ML19329G094
| ML19329G094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/02/1980 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sauter G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-303, FRN-45FR36082, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8007110586 | |
| Download: ML19329G094 (7) | |
Text
kD-THIS DOCUMENT CONThlNS POOR QUALITY PAGES Dete RotmHG AND TRANSMITTAI. S1JP 4/2/80 TO: (Neme, office symbot. room number, InPJats Data bunding, Agency / Post)
L
[ Georce D. Sauter H-ll56 2.
i 3.
4 B.
Action FUe Note and Return Approval For Clearance Per Converution As Requestad For Correc*Jon Prepare Reply Circulate For Your Information see Me
~ ' ~
Comment Investigate signatL.7 Coordination Justify REMARKS Per Chairman Ahearne's request, we have developed the enclosed.
Please call if you have any quest' prior to the 1:30 meeting.
y A' W Gus Lainas X-28069 cc:
D. Eisenhut P.. Ferguson T. Wambach DO hot use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals.
charances. and similar actions FROM:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)
Room No.-Btdg.
Phorie No.
SMI-Ic2 OPT 1oNA1. FORM 41 (Rev 7-76) c c.s.c,e n..
.u i-s o - m.
TN[(Yck$-11.:05 l
I 800711.0 68 0
~
FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW PROGRAM STATUS As background, the fire protection reviews consist of two major areas.
First, the adequacy of fire protection features needed to prevent and extinguish potential fires.
This part of the
- review includes the adequacy-of fire brigade manning and training, control of combustibles, adequacy.
of sprinkler systems, hose. stations, etc.. Staff reviews of this area will be completed by July 1980 and implemntation is feasible by November 1,
_1980._ Most licensees are committed to this implementation schedule with some exceptions.
The exceptions are related to those items requiring plant shutdowns to implement (e.g., the installation of oil collection systems for reactor coolant pumps which requires access to the contain-ment).
Licensees have comitted to making these shutdown related modifications during the first scheduled refueling outage after October
'1980. A firm required date for these modifications by end of 1980 would therefore necessitate a number of plant shutdowns, since it is unlikely that all of the large numbers of affected nuclear units have scheduled shutdowns prior to the end of 1980.
However, we believe it approoriate, as the current proposed rule reouires that implementation be required by November 1,1980 althouah it may result in plant shutdowns.
The second review area is related to the need for alternate shutdown capabili ties. Licensees must demonstrate that they have' adequate capa-bility for plant shutdown assuming a postulated fire in a critical plant location.
This review area has required substantial modifications and review effort.
The schedule for the completion of staff reviews of this area for all plants, with the exception of the 11 SEP plants, which will be discussed in following paragraphs, is July 1980. The conclusion that will be reached at that time will be either (a) that the plant has adequate capability including any proposed modifications, or (b) that additional modifications are required.
Staff reviews have been completed for 28 plants; fourteen plants have completed installation, and five are scheduled for installation by December 1980.
The amount of tiine required to design, pr6 cure and install. equipment
~
for alternate shutdown system modifications varies considerably from plant to plant.
It is estimated that implementation of required
. modifications will take 6 to 12 months from the time that the staff determines that alternate shutdown modifications are required. All staff reviews to determine the need for alternate shutdown modifications are currently scheduled to be finished by July 1980.
The staff currently estimates that an additional 12 plants could implement these modifications by December 1980.
However, the remaining 23 plants require more extensive modifications which could delay implementation to June 1981.
e e'
I e
7
7 7 fm e
1 In accordance with our current plans, the 11 SEP plants would require an even longer implementation schedule.
The reason"for this is that the systems necessary to shutdown these plants are undergoing review for several issues that c.ould require safe shutdown system modifications, e.g., tornado.miss s, floods, pipe breaks inside and outside contain--
ment, and earthqr.mes.
The SEP could, for example, conclude that certain existing systens do not have adequate seismic capability or adequate flood protection and therefore, additional dedicated systens would be needed.
Until now, the staff's review was being conducted in parallel' for these issues with the objective of not requiring installation of significant alternate shutdown modifications for fire
~
. protecti6n and then a few months later require additional or redesigne' dedicated systems for other SEP rev,iew. considerations.
To accelerate the fire protection evaluations, the be reviewed for safe shutdown capability by Augusd*SEP facilities will 1980_ regardless of whether or not the licensee has submitted a tire protection safe shutdown analysis.
For those SEP plants requiring alternate shutdo"n systems, we expect modifications to require about 18 months for system.
design, procurement of equipment, and installation.
For th6se plants requiring dedicated systems, we, expect completion of the installation to require about 30 months.
Based on the foregoing, we would reouire alternate shu_tdown related modificatio'ns to be implemented by June _1981 for non-SEP olants, For
_the-SEP plants, followino the Auoust 1980 review, we would ranoire all modifications to be installed as scon as nossible but no later than December 1981 for alternate shutdown systems and no later than December fl982 for dedicated systems.
l-L.
l e
e e
- ALTERNATE / DEDICATED SHUTD0'n'N SYSTEMS STATUS AS OF PARCH 31, 1980 Total ' Operating Plants -
68 1.
Alternate Shutdown System Modifications Complete -
14 (staff reviews complete)
Wild Browns Ferry-1,2,3 Ft. St. Vrain Brunswick 1,2 Hatch 1,2 Kewaunee Davis-Besse 1 Rancho Seco Cooper
-D.C. Cook 1,2 2.
