ML19331B726
| ML19331B726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1980 |
| From: | Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| FOIA-80-303, FRN-45FR36082, RULE-PR-50 SECY-80-088, SECY-80-88, NUDOCS 8008120674 | |
| Download: ML19331B726 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.-...... jpg, g, gov. -l ( ~ SECY-80-88 -- FIR'E PROTECTION RULE 8 7 SEPARATE COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS HENDRIE AND KENNEDY O NEW REGULATION FOR FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR NUCLEAR POW OPERATING PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,1979 We agree with the fire safety provisions of the proposed Appendix 10 CFR Part 50. In its original presentation of this rule that the Commission proposes. 'to the Commission, the staff proposed a ' schedule which we believe is more reasonable. In the absence of Three Mile Island and the actions we have required, the short schedule the Commission proposes might be appropriate in view-of the extended period during which a number of these fire safety provisions In the present situation, the Comnission 'have been under discussion. has properly imposed a large number of Three Mile Island-related safety We are coricerned that requirements on operating nuclear power plants. the short implementation schedule proposed here for fire safety provisions, together with the large workload associated with the Three Mile Island requirements, may make it impossible for licensees to complete all of l these measures in a carefully considered and thorough fashion. Since all operating plants have implemented a number of improvements in their fire safety' postures, the remaining improvements 'to be required under i the proposed rule do not seem to us so urgent as to require either shutting doun of plants because of inability to complete these requirements e on the short schedule proposed or to make those improvements in a hasty fashion. We note also that the proposed implementation schedule would require licensees to submit their plans for complying with this rule by August Considering that the staff has said it will' not be able to 1, 1980.. complete its plant-by-plant reviews to determine specific re to make an adequate plan. plS DOCUMENT CONTAINS .I;g, POOR QUAUTY PAGES ~ t 4 9 9 e ,----,.-----,,,-,-------,,,---,y-, -g-, n- , - -,------m,-,---.--m.,w _,-,,pm, ,,y- ,--w-,--,,,g,e, ,w--py,w,,, em,
~ I
- } - p
~ sa. 4t 30-ag is e '
- y..._..
f %i Ok 3
- *? *.~.'" *
- ~ '
ff u, %:;al ~ H V og g J 4/2ggise ~ T h r % M%af j e= = 4 4 -a==""~" 5 5:nn:- l =.... l ' ~ ~ ~ ' - ...nn --= :n: Y:::=- l =.. ~~ ! 55.. _ .. : =: .-"=:,,,,,~,,,,,
- =..
" =:.-:.==- =g.- -.. ~ ~
===_.......::=:.. .==.====ii..=~---- ..~.=.:._...^... '~~" .::=_ -- :---==:::(-{:.. "::~~ -= :.. ( '==;=~;:E=.lEiiEli Y"~;:..:==..- - - - - = = z_ =.....:2......-- .se .e..ew.. }.
- ====
===.w
men==
.====w=w.==..._-..-..... .=
- =-
.n= :g;;. --r - ;EE= - -=:=-EEi:=:iin=== ...._... :..=. =-E:_.. ~ " : :.:. :.. EE ~' "~E' ;5bE "~~
- ~ ="=~ ' **"======
~~"' "~ - - = " ~ ~ " "E =E'WiE=i..:li'"E'= '"~" ~"~ E = 5EE5"~2 -";E!:-cr= E ~ -T " =;E5:== ^ --- =
===. ~" ~ ~ " ~ ' " " ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ = "-==?= ^ ""~~ "=== ==. ' \\T= R EE= "EE.= :. -.. ~." t ,g,.=;gg,,,,.j ; =y. "_"..,.,,g.g.=t:
- 9_......; =
' ~ * " ' = = = - \\t %: :=.:=... ::.'" ~D=...==..==s._.. - -gg; .:.,=,,..,,.;,, =,.: mm
c= -=5
y MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Acting EDO Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary FROM:3. SECY-80 FIRE PROTECTION ACTIONS
SUBJECT:
. 6.. di. i,.- This'is to advise you that the Commission (with three Comissioners concurring) has approved the publication of a proposed rule. Modifications to the version of the proposed rule prepared by the staff are sumarized in the attachment. Comissioners Kennedy and Hendrie provided separate. coments wh'ich are given below, and which are to be inserted into the Supplemental Infomation section of the Federal _ Recister notice.
