ML20003H349
| ML20003H349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19284B784 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-546, SECY-81-114, NUDOCS 8105050623 | |
| Download: ML20003H349 (19) | |
Text
.
6'y l -.,~.
NUCI.ZAR REGUI.ATOR'? COMMISSION il'i' 'T: Z.'-
't
(
COMMISSION MEETING c'O '
(
In-t :s.%&- cf:
AFFIRMATION, DISCUSSION AND.r.VOTEre81--16 9
4
" R(( p!/ %
8-app a
-q %y,n y1981 u -2
- mldpyru,
')
/
,6 :
/
/
\\ /
v
-(
DATE:
April 23, 1981 PAGZs:
1 - 1777 AT:
Washington, D. C.
.U.DERS)X REPORTING
- r. q 40 0 71.: vinia Ave., 5.W. Wasni.g en,
C.
C.
20024 t
i Talaphene : (200' 554-2245 810 5 05 06d3
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
AFFIRMATION, DISCUSSION AND VOTE: 81-16 6
7 8
9 Nuclea r Regulatory Commission Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D. C.
12 Thutsday, April 23,1981
'J The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 14 4:35 p.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JOSEPH 5. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 19 STAFF PRESENT.
20 L. BICKWIT 21 S. CHILK J.
AUSTIN 22 23 l
24 25 l
l l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j
i l
l 1
- 3. ~ ~. ~ 1 ~r.- >
I l 7_ _~ ".'~. ~
- - ta an u=cifd-d=' =z=s
- = cd a.=sa Tof- -'-
~d:iri: '-
i
' Sca:ias 2 net an-Zag =.La===7 C
- *sion he.L4== -
-8i
-4 2- -
C'--
l
-- 1:lt'ea Ccunstsad.an's officas a= 1717 I Sc==ec, _-M. E, '4ast:1.=3.=n, ~ 2 2 ' "-i
~-
..D.TC.
"'ha =ner:1=g Jaz apen c= puht '- a=- =ad =a --
Z. Z- ~. T.. i""3..d s,h-~7c haa :nc bean :sviawed, c==:m.5,diose=Taiis!" ' l!
, EiE w f M ? anni ':
- "M
~
1= =ar enn=ain i=ac= --**==.
_ ; - _.,. _ S = met:c=tpc is i=--du sola.L7 far ganarz.L3=fd'Psaui -
r- ;
c.-
.;nzugeses.
4.s 7.. _ dad,by '.,0 C22,9.102, i: is =mchia== cf--de- -
~~ i f.=_==. a. :. c= a-+==a.L :senF et d- ' ** m_ ed de sii~===s ;F.1.rddised-n :: L O
_M Ad-m' faram-sQ-gg og *:a14 e
N s
e, yapeed'Q Wo & ~~-L.
paqper =a7 he. filad. at:tt..he Can=xf ss1==. '.= a=7;p==dssd".=g -asLehe 2-
.;. :asu1= of o= add =assed..m a=7 s s-===== c= xW. ed=4' ad; = - - -,1;
. k *Nd*,. m alp = 33 the P-
' **d *fi =&7 au=hc'll'US5%;
T 2 17 '
- 2 ~-
'C O
e S
S e
9 l
l t
f e
i k
r k
P f
f I
I r
l i
2 1
g3ggg3gIggg 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIEs Will you come to order on the 3 affirmation session.
4 Those of you who look at the affirmation schedule 5 with interest, you may strike Items A ane s..
I v111-ta1x 6 about Ites C in a minute.
7 I will introduce an Item E by asking my colleagues 8 to join in voting to hold on less than one week 's notice an 9 affirmation session for SECY 81-191A, Affirmation of 10 Leithauser Motion for Official Notice of Intervenor Status.
11 Ihose in favor?
12 (Chorus of Ayes.)
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFCRD:
What a re we doing with 14 that one?
We are affirming that one?
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are we are all in 16 agreement"on that one?
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, ve a re unanimous.
18 Okay.
We can now have a snort notice meeting on 19 SECY 81-191A.
20 Sam, let us go ahead with that item.
21 MR. CHILKs SECY S1-191A, Leithauser Motion for 22 Official Notice of Intervenor Status.
The Commission has 23 unanimously approved.the proposed order with modifications 24 by Commissioner G111nsky which refers the motion of 25 Mr. Leithauser to the licensing board fo r a ppropria te a.ction.
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC,
3 1
Would you please affirm your vote?
2 (Chorus of Ayes.)
3 CHAIRNAN HENDRIEa So ordered.
4 Let us turn then to 81-114, Fire Protection Rule 5 for Future Plants.
6 I thin). we may need a little discussion on this to 7 see if we are still of an affirmation mind.
[
8 Sam, why don ' t you outline this.
9 MR. CHIlK The Commission has approved the f
10 adoption unanimously of an Alternative 3 of a subject paper 11 which is a proposed fire protection rule, a hybrid of 12 Alternatives 1 and 2.
13 But in connection with the votes the question has
\\
i 14 come up as to what happens to new licenses.
Commission l
L 15 Gilinsky has indirated that until a rule is in place the new l
18 licenses should contain a condition requiring compliance l
r 17 with the commitments made by the a pplican t and ag reed to by 18 the staff.
19 Chairman Hendrie has indicated that he understands 20 new licenses to mean those from the date of the Commission l
21 action on this matter and not retrospectively.
22 Your assistants have indicated that you wanted to t
23 discuss this matter of how you want to treat the licenses
)
24 from January '79 to the present.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEA RNE:
And I gather it would
[
l ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY, INC,
l 4
1 essen tially end up being Sequoyah and North-Anna..
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What about Farley?
3 COEMISSIONER GILINSKY I think that in Farley and.
' ' ' - '] 4 in Salem they ara in the tech specs I understand.
So they
'~~~~~
5 are in the license.
So it just comes down to Sequoyah.and 8 North Anna.
J-
_. :7c...
CHAIRM AN HENDRIE:
Well, I will tell you want my-8 concern is.
9 CONNISSIGNER GIIINSKY:
I understand they are in 10 compliance and have agreed to all the requiremen.ts.
So-11 there is no problem of that sort.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is not a safety problem.
13 There is sort of an administrative and paper type question.
14 Let me tell you what my concern is.
If you go and
. 15 amend the licenses to include that condition, is that an 16 amendment of no significance hazard consideration, or no t, 17 and what are the hearing liabilities?
