ML20002A164

Transcript of NRC 801027 Meeting in Washington,Dc to Discuss & Vote on Fire Protection Program.Pp 1-43

ML20002A164
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/24/1980
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20002A165	List: ML20002A164 ML20002A166
References
FRN-45FR36082, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8011050030
Download: ML20002A164 (45)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I-O l

2TCC2.ZAR REGUI.ATORY COMICSSOCN l

i

?4

(

COMMISSION MEETING

(

l In ti:a Mat:ts: cf:

DISCUSSIONANDVOTEONFIREPROTECTIOh PROGRAM (CONTINUED) l

'l l

i,)

i l

(

DAS:

October 27, 1980 pAggg.

1 - 43 I

A7 Washington, D.

C.

1 I

ALDERSOX ' *t REPORTING l

t' 400 Virginia Ave., S.W.

Washingen, D.

C.

20024 Talachc=e: (202) 554-2245 l

8011059 030

1

AR/AR '

l j{

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

2j NCCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

3i i

i i

4' Q

5 n

y Discussion and Vote on Fire Protection 6

Program (Continued) 7 E

8 8,,

n d

i 9l ic h

10 I E

Room 1130 3

jj l 1717 H Street Northwest l

j Washington, D.C.

d 12 '

j Monday, October 27, 1980 h

13 !

5 E

14 i The Commissioners met at 2:05 c.m.,

pursuant to E

I r

15 j

E l

notice.

l

?

16 ^

i PRESENT:

John Ahearne, Chairman.

Joseph Hendrie, Ccmmissioner.

l Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner.

(-

j9 l Peter Bradford, Ccmmissioner.

5 n

20 l ATTENDING FOR THE NRC. STAFF:

i Edson Case 2) y William Dircks 22 '

Howard Shapar i

Richard Vollmer Thomas Wambach 23'l.

Robert Ferguson 24 ;l l

25 ~!

.i q

i J

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

I

l 2

ATTENDING FOR THE OFFICE OF GEMERAL COUNSEL:

i 2l Leonard Bick, wit Marty Malsch 3

ATTENDING FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION:

1 John Hoyle i

e 5;

E i

n 6l g

9 7'l E

5 8'

n d

d 9

i I.:

I:

10 4 5

l

=

'A 11 '

<M i

12 z

5 i

4 s

13 E

'J)=

14 N

E

^

r 15 x

J 16 i

M I

i l

i i

E 19 i

s i

20,'

i i

21 i

22ij l'

l i

23 1 s

1 24 i

l i

I 25 !

I i

.I t

4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

oo o

.n DISC.A_N._l2 l

This is an u=cfficial ::a scrip: ci a, =as:1=g of da Uni:ad Sta:as Nuclaar lagulaccr.- ;,:"dssi=n held onOctober 27, 1980 in da Cc:mzission's offi as a: 1717 E S tran, N. ~4., '4ashd g:cu, D. C.

Da :ssa:ing.as open Oc pubid a::andanca a=d cbserva:1:n.

o

"'his. :.mscripe has =c

' baan reviewed, cc :sc:ad, or afi:ad, and 1: =ay contain i=accuracias.

Tha ::2=scripe is is:andad sola17 for gn=a.21 < #::=a d e-~ 2 purposes.

As p:cvidad by 10 C71 9.103, 1: is zo: par. ci da

!c:=al or ' #::=al racord ci decisics of.he =at:ars disc =ssed.

Izprassicus of opd-d en in -"d < ::2=scri : da sc

=a c ass ar..'.7 raflac: fi=al data.- ::i=a:1cus or hai d_ais.

No pleadi=g :: other paper =ay be 'd ' ad 21:5 ds C.-

'*si:n in any p ccand1=g as da rasul: of or addrassed :o a=7 s:2:a=a== or ar;==e== :==~' d ed hara1=, excep as da. Cc==ission =ay auchcrica.

l

I 1

PEEEEEEI_EEE I

2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

The Commission mets again on fire 3.

protection.

A long time ago, it seems, Mr. Hendrie had requested ;

4 we defer final action on the fire protection rule until he l

5l-returned.

He may now regret that.

But, nevertheless, we have e

4

)

n 3

6' the latest bulky version, which I think, at least in my going.

=

R

\\

s 7l through it seemed to meet the request that had come out of the I

~

3 8l last Commission meeting, which was October 21st, and I guess, n

i 5

9l Ed, you or the gentleman on your left, if you would like to make i

i E

10 i any opening remarks with regard to -- Bill, did you want to say N

i 11 ;

somethiz g?

5 d

12 I MR. DIRCKS:

I hope that in this package we have 3=

d 13, incorporated all of our assignments, things that you asked us un E

y i4 do.

I hope in doing that, it holds together as a comprehensive M

i 2

15, package now, but I guess that's something we feel pretty sure i

5 y

16 ; it does, although we haven't stepped back three paces to take a j

+

.cok at it recently.

l l

I

,8 Ed, I don't know whether you have anything.

[

19 MR. CASE:

I would just add to that whichever version i

J" i

20 !

you approve today -- we'll be optimistic --

21 (Laughter.)

3 22 1

-- we would like 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to step back and look at it 23 '

before we send it to the Federal Register, since we have been 2

i 24 2 concentrating on different alternatives, it's rather difficult J

1 i

25 ;' that way, and if you look at one, it's a lot easier, and so we N'

l

l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

l 4

j ! would like that 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, if we could possibly have it.

l 2l MR. DIRCKS:

Not too much longer than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

MR. CASE:

No.

I could go over each one of the 3i 4' enclosures.

l e

5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Why don't you do that? Particularly

a s

6 it may help Commissioner Hendrie who has not had the benefit o

j 7

of those enjoyable sessions we have had.

l 8

MR. CASE:

First I'll talk about Enclosure 1.

I'll d

I g

9 go through them in order. is the fire protection i

10 ; rule and a statement of considerations proposed by the Staff.

It E

ij now includes a separate schedule for Appendix A modifications. It l

5

,i d

12, has three steps involved.

z i

5 13 The first of these steps is to compare the existing E

E 14 ; license conditions with a date that you would get by applying

?

C i

15 ' the time durations given in the rule for Appendix R items; take g

t

[-

16 ' that time duration, add it to the time that the SER was issued, f

l shich approved that feature; compare that with the license f

18 condition that exists for that feature; and take whichever of d

l i

I 19 ~ those two is sooner.

5 i

l 20 l Now the purpose of that step is -- the Appendix R 21 durations were chosen with today's information as the Staff's t

22]best idea of the time schedule it would take to complete those 23 items when they are divided into three categories:

shutdown, 24 nonshutdown, and administrative items.

1 I

The second step to remember is --

i 25

?

I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

l 5

j I!

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Hold on.

I 2I (Laughter.)

l 3

The aim here is -- let's see if I understand the aim.

4 MR. CASE:

Let me state it.

I e

5:

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Appendix R says for certain N

j 6

plants and on certain things, do the following.

R t

M 7!

MR. CASE:

Yes.

R 8!

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Now that those things are d

o 9i prescribed, you now allow some implementation time, times which I

)

10 '

you have judged to be practicable.

3) 11 For people who got off and running on agreed-to 5

i y

12 solutions under Appendix A maybe quite a while ago --

=

lj 13 l MR. CASE : Yes.

And not yet done.

_r z

i j

I4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

And not yet done, you are R

15 saying, well, if they really should have gotten on with those I

j 16 two years ago and be pretty well complete now, why, it isn't l

clear to you that they should have all the time which would i

18 ' otherwise follow from the Appendix R implementation regime.

So a

19, that is by saying the shorter of the two, why, you have it in f.

I

?

20 - mind that some of those things will pull in.

And, in fact, i

q i

21 ] there may have been some date put in the license conditions 3

22 'I which would extend out past what you would think reasonable.

i 23l MR. CASE:

Yes, sir.

