ML20034H104

Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards Documents Listed in App D Which Are Being Made Available at Pdr.Records Listed in App E Are Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)

ML20034H104
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	12/08/1992
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Gilinsky V AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20034H105	List: ML20034H104 ML20034H113
References
FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-033, SECY-A-80-33, NUDOCS 9303150276
Download: ML20034H104 (4)

Text

U.S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION NHc t oiA stout st huvbt +ust FOIA 436

,[.

r 5

ResnoNst m t b

!t4 i QC RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF lwt lx l PAR 11AL NNY'D INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST

'o^'t

%..v.../

DEC - 81992 DOCK L T NJVbl R(br lif orpisco!nel RL OUL ST L R Mr. Victor Gilinskv PART l.-AGENCY RECORDS RELE ASED OR NOT LOCATED (See c6enedboaes/

No arnc, reco ds subject to the request have been lotated No aatt o"a! agency ret ords subject to the recrest have been ;ocated.

Requested records are asadatde thf ougn another pubhc d<stobution prog *am. See Commerts section.

Agenc y records sutt;ect to the reauest that are idertihed in Append =iesi are a?rrady awadable for pubhc.nspection and copying at the N RC Peer Document Poom. 2120 L Street, N n, Was ungton, DC.

y Agency recor ds sutett to tne rcquest that a*e identified in Append:x:es>

0 a*e bemy made avalabie for pub 6c iTpection and copyrng at the NRC Pubhc Document Paom. 2120 L Street. N.W, WasNng*on. DC, an a foldcr under trns F OI A number.

TN nonprennetary vers on of the proposaus) that you agreed to accept.n a te epkone conve sation with a rnember of my stcff is now being made avadable for pocht espection and copvm; at the N RC Pubhc Document Room. 2120 L Street. N W. Washmgton DC. in a fo; der under this F Oi A number.

Agency reuds suNect to tne teauest that re identified en A;:+nd a es) may be :"mected and copied at the NRC Loca; Pubhc Document Room idcnt f ed in the Corn =ents section.

E ncesed :s - f ornui: on on hoc. you may oMa.n access to and tne charg's for copymg records located at the NRC Pubhc Document Room.2120 L Street, NW WastSton. DC.

Agency records suD! Pct 1o t' e rt'avest a e enclosed.

Records sub;ett to tSe rer: - t ta<e been refern.! to another f edera: g,c vhesi for rev+n and c rect response to you.

I Fees You ad! be toed b,' he NR C f or fees tc ta'mg 5 You am rece 6e a refund from the VC in the amount of 5 in v:ew of N A C s respo-se to ins request. no faqher action is brag taken or appeaf letter dated

,No j

PART II. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certain informanon in the rewested records is beerg nit %cid from outWc dtsclosee pursva to the exemr teons described an and for the reasons stated y

in ran il B. C. and D. Arv retused portio's cf the docurnents 1or nNch on'y part of the rr rerd is being nittheid are t2eing mane available for pubHc inspection a,d copvirg in the NR C PubGc Document Room. 2170 L Street, N W,, Washing on. DC in a f eider under this F OI A nurr ber.

COMYE NTE 1

l SIGhiAT URE DJ E CT OR. D: #5iCN Of f RE E DDY OF A5 ORV AT ION / ND PUE LICAT IONS 5E PVICE S L' ( t \\h./)-

q' w,/l'

/

/

6 4

I

)

t 9303150276 921208 O,

PDR FOIA O

OILINSK92-436 PDR i

f DI A NUMbt FU51 DA1E RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST FOIA 436 (CONTINUATIONI DEC - 81992 PART 118-APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS E

,,, o,,ng,;tss,ic,,n in,,,,n,;,,1y o, ;n p,t under the Records sutuect to the request that are desceibed in the enclosed Appendiales)

Exemption No.(s) and for the reason (s) gwen talow pursuant to 5 U.S C. bS?tb) and 10 CF R 9.17(a) of NRC regulations.

1. The withheld.ntoemat<on es property classd.ed puts uant to Emecative Order. (E xempt.on 1)

2. Tf+ *sthheld enformaten relates soielv to the mie ral reonnel tu es and peocedures of fdC (E memption 2) n

3. The withheld inforrnation is specit. cat 4y e empted from putet detosuy t.y statste mdicated. LE ryption 3)

Sect.on: 141.145 of the Atomic ErtF9r Act. what prob.t its the dnctowe of Beste.eted Dea or Fo+me.'y Restocted Data 142 U S C. 2161-2105).

~.

Sectmn 147 of the Atomic Er.e gy Act, mNch prob tsts the demuse of Unclawted Safegaads information (42 U.S C. 2167),

.~ - - - - _ __

4 The wethheid enformatem a a trade benet or i.onertal n.1 rsant,. intmmai.on that 45 t,e.ng, w.5%cid tu the et asor.tsi mdecated. (E semption 4) g The mfo metion a c ansde ed to t+ (oMontsa! twsineu iptoonnar e,<-to%et.on The enf ormiten es cons.ce ed 4 te propot ;ar, c%,mation pumet in 10 C f R 2 7Mho t t

_l,_

_ - -. -. + -

- -. ~ - ~..