18 You know, fo r myself, since it is being done, I 19 would simply avoid creating liability to yet another hearing 20 where I would see not much point in one.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What actually is the 22 answer to that question, if there is no sig nifica n t hazards 23 consideration?
24 MR. BICKWIT:
If there is no significant har:ards 25 consideration then there is no hearing r equir em en t under the ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
l l
5 1
current stay of the Sholly Mandate.
2 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
It doesn't mean there is no 3 hearing.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right, no before-the-fact
[
5 hearing.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE The custos on that, kind of 7 amendment is, you know, you issue the amendment and you
~
8 issue a notice saying you have issued the amendment and here j
9 is why and here is the safety report anc you also say and if l
10 anybody, you know, wants to argue about it, why they can j
11 request a hearing, but it is post the action.
12 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And the amendment is a place 14 while the hearing goes on.
So that is less burdensome.
I 15 was about to say that I don't think anybody would request a 16 hearing on a post basis.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
But even if it were before 18 the fact what would happen?
We have got the requirements in 19 place.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
It would be very 21 confusing.
If it were before the fact, why I would think 22 the licensee would have to stop implementation until the 23 hearing were completed and he were ordered by the board to 24 either do it t.s planned or do it as modified.
25 MR. BICKWIT:
Ihat is correct.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
,1 6
l 1-l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For him to be going ahead and 2 doing it while the hearing was going on is precisely 3 contrary to a hearing before the action.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa That doesn't sound to-me l
5 like the common ---
6 MR. BICKWIT4 That suggests if he does it 7 voluntarily that he needs an amendaent which does-not 8 involve ---
9 CUMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me in this 10 case there is no difference whather it is before the f act or.
11 after the fact.
The only difference is an administrative 12 one whether something becomes attached to a license or il doesn't become attached to a license and they go on as ther 14 vece.
15 If there were a hearing bef are the f act, they just 16 would not be part of the license.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you mean if there was a 18 hearing before the fact?
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY4 Well, we are talking about 20 a license amendment.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Except I would imagine if 22 there were to be a hearing, and I would agree with you that l
23 I don't see how it could be before, but if for some odd 24 reason the system ended up saying, yes, you have to have a 25 h ea ring before tha t can be put into the license amendment, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. NC.
7
. 1 then I would imagine the licensee could very well say, hey, 2
vs.it, if I am going down this path and implementing this, if 3 there are any things that aren't reversible and if th? board 4
sight decide I have to do more, I just won't.do this either 5 and I will just wait and sae what the board says.
6 COEMISSION ER GILINSKY s Well, the staff is always 7 free to issue ocdars if it thinks that safety is not being 8 adequa tely taken account of.
It is conceivable, although 9 pre tty unlikely, that the licensee himself may come and say, 10 yes, I have agreed to do these things but I don't want it in 11 the license.
But in the meantime it would be part of the 12 regulatory framework under which he lives.
13 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Am I wrong in thinking 14 that the doctrine of which I am not very fond, but may work 15 to an advantage in this case, namely the Point Beach 16 business, would restrict the scope of the hearing in any 17 case as to whether or not the proposed changes were a 18 detriment to safety?
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEs I have no idea.
20 M R. B ICK W L.'s It would restrict s ta ndin g to those 21 who contested the implementation of this action.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADF0ED.
On the basis that it did 23 decrease safety?
24 MR. BICKWITs Yes.
That if somebody were 25 complaining about the action not taken, that he would not be l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
mRm TV<Mrkima&16ua37.%n6TiWD%6&vn
8 1
able to ---
2 CONYISSIONER AHEASNE:
Wait a minute.
This is a 3 license amendment.
4 MR. BICKWITs I am not clear that you need a 5 license amendment here.
That is the point I. a m trying to 6 make.
If it is acceptable for this licensee to do it 7 voluntarily without amending his license, then.he can be 8 o rdered to do it without i t.,
h bAL/
her'~
9
-Ca. T E.; IT: / But he point is whether it is a 10 good idea to have these things in the licenses because then.
11 ICE inspects against them and they become enforcible and 12 have to be maintained'out into the future.
13 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
If you want it in 14 the license you are going tc have to amend the license.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My only question, len, was 16 your answer on Marble Hill I didn 't think was consistent 17 with the position that your office is taking on license 18 amendments.
19 MR. BICKWIT:
No, it is.
If the complaint is with 20 respect to the action not taken, the Marble Hill rationale 21 would apply.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEA3NE:
Except that the scope of 23 what that hearing enceitpasses is not strictly the amendment 24 described.
25 MR. BICKWIT:
No, it would be.
It would be.
l l
l
\\
l ALDERSON AEPORTING COMP ANY, lNC,
9
~
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your Dresden opinion 2 doesn't track that.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
If the complaint is that the 4 amendment does not go far enough, the Marble-Hill-rationale 5 applies.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is not what Dresden 7 says.
That is not what your Dresden paper said.
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I just don't read it that way.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
RGC has a license amendment 10 paper up at Dresden.
11 3R. BICKWIT:
I just don't read it as you do.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me what you are 13 saying, Vic, is that you want to amend the license to these 14 two plants.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
And I guess the
~
16 reason I would like to go back is simply that I find it odd 17 to have 70 plants covered in one way or another by rules and 13 two not.
It seems like an odd situation.
I 19 Now, it doesn't seem to me as if there is a legal 20 problem.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why are the 70 covered?
l 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, they are not covered 23 by this rule but they are covered by 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The order.
25 MR. BICKWIT:
The previous rule.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
10 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The previous rule covered r
2 plants up through
'79, right?
3 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are in the process of 5 dev ising a rule which will cover plants frome then on.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I should have said by a:
t 8 rule or a license condition.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Once that rule is in place, it i
10 is necessary for all this stuff to be in the licenses?
11 MR. BICKWIT:
No, it is not necessary.
r 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Furthermore, once this rule is 13 in place, you know, we won't put it in new licenses and it 14 becomes in effect obsolete although probably still opersble i
15 in the licenses that it was put into, right?
16 MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How will that apply to 18 Sequoyah and North Anna?
19 MR. BICKWIT:
If they are covered by the rule, 20 then the rule will apply.
If they are not and you want
.o 21 amend those licenses, then you will have to go through.he 22 amendment procedure.