I 24

^

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Okay.

Now the only question 25 ; I've got is from those who may be present on the Staff who have l

l i

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

I

l 1

6 i

1, been closely associated with the Appendix A reviews over the past i

2l several years, does anybody know if that's going to result in 3

somebody getting cut off at the knees?

You know, quite apart 4:l from the merits of whether he's been dragging his foot on i

e 5l something which had been agreed to, he maybe ought to have done --

N h

6 MR. CASE:

They don't get cut off at the knees, because R

y*

oS l

this rule would not be effective for 90

• days.

So they will have s

j 8l 90 days in which to assess how they come out under this scheme d

~.

9; and ask for either an extension or an exemption if they can't 3-g 10 j make the date that results from this first step.

E

_! II!

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Do you have any feeling how 3

Y I2 !

much --

=

g 13 MR. CASE:

Yes, I do.

=

n 5

I4 I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

-- applying for exemptions

{

15 and extensions there is likely to be under this provision?

i E

I6 MR. CASE:

Yes, sir.

Right now there are 25 plants j

with completion dates after 11/1 for Appendix A items. If we i

18,

take that first step, there will be -- let me make sure I get j

=

t "g

19 this right -- 16 who do not satisfy that first step on 11/1.

l

.=

p 20 '

Now if I move the date for compliance to the 21 ) effective date of the rule as is proposed to the 1st of I

22 February, that 16 reduces to seven plants.

{

.t 23)

.Now the provision in this proposed rule gces on to i

t 24 ] say that the Director of NRR may grant an extension -- and this 1

25 4 would be applicable to those seven -- if there is good cause i

1 3

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

l'

L 7

1.

and health and safety is maintained, to update um later than 2

applying the Appendix R template to the date the rule is published.

i 3l And if I assume that I can find good cause and health and safety i

4!

is maintained, that last date in mind, there will be three units i

e 5'

that go beyond that date.

E y

6 One of those is San onofre, where the present R

l 7l tachnical specification says these modifications don' t have to be a

I 8!

completed until the SEP program is completed.

d y

9l CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

I see.

So what's happened z

O 10 :

out there?

They've been waiting for the completion sort of to E

h II wrap it all up with the all the SEP requirements, and then try B

i I

12 l to do it all at once.

E ag 13 !

MR. CASE:

And we have taken a contrary position in

=

x 5

14 '

subsequent units, so they would have to be brought into sync E

i E

15 with what we are doing on other SEP plants.

3 i

I j

16 ;

The other unit is Peach Bottom 2 and 3.

j l

Explain the reason that they got in that shape.

It I

18 was a slipping of a refueling schedule, right, Tom?

s 19 i

g MR. HAMBACH:

Yeah, right.

Our approvals were issued 5

i l

20 e very late on Peach Bottom, because of a disruption in the review i

21 team, and a reassignment of personnel, and by the time we got l

22 '

back to them, they got some late approvals.

23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

So what happened, they weren't J

i 24 ;l able to crank it through on a firm refueling, and that puts it 4

25 j back a year and a half, or what?

)

I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

. 8 MR. WAMBACH:

Well, and then when the amendment was j

2l finally issued, they were given a blanket 18 months to comply 3

with everything, and that doesn't follow the formula that we 4l have figured, based on experience with other plants.

j 5l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

What are you going to do with

=

2 i

H 8

6; those three now?

k 7f MR. CASE:

They would have to ask for an exemption i

s trom the rule.

8 8

n d

i 9l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Okay.

n i

j 5

10 l MR. CASE:

And either the Staff could consider it on 5

l 5

11 ;

its own, or the Commission could get involved, whichever vou chose!.

l 3

i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Okay.

12 ll dZ

=

1 d

13 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

These three are three of the z

14 seven or --

j

=

~

1 c

5 15 MR. CASE:

Yes, they are three of'the seven.

l b

16 Hopefully, having got over that, the other consideration involved in Enclosure 1, we think that that scheduling provision l

i 18l allows us to do two things:

.=

E 19 i One, to give recognition to those plants that have l

5 i

20 ;

previously agreed to do Appendix A items by this scheme, because 21 _

it gives them more flexibility -- let me give you an example.

i

~.1 22 j They are doing some work with a completion date under Appendix A.

a 23 '

If Appendix R is backfit and recuires more work for them, they 24 can use the provisions I have just talked about to ask for an 1

25 i extension on their Appendix A items.

The good cause in that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i.I 9

I I

. case might be they had just been given some new work under Appendix I

2!

R, and they'only have a' fixed amount of manpower, and_they would I

i, 3 h rather put it to this and get the extension on the Appendix A I

i I

l 4!

work.

i g

5 So we think this provision gives flexibility and a R

g 6l, recognition of the fact -that these are licensees who have R

S 7l cooperated with the Staff in the past.

i j

8!

And that's about all I have to say about Enclosure 1.

d I

e

~.

9i Moving on to Enclosure 2, it has all of the features i'

z O

i y

10 of Enclosure 1, except it would backfit on all plants licensed z

5 II l to operate prior to 1/1/79 three items, three sections in Appendix 3

-4 12 z

R.

=

2 13 Those sections are-3 (g), which deals with separation w

I4 of safety trains and associated circuits: 3(j), emergency lighting;i c=

15 and 3(o) oil collection systems.

[

g

=

d I^

All of the other features of Enclosure 2 are the same I

as Enclosure 1.

That is as separate schedule for Appendix A 18 items and it has the recognition provision.

l G

I I

f 9

I9,

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

The alternate and dedicated shutdown!

3 i

e 20 was not one of the items, is that --

I i

2I MR. CASE:

That's correct, sir.

D 4

22 has the same provisions as Enclosure 2 i

23 j.for plants licensed prior to the ef fective date of the new rule.

24 That is three section backfit, three sections of Appendix R I

25 j backfit.

But it also makes Appendix R applicable in its entirety 3

i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

t

l 10~

I 1

I

j.as a. rule to all new OLs issued after the effective date of the

1. "1**

2I l

3l The other features of Enclosure 3 are the same as.

4 5;

If the Commission wishes to pursue that option any e

M t

n m re, they ought to talk to the lawyers who have been involved 8

6 m

f7 i in this on the subject of the consistency of that proposal with

~

8l the statement of considerations that was originally made when N

the rule was published for comment several months ago.

9 i

5 10 l --

E j

jj CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

By "the lawyers," you mean Mr.

I

<?

d 12 Shapar?

E 2

13 MR. CASE:

I think bo th.

==

MR. SHAPAR:

There are others here.

14 a

U l

5 15,

(Laughter.)

d i

g In this case, we have the same idea.

The issue is

=

i fairly simple, whether or not we put people on notice that this j

t 18 class of people would be affected in this manner.

j i

C i

b MR. CASE: is a mini-rule that temporarily 19,

.,3 20 !

suspends license conditions or -- that is, existing license 21,

conditions or technical specifications that recuire completion 3

22 f of Appendix A items until the issuance date of the new rule --

23, the issuance date o# this mini-rule, and the effective date of I

l the new rule.

And I would lik'e to point out that this has to-24 6

25 l be made immediately effactive.

It could be incorporated into the !

i l

1' l

i j

ALDERSON REPORTlWG COMPANY, INC,

11 l

.1 ! overall Appendix R rule, but it would have to be made immediately i

2i ef fective there.

3; And secondly, we have at least one license issue that i

1 4l comes due on the 30th of October, so we would like to get the I

i 5!

mini-rule out before that time.

e 3

6j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Now the mini-rule requires publica--

M 7l tion in the Federal Register; is that right?

s i

j 8l MR. CASE:

Yes, sir.

-J 9 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

If we acted today, what is the 3

10 i soonest --

z j

11 MR. SHAPAR:

Today would all right, and I think 3

g 12 tomorrow would make it, with special treatment.

