions, dated February 13, 1986.
- 25. Memorandum for J. Martin from E. Jordan, dated February 10, 1986; subject:
Survey of Licensees for Interface with the Emergency Response Data Link. ,
il
- 26. ERDS, not dated.
1
- 27. Memorandum for J. N. Grace from E. L. Jordan, dated December 23, 1985; [
subject: Survey of Licensees for Interface with the Emergency Response '
Data Link.
- 28. Letter to R. Kerringan from J. Roe, dated November 15, 1985.
- 29. Memorandum for T. Martin, J. Stohr, J. Hind, R. Bangart and R. Scarano from
~
E. Jordan, dated October 3,1985; subject: Schedule for Emergency Response :
Facility Appraisals. j
- 30. ERDS FY86 Requirements, not dated.
- 31. News Article, " Contract Signed for More IN-stack Monitors," dated Summer, l 1985.
- 32. Status of ERDS Demonstrations, various dates.
- 33. Generic Issue Management Control System, not dated.
- 34. Miscellaneous Note, not dated. d
- 35. Memorandum for W. J. Dircks from J. M. Taylor, dated June 26, 1985; subject:
TMI Action Plan - Completed Ites.
- 36. Note to Ken and Ray from Andie, dated May 30, 1985. l
$g
- 37. FY 1987 Program Summary, note dated. c
- 38. Memorandum for J. R. Miller from K. E. Perkins, dated May 23, 1985; subject: b Parameter List for Incident Response.
c
- 39. Memorandum for K. E. Perkins from J. R. Miller, dated May 13, 1985; subject:
s Variable List for Emergency Facilities. O
- 40. Miscellaneous Questions, not dated.
I o
l -
., 3-l
- 41. Miscellaneous Questions, noted dated.-
- 42. Memorandum for E. L. Halman from J. L. Blaha, dated February 22, 1985; subject: GY 1985 Advance Procurement Plan Update.
- 43. Note to F. Pagano, S. Long, J. Zudans, 8. Brach and W. Scott from E.
Fox, dated January 24, 1985.
- 44. Miscellaneous Note, dated January 8.
- 45. Miscellaneous Note, dated January 4,1985.
- 46. NRC Emergency Functions Requiring ERDS Parameter, not dated.
f
- 47. NDL Pros and Cons vs How ERDS Addressees Each, dated January,1985.
- 48. Mis.cellaneous Note, not dated.
- 49. Miscellaneous Note, dated October 9.
)
- 50. Miscellaneous Note, dated October 8.
- 52. Letter to M. Kerrigan from K. Perkins, dated October 2,1984.
- 53. Attendance List for Emergency Planning Working Group, dated September 21, 1984.
- 54. Letter to T. Tipton from K. Perkins, dated August 28, 1984.
- 55. Memorandum for R. DeYoung from K. Perkins, dated August 14, 1984; subject: .;
Emergency Response Data System Development Exercise July 19, 1984.
- 56. Johns Chart, dated March 16, 1984.
M m,
-f l
i
1 NUCLEAR DATA LINK (NDL)
FUNDING AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY o FY 1981 1
)
NRC requested $3 million for NDL.
Appropriations: I
- Conference Report (H.R. 96-1366) did not exclude NDL funding.
Authorization:
- No bill enacted.
'NRC requested reprogramming of $2.2 million from appropriated NDL funds on May 29, 1981.
Bevill approved reprogramming and requested deferral of actions on NDL until Appropriations Comittee concluded action on FY 1982 budget.
FY 1982 l NRC requested $5 million for NDL.
Appropriations:
- Conference Report (H.R.97-345) limited NDL funding to $200,000 and l l required an NRC report on issues identified in H.R.97-177. {;
\
1
- House Appropriations (H.R.97-177) deleted full NRC budget request.
l
- Senate Appropriations (S.97-256) approved full NRC budget request but limited spending to $1 million until Comission reports to Congress on .
NDL prototype studies. il FY 1983 NRC did not request NDL funding.
Appropriations: !i
, j'
- NRC funded under Continuing Resolution (funding guided by FY 1982 appropriation legislation and legislative history). f
- House Appropriations (H.R.97-850) specifically did not recomend any l additional funding for NDL.
- Senate Appropriations (S.97-673) restored House reduction on NDL funding.
,l l
1
-___m_____--_. _
?