If a finding of no significant harards 23 consideration can be made, then there is an after-the-fact l
i i
24 hearing.
l l
l l
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The point is they aren't i
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
11
?
in fact covered by the rule.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Because the rule would just' 3 cover from its effective date forward.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
This is your proposal.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see.
So for all time you' 6 would have a group of 70 plants covered by Rule A, a little 7 group of three or four in the middle ---
8 cogMIggIcygg ag Apropp,.
Two I hope.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
--- and then a whole batch 10 covered by Rule B.
11 COEMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Whose proposal was it that 12 the rule would only esver from now on?
13 MR. BICKWIT:
Isn't that your proposal that the 14 rule covers from now on and you want to amend the licenses 15 for the excluded middle here?
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Isn't that?
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We don't even have the rule.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is the requirement that 19 from now on the licenses include the conditions on fire 20 protection which this staff has impo sed.
21 YR. BICKWIT:
And how do you want to impose that,
22 requirement?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In licenses from now on?
24 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
25 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Until we come to a point ALDEASoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, L
12 1-where there is a rule and the rule will apply to all-2 subsequent plants.
3
- 58. BICKWIT:
If you want to do that by a legally 4 enf orcible mechanism you either have to do it-by-rule or-5 amend the license or by order.
6 COEMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
Well, you are not amendin g:
7 prospectiva licenses because they haven't been-issued.
So-8 this only becomes part of a license.
So the.only place 9 where you are talking about amending a license-is in those 10 two cases because the other two have already been covered.-
11 It just doesn't seem to me that there is a legal 12 p ro.ble m.
What could happen is that someone could ask for a 13 hearing and there may be a hearing, although it seems to me
[
14 unlikely, but nevertheless that could happen.
15 Now, I don't think that hearing would have any 16 effect on the plant during the conduct of the hearing.
17 MR. BICKWIT:
It wouldn't if it is an 18 af ter-the-f act hearing.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY-Well, it seems to me that 20 it wo uldn ' t either if it is a before-the-f act hearing 21 because the fact is really ---
22 MR. BICKWIT:
It would if it is a before-the-fact 23 hearing if the fact is the implementation of the amendment, 24 but I don' t envision that happening.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would support Vic's l
l l
QERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
13 1
proposal.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You would go ahead and take the 3 hearing liability?
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would -run the risk of i
5 that.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY It doesn't seem to me-that-7' the liability is more than the possibility of a hearing.
8 Now, I am giving you f ree legal advice.
9 (Laughter.)
i 1CL COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Our legal adviser is saying' 11 that that is not necessarily clear.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.
It is clear that it in of not 13 significant harzards consideration?
14 MR. BICKWIT:
It strikes me as clear.
15 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Have you ever made that 16 determination before?
17 (Lauchter.)
18 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD :
I will su pport Vic's i
19 proposal.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let's put it this way.
If i
21 it were to lead to a prehearing, then we really know our 22 system is ---
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I owe you a vote on the r
r 24 scope of that hearing.
25 (Laughter.)
l
[
l l
ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC,
f f
14 1
MR. BICKWIT It were to lead to a prehearing, 2 then probably as a matter of law it should lead to-one even 3
if you don't insist on amendment.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But a ma tter of lav and a ' ~
5 matter of right are two dif ferent issues.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYt Certainly the way no 7 significant hazards has been interpreted in-the_past, it 8 should lead to a finding of no significant hazards because 9 the que'stion is whether th'e action increases the safety of 10 the plant and obviously it does not.
But then that is up to 11 Ed case and not me.
12 (Laughter.)
13 MR. BICKWITs When would it be proposed that these 14 changes would be made?
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD You mean the physical 16 changes in the plant?
17 MR. BICKWIT Yes.
How quickly would they be made?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, some of them were 19 being made.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is right.
l 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are commitments the 22 licensee has made that he can do these things.
s l
23 MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
I guess my point is if the 24 amendment to the licen se takes place beyond denial of 25 certiorari then you conceivably have no problem.
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
15 1
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you talking about the 2 Sholly Mandate?
3 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
.4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is better amended 5 sooner than later.
6 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD4 It would be verY hard to - -
8 find significant hazards consideration in an_ amendment.that 9 simply confirmed what a board had done, but I think you are 10 right it makes more sense to do it sooner.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEs Did the staff ever indicate, 12 Vic, any opinion?
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I think the staff 14 opinion is that they see no difficulty in that.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I am not sure that we 16 asked them.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We did.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did we, John?
19 MR. AUSTIN:
Yes.
I talked to several members of 20 the staff asking them if they had a problem backfitting.
21 The response was that they pref er to go with the proposal 22 and there would be no major problem if it were backfitted.
23 No major problem was the way they characterized it.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Was there any problem?
25 MR. AUSTIN:
It is going back and finding what the
~
i l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
16 1
com mitm ents were and writing up tech specs.
2-COMMISSIONER BRADFORD But it is not a problem: in' 3 the plant then but it is a paperwork problem.-
4~'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
An administrative problem.
5 MR. AUSTIN:
They have already agreed.
I mean it.
6 is a fait accompli.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.
So it is really the bother.
8 of doing it.
9 Well, it just seemed odd to have this funny-little 10 exception.
11 CH;.IRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's do it.
If it turns out i
12 that this thing heads down a hearing line though, why i
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs We wall know who is to I
14 blame.
15 (Laughter.)
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
--- we will march right back in 17 here and ask for a reversal on the thing.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like to talk to 19 you, Len, later about Dresden because we really do dicaqree.
20 MR. CHILKa The Commission has unanimously ZO-5fp/ 81 - 11 u 21 approved adoption of Alternative 3 of e5-u s
with a 1
22 aodifica tion proposed by Commissioner Gilinsky.
1 23 Would you please affirm your votes.
I 24 (Chrous of Ayes.)
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE So ordered.
l l
l ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j
j
17 1
Thank you very much.
2 (Whereupon, at 4: 50 p.m.,
the affirmation session.
3 concluded.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
20 l
21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
---'1
~
This is Oc certify tha: the attachec proceedings 'cefore :he COMMISSION MEETING in the =atter of: Affirmation, Discussion and Vote:
91-16 Date of ?roceeding:
April 23, 1981 Decket Nu=ber:
? lace of ?roceeding: Washington, D.