=)

13 '

MR. CASE:

And then briefly, Enclosure 5.

• n i

E 14 is a way of dealing with the issue of the effective exemption d~

~

jj 15 l reques ts, and we do expect quite a feu, particularly if you backfit E

l j

16 those three sections, on the completion schedules -hat are l

l' specified in the rule. As'both of the legal groups pointed out i

i8 the other day,. legally there is no effect on the completion i

I9 schedules if one submits an exemption.

But in the real world, I j

5 t'

20 think the fact that an exemption request has been submitted must i

21 be taken into account.

i 22 ' is a way of doing it.

In my view, it 23 doesn't have to be in the rule, but I would like some Commission i

t 24 ) guidance on the subject.

I i

25 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:.In the absence of the rule, in the i

t I

)

J

i i

l x1 3'

I l absence of that provision, would the Director of NRR have i

1 2 l the equivalent authority?

1 i

i I

3 MR. CASE:

Only through acting on an exemption I

i 4f request.

I g,

5l MR. SHAPAR:

I think the Staff has authority to grant O

5 0!

exemptions, but I think you have worked out an arrangement with E

i E

7 the Staff that they come to you and let you know before they go s

i 8'

s ahead and use their authoritv.

d i

e 9i

~.

MR. BICKWIT:

And as I understand the practice, there ip 3

10 5

a review conducted by the Staff before they come to you.

I II MR. CASE:

Yes.

E i

d 12 E

MR. BICKWIT:

And what you're contemplating here is 5

g 13 that with the filing of the exemption request, after a very x

t

-5 I4 ; quick review by the Staff, not amounting to the kind of review

=

i

=

15 g

that you bring to the Commission, you would waive the requirement?!

=

.t E

I0 '

MR. CASE: Yes, sir, that's what that proposes.

It is a way of handling it, but there are other ways.

I i

18 '

And I think that's all I have to say.

19 i

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Joe, since you haven't had an n

20 opportunity to ask as many questions as we have in the past, let 21 ma start with you first.

?

22 1 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, what I was trying to 1

23 ;

~ 4

raise with you-all is whether we could not take up Enclosu.

1 24j and hopefully come to agreement on it, and then that would clear 25 '

the matter of the pinching of implementation dates.

j J

'l 3

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INCo l

13 i

jl CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, if we could clear the whole l

2; rule, then we could also do Enclosure 4, and they could have I.

3) their 24 or 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to review the whole rule and make sure j

4l that things were tight, and we would also have the pinching j

i e

5 taken care of, and I'd hoped to be able to get through the whole M

i n

i 6e package today.

e

[=

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

I think that from my standpoint, 7

f 8l why, that's practical --

a d

I 9j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I will not leave the table without i

i!

10 '

us taking up Enclosure 4.

E jj i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

But you do want --

l l

3 g

32 l (Laughter.)

3 l

t 5

13,

You do ant to try to get 4 underway today, and it

=

14 will have to go ahead, anyway.

l x

15 l l

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, it doesn't have to.

It

=

t 16 doesn't have to.

I think, from my own view, I would like to have l h

it.

s8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, if they would like a day E

19 or so to read the long rule and make sure that --

A i

20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

Yes.

What I would hope to do ',

21,

this afterncon is to get Commission approval of the big package, i

il 22 j subject to MRR and Standards going back and reviewing the whole 23 -

thing to make sure, yes, it all fits together, and the right 24 sections are referenced.

And if we can do that, then at the 25 same time approve a mini-rule for tne rederal register, then that.

4 J

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

f

I l

14 i

i i

j would wrap the whole thing.

That's what I had hoped to be able i

DO dC*

2i i

i MR. CASE:

I think it's fair'to sav that we are ready 3

i 4

to go to the Federal Register with a mini-rule now.

e 5

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

But I would like to get to the --

9 8

6 COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:

The mini-rule is Enclosure 4?

e f7 MR. CASE:

Yes.

~

3l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

But that isn't relevant unless n

d 3

9; you adopt the other part --

z

- k 10,

MR. CASE:

It buys you time, and you wouldn't have to i

I j

ij, buy this particular way, given in the big rule you are dealing i

R i

g 12 with the subject.

i z:

13,

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

What I would like to do is to get

~=

y 14 the big rule agreed to.

The little one is a way of making sure N

t l

5 15.

that --

+

5 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, back to the big rule.

B Page 37, for instance. Up at the top, (c), the first item, fire i8 Protection features, administrative controls, manpower, changes, i

c t

19 '

training, shall be implemented within 30 days after the effective an 20,

date, et cetera.

21 MR. CASE:

Now the effective date is 90 days from now. j i

i 22]

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Where are you reading, Joe?

i 23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

This is page 37.

Vic, what I 24j was just trying to do is to get straight what the relation of the !

l 25 l 30 days mentioned here ror implementing administrative type things) i l

I J

ALDERSOrM REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i

15 versus the ef fective date of the rule j

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :

(i) ?

2i i

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Yeah.

The 30 days appears a 3

i couple of places.

I just selected this one.

Okay, now, the 4

5l prop sal is that the rule becomes ef fective 90 days af ter e

n 6,

publication or 60 days --

o y

7 i MR. CASE: No, 90.

i

-j gi COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

90, excuse me.

90 days after n

publication in the Federal Register.

I will scan the room and 9

i 5

10 see if all the heads are nodding.

It's a helpful mechanism E!

11 because you can detect the difference between a nod and a shake.

B

.j j2 '

(Laughter.)

E_

~

13 Y u know,..I.'n always interested in whether page 37 and E

y ja page 1 are consistent.

That's one of the reasons you ask cuestions

+:

5 15 here.

E i

16 Okay, so 90 days to effective, and then the rule 3

l says, okay, I'm now effective, new you've got 30 days to crank I

i' 18 this stuff.

They, in fact, then have -- if therread the Federal s

[

19 Register, they have got 120 days now.

l A

1 f

20 MR. CASE:

Yes, sir, i

21]

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Okay.

I guess the way to put t

22 it is that I am prepared to vote for Enclosure 1.

I suspect a i

23 discussion between us this afternoon relates less to particular 24 items, say in Enclosure 1, than to the amending of Enclosure 1 25 by Enclosure 2, et cetera.

i ALDERSON REPQRTING COMPANY. INC.

1 i

16 I must say that I don't find a particular need to back-1 21 fit those three provisions in Appendix R on places where there has already been analysis of the need for fire protection in an area l

I 4I and an agreement between the licensee, his engineers, and the l

l s

5 Staff on measures that provide for an adequate level of fire i

j 6'

protection.

E 7l I take it that of the three backfits of Enclosure 2, j

8 th'a t the fire barriers for safety systems and associated circuits dn 9l is the major difficulty, would be the largest enterprise.

iO i

h 10 l Emergency lighting, as I understand from the transcript of 5

5 11 previous discussions, would involve some battery capacity additions l

t j

12 l at some plants, but probably not a large number.

E j

13 '

MR. VOLLMER:

In some cases they have different modes

=

.y 14 that may be acceptable by exemption. In other words, hard wiring.

H 1

2 t

j 15 to some emergency power sources that we would consider capable.

j 2

1 j

16 '

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

I see.

What about the oil collection systems?

The provision 18 i that-- are those are going to be full Category 1 oil collection l

?

k E

19 i systems?

i x

5 20 '

MR. VOLLMER:

Well, not full Category 1.

We are 21 0 looking for a demonstration of seismic ability, but --

t 1

22f COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

But I didn't think I found, i

23 you know, the full prescription there, and I wondered --

)

j i

24 9 MR. VOLLMER:

More like an OBE than an SSE recuirement. I a

d i

i 25l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: How much of an enterprise is l

i r

a

l j

17 i

1 that?

i 2,l Mell, let me ask it a different way.