A1. ternate Shutdown System Modifications Scheduled to be Completed by December 1980 - (staff reviews complete) Estt h - p g n/a 5
Indian Point 2,3 Farley 1
- ['
Biaver Valley Crystal River 3 S.
Alternate Shutdown System P difications Not Now Scheduled for December 1980, but could, by Staff estimation _be completed by December 1980 - (* staff reviews complete) 12 g
North Anna 1*
Monticello Arkansas 1,2 Fitzpatrick Trojan Ft. Calhoun Quad Cities 1,2 Three Mile Island 1 H:B. Robinson D.resden 3
~
4.
Alternate' Shutdown System Podifications Could Extend to June 1981 by Present Estimates - (* staff reviews complete) rg 23
=
Salem 1*
Surry 'i,2*
Duane Arnold Zion 1,2 Millstone 2 Maine Yankee Turkey Point 3,4 Vermont Yankee Peach Bottom 2,3 Calvert Cliffs 1,2 Point Beach 1,2 St. Lucie Prairie Island 1,2 Three Mile Island 2 Nine Mile Point
- Pilgrim g
Dedicated Shutdown System Required - scheduled for' January 1982 -
3 5.
Oconee 1,2 3
~
h 8(
~
p.l.sM }.,2~<hq Q uRe to %m news
QQ,'
pb
~*~
j h Staff review -
SEP plant Alternate Shutdown 5y, stems to be completed by August 1980
. H
~
Palisades San Onofre 1+
Dresden 2 % db-A N O Dresden 1+
Oyster Creek +
Lacrosse +
Millstone 1+
Big Rock Point +
Ginnah Yankee Rowe**
Haddam Neck +
ID
- Dedicated system anticipated (Installation expected to'be completed by 12/82).
+ Alternate shutdown system anticipated (Installation expected to be completed by12/81J.
e 9
4 h
,e I
l i
i
\\
l
>s 2.
OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES The followinJ list shows the issns, other than shutdown capability, which were not completely resol J by the iss0ance of the SER for the plant.
The letters after the plant name refer to topics included in the proposed Appendix R and are defined in the Key below.
Sone of these issues have been resolved ~ subsequent to issuance of the initial SER.
Arkansas 1, 2:
D.F.K,M,Q,Y Maine Yankee:
C,D,E.F,G,K,M Big Rock Point:
G,Y
&nticello:
B,D.E.F,J,K,S,T,Y Indian Point 2, 3:
C.F,Y Peach Bottom 2,3:
D, E, F, G,1, K, L,P.R Oconee 1, 2, 3:
K S T,V,Y,Z Oyster Creek:
A,G,J.K,R Point Beach 1,2:
D.E.F,G H J,K, Palisades:
E,F,G,K,M,U,Y M,5,T,V,W,BB Trojan:
F,J.K,M,5,Y St. Lucie:
B.C.D.E.F G,H,1,J,M, Haddam Neck:
A,E,K.M.S.T S,Y,Z Dresden 1,2,3:
B,D E F.S.T.AA Fitzpatrick:
A.B.C.E.F,K,L,S, Duane Arnold:
A,F,J,K.R.S.T,W X,Y,Z,AA Millstone 1,2:
F K,M,T,W,Y Fort Calhoun:
C.T,X,BB
~
Quad Cities 1,2:
E,F,T Ginna:
C, F,G,K,M,5,T,V, X,Y,Z. AA} '!a N"p1 C,E,F M.T,AAJ' " #) Th San Onofre:
u H.B. Pobinson:
D,J,K,L.M,T,Y,X, Turkey Point 3,4:
B,C.E F T,Y Y,BB w
Yermant Yankee:
C,F,G,J,K,Q,R T' Lacrosse:
B,C,D,E,F,G,Q,R,T,V,Y,AA
~
Zion 1,2:
F,J,K,T,X Pilgrim:
F,G,K,R,5,T.V,X,AA Yankee Rowe:
C.D.E.T.V Three Mile Island:
D.E.F.I K,L, Prairie Island 1,2:
B,D,F,J,K,M.S.
M,T,V,X,Y,BB T,V,2,AA Calvert Cliffs 1,2:
A,C,D,E,F,G, Surry 1,2:
B,D, E, F. G, K,M,5,T,
I,J K,L.M,R,T U,V,BB DSS or IE Reviews - No Data D.C. Cook 1,2.- DSS Farley 1 - DSS Fort St. Vrain - DSS Beaver Valley - IE Hatch 1,2 - DSS Cooper - IE
' Davis Besse - DSS Crystal River - IE 2-North Anna 1 - DSS Nine Mile Point - IE ] sis 1 ($%.i Salem 1 - DSS
- % iw.% iLJ
,LladJ~>.4Aser e
Q e
g
- 7-2
_ KEY:
Fire Hazard Analysis E
Fire Water Distribution System C
Water Supply
-D Manual Fire Suppression 2
- Automatic Fire Detection F
automatic Fire Suppression G
Fire Brigade H
Fire Brigade Training 3
Emergency Lighting J: - Administrative Controls K
Fire Barrier Penetration Seal Qualification l
Supervision of Fire Doors
' M - RCP Oil Collection System N - Hydrant Block Valves 0 - Sectional Control Valves P
Hydrostatic ' Hose Tests 0 - As~ sociated Circuits R
Radiological Consequences S - Ventilation Systems i
T In-Situ Test U
Technical Specifications V
Combustible Control W - Diesel-Generator' Intake -
X ' - Fire Retardants Y
Penetration Seals AA
_ Exposed-Stsel Protection BB - Water Damage 1
9 e
9 1
e 9
r e
- m 1 4
+
-+