- Comissioner Gilinsky comented as follows:
"I approve publication of this proposed rule for coment. I very much support increased fire protection. I am concerned however that sufficient analysis has not been perfomed to assure that the new fire suppression systems will not interact with so-called non-safety systems in a way that could pose safety problems. I am also unclear on the extent to which fires affecting so-called non-safety' systems have been analyzed. I would value comments on these points." i The staff is requested to: 1) Modify the FRN'as indicated in the attachmentM h s 2) Obtain the views of the ACRS and provide the Comission with an analysis of them. 3) Respond to Comissioner Gilinsky's coments. l 'R % I: V' ' I' ? N. $~ n .wu
- - v g-77_:
- th_:
. 51 - The Commission notes:p J -- v.. (a) That the notice of ' proposed rule making will be published in the Federal Reo'ister allowing 30 days for public comment. Dwing to the nature of this rule and the fact that the positions of the staff and the licensees are documented and well known, no extension of the comment period will be granted. (b) That, if afte~r expiration of the comment period no significant adverse comments or significant questions have been received and no substantial changes in the text of the rule are indicated, the Executive Director for Operations will arrange for publication of the amendment in final form. .(c) 'That pursuant to 5 51.5(d) of Part 51 of the Commission's regulations neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be prepared in connection with the amendment, since the amendment is non-substantive and insignificant from the standpoint of env.iro'nmental impact. l (d) That the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior 'and Insular Affairs, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of ~ the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and l the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources i of the House Committee on Government Operations will be informed. [lf2[\\E E i Lilli-
e ( (e) That a public annopncement will be issued. ~ (f) That a letter vd11 be sent to each licensee affected.'by the rule informing it of the requirements of the rule by (the date of publication of the FRN) All notices, proposed should be modified to reflect the Commission's alterations. to the proposed FRN.
Attachment:
' Modifications to pronosed rule cc: Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Hendrie Commissioenr Bradford Commission Staff Offices Director, SD Director, NRR SECY Contact SJSParry 41410 D 9 O
The Comission rhqueis that tha following modifications be made to tha proposed rule: + _.. 1. Insert the separate comments (attached) of Commissioners Kennedy and Hendrie at the bottom of p. Sc (# ( 2. P. 1, second paragraph (i.e., headed " Dates") add to the last line the following: "Further, since the issues involved are well known and have been under discussion for several years, the Comission does not anticipate changes in the rule's action deadline as a result of further comments received." A% 3. P. 5, replace with pps. 5, Sa, 5b as attached. 4. P. 6, first paragraph, second line, insert the phrase "with respect to certain recurring generic issues" between " require-ments" and "for". 5. P. 8, paragraph "B", reword and clarify the phrase " visually ~ indicating". 6. P.13, replace and expand p.13 with the pps.'13,13a and 13b as attached. 7. P. 27, paragraph (20, lines 1 and 3, replace the word " Assess" in each line with the words " Assessment of". . 8. P. 29, paragraph "J", first 1.ine, insert the word "readily" between the words "not" and " damaged". 9. P. 35, first full paragraph, line 2, does this item "(1) free of fire damage" mean not previously damaged by fire or not readily damaged by fire. Please clarify this item.
u instance, all agree on the need for a fire brigade on all shifts. The disagreement is "how large?" The staff says that five should be the minimum ~ size permitted while some licensees say that a brigade of only th'ree or four will be adequate. Similar disagreements exist with each of.the basic requirements covered by this proposed rule k'here the staff's safety evaluations contain open items, the position of the staff and the licensees are documented and well-known. There are, however, a few instances where the staff has accented certain fire protection alternatives that would not satisfy some of the recuirements
- of this prooosed rule.