Among those plants 3l that have had reviews for fire protection under the branch I

4l technical position and its appendix, what, if anything, was done i

i e

5 about pump oil or lube oil systems in those reviews?

s N

6l MR. VOLLMER:

Some of them did have collection systems, e

a 7j but some of them, I think, had fire suppression systems rather E

i 8

8!

than collection systems.

I dd 9j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

I see.

Y 10 j MR. VOLLMER:

And the point being --

z i

=

t 2

11 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

The fact that here then would 3

d 12 j be it would be easier to require a collection system.

z 3

i i

13 :

MR. VOLLMER:

That's right, because the suppression E

14 system for the noninerting containments is not thought to be a

b l

E 15 adequate in view of the flash points of the oil, and the fact t

5 16 that the fire could spread, and so on.

I l

Now there might also be certain cases, since the l

18,

coolant pumps themselves are not necessary for safe shutdown, 1

6 i

C 19 -

if the systems were adequately compartmentalized.

It might not 5n l

20 ;

have to --

21 :

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

If you can shut it down in i

i

)

22 spite of them burning, why, --

i i

23 MR. VOLLMER:

That's right.

That would require going l

1 1

24-back and --

l

)

1 4

25 j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Do you have a feeling for how j

t I

1

]

i i

13 l

1 many places collection systems would be backfit, where there i

2; already has been a --

l l

3 MR. VOLLMER:

Excuse me.

That should be on one of the handouts.

Tom, do you have that number?

4 a

5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

I'll settle for an approximation.

i H

8 6,

I wanted a feeling for --

u l

7 MR. VOLLMER:

I don't have that handy.

I U

8l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Five, 10, 15?

i d

d 9l MR. WAMBACH:

Well, I have the ones where Appendix R Y

E 10 i applies, you know, as Enclosure 1. With the consideration of f

5 11,,

in essence what that means, we would have to go back

<3 I

5 12 and look at the 25 plants that have been approved under Appendix A.

z 5

i s

13 !

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Okay.

And we just don't have 5

y 14,

a feeling at the moment how many of those --

E j

15 MR. FERGUSON:

I would estimate that there may be five i E

J 16 plants in the category of either they don't have an oil collec-l l

tion system or a suppression system was previously approved.

I l

i 18 think it would be more like 20 to 30 that may have to look at l

1

[

19 the seismic requirements of the early ones, before we could i

5 i

}

20 '

even consider that.

i 21 However, the seismic requirement we have on there now L

22 j is really just Reg Guide 1.29, which is when you put something i

23j in a safety area, make sure it holds together, and so forth, 24 i which they should have been meeting, anyway.

25!

The general feeling is that you look at the structure

i

19 1!

of the thing, just the fact of holding it together and all that.

2i Meeting this shouldn't really be a problem.

It would just be a i

3l matter of demonstrating that --

I 4'

MR. CASE:

We don't require all the pedigree.

g 5l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

I would think that would be the 9]

6 case.

Most of this stuff, if it's competently put in, will R

I s

7; stand OBE level shaking without any problems; in fact, probably a

~

j 8l good deal more than that.

J i

d 9i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

The way you have got it written in I

10. here in your Enclosure 2, would that end up, though, making it 3

l

~

a full-blown Category 1 seismic qualified safety?

l 3

11 j 3

g 12 MR. VOLLMER:

No, we're asking to demonstrate seismic

~4 E

13 resistance, which means -- I would try to categorize it as

=

14 something that would hold together under an operating basis i

E 15 x

earthquake.

j

=

l g

16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Okay.

So the oil collection, j

then, looks like half a dozen collection systems to be backfit.

18l What about the fire barriers?

j s

i j

19(;

MR. CASE:

Well, we've had some discussions of that

=

20 '

in the past, and I tried to, after the meeting, discuss it with I

21 the Staff so I could give a more or less approximate answer that j

h 22 ) they would all agree with.

It's a number --

l 23 VOICE:

Lots of luck.

24j MR. CASE:

I shall try.

i 25 '

For the 37 plants that are now closed and have been j

i 4

i

I o

j 20

' I reviewed under Appendix A, if you backfit --

t 2:

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

What do you mean, closed?

I 3

In cases where the issues of fire protection review has been l

l 4l completed?

i 5l MR. CASE:

Not necessarily completely implemented.

e 9

3 6

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Yetn, but the review completed.

E l

7j MR. CASE:

Out of that 37, a number of about 10 we

-n 1

j 8!

would expect that once even you give the exemptions, whether it I

d 9

is 19-1/2 feet instead of 20 feet and you go through that, there i

10 l would be about 10 plants where changes would be required.

z i

=

j 11 i Principally those where considerable credit was given for s

'f 12 :

protective coatings, rather than separation.

=

E 13 Of the 33 plants which are now open on that issue, E

14 that is where Appendix R would apply, we would expect that

~

t-i i

2 15 another number of about 10, there would have to be some i

a i

l j

16 significant changes in the design, either more separation or I

I things like that.

l l

i 18 :

So perhaps a total of 20 plants would be significantly ;

i i

19,

affected by the backfit of 3(g).

l 5

i I,

20 '

MR. BICKWIT:

Well, 10 additional; right?

l 21 I MR. CASE:

Yes, 10 additional.

1 I

i 22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

The ones that do not have 23j completed reviews pick up Appendix R, in any case.

i 24,

MR. CASE:

Yes.

Yes.

And that tries to reconcile i

i 25 l all previous estimates which the Commissioners --

i s

I i

21 i

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, I scanned the transcript y

l 2i f the meeting you had last week.

I found it a peculiarly i

unenlightening transcript.

3 CaAIaMAN AHEARnE:

As opposed to --

4 5{

COMMISSIONER HEMDRIE:

It's just that when you read e

X

\\

j 6l the transcript, there are an awful lot of pieces of information e

that you get, you know, that don' t record in the transcript that 7

8l y u get, that helps your understanding.

People nod and shake i

,e g

9l their heads, frown, all kinds of signals, that you receive, when z'

5 10 i you are sitting here at the table.

E g

jj For that group of 30 -- what is it, 37 so-called l

2 12 closed situations under Appendix A, with regard to the fire z=

i E

13 ; barrier provisions, how much safety do you really think you are l

=

g j4, picking up backfitting Appendix R to that group?

w U

l, l

5 15 MR. CASE :

Well, I think there is a clear agreement w

=

16 l that the 10 you would pick up safety, where there was considerable' T

B excess credit, now as we understand what kind should be given j

i, to protect the coatings.

18,

{

j9 l On the others, I think the Staff believes that it's j

5 n

I l

20 almost exclusively a paper exercise.

The 27 out of the 37 will 21 l be exemption requests, reviews, and conclusions in the Staff's

[

c 22 view that what they previously have done, had done and accepted, 23,

remains acceptable.

COMMISSIONER 3RACFORD:

Now those were reviews that 24,,

25 y u would be doing, in any case?

I 5

I

)

22 l

ME

-ASE:

Those are -- part of the transcript last j

2l time, Dick indicated that we would go on a three-year review l

3-program of plants already reviewed to pick up things like this, j

l 4l and make any changes that were deemed to be necessary by the

}

l Staff teams going from plant to plant.

So this backfitting could 5l e

M be considered as an alternative to the Staf f site visits and N

s 6

a R

reviews.

g 7

1 I

Is that fair, Dick?

8 M

i MR. VOLLMER:

No, I think we intend on conducting 9'

i h

10 that, anyway, but we felt that those deficiencies that may exist E

I j

jj, in the fire protection program, as well as anything that might

<3 d

12 have slipped through the crack because of plant changes, for z=

3 13l:

example, TMI changes, and so on, we would intend on picking up

==

14 on a periodic review.