C.
'4ere held as herein appeers, and tha this is the.criginal.transcrip therecf for the file of the Cc= mission.
C.
Simons Mary Cfficial Reper:er (Typec) 9
?M Q.Gmas
[
Cfficial PCr:er (3igna:"re, 1
t t
l 1
I f
I
[p naa
- 1 T S
53' I
SECY-81-114 February 19, 1981
%...* /
RULEMAKING ISSUE For:
The ComissionTAffirmation)
From:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FIRE PROTECTION RULE FOR FUTURE PLANTS Discussion:
SECY-80-546 was developed in response to the Commission's re-quest for staff discussion on the " development of requirements
-and the level of detail to be included in the Rule for Future Plants" (see memorandum from Chilk to Dircks, dated November 3, 1980). The staff recomended in SECY-80-546 that the Comission adopt Alternative 3 which would 1) result in a fire protection rule containing well defined requirements in those areas which are generic and applicable to most plants, while leaving plant dependent features to staff evaluation under more general requirements, and 2) direct the staff to issue such a fire protection rule for public comment by July 1, 1982. to SECY-80-546 contained a sample rule. typifying the option recomended. The sample rule stated that it would be applicable to nuclear power electric generating stations whose construction permit applications were docketed after January 1, 1982. Left silent in the sample rule and in the staff written and oral discussion with the Comnission was the treatment of plants between Appendix R to 10 CS Part 50 and the new rule, since in previous discussions with the Comission the staff had indicated it would apply the BTP and Appendix R
(
to such pla.nts, starting with the NTOL's.
A differing professional opinion relating to the development, i
timing, and application of the new fire protection rule was received by memoranda dated January 5 and January 26, 1981.
6 This matter, handled in accordance with the Commission pro-L cedure for differing professional opinions, has been resolved in a manner which requires amendment of SECY-80-546. Correspon-t dence related to this resolution is included.as Enclosure 1.
l The elements of the resolution, which include a partial re-iteration of the staff position in SECY-80-546, are as follows:
1.
The staff will require licensees to identify and describe differences between the BTP and Appendix R and the design and procedural methods proposed for the plant for those CL's scheduled to be issued after September 30, 1981.
Contact:
R. Vollmer SECY NOTE: This paper supplements SECY-80-546.
Inasmuch X27207 as it contains an amendment to the original recomendation, Comissioners who have previously voted are requested to submit new response sheets.
i ) L0 a
~
c 6
? 1 m
2.
The staff will-take the necessary time to develop a new rule which would implement both generic and plant-specific fire protection requirements as discussed SECY-80-546, with a target date of July 1982.
i 3.
The new rule will be applied to both future CP's and OL's on a reasonable schedule, and consideration be given to l
backfitting some or all of.the new rule on all plants when its provisions are developed.
As a result, the following should be added to the staff recomenda-tion on page 5 of SECY-80-546 1
"In the interim, licensees will be required to identify and describe differences between the BTP and Appendix R and the 1
design and procedural methods proposed for the plant.for those OL's scheduled to be issued after September 30, 1981. The new rule will be applied to CP's and OL's on a reasonable schedule, i
and. consideration will be given to backfitting some or all its,
provisions on all plants."
In addition, the first page of Enclosure 2 of SECY-80-546 DISTRIBUTION should be replaced by Enclosure 2.
Comissioners
[
Commission Staff Offices N
Exec Dir for Operations
,V l
I P
William.J. Dircks Sacretariat Executive Director j
for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Memo to H. Denton from R. Vollmer, dated February 12, 1981 2.
Sample Rule on Fire Protection for Future Plants i
l Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary l
l by c.o.b. Friday, March 6,1981.
l Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT February 27, 1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper 6
)
is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coments may be expected.
l This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting daring the Week of l
March 16,1981.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comission Schedule, when published, l
for a specific date and time.
.--___,___m.
_ _ _ _ - _ -. _ = _. _, _,
4 4
mcb /
[D%,%
~
UNITED STATES 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j WASHINGTON, D. C,20555 e
,,,,/
FEB 121981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENCED RESOLUTION OF' DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON I
FIRE PROTECTION RULE
Reference:
- 1) Memorandum to V. Benaroya, Chief, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE from Robert L. Ferguson, Section Leader, Chemical Engineering Branch dtd January 5,1981
- 2) Memorandum to V. Benaroya, Chief, Chemical Engineering t
Branch, DE from R. Ferguson, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE dated January 26, 1981
- 3) Memorandum to R. Ferguson, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE from V. Benaroya, Chief, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE dated January 26, 1981
- 4) Memorandum to R. H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering from Vincent S. Neonan, Assistant Director, Materials &
Qualifications Engineering, DE dated February 2,1981
- 5) Memorandum to R. Ferguson, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE from Richard H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering dated February 4, 1981
- 5) Memorandum to Richard Vollmer, Director, Divison of Engineering from R. Ferguson, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE dated February 6, 1981 Robert L. Ferguson, Section Leader of the Fire Protection Section, Division of Engineering tendered a differing professional opinion by his memoranda of January 5 and 26, 1981 (references 1 and 2). These memoranda were answered by memoranda from the Branch Chief, Assistant Director, and Director in Mr. Ferguson's immediate chain of command dated January 26, February 2, and February 4, 1981 respectively (references 3, 4, and 5).
Finally, by a memorandum dated February 6, 1981, Mr. Ferguson restated his proposed course of action.
I have completed my evaluation of this differing professional opinion and the purpose of this memo is to give you my recommendation for resolution.
The differing opinion is not of a technical nature.
It concerns policy, specifically, the development, 9
m h lY Y c
FEB 121981 Harold R. Denton ;
timing, and application of a new fire protection rule which would contain the elements of the Branch Technical Postion (BTP) and Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix R).
During its consideration of Appendix R, the Comission decided not to apply Appendix R to future plants pending development of a new fire protection rule and requested the staff's timely proposal of a fire protection rule for future plants. The staff responded with SECY 80-546. The staff recommended alternative in this Comission paper concerning the technical content was prepared and strongly endorsed by Mr. Ferguson throughout its development.
Mr. Ferguson did not partici-pate in preparing the recomended schedule for development and implementation of the proposed rule however.
In the course of the Comission's consideration of Appendix R, the staff informed the Commission that current and future OL's would meet the backfit items contained in Appendix R.