The minimum reovirements contained in this rule were developed over a three-year period and, in each of these instances, the staff accepted a crocosed alternative before these minimum reouirements were established. All licensees will be expected to meet the recuirements of this rule, in its effective form, includino whatever chances result'from The-isswes-are-net-new -either-Ver-the-staff-er-fer-the public comments. s 44 e e ns e es -i nvelve d:--Thi s-p r e p e s e d-r ei e-a n d-4 t s - Ap p en d 4 x-R-a dd r e s s-e niy-the s e i s s u es - t hat-E r e-e e n ezi e-i n-n atu r e t -n e - pl a nt-s p e e 4 fie-4 s s ue s-a re-in el ud e d: l Because of the above-me'ntioned differences between the staff and the Ticensees l . in the. interpretation of the staff's guidelines, it is timely and necessary for the Commission to state what the minimum fire protection requirements I' will be in each of these contes'ted areas of concern. This proposed rule and its Appendix R have been developed to establish the minimum these acceptable siniswa fire protection requirements necessary to resolve these contested areas of concern for nuclear power plants operating prior to January 1, 1979.
sww.._ m p ( Other fire crotection criteria that have beeiused by the staff durino its plant-soecific fire protection procram reviews are contained In Accendix A to BTP 9.5-1. The combination of the cuidance contained in Adoendix A to BTP 9'.5-1 and.the recuire ents set forth in'this crocosed rule define the essential elements for an acceptable fire protection prooram at nuclear power plants docketed for Construction Permit prior to July 1,1976, for demonstration of compliance with General D'esion Criterion 3 of Accendix.to 10 CFR Part 50. Similar acceptable cuidance is provided in STP 9.5-1 for nuclear power clants docketed for Construction Permit after July 1,1976. These-regwiatiens-state th e s e-fir e-p re t e st ? s s-r ee.w ? reaent s -f e r-s w ei s a r-p ewe r-f a s( 44 ti es-th at-a r e-cer. sider'ed-ainiaea-generis-regwirements 's-set?sfy-Ees.erai-Bes4gr.-Gr4terien 'n'e r e f-Ap p e nd 4 x-A-te E FR-E 9r--Th e -p r e p e s e d-Ap p end ? x-R-s p e ci fi es-h e th g e n e r ai-a s,d-s p e e 4 fi e - r e e,wi reme nt s - e f-a n-E e s e p t a b l e - fi r e-p r e t e c ti e n-p r e g ras-n ;.t: r t All modifications (except for alternate, shutdown capability) would be recuired to be implemented by November 1,1980, ':, 'r
- d ::.=: :ht::,
ty tt _s-d_r' 't: '#-r' -=#" 1' ;-tut ;: tts er:r "~ ~'t uld be
- n e'7 +..
e'3n_t.L.-t f;^; ;-i- ; '1 rf'n '#ene k u, ip p -4**e4 3 r'e t ^ed ?- th: :::: cf :l':r 2te F - -
- 15'".
the ce zse' i c ul'd-be "?r"#*ed tr Ort ;.6 c si!.Edel: '. : 10 " :~ tthl: I 29d 100 :"ed i a.. 1 __ _.1 - ~..w o
~ 6.- 4 unless, for good cause shown the Commission approves an extension. Since the issues involved are well,known and have been under discussion'for several years, the Comission anticipates approving few, if any, extensions. No plant would be allowed to continue operating after Novemb'er 1,1980, or beyond an extended date approved by the Commission, unless all modifications (except for alternate or dedicated shutdown capability) have been implemented. The Commission recognizes that, in a few instances, approval has previously been given to pe.rticular licensees to extend the implementation dates for some modifications beyono November 1, 1980. The Commission will review these extensions on a case-by-case basis to determine whether continued approval or some revision of the extension is appropriate. For alternate or dedicated shutdown capability, the proposed rule specifies implementation deadlines which depend on which kind of capability is to be implemented and whether the plant is under review in the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP)*. For non-SEP plants, the proposed implementation deadlines are April 1,1981 for alternat,e shutdown capability and December 1,1981 for dedicated shutdown capability. Licensees who have committed to earlier implementation dates will be expected to meet those commitments. For SEP plants, the proposed implementation deadlines are December l',1981 for alternate shutdown capability and October 1,1982 for dedicated shutdown capability. The proposed rule requires licensees to submit pla.ns and ' schedules to meet these implementation. deadlines by August 1,1980 (non-SEP plants) and November 1,1980 (SEP plants). The. Commission may revise the implementation deadlines for SEP plants to earlier dates following completion by the NRC staff of its review of the status of fire protection at those plants. The staff Sb
\\ review is expected to be completed in August,1980. Plants under review in the SEP include Palisades, Dresden 1 and 2, Oyster Creek. Millstone 1, Ginna, Haddem Neck, San Onofre 1, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, and Yankee Rowe. .I 3 e 5 c. --a, ,, -a, -Q..