We would concentrate on some of these E

i 15,

items as part of that three-year review, if they were not picked w

=

I 16 up by backfitting specifically.

l 3

l l

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

But I think the point that i

1 18 ;

is being made here is that because Enclosure 1 did not contemplate l

k 19,

that on the 37, you would just never look again at these areas, x

i 5

t

~

20 j but in fact would look again to see if some of those didn't I

gj have to have in fact -- that new knowledge didn't indicace some k

22 j changes.

The point is being made here that there is a cer!.ain i

l 23j body of Staff effort that sooner or later is intended to go into t

24 1 this enterprise.

I expect a three-year schedule of reviews 4

1 25 _ j of the plant may be a little easier to handle from the Staff's 1

i t

i I

l 23 1a ctandpoint.

I dont know, do you see much --

2.

I-12. VOLLMER:

I suspect if we do get,the -- if we are 3l requiring backfit, if that's the option chosen by the Commission, 4

then undoubtedly there will be, I would suspect, a fair number ou l 3

5, applications for exemption or new approvals to come in, which will E

j 6;

provide a fair amount of Staf f burden.

The three-year review 7l would be more evened out on the resources then, but I think either N

j 8l way we could accomplish the same obj ective, which is that our d

c; 9 !

priority would be given first to implementing the Appendix R z

t 10 l plants, because those are the ones that do have outstanding items, E

11

_nd take up the backfitting of approved items on the next priority 2<?

i d

12 !

basis.

z=

i m

i E

13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Thanks.

That runs me out for E

E 14 '

the moment.

N 5

2 15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

How about No. 3?

No. 4?

4 E

s' 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

No, because I don't -- you Know, my view is that Appendix R was not conceived to apply in a

.d forward direction, that the branch technical position provided a i

19 much better basis technically for a comprehensive fire protection j 20 system, and I just am totally opposed to strapping the system yet; 21,

more tightly than it's already bound uo.

I i

a I

22 ]

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Vic?

Peter?

23 CO!!MISSIONER 3RADFORD:

Let's see.

I don't have any l

i 24 I c.uestions on matters we have alreadv. covered.

I am not myself i

25 !

inclined to go along on Enclosure 5.

I think that obviously therd 1

l J

i

i l

24 1

jj are going to be a fair number of requests for exemptions, and at i

2l least some of them will be granted.

3l I am a little uneasy about a provision, though, that l

I says that.a request for an exemption automatically tolls the 4

5l deadline.

I have an element of somebody reviewing --

=,

9 i

N 6

MR. CASE:

Well, it does have that in there.

e E

7l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, it says that you have i

g to assert there will be a net loss for safety if you --

d

=

9 MR. CASE:

We have to review it and agree that he's z'

b 10 l g t a fair argument that there is a rational technical basis i

l l

jjl for his conclusion, whether we agree with it or not.

So that's i

k g

j2 j not automatic in that sense.

z=

\\

~

i 13 COMMISSIOrdR BRADFORD:

That's right. And I think E

E 14 -

what I'm saying is that if in fact you go throurh that with H:

I 2

15 regard to any individual request, and then grant the exemption, 5

?

1 I don't think I'd have any problem with that, but I think that B.a sould be the case even if you didn't write this section into the i

.d '

rule, and --

i 1

I 19 ;

MR. CASE:

I think i. would probably be, but I got i

5 20j some indication from the Commission last time that everybody 2} i didn't agree with that kind of approach.

f i

22]

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I think the difference was --

4 23 maybe I just haven' t read this. carefully enough yet, but in the i

24 case in which you review the individual application and say, l

j i

1 25 l all right, there is a problem there, we'll-grant the exemption i

i

l 25 l

j when we get it figured out -- that, I assume, is something that i

l 2l will always go on under the rule.

3 What you are saying here is that if the request is e

i I

filed and it's based on an assertion of the fact that it's net l

4 l

5l 1 ss for safety, then the requirement -- the deadline need not a

E l

n be met until the Commission has reached a determination on the j

6 N

matter.

g 7:

8 So as I am reading this, it says all the licensee N

dg 9j has to do is assert that there's a loss for safety.

i 10 l MR. CASE:

Well, upon a determination that the z

11 l Director of NRR -- that the licensee has provided sound technical !

l 2

i basis for such assertion that warrants further S taff review of d

12 !

z=

5 13 the-request.

That's to handle something frivolous.

He's just E

A 14 ;

saying so, with nothing behind it.

+

C l

2 15 What did you put there, Joe?

x

=

[

16 '

MR. SCINTO:

I explained that that's a draft, so s

a

_t really is a finding that the licensee has made a prima facie

.d case that an exemption should be granted.

i i

t 19 '

MR. CASE:

He didn't want to put that in there, x

a

j 20.

because I wouldn't understand that.

l t

21 i (Laughter.)

ll MR. SCINTO:

But we'd rather have it paid technical 22]

4 23 l attention by the Director.

24 l COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: Now, Joe, how is that different i

a 25 i from the exemption process as it would work without this section?

f i

I l

26 l

l MR. SCINTO:

Well, if you didn't-have this process, 1

2; the way I envision it, the only way the Staff could handle it is i

l 3 l either on a full determination -- the guy has made an exemption 4

request, and either we agree with the exemption request and j

I 5l grant the exemption, or we just wait and continue the review.

j e

\\

R i

l i

6; It may be a fairly complex technical issue that he makes a showing y,

I on, and we need time to look at it.

We may want to.cok at it, 7l I

8 we may want to get a contractor to look at it.

Without a t

h tolling provision, that time comes out of the licensee's schedule.,

9 i

5 10 With the tolling provision, it comes ou: -- what you're saying, E

ij !

suspend that.

<u d

12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

W1.at I thought Ed was saying 3

~

13 '

that the practice was to do it just this way.

Is that --

l I

E 14 MR. SCINTO:

The only way I could see tne Staff could i

at' i

5 15 do it would be this -- a complex -- I'm not quite sure you' re j

2=

t 16 familiar with the complex set of release for nonexemptions u

a

..ith respect to the in-service inspection things that we have l

l

.d,

under 50. 55 (a) (g) ( 6), where there is a relief, you have E

19 an exemption.

That's complicated enough as it is.

Ne could 5=

20 i probably adopt a similar practice in a two-stage kind of

{

21 exemption, but it's much more complicated than this.

1 22 ]

COMItISSIONER 3RADFORD:

Nhen you say the time comes 23 out of the licensee's schedule -- let's see.

Suppose he 24 files for an exemption a day or two before the deadline would l

25 otherwise have run out, then how does this work?

Say the Staff i

1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC

27 1

makes a prima facie determination, with or without this section 2l in the statute, without this section in the rule --

l

)

l i

3l MR. CASE :

Ordinarily if it were a two-day thing, l

i 4I you'd rush around and make up your mind within the two days, I

g 5, either yea agreed with him or didn't agree.

n I

9 3

6l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Not on -- supposing you just R

7l thought, gee, that looks as though it's got some merie, we need

~

a j

8 to think about it for a while?

d 9!

MR. CASE:

Oh, yeah, you might give him a temporary

?

10 : waiving of the thing until you made up your mind.

It's sort of 3

11 done on an -- I think you would have to agree with this -- it's j

3 f

12 sort of on an ad hoc basis.

We do give some consideration to the 5

i j

13 l fact that they put in an exemption request, and the kind of

=

wg 14 consideration we give varies all over che lot.

I don't think we I

=

j 15 have a standard way of doing it.

This does presenr a standard l

=

i j

16 way, and because it does, it has some advantages.

Everybody knows the rules of the game.

I i8l MR. BICKWIT:

It keeps them out of technic 11 violation d

i g

of the rule.

l 19 n

20 i MR. CASE:

Yes.

t 21,

MR. BICKWIT:

That is your practice, as I understand 1

e 22jit.

l I

23 :

MR. CASE:

Yes.