4 Oy June 4, 1982 Representative Udall sent a letter requesting deferral of NRC action to issue an RFP for an NDL prototype evaluation until after FY 1982-83 authorization action was complete.
Authorization (FY 1982-83):
- P.L.97-415 limited NDL funding to $P00,000 for prototype evaluation and analysis of NDL related issues and required NRC to report to Congress at least 60 days prior to any implementation of NDL.
- Conference Report (H.R. 2330) specifically does not restrict the use of FY 1981 carryover funds for NDL prototype activities, except where reprogramming requirements apply.
April 7,1983 NRC submits report to Congress on the issues identified in l H.R.97-177 and advises Congress that NRC is about to issue an RFP for aa NDL prototype evaluation.
i May 13, 1983 Senator Simpson sent a letter urging NRC to move forward with j the issuance of its RFP to fulfill requirements of P.L.97-415. I FY 83 Pay Raise Supplemental:
- Conference Report sustained House action (i.e., reduced $700K) and ;
stated that no funds are provided for the Nuclear Data Link. !
- House Appropriations reduced request by $700K and directed that the FY 81 unobligated carryover funds for NDL be used to cover pay raises. I 1
FY 1984 NRC requested $1 million for NDL.
Appropriations:
- Conference Report (H.R.98-272) specifically excluded funds for NDL.
- House Appropriations (H.R.98-217) reduced NDL !. million.
- Senate Appropriations (S.98-153) restored $1 million for the NDL.
Authorization (FY 1984-85):
- P.L.98-553 authorized (1) acquisition and installation for small test prototype NDL program or any other program for the collection and transmission of data from licensed nuclear reactors during abnormal conditions; and (2) a full and complete analysis of:
O the appropriate roie of the Commission during abnormai cooditions;
- the information which should be available to the Commission;
- the costs and benefits of alternative means of providing this c information in a timely manner; and any changes in existing Comission authority necessary to enhance h the Comission's response to abnormal conditions at a nuclear Lj reactor. j If the Commission proceeds with this program, one of the alternatives considered must be a fully automated electronic nuclear data link.
FY 19'85 NRC requested for ERDS Appropriations:
- No mention of NDL or ERDS in legislation or committee reports. ;
May 10, 1985 NRC reports to Congress on its efforts to upgrade technical data acquisition capabilities for response to emergencies at licensed nuclear power plants and results of analysis complete in response to O P.L.98-553.
i FY 1986 i NRC requested $600K for ERDS.
Appropriations:
- No mention of ERDS in legislation or committee reports.
Authorization (FY 85-86):
- No legislation passed.
- No mention of ERDS in pending legislation or connittee reports.
l FY 1987 i NRC requested $1,030K for ERDS.
Appropriations:
- No mention of EROS in legislation (only reported by House).
O i
l
~4-Q
- Authorization:
{
- No legislation or reports have been reported.
j
'O <
r ll
- l 1
4.
~
i,
'i l
1 l
S t
i 4
O L; . - . . . . - -
/
f.'*
. to.i.
og %
a 8 en.
/ EP c.c.
c.
== e.>9-g f. e.r. .O.
4 ..d w as g 85 -
.t.>
t " 2 O.
- 9
@ . W. #. mi. 3.- C. .
s.e ei. fa P. G o O
- ~ . e r. N (4 C t.ee B ab f. w 8 E> a E> e
- e.
- O eC
> . C C s e O O w1 el* : - sE e e*n en I ei h1 e i. c ee v.
C
- 1 W7 W8 W9 7 ' &. C. O. C. O.
- e. O .- e. O ta,a a r. N r h.
.e. > i,
- .e, < O,
. ,a, e, a w . .
n O .O, . .%- O ~
e O fw .= e.=
=.
- es w = c m.e o o. O. O O. O.
u o. e. c c. c. .
. . c.
- t.
. w ., c. c. ~
B . O w
g C
,O w
_ : e - O qO e : *e eO . O w .e. e t vi eT mi ea
- e. ,
a 2 e 4#D .=
> O.o.
u E
W >
9 4 O Li E' a- n. o. e. c. O. O.
= t e. O.
- . ~ r. c. ~ ~ .
w . u
=. 5w
> w
a m - .
O - .
w W a*E Ew m
.e e
4.>
. a, O, . O, RRO w -
e w e.
. S *i S O., ,
=.
O s = j . .= .O. .
y M
. ..=. E w - 5 6 w*
- e. .O e. c. e. s. = O. w e. e.