r i ('. s. Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as' amended, the Ene.rgy Reorgani:ation,Act of 1974, as amended, and section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments' to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated. PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1.. A new Section 50.48 is read as follows:
5 50.48 Fire Protection: (a) Each operatinu nuclear power facility shall have a fire protection plan which meets the recuirements of Criterion 3 of Ascendix A to this cart. This fire protection plan should censist of two sections. The first section should describe the overall fire.orotection orocram for the facility, identify the various positions within ' the licensee's organi:ation that are rescensible for the program, 2 state the authorities that are delecated to each of these cositions to inclement those responsibilities, and outline the ol'ans for fire protection, fire detection and suceression cacability, and limitation of fire danace. The second section should describe specific features necessary to implement the first section, such as: administrative controls and personnel reovirements for fire prevention and manual fire suppression activities; automatic and manually operated fire detection and suocressien systems; and means to ensure capability _ to safely shutdown the olant in spite of fire damace to safety related or safe shutdown structures, systems or comconents. S
~ ( p I ',- l Licensees implementing alternate (ii) Plants included in the SEP: shutdown capability shall complete implementation by December 1, 1981; licensees implementing dedicated shutdown shall complete i implementation hy October 1,1982. Licensees shall submit, by November 1,1980, plans and schedules for meeting these imple-mentation deadlines. The Commission nay revise these implementa-tion deadlines to earlier dates following completion hy the NRC staff of its review of the status of fire protection at SEP pl ants. The staff review is expected to be completed in August, 1980. A new Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 is added to read as follows: 2. APPENDIX R--FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR HUCLEAR POWER FACILI OPERATIkG PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,1979 I. IRTRODUCTION AND SCOPE This Appendix sets forth the minimum fire protection requirements needed for nuclear power facilities to satisfy Criterion 3 of Appendix A t'o this part with respect to certain recurrino ceneric issues for nuclear 1/ power plants that were operating prior to January 1,1979. This Appendix applies only to licensed commercial nuclear power electric generating stations operating prior t.o January 1,1979; it does w g - +- y-w,- ---,+,- -- - -m-y- ---y e--c-
(,a { = (b) For nuclear power facilities that co=henced coeration prior to January 1,1979, ap'propriate portions of' Criterion 3 of Anoendix A to this part will be satisfied by meeting the recuirements contained ~ ~ in Appendix R to this part. G r e F a t 4 ES-EW eS e aF-p eWeF-f a E4I4 ti eS-tha t-E EE:eR E ed-e y eFati e R-F ri S F-t6-J a REa Fy-l p.$ 9793 - E h E 45-pe e t-th e-F e (E 4 F eEe EtS -e f-EFit eF 4 e K e f-App e Rd4 X-A-t e - t hi s -F a r t-by-s a ti s fy4 RS-the-Fe e,e( F eme n t S-c e nt a4 Re d-4 R-Ap p e nd4 x-R- ~ te-th4s-paFt, The implementation of the requirements contained in Appendix R to (c) this part (except for alternate or dedicated shutdown capability) shall be completed by November 1,1980 unless, for good cause For alternate or shown, the Comission approves an extension. dedicated shutdown capability, the following implementation schedule will apply. Plants not included in the Systematic Evaluation Procram (SEP)i* (i) Licensees implementing alternate shutdown capability shall Licensees who have complete implementation by April 1,1981. previously comitted to earlier implementation dates will be Licensees implementing expected to meet the earlier dates. dedicated shutdown capability shall complete implementation by Licensees shall submit, by August 1,1980, December 1,1981. plans and schedules for meeting these implementation deadlines. ine combination of the cuidance contained in Appendix A to Branch 1/ Technical Position 9.5-1, " Guidelines for Fire Protection for !!uclear Pcwer Plants Docketed Prior to July 1,1976", as implemented by the staff in its plant-specific fire protection procram reviews of operating nuclear power plants, and the requirements set forth in Appendix R to this Part define the minimum necessary conditions for demonstration of. compliance with General Design Criterion 3 of Appendix A to this Part for nuclear power facilities that co=nenced operation prior to January 1, 1979.
- Plants under review in the SEP include Palisades, Dresden 1 and 2, Oyster Creek, Millstone 1, Ginna, Haddem Neck, San Onofre 1. La Crosse, Big Rock Point, and Yankee Rowe.
n ..,-}}