Sometimes we let them go in technical l I

l 24 j violation.

I thought of putting in an provision provided the

\\

25 i request is received within 30 days prior to 60 days before the l

I I

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i

i i

?.8 i

l 1

thing expires, and that's all well and good, too.

But I can i

2; conceive of a situation where the licensee felt he didn't need 3

ar<. exemption until the day before, and he suddenly found that l

1 4 I it was 18 feet instead of 20 feet. You've also got to give I

5l consideration to that fellow who in good faith doesn't --

e 2

S 3

6l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Well, he 's diffe. rent from g

7 this one, though, because this one has to be asserting that there',5 i

j 8

a net loss for safety, and not simply that it's unreasonable i

d 9I z,

to make him go further.

o y

10 l MR. CASE:

Yes.

But he may just find that area in the z=

i j

11 ; end.

Somehow you have to have exceptions to everything you write u

j 12 !

down, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

4 I

13 -

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

You're going to have to look E

l z

3 14 ',

at a lot of pieces of plant.

I can see them out there scratching b

k 15 furiously to get, you know, fire protection consulting engineers e

t g

16 '

who are familiar with this kind of area, and not coming so easily to the definition of particular places where Appendix R, in their 18.

view, will be a net loss, and so on.

I

.g 4

19 3

COMMISSIONER BRP.DFORD:

Or course, it shouldn't be i

5 l

i 20 ) brand new to them by now.

l i

i i

21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, for some of these people, l 22 why, they will --

I 23 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

The Appendix R backfit for i

l 24j some of these peopld will be a new thing, but 25 '

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: You know, two years ago, they felt i

i 4

I

-i 1

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

j

29 I

they were all set.on what they had to do, and they've been doing j

I i

~

I 2i it along, and so on, and now they've got to go running back 3

through all of that and examine all those areas to see if they 4! meet these.other --

5ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

When would you be making

=

j l

i j

(

this determination, that a sound technical basis for such a g

R l

[

7l decision --

i

~

j 8I MR. CASE:

Oh, I was thinking in two weeks or so of J

d 9l receipt, some fairly short time like that, and to set up a system 5

l 10 '

that would do that.

Because that should be done relatively fast.

E j

ll l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Peter?

3 i

j 12 l COMMI.IONER BRADFORD:

No, I -- we keep talking 5

i 13 I about requests for exemptions, and the need to deal with them,

=

x g

14 and the fact that they'll come in at the end.

I have the uneasy i

s i

2 i

I j

15 l feeling that between everything we have and everything we have i

I l

j 16 ' vritten in here, we may be giving a more encouraging picture than I would want to, to licensees about the efficacy of coming i

18; in for exemptions.

G l

19 j I recognize there are going to be situations such as y

a t

20, the ones Joe has described where the backfit of Appendix R might t

21 l put people in a position where they would really need an exemp-i i

22 '

tion; but I think in the majority of cases that I can think of 23 under this' rule, we are dealing with people who have been on

.l 24 ) notice that fire protection is a sericus concern for a long tiac, a

25 [ and I would hope that 'the next round of the fire protection story l i

J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i

~..

30 1!

wouldn't consist of our having to grant or having granted exemptichs l.

2 willy-nilly to the licensees who have been resisting hardest on I

3l fire protection changes all along.

i i

4l CHAIRMt.N AHEARNE:

Ed, I've got a couple of questions. l 5l A

l When you s2 sed the phrase " good cause shown," does that e

j 6l have some particular perspective that you have in mind?

R t

5 7

MR. CASE:

Well, I can give you some for-examples.

A j

8; They ordered a valve from the manufacturer, and delivery date has d

I o;

9l slipped, and they can't put it in until they get the valve.

3 10 l That's an example of good cause.

z

=

i 11l Can you think of others, Dick?

That is one that 3

I j-12 !

comes 3 mind right away.

E j

13 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Is it a standard phrase?

=

z j

I4 ;i MR. SHAPAR:

It's found in the statutes, found in i

=

i g

15 ;

regulations, it's found rather universally in other people's l

=

f f

16 i egulations.

l i

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

When you get an assertion like 18 that, do you actuclly ever do a double-check to make sure that l

4 19 !

in fact there is some difficulty getting that particular valve?

g 5

20,

MR. CASE:

The double-check is more done if there is s

21 !

some reason not to believe them.

'l 22 "

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, I can understand that 23 e you couldn't double-check every one, but I should think at 24 least once in a while, it would leave a desirable impression i

25 l to know that the NRC checked both sides of a statement like that.

il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i

l l

i 31 i

i j;

MR. CASE:

And the dauble-check would be just mostly i

2i calling the manufacturer.

I 3l COMMISSIONER BRADEORD:

Sure.

4

.MR. CASE:

Not. going to his plant to look, 5!

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I understand.

a h

I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

But the question is, do you do that?

N 6;

e g

R 7

MR. CASE:

Yes.

~

8 8!

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

You have a phrase in there n

d i

that talks about in some cases the alloted time may be excessive d

9; z

10 ;

for completion, and these are the cases where, for example, I I

5 jj '

'uess, San Onofre that you described.

<3 MR. CASE:

Yes.

d 12 l z

5 s

13 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Now you go on to say if such E

E 14 schedules extend beyond what would have been a reasonable i

w I

i c

5 15,

schedule initially.

Is that implying that there could have been l

E 16 a better estimate of what the schedule should have been?

3 l

z h'

17 This is at the top of page 8-A.

2 18 MR. CASE:

Joe, did you do that one?

i

=

[

19 (Laughter.)

l 5

i 20 !

MR. SCINTO:

The statement relates to the fact that I

l 21 initially, ducting whal initial safety evaluations were written, j

fl 22 iand schedules for completion were established, there was some 23.1 schedule.

We now, I think, after last week and the week before, l

t 24 ]6 the Staff has indicated that they have developed, based on some l

25 l experience from looking at all these guys, what a reasonable i

f ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.

t

32 1: schedule would be implementing Appendix R.

That, looking backwards 2

in some cases, the schedules which were accepted in the safety i

3! evaluations, were longer than what we are now telling you is a 4

reasonable schedule to accomplish that.

5 g

That's what the sentence is meant to say.

HEg 6,

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Scheduled beyond what we now believe R

7 would have been a reasonable schedule?

-nj 8

MR. SCINTO:

Well, that's what the sentence is intended d

y 9

to convey.

E 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I notice in comparing page 18 of 3_

j 11, Enclosure 1 and page 18 of Enclosure 2, it appears the main thing u

I 12 that changed -- I assume that the fact that the includir.g change g

13 wasn't made, that's just an oversight?

That's not substantive, is

=

h 14 ' it?

_b i

i j

15 MR. CASE:

No, it's not substantive.

E j

16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

The main change is to eliminate C j

I7 footnoteg.

{

18 MR. CASE:

Yes.

j

~

19 2

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

And I guess that's because you see 5

l 20 l the footnote as possibly implying an acceptability of coatings j

2Il and Enclosure 2 essentially is no longer; is that correct?

22 MR. CASE:

That's the essential reason, yes.

23 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

On page 38 of Enclosure 1, t

i 24 j explain the significance of Section (e) which then disappears in 25 ' Enclosure 2.

i i

3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN'. INC.

i

33 l

yl MR. CASE:

That must be the. cne.

Let me make sure I I

2 get the right one.

On page 38 of Enclosure 1.

i 3

This is to take care of plants like Sequoyah and I 4l think North Anna, which have a requirement to meet GDC-3s and i

5) fire pr tection measures to take.

e:

I n

h 6

Now they are required to implement those, if I remember j

correctly, somewhere in between their initial license and full 7l i

U 8

power, and it varies from plant to plant, so this is a reference I

n i

9 to we didn't want to make them do any different than what was i

.k 10 agreed upon in their licensing.