This, along with the previous practice of conducting the staff review in accordance with the BTP criteria, assures that the OL review is already in accord-ance with the recently published rule. The staff has been implementing this comit-ment on current OL's.
Mr. Ferguson would, based on his latest memo:
1.
Require all plants licensed to operate after January 1, 1979, to meet Appendix R on the: same basis as those licensed before that date.
2.
Require all plants licensed to operate to meet a new ' rule which would be issued for public coment on or about July 1981.
This would be applied to new CP applications and OL applications on a reasonable schedule.
The new rule would consist of the present BTP and Appendix R criteria.
3.
Add other requirements to the new rule annually or as they are developed, whichever is longer.
In attempting to resolve this differing opinion, I have considered the objectives of the fire protection review, the criteria currently being applied, and available staff resources.
I also had a discussion with Mr. Ferguson on this matter. As a result, I proposed in reference 5 that:
1.
The staff require licensees to identify and describe differences from the BTP and Appendix R for those OL's scheduled to be issued beyond September 30, 1981.
2.
The staff take the necessary time to develop a nu rule which would implement both generic and plant-specific fire portection requirements as discussed in SECY 80-546 with a target date of July 1982.
l
[
l 4,
FEB i 21981 l
Harold R. Denton 3.
The new rule be applied to future CP's and OL's on a reasonable schedule and consideration be given to backfitting on all plants.
I believe that this would assure that no oversight of important deviations from l
staff fire protection criteria would occur-for future OL's and that appropriate backfitting consideration would be given to any new important features of a new l
fire protection rule.
It would also allow that deliberate consideration be given to the development of a new rule.
Based on the current level of, and criteria for, the staff's fire protection review on OL's, I do not believe that it would be productive or an enhancement of plant safety to alter the methods of conducting our review except as identified in item 1 immediately above.
Therefore, I recommend that the steps 1-3 above be adopted as a suitable resolution of the differing professional opinion.
If you concur with this resolution, we need to so inform Mr. Ferguson.
In addition, I will prepare an addendum to SECY 80-546 to inform the Commission of our intent to apply the forthcoming rule to OL applications on a reasonable schedule in addition to all CP applications and that consideration will be given to backfitting selected issues on all plants.
I will also forward Mr. Ferguson's dissent and resolution thereof to the Commission for their information.
If you wish additional information or discussion on this matter, I would be happy to set up a meeting between you and any or all of the participants.
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
1.
Memo to V. Benaraya fr R. Ferguson dtd 1/5/81 2.
Memo to V. Benaroya from R. Ferguson dtd 1/26/81 3.
Memo to R. Ferguson fr V. Benaroya dtd 1/26/81 4.
Memo to R. Vollmer fr V. Noonan dtd 2/2/81 5.
Memo to R. Ferguson fr R. Vollmer dtd 2/4/81 6.
Memo to R. Vollmer fr R. Ferguson dtd 2/6/81 4
cc:
E. Case V. Noonan V. Benaroya R. Ferguson 7
._y..
D e
ga"%
p; t
%~]
December 23, 1980 SECY-80-546 RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)
For:
The Comissioners From:
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FIRE PROTECTION RULE FOR FUTURE PLANTS
Purpose:
Discussion on alternative levels of detail to be tacluded in a fire protection rule for future plants.
Category:
This paper covers minor policy questions.
J Issue:
The desirable level of detail for an NRC fire protection rule for future plants Decision i
Criteria:
- 1. Will application of the alternative result in a fire protection rule which will assure a level of fire protection for new nuclear plants adequate to protect the public health and safcty?
1
- 2. Will application of the alternative furnish an appli-cant sufficient criteria to permit adequate design and installation of fire protection features and permit efficient staff reviews?
- 3. Is it necessary or desirable to permit different 1
solutions for specific fire protection problerrs at anty given nuclear plant? If yes, then does the alternative provide the proper balance of specific requirements and freedom to develop innovative solutions for plant specific problems?
- 4. Is the expenditure of NRC resources comensurate with the benefit?
Alternatives:
- 1. Publish for coment a proposed fire protection rule for future plants which specifies the mininum fire protection requirements, in performance-goal oriented language.
- 2. Publish for coment a proposed fire ' protection rule that contains very precise and specific fire pro-hr CDR IffD6 ci?
tection criteria that, taken as a whole, conpletely Augf3Jg define a total fire protection. program of design, g
material, procedural, and administrative requirements.
Contact:
V. Benaroya 19D057 UNITE D s1 ALEE
-~
g
,[ {
f UCLEAR REGULATORY CUT.*t.*lSSION E
WASHIMGTON, D C 20LL'
,[, g
,g c:.?-wW[j a
i g
1.-
JAN0 5 GS1 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Benaroya, Chief Chemical Engineering Branch j
Division of Engineering FROM:
Robert L. Ferguson, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering j
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION - FIRE PROTECTION RULE 1.
Present Manacement Position Fire protection requirements for plants licensed to operate after January 1,1979 should not be specified by regulation other than Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
Guidelines for the implementation of Criterion 3 are provided in other staff documents.
l 2.
Originator's Ooinion Fire protection requiremencs for plants licensed to operate after l
January 1,1979 should be specified by regulation.
{
This position differs from the present management position in that it places mst of the burden of providing an adequate fire protection program on the licensee rather than on the staff reviewer.
At present, the licensee describes his fire protection program to meet i
NRC guidelines, and the staff reviewer reviews this description and visits the plant to detemine whether NRC guidelines will be met and i
whether the features provided to meet the guidelines provide an adequate l
Our site visit is after the plant is 80-90%
i complete 50 that the actual configurations of protection can be exam-l ined.
Usually our multi-discipline review teams find that the licensees have not established adequate programs in spite of all the guidance given in Branch Technical Positions, Regulatory Guides and Staff Positions for-l warded by letter.
In those instances if the staff reviewer is not thorough l
l and persuasive, the fire protection for systems important to safety may not j
meet NRC requirecents.
The fire protection features that protect public health and safety, and the i
safety margin in such protection, are detemined by NRC policy decisions.
l These decisions determine the systems important to safety that must survive l
a fire and the fire protection features are necessary to assure that such l
i i
i
/
D
+),,,- [c. khO f**=J i
Victor Benaraya.