=>
.- w . c. c. c. c. .,
. O
- e W - - .
w 1
2 s "
E
> **- OQ O g C C O b.
E na. 6 O 0
.=.
b e w*a O .- .C1 e. en a
- 8 m o,
, O.
. .=. _=
g m
? -
g E - W
- g. - E E k
- e. dX @ w W9 e. W. =. .O t c. m,,j c, =,. O, O, O.
- rg P. O .gp g p
- tad . L.D= N C.=d r. gn.s
- = .- U n r .4 8
M g >
k % 6
.E=
GD 8 e
ha.d 3 w 9.*"
8
- R me,e E g
& 4 n e ec : .- e = aes.-"
- . - = 6 O O O hs O. e, o.g e* 8 E o. ** .* w e. .. N g ** E .E" o.O.
N b
".' E E E M g Y
ss e war O
M s
war O
.. u .
S
> a ==
.m -
' 8"" b .
6.,a.
- O w > .O- @
- - O p - ,,#
. ,,4 g
.. .e M 41 E.. q e- >
4 - ==
eC m- 6 e- y
- u e-S O 4
- O.
p O.
m O.
p to' *- 3". 3.>
=
O *= E C. e- S C *3 u 6 E. 4 .C* U Q
- e. a e 4
al 4 Ex: O
& C. O LD g>
O 63 =
W O' O O U s.p.
O C3 C- d.> EF. er g erg C .
- 't EK to O .
O O de.
, O se. O .
$8 O O 6 O O
.O b e4 (P-em sa. *4 Em to 6a,.
O g*
O O O
O O E O O E 6D ,9 e9 g e9 * *e nem f
h March 17,1987 o r William N. Stasiuk, P.E., Ph.D Director, center for Environmental Health New York State Department of Health 404 Tower Building - Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12237
Dear Dr. Stasiuk:
This letter responds to your questions raised at the January 16, 1987 meeting held in Bethesda, Maryland with NRC staff and other State representatives on the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS). I have enclosed for your information the implementation status of the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) for New York's nuclear power plants. Please feel free to call upon the designated Project Manager for updates on implementation schedules.
Also, as discussed in the January 16 meeting, our contractor's assessment of current utility systems to support the EROS at each reactor is still ongoing and will be provided to you upon its completion.
During the meeting, State representatives expressed interest in routinely receiving our daily status reports. Upon checking into this matter we find that limitations in our computer system and other resources do not permit us to meet this additional request. We will, however, continue to send New York State copies of inspection reports, enforcement correspondence, confirmatory action letters, and other documents under our exchange-of-information program.
Sincerely, Driginal ~ signed Sy Tho:n E. !!urley Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Distribution:
As Stated TMurley RPriebe JA11an % rkins l
TMartin FYoung WKane PLohaus RVirgilio
- SAGA SLd *IRB:IE *IRB:IE *D:DRSS *D:DRP *DRA RVirgilia/mrf PLc'haus RPriebe KPerkins TMartin WKane JAllan y 3/ /87 3/k/87 3/ /87 3/ /87 3/ /87 3/ /87 3/ /873//[/87 l
O oPFIcIAL RECORD coeY
^A,e . -, ,
'6 T l 4 4 6 0 4 % ~ y cff?> -
1' i
O ENCLOSURE-SAFETY PARAMETER DISPLAY SYSTEM (SPDS) STATUS PLANT PROJECT MANAGER STATUS FitzPatrick Harvey Abelson SPDS to be implemented 5/15/87.-
(301) 492-8375 Ginna- Dominic Dilanni SPDS revi'ew and implementation (301) 492-7215 expected by early 1988'following refueling outage in 8/87.
Indian Point 2 Marylee Slosson
- f SPDS to be implemented 4/88.
(301) 492-7090 l
( Indian Point 3 Don Neighbors 1 l SPDS implemented 10/85.
(301) 492-8140 Nine Mile Point 1 Janet Kelly SPDS in operation and under NRC (301) 492-9479 review. Review to be completed' _l i
5/87.
Nine Mile Point 2 Mary Haughey i (301) 492-9422 SPDS installed but under NRC ;
review. Expected to become I
operational (late 1988, early 1989) after first refueling outage. j
- i Shoreham Ronnie Lo (301) 492-9481 SPDS installed but under NRC review. -Implementation expected after first refueling outage. i i
I !
]J O '
_ ____ _ _____ _ __ _ _