E 11 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

So you're saying in the absence of k

g 32 l that phrase, Enclosure 1 -- I don't understand.

The first z=

i 13 - question is, in the absence of that phrase, Enclosure 1 only E

E 14 l references plants licensed prior to January 1, 1979.

d h

15

~

f MR. CASE:

But it has a provision that says all 5

~

16 ' plants must eeet GDC-3 and must implement a fire protection 3

A

-vogram to meet GDC-3, and then it gives schedules for specific l

says of implement 1.Tg GDC-3, and we didn't want it read to mean I

19.; tha t those previously approved schedules for plants beyond 1/1/79 j

,=

5 h

20 j would be changed by this rule.

2; It does have some applicability beyond 1/1/79.

l i

l 22 CHAI'tMAN AHEARNE:

Now you dropped that out in i

23 -- 3.

24 COMMISSIONER HENDRII:

Because you're cranking l

25 I Appendix R forward on everything.

So it just wipes out all those l

i i

i 1

4 r

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

l

I 34 I! license conditions.

I 2l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Okay.

Now, Ed, you were going i

3! to refer to your lawyers or our lawyers to tell me why Enclosure 3 I

4 was illegal.

5 l'

e MR. CASE:

I didn't quite say that.

I said it raised h

3 6{ inconsistencies--

9 5

i a

7j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes, but you're learning the A

j 8( language.

O 9l (Laughter. )

z i

10 1 MR. BICKWIT:

Try your own lawyers.

z E

y II (Laughter.)

3 d

I2 !

MR. SHAPAR:

Well, the original notice of protosed g'

i 13

!rulemaking didn't indicate that this class would be affected by

=

A 14 i the rule.

\\

j Basically we questioned whether or not the requirement l

_g i

j 15 in the Administrative Procedure Act would put out a rule making it !

g 6

i d

16 ! ef fective and give the affected people the opportunity to comment i

s t

the rule that they were proposing, and I guess, in answer to I

your question whether or not it would be a basis for making the i

i I9 ! rule immediately effective, I haven' t been able to detect any

[

e 1

20 l reason that would kinc of justify it.

2I ';

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

That would suggest a rule 4

4 22 hith Enclosure 3 in it would need to go around for comment again?

l 23)

MR. SHAPAR:

You could try it.

Ncbody is telling you I

24 jit's illegal.

We're telling you about a general legal concept

'l 25 'where the cases are running pretty hard these days.

You don' t want l I

j i

i d

ALDERSON REPORTING COMP / NY, INC.

i

35 I

put out a rule and make it effective unless you've got a pretty 2!

good reason. You give the public an opportunity to comment on it.

3 And here when the proposed rule went out, nobody who read the l

l 4i rule fairly can possibly think they would be affected by a rule i

1 e

5i like what's contained in No. 3.

d 0l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Len, do you agree?

R*

it 7l MR. BICKWIT: Yeah, I agree with that.

I think your i

~

-l 8 l

,,est hope for sustaining that position would be not to say that d

i e

9i

~.

the original notice gave you notice that you might do this, but z

E 10 l rather to go out with a brand-new rule and make it effective b

i5:

ll,

j I

immediately and ask for comment on it.

Then if you lose on making l

'E 12 it effective immediately, you haven't really lost much, because

=

f 13 '

you're in the middle of the comment period with respect to that E

1A p

rule.

But it is a very iffy proposition.

}

15 MR. DIRCKS:

You could just send out this rule withoutl

=

f j

16 this, and then at the same time send out a short statement

d 1

.ayinc that we intend to make this one analy both forward and

backward, Would you comment on that aspect of it?

j h,

I 9,

MR. BICKWIT:

That's right.

But what the Chairman l

20 '

would like to do is make that effective immediately, and I think l

2If both legal officers are saying that there is some risk involved

{

22 h n that.

l I think you could confine the risk so that the only 23 risk is that you would lose the case, and you would not f

24 particularly risk anything else if you proposed the rule, made 25 )

it effective immediacely, asked for comment while the rule was i

i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

I

l 36 i

1' ef fective immediately, than if you lost on its being ef fective 2l immediately.

You have lost nothing else.

3 li MR. SHAPAR:

That's quite correct, but I think there's 4

also a policy question as well as a legal question.

5f COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Are we expecting any plants s

5 i

j 6, to be coming in for OLs in the future that in fact wouldn't meet a

E I

E 7

Appendix R?

E I

S 8'

Did I ask that question before?

n i

3 9I MR. CASE:

No.

What we would use Appendix R for z

g 10 I is part of the Standard Review Plan, and require licensees to Y

t I

,E II ' justify deviations from out of this program.

D y

12 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I see.

1 5

j j

13 '

MR. CASE:

It gives us more flexibility in applying h

14 '

the --

c 1

r 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

That's right.

I did ask the

=

d d

I0 question before, and that's what you said before.

A (Laughter.)

I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Let's see, John.

Are you keen i

4 i

h I9 to have this applied?

n 20.

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

See, my uneasiness is that we now are putting in a rule a fire protection set of standards for 21

]

c 22 plants licensed before January 1979, and we don't have in the 23 rule fire protection set of standards for plants licensed after l

I I

24 l January 1979.

1 25 l MR. BICKWIT:

Well, you could acknowledge that you i

t Ii ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.

l 1

~

37 1,

hadn' t provided notice on that particular feature, and 2I simply go quickly with an effort to remedy that by putting out l

3!

just a brand new rule and asking for comment, and announcing to i

4l the public that you're going to move quickly on it.

I 5l MR. SHAPAR:

You could also say in the statement of g

H a

6' considerations the basis to be applied to new applications.

e i

7' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I guess, Ed, you are saying that sj 8

you have been applying and will continue to apply the basic

'4 9

z.

standard in the future; is that correct?

10 l MR. CASE: Yes, sir.

E 5

II }

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, I guess where I would then

's 12 '

be, I would certainly agree with No. 1; I obviously agree with E

5, i

f 13 -

No.

2, because that's what I asked you to develop, the backfit; n

5 I4 on No.

3, I guess I would propose a modification to have a

=

1'

=

g separate thing going out for notice and comment to make that l

15 l

=.

16 ef fective for future plants and --

d A

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

A separate rule?

}

l CHAIRMAN AHEARME:

Yes, because that would then j

i i

g solve the problem, and since the Staf: isgoinginthatdirection,f 19 '

n t

20 i it shouldn't ---

21 MR. VOLLER:

A separate rule with just these items or --

I l) 22 I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

What you're then doing is to i

1 23 l institute for all future designs what you claim is a set of 24 '

fire protection requirements, which are not in fact a compre-1 25 I hensive set of fire protection requirements, but are a selected i

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

1 j

38 0

I 1:

subset of a detailed Staff document, and they have the difficulty I

2l then that you have a rule which does not cover the ground it l

3l l

i purports to cover, and covers it in a way which will make that I

4l language much too restrictive.

You're much better off to leave 5

that level of detail to the Staff guidance documents.

R I

j 6

CHAIRRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, I would have no problem R

7l with when the better rule be developed, to have it replace this.

A l

j 8i But it has taken so long to get anything --

d d

9i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

You don't want this kind of Y

10 !

detail in rule form.

y S&Pb,/ *

@ IIl COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, do we want a peo.?cund l

^

3 Y

I2 version of this?

In other words, something which doesn't get i

3 13 l to the same level of detail, but lays out some basic principles?

g

=

A s

5 14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

What I find very difficult to N

E r

15,

rationalize is why we only have a rule for backwards and nothing l

E i

l

^

g}

16 i for forwards.

{

z MR. VOLLMER:

Well, as we indicated before, the I

i l

specific items here are directed toward the operating plants, 1

I f

19 ;

and fit those categories spect:1cally.