JAN0L G51 r
i systems survive. These features include post-fire capability for l
reactor coolant injection, reactivity and inventory cor. trol, decay heat removal, and prucess monitoring as well as the fire barriers or i
physical separation which assures this post-fire capability.
These features will not ce determined by the designers using general criteria.
Regulations are required to assure that appropriate design features are installed to assure post-fire shutdown capability in a timely manner.
l l
The requirements which implement NRC policy on fire protection must be i
stated in the Regulations so that the designers and operators are aware of the requirements early in the design and throughout the life of the i
plant.
If new infomation dictates a change in requirements, such a change could be implemented at all operating plants in a timely, efficient manner by an amendment to the Regulations. All concerned parties:
Licensees, j
Applicants, Designers, Reviewers. Inspectors and the public would have a clear j
understanding of our requirements.
It is important to have an efficient method for detemining if modifications are necessary in operating plants and, if so, to implement them within a reasonable time.
The statement of the requirement in the Regulations must be specific enough to preclude inadequate fire protection without restricting the range of acceptable alternatives.
For example, the level of specification such as "It shall be possible to safely shutdown the reactor" does not assure that adequate reactor coolant
[
makeup capability survives fire. One licensee may provide only 20 gpm to l
accomodate normal leakage, another may provide 150 gpm to acco:miodate l
leakage of a power operated relief valve that fails to reclose completely, and another may provide a complete train of high and low pre tsure injection to accomodate open relief valves.
Obviously, the margin of protection to the public afforded by these alternatives are very different.
One or more j
of these alternatives may not be acceptable to the Comission; and must be l
precluded by specific language of the requirement.
j l
l This opinion does not take issue with NRC technical requirements.
It only recomends that such requirements cover all plants licensed to operate after January 1,1979, be specified by Regulations,and be made effective as soon I
as possible after the SRP Section 9.5-1 is revised.
j 3.
Originators Assessment of Non-Adoption Fire protection programs in operating plants will vary significantly because of the strong dependence on the staff review and the audit nature t
of such review.
Plant modifications will continue to be required late in the licensing process.
Sucn modifications will provide acceptable configurations but will j
i i
I l
i
JAN05 M
- Victor Benaroya not have t'ae same margin of safety of designs which have 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire barrier separation between all safety systems in all areas of the plant.
Considerable industry and staff resources ~will be wasted on repetitive discussions of generic issues that should be resolved by NRC policy l
Considerable industry and staff resources will be consured decisions.
in developing criteria which do not define NRC fire protection policy sufficiently to improve the licensing process.
)
The NRC policy for fire protection programs will not be defined by an appropriate level of specification to assure adequate fire protecti:n programs in operating plants.
The ultimate consequence of an inadequate fire protection in an operatir.;
plant could be sufficient fire induced damage to systems important to l
safety such that significant core damage occurs and fission products are l
released from the containment.
t 4.
Status of Related Efforts (1) the need for a fire At present the Commission is considering:
protection rule, (2) the plants to be covered by the rule, (3) the levei of specification in the rule, and (4) the schedule for completing suci.
a rule.
+
s
_ J Robert L. Fero o, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering l
h l
t I
f l
F i
l 1
l 1
i l.'...
G IG '
I U ORA!;DUM FOR:
V. Benaroya, Chief Chemical Engineering.6 ranch Divisica of Engir.,ering F.',0M :
R. Fcrgusen, fection Leader Fire.'rotecticn Section Che'ical Enginacring Cranch Divisicn of Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIFFERII;G PRTESS10!!AL OPIl!I0I: - FIRE PROTECTI0ti RULE SUPPLEMEf1T 1 This memorandum is in response to the request of V. f!oonan on January 19, indicate how the EDD's recommendations stated in SECY-S0-5-i5 1981 that I dated December 23, 1980 affect the subject differing professional opinion.
Two reccmaendations are contained in SECY-80-546.
My coments on the are as follows:
1-00 Rece mondation #1:
A fire T.otection rule,with weil defined requirerants for generic its i
- 1plic;ble to most plants, and general requirements for plant dependen:
L'qures, should be issued for public c~omment by J;1y 1, 1982.
,0ricinator's 0 pinion I agree with the ED0 recommendations regarding technical ccatent and level ho.ever i of specification (as reflected by Enclosure 2 to SECY-80-546);
Eecause SD has assis::I *. :
not agree with the schedule fcr implementation.
in drafting a revision to SRP 9.5-1 in the foimat of a proposed append 5 ::
10 CFR Part 50, I believe SD c:uld have a proposed rule issued for pu:lic comment within 2 - 4 months if the Contnission directed the issuance of the proposed rule on such a sr.hedule.
i At the present time, we are c.21uating several U_1;plications per year.
The prccpt issuance of a prcptsed rule which states current comprehers'/c r
require ants will be helpful to both the applicar.ts and the staff in c: -
pieting these evaluations expeditiously and with a cinimum of backfit problems.
t l
E00 Recc-endation #2:
t lhe fire protection rule for future plants should a; ply to nuclear p:.:r
- f;.e electric generating stations.
- iose constructicn ;;.r..its were dockete:
I January 1, 1982.
(See Enclosure 2 SECY-80-546).
acs } % u 1XIP00R ORIGINAL
m ~
UNIT [ D STATE *,
,j NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
[
WASHINGTON. D C 2W.
,,...r,,
j K >~ u. -.; j y y C. W 14EMORANDUM FOR:, Robert Ferguson, Section Leader Fire Protection Sec. tion Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering FROM:
Victor Benaroya, Chief Chemical Engineering Branch Divisicn of Engineering DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIO4 - FIRE PROTECTIO. RU N
SUBJECT:
By memorandum from you to me of January 5,1981, you corrnented on a) you disagreed with the management position on the amount of detail a rule for fire protection requirements for plants licensed to operate after January 1, 1979 should contain; and b) the specified regulations be cade effective as soon as possible after the SRP Section 9.5-1 is revised.
The present management recomendation on the new rule is enunciated in SECY-80-546, " Fire Protection Rule f or Future Plants" dated Dece.:er 23, In my opinion,.the position you reccamend on the amount cf detail 1930.
and the one in SECY-80-546 are consistent, therefore, it should not be considered a differing professional opinion.