I think there is one, i

5 l

'20 !

least one instance of that in item ( g) where I think we know at 21 of situations in newer clants that we would not want to accept l

3

+

22 ) the specific A, 3,

or C in item (g) as being adecuate.

And so, 23 'l therefore, we would be in a posirion where it would not make it i

24i safe to accept that particular portion of the rule.

25l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Not safe, or not as safe?

I I

l i

I J

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i 39 4

jj MR. VOLLMER: Not adequate.

I won't comment on safeti, 2l but a perticular example would be that if you took one of the 1

3l ptions it. (g) for a very specific situation I have in mind, 1

4l the Staff does not believe he would have adequate fire protection j e

5 for that particular area, particularly areas carrying cable.e AN 6{

for auxiliary feedwater.

o R

I g

7 So we would almost want the licensee to ask for 8

an exemption in that.

n d

j g

9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, I believe that we must i

l l

10 :

generate something that will at least give us a set of requirements jj i to impose on plants licensed after January 1st, 1979.

I think

<3 d

12 l it's just unacceptable to only have a rule that goes backwards, z=

5 13 l and I'm willing to say that this is not anywhere near as good as E

E 14 3 you would like for future, but I probably won't be around here d

f 15,

enough years to wait for another rule to be generated.

a=

1 16 !

MR. VOLLMER:

I understand.

I agree with your 3

4

^

principle.

I'm saying I have --

l

,l (Laughter.)

i C

19 '

I agree with the principle, but the application or A

f 20.

this, in most cases, I think if we go back and look at those 21l plants that are not covered by this rule in the version of A or l

i i

22j 3,

we would find that I think only one, perhaps, instance

~

l 23 enese items, namely the oil collection system we have accepted 24 ] what we believe to be less than the rule.

25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Well, I guess rather than wearing usi J

i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

m

40 i

I I

all out, I don' t detect any large sentiment to my approach, any-2:

way, so I'll have to get the Staff somehow to generate something 3

for future.

l I

4l I am willing to accept also to going out, if we can i

g 5 I accept Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2, then I'd be willing to also 9

6' go.with Enclosure 4 as a quick way.

R*S 7

On No.

5, on the tolling, I don't have any real

?

~

j 8l problem with the language.

I'm still a little puzzled by what d

9i s

happens if it isn't there, versus what happens if it is there.

2 O

i e'

10 I I gather the main significant difference is that with it there, i

_E i

II you do not have to make the complete review, and you have a 1

B l

j 12 l mechanism to formulate, to provide a period of time for a more E

i l

13 !

complete review.

=

z M

14 3R. CASE:

Yes.

I j

15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I guess I would, if we did folicw

=

g 16 that, like the Director of NRR to periodically, maybe quarterly,

^

i I

provide us a summary of what you have done and why.

f i

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I think that would be useful j

i "g

19 i

on exemption requests, not only under Enclosure 5, but exemption requests on whatever basis.

20 2I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Before we then try to go to formal 4

22 j votes, are there any other comments or questions?

23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I think it's worth --

l 24 ] (inaudible) the question of whether or not the rule for 25f the future and what that rule ought to look like.

I assume u

I-4 1

1 i

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

1 41 Ii we would'take the advice we have been getting, be less proscriptive 2l and less detailed.

But I think there is something to be said I

3 about a new rule.

At least so it appears to me.

I'd certainly 4

like to hear more discussion of that.

I g

5 i

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

I guess given the feelings, I 9

probably would like Bill to take the Staff back and come back to R

-7'

=

l us in the next two to three weeks.

n 5

8' M

MR. DIRCKS:

What would be the elements of r. hat?

J l

9

~.

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, you know, you're not z:"

10 i precisely naked under the proposed configuration.

You have j

5 II '

the old Criterion 3, and then in what is proposed here, you have u

j2,

l got a Section 50.48 (a), which says each plant shall have a fire

=

t f

13 protection program, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It's just f

it does then is refer to the branch technical l 3

14 g

one page.

And what

-=0 h

15,

positions and to the other guidance documents 76, 77, 78, so

=

6 J

16

• hat it has the same configuration as a number of regulations A

1 do.

"l That is, they say -- you know, for instance, Part 100 j

i f

I9 says a cycle be acceptable in the radiological sense, astorisk,l i

20 '

I footnote, asterisk, see TID 14 -844,,and other documents, and l

21 4

so on and so on, which leads back to a substantial body of i

22 Staff guidance literature with cosiderable detail.

23i Now the only trouble is a question, what level of c

24 1 1

detail voc want to move into the regulations, and you have to a

I 25 I recognize that if you move too much in there, then you really i

i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

l

i I

j 42 l

1l bind the system in a way that makes regulation very dif ficult.

I 2l On the other hand, of course, it's also fair to argue 1

1 3!

that if you say hardly anything in the regulations and leave it j

l 4

all to Staff guidance documents, that you have got a little less I

I g

5; well-defined system than you'd really like.

S i

j 6!

But my objection to Enclosure 3,as a propositio.n is i

i g

7 that it elevates just a sort of randomly-selected set of Staff 8l u

4 g

j guidance items, not even documents, but items into the category of d

z, 9;

rule, and it's both wrong in terms of it not being comprehensive i

O 1

y 10 !

as a fire protection rule in any adequate sense at all, but also z

=

i j

11l that it's the wrong level of detail.

B

[

I2 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Perhaps Bill can ccme back with 5

13 l

==

some views which would address whether we should have and what.

=

x 5

I4 >

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Well, you might very well see, 15 you know, some level, some proscription of the general requirements j

16 l between the proposed paragraph under 50.48, paragraph A, under i

^

j 17 50.48, and the more detailed guidance documents, maybe, but --

=

}

18 ;

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Any other questions or comments?

i 8

1 19 '

l g

Then I would propose we -- first I would propose 6

l 20 !

we accept Enclosure 1 and 2.

j 2I l MR. CASE: as modified.

h 22$

CHAIM1AN AHEARNE:

As mcdified in Enclosure 2.

23 '

All in favor of that?

24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

l 25 I CO?DIISSIONER BRADFORD:

Yes.

i r

i j

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

i l

43 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Yes.

j 2j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Call for the nays, l

3j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

All opposed?

{'

i I

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Nay.

l 4

l 5{

CHAIRfCAN AHEARNE:

I would also propose that because

=

5 8

6l f this timing difficulty and giving the Staff a chance to go e

j 7j through and make sure it's put together well, I would also go i

8l f r Enclosure 4.

That could go out immediately.

n d

I g

9l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Aye.

i b

10 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Aye.

E j

jj COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Aye.

l 3

j j2 '

CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Aye.

b i

h 13 i

I would add Enclosure 5.

All in favor of that?

E r

5 14 !

Aye.

N C

i 15 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:

Aye.

j x

=

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Aye.

t 16 '

B i

A COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Aye.

i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

Very good.

19 Len, is there anything else?

X 5

l 20 MR. BICKWIT:

No.

I gj l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:

All right.

Thank you very much.

22 L (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m.,

the meetinc was 23 -

adjourned.)

6 25I

~

a'

.i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

i 1

mm

- o 3

D b.

a sc c

J NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO. MISSION

~

j This is 00 Oertify tha; he attached pecceecings before the i

COMMISSION MEETING

,s j

in the =atter Of:

Discussion and Vote on. Fire Protection Program (Continued) j Data cf Proceeding:

October 27, 1980 Decket IIc=ber:

Place cf ?receeding:

Washington, D.

C.

' sere held as herein appears, and tha: this is the criginal :ranscrip:

thereof for the file o f the C =sissica.,

Ann Riley i

Official Reper er (Typed) l h

I, i

Of fiCial 3e per*;er (3idgnat',,:rs}

j i

1 ee l

1 i

k e