As to the date the fire protection rule should be made applicable, I cannot agree that the revised SRP Section 9.5-1 will not require consicerable work Let me quote from SECY-S:-545:
before it can be issued as a new rule.
Recommendation:
It is recorrnended that the Commission adopt Alternative 3 and direct the staff to issue a fire protection rule for public cocrent by July 1, 1982. This date is consistent with the available staff resources, considering that the limited staff fire protection expertise can be better used in expeditiously upgrading existing facilities.
It should be noted that new applications are not expected to be numerous in the near future.
As you well know, the Comissioners have not acted on the rule en fire pro-tection for new plants. The Cornissioners have been infcrmed that there are differing staff opinions.
You will be inforced on the de::isions taken by the Commissioners.
For the record, I received your memo on January 19, 1981.
(( 85"4 W -
OF Victor Benaroya, Chief Chenical Engineering Eranch Division of Engineerin;
.cc: tiext page n.-
D f"
[\\ di. ' Yil sa
,U L,
J A '
'? '.- r.'
Robert Fer.guson cc:
H. Denton R. Vollmer V. Noonan I
-m I
- #f Cy\\
UNITED sT ATEs
,,j],.-(7i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W A SHlf4GTON, D. C. 20555
.g j
K..c }
FEE 2 1991-
. MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director i
Division of Engineering FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan, Assistant Director i
Materials & Qualifications Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON FIRE PROTECTION R"LE By this memorandum I am forwarding to you three enclosures on the abo.
subject.
Enclosures 1 and 2, dated January 5 and January 26, are Robert Ferguson's differing professional opinion on fire protection rule and, dated January 26, is Victor Benaroya's response to Mr. Ferguson as required by the NRC policy on differing professional t
opinions.
Mr. Benaroya is Mr. Ferguson's imediate supervisor.
I personally met with Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Benaroya on this subject :: nelp i
me better understand the exact nature of Mr. Ferguson's concerns and to effer a proposal addressing his concerns which I felt would satisfy his objtetions.
i r
At the present time all safety evaluations on fire protection are re;. iring the licensee to be in full compliance with the General Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, the Branch Technical Position (BTP) and Appendix R.
In addition, I would also propose that we request from e
licensee, in writing, any deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for :r.eir particular plant. This list of deviations could also be made as a cc :ition that, prior to full power operation, the licensee would state that n: cevi-ations exist or submit to the staff the list of deviations for the sizff's review and concurrence.
In sumary, I do not believe Mr. Ferguson or myself are really in dist;ree-ment but we probably do not fully agree on the method of implementati:n of the new fire protection rule which is scheduled for completion July 1,1932.
Until the rule is drafted and published I believe my proposal on har.:'ing i
the plants that we license prior to issuance of the rule would give : e staff reasonable assurance regarding the licensee's mpliance to tr.e fire protection issue.
j MF a6
.N nan, Assistant Directer Materials & Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
As stated cc: H. Denton E. Case V. Benaroya yrP g
L. \\,
(
, h o r.,
MITED sT Alt s ErClcsM e t
', y*..,[ 's}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
C WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
% 8.w '* ' l
\\,),,. /
February 4,1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert Ferguson, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch, M0E, DE FRGM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director l
Division of Engineering i
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON FIRE PROTECTION RULE 4,
t l
As a result of our recent meeting and a review of your January 5th and j
January 26th memoranda on the same subject, and Mr. Benaraya's response also i
dated January 26. I would like to propose a resolution of your differing professional opinion. This resolution is based on my belief that we ere all I
trying to accomplish the same objecti.ves but our approaches, although some-what different, are sufficiently close to allow compromise. Where differences f
currently exist they appear to be on the level or amount of required staff review, the time required to get a new fire protection rule out for public comment, and the effective date for application of that rule to OLs and cps.
t Speaking first to the level of staff review required, our regulatory practice is one of audit rather than detailed analysis of all aspects of the licensee l'
design. As such, you point out that a burden is put on the staff of knowing whether or not the licensee intends to meet all aspects of the Branch Tech-nical Position and Appendix R and to what extent.
You also state that if these " requirements" were part of a regulation that their impact on the licensee and his response to them would be different than if these " require-ments" are only regulatory guidance.
While it could be argued that both of these methods of approach should result in the same end product. I suggest that we could accomplish the same objectives if the licensees were requested to identify in writing deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for those plants j
currently being licensed. The staff could then review these deviations and make judgments on their acceptability.
You will recall that the Commission plans to implement a similar procedure some time in the future such that all r'
licensees will be required to address deviations from current Standard Review Plans.
However, as an interim position for fire protection, I would recomerd i
that this identification be required for all OLs scheduled to be issued beyond j
September 30, 1981 I do not believe that it is necessary or an effective use of NRR resources to re-review fire protection for plants currently being licensed as long as the staff can conclude that the BTP and Appendix R are ret.
[
i Concerning the amount of time needed for getting the fire protection rule cut for coment, you have stated thai. SD could have a proposed rule issued withic 2-4 months if the Commission so directed, In our discussion:, wherein I statet l
i U
[!C"I L [ ^
6 P.obert Ferguson my belief that the new rule should not just be an assemblage of current practices but one where the staff thinks in more detcil about both the generic and plant-specific items to be considered in the rule, we agreed In fact, that a much longer time would be required to develop such a rule.
i I think we agreed that July of '82 was not unreasonable.
I feel this is indeed appropriate and in consideration of the total context of this meni-orandum would request you concur in this view.
Lastly, you believe that the implementation of the new rule should include those plants licensed for operation after January 1st,1979.
This is based on your belief that there may have been fire protection requirements included in the new rule which could significantly affect plants which fit between the implementation dates of Appendix R and the new rule.
I concur with this possibility and point out that perhaps plants licensed prior to January 1st, 1979, might also be in this position.
Therefore, I propose that when the new rule is issued for comment that specific consideration be given to back-fitting for all plants.
Further, I propose that this new rule not only be applicable to future construction permits but also be applied to licensing actions on OLs on a reasonable schedule yet to be determined.
In summary, I propose that we require licensees to identify deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for staff review for those OLs scheduled to be issued beyond September 30, 1981.
In addition, I propose we take the necessary time to develop a new rule which will implement the generic and plant-specific fire protection requirements as discussed in SECY-80-546 with a target date of July 1982.
Finally, I propose that when the.new rule is developed it be applied not only to future plants and future OLs on a reason-able schedule and consideration be given to backfitting on all plants.
I would appreciate your concurrence or further discussion of these proposals by February 5th.
s.
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering cc:
H. Denton E. Case V. Noonan
urnit D sT ATEs
- [ ",- [ j NUCLE AR REGUL AT ORY COT.*.*.'ISSION h
5 WASHINGTON. D C. 20LLL
- , i.,,...
- $
q. Ahjl g.....c FEB 0 6153i MEMORAUDUM FOR: Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering FROM:
Robert Ferguson, Section Leader Fire Protection Section j
Chemical Engineering Branch Division Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION - FIRE PROTECTION RULE SUPPLEMENT 2 i
Ycur memorandum to me, dated February 4,1981, on this subject requested my concurrence or comments on the following proposals:
1.
All plants now scheduled to be lige.nsed to operate after September 30, 1981 would be required to identify deviations from NRC fire protection acceptance criteria. Such deviations would be specifically evaluated in the staff SER prior to licensing.
2.
All plants licensed to operate between January.1, 1979 and September 30, 1931 could not be required to identify such deviations as long as the staff can conclude that the acceptance criteria have been met.
3.
All plants licensed to operate would be required to meet a new rule which we plan te issue for coment on or about July 1982. This rule would contain the assemblage of present acceptance criteria in the form of requirements. The requirements would be applied to new CP applications and to OL applications on a reasonable schedule. Consideration would be given to backfitting on all operating plants.
To identify the issues, I propose a course of action to achieve the same goal, i
i.e., a rule which states NRC fire protection requirements for all operating plants, as follows:
1
)
A.
All plants licensed to operate after January 1, 1979 would be required to 7
ceet the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 on the same basis as those licensed before that date.
B.
All plants licensed to operate would be required to meet a new rule i
(Appendix d) which we plan to issue for coment on or about July 1981.
This rule would contain the assemblage of present acceptance criteria in the form of requirements. The requirements would be applied to new CP l
applications and to OL applications on a reasonable schedule. Further backfitting would not be necessary because it has already been accomp-lished under A above.
j
(
l y-
o' j
a
Richard H. Vollmer
-2, C.
If the flRC determines that other requirements are necessary, they would be added to. Appendix R'to 10 CFR 50 annually or as they are-developed, whichever is longer.
From the above, it appears'that there is coocurrence on the end goal.
I recommend ry The issue concerns the method used to achieve the goal.
method because:
All licensees and applicants are given early notice of our requirements with a minimum of staff effort.
This early notice allows applicants to mcet the requirements with a minimum of effort because they know the requirements early in the design.
By providing better separation at this time,they can reduce the need for some automatic suppression systems and extra barriers and also assure the survival of more shutdown systems for any fire.
Fewer modifications will be required late in construction when they are more costly and usually do not provide as much margin as original design features.
The burden of providing adequate fire protection is placed on the licensees and can be readily checked and assured by the f;RC Inspectors with a minir:
Jm of effor,t.
It is easier for the staff to accomplish since we still have the personnel that are familiar with our fire protection requirements and the rulemaking procedures.
If we wait until July 1982, we may have new personnel. Using new personnel.with little or.no experience in dealing with the prc51 ems encountered over the past.several years, I doubt that the proposed schedule of July 1982 could be met.
I I n 7Mm,.s Robert L. F g ason, Section Leader Fire Prote tio ) Section Chemical Engirteering Branch Division of Engineering cc:
H. Denton E. Case
/
V. floonan V Y. Benaroya y-
e e
e 6
c I
l l
l
hL
~ '
ENCLOSURE 2 SAMPLE RULE ON FIRE PROTECTION FOR FUTL':E PLANTS
(
)
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE all CP and OL applications for This Appendix applies to nuclear power electric generating 4
stations on a schedule yet to be determined.
With respect to certain generic issues fcr su:h facilities, it sets forth fire protection features required to i
satisfy Criterion 3 of Appendix A to this part.
j Critericn 3 of Appendix A to this part spe:ifies tnat "St.ru::ures, systems, and cc=ponents important to safety shall be designed and located to minimize, consistant with other safety require ents, the ;reba:ility and effect of fires and explosions."
When considering the effects of fire, those syste:s asse:iated with achieving and :.aintaining safe shutdcwn conditi:r.s ass.=e r.a.'er 'r::rtance to safety be:ause da= age to them can lead t: c: e er. age resultfr; frem
"~
loss of coolant through boiloff.
The phrases "important to safety," or " safe y-elated," will :e used throughout this Appendix R as applying to all safety f.nctions.
T e phrase
" safe shutdown" will be used throughout this ip;er:ix s as applyir; to both hot and cold shutdown functions.
e f
MM BRIGINAL
- . b..,cya 2
c Ceisin;. tor's Opinion The fire protection rule should apply tc plants licensed to operate aftar
?:nuary 1, 1979. These plants are of p.esent ccncern to the staff, ind.stry and public.
The present Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 appli_s to pl:nts liccnsed to (pcrate prior to Janu3ry 1, 1979.
The E;3's rc--- :nditiro calJ f.; e an Appcr.oix to 10 CFR Part 50 for plants licensed to c;; rate after J:nuary 1992 (assuming a 10 year ccnstructicn shccdule). Therefore, the many pl.nts to be licensed to operate betucen 1979 :nd 1992 uculd not he covered by the re:91ations. This gap would prcb;bly give rise to a host cf backfit prchl s.
5..ch prcblcus can be avoided by h; *ing all plants ccvered by the regulatien from January 1,1979.
SECY-80-546 states that:
The main purpose of issuing a fire protection rule for new plants at this time is to arplify in the regulaticns those fire protection features necessary for plant safety and to codify the flRC policy for the level of fire protection.
Further, such a rule would standardize the require. ants, aid applicants early in the design stage, improve tne efficiency of rc;ulstory review and cci:..lin (.nsistency.
These factors ould li5cly enhance that 10.01 of iafety previded by fire protectisn features.
T!.is purpose is best accerplished by pru ptly issuing a fire protecticn rule that applies to plants licensed t; cperate after Jan;iry 1, 1979.
?3
\\%
4-M R. L. Ferguscr., Se_ tion Lcader Fire Trotecticn Section Chemical Engir.eering Branch Civisi n of Er.gineering P00R BRIGINAL l
I