~ --

. ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ -

.. - ~

e.-

. ~~

The s : format.on w as sutmtiett aw reurwe;f en t rbas:

s. pee. sam to 10 (T R 2 7Kw? s a

X b The wJhbeid arfoemation c aes M rieraq.em m u nyr rv et vr* tv

,v.

<wt n a a 3

.1 s ery op'y N ton (E nempten bl. Appht.able Privgege,.

Deut +utwe Pra en D:sciewre of precM +ona? er %mato, wi on, rec.a ta itsh tut t*w e eu1 p 4 e s c w gr. of was emer.t.# 10. the rir"tierat.ve pro ( ess X

Whe<e ret orcs arc w it%esd m then entact e. Ihr f se. ts e.t m atnc or i o i r1

• u s a.ro tN pr e m

• or.w +<ef uma:.an Thee also me no,e-a %,tsi, beyegatise f ac tual port.ons t>cc asse !be te. case tif the f ac ts *pur<1 pa mt an eve rt t m+,.'. ** 'io the> p4ew iso:iver tat r f.n of te+ 4toemr, j

A?imon enpods1tos ne ;Dnfotr.e m p,p, 1N, av..

si w t,.

e j X Attome, cbent povocy (Contdent.a' communicat om t>e'**en an ett mocy and hq het cl.cnt t 6 The a:tWe Wmu 4 ene npiec bo c. pubM c u me t,e(a.* sclw w ' on M'chJ r * : r." v of w a~ a"'M ^ = aum 61 pro swa p% m, (E memption 6)

._y

7. The wrthned iMowet.or, cowsts of set oms comp :ec tm tan c.Jou e~.ent repa.es and is r. ' a with9ntf tm the vene orus; e >w need IE xemption M r

I D<scIDsara coWd teamatvy tre espected to enteeferc m ath an c%q.cment p act+d og twasse et touid ervra the scopr. Sierton. and focus of

- eMortement efforts. and thus cosid pw 18v a o* ret.p er.ts to to e art.on to sNem p.> tent si weoffo ng De a vsenera of fvRC reaa.eemeris from investir,co i. IE nemptinn 7 t All

. _,. ~. _...

D.sclosee wooid cu se mic ar ur me" anted.rw asme-o' pewr e: pr w y (E mempt.on 7(CD

. -. ~ -.- -._ _

the m+ar%i.c

( ocu., v r,ames e am.w and r*%

• • ,.i w m a e s n..t

. om w t r a mm.t es of r

cor+ner.i., sou :es (f nempf-on 7100 r

t UMk i

PART 11 C-DENYING OFfiCtAL$

Pu writ to 10 CF P 9 25% end e 9 2R ! c' she U S Nur e r rege,w, Cem-se egni cm a has te rioe m.ners thot the i<1o+41.e wehr d e enempt imm peo e

e commy to "o ps >M aanest 1+ e news empo%ta 6 t'+ demei re tho# oN es >orced tic % as der vmg dacdon or dit mur emi tv a vo1uc' cm e drove othc.rs av the Daector D.6 4 on c' F ++ ecom t.' vtoe rne t-ew PM,.te m Le

• 4 n 0%re et Admw,r on. fo< am ownws that rne. tie appe amd to the f erut vc Daector fm Opera?cas <f DOk DEtelNG OF FIC AL j

ORD_$ Di M[ D_.

f APFl( L ATT OF FIC4AL 1

f i iC ff r.

]LAssistanLSecrethry_of lhe_ llppendinL John Hoyle

-4 Commi ssion I

__~

J q

q l

i i

1 1

j

~

i

}

l PART !! D _ APP.E AL RIGHT S The cenial t>y ssch denvmg c%oa) ent4ed m Part H.C may t>e answe!ed to the AppcHee Of'ine cent *cd the'e. Any such apper must tie enace m writing withm 30 days of rece.pt Appf 5 l Mull t>9 add'eD*d. 818Pp'Opf'8II. tn the E mecut.ve De ector for Operst.ons. to the &cretary of t,e Comrmmon of to the Inspector General, O $ Nuclear t

t Of th'l f espoM&t.

l Regu! Story Commsl< Ort, Wadmg*on, DC 205L5, and should ocarty state oc the envelope and m the letter that it et s's "Appea from en Wtia FOf A Decipon '

r r

76RC FORM 464 (Part 2) (1-91)

U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGMMISSION

I t

n

~

I Re:

FOIA-92-436 i

APPENDIX D RECORDS BEING PIACED INTO THE PDR UNDER THE ABOVE REOUEST NUMBER FUMBEB DATE DESCRIPTION 1.

1/16/81 SECY-81-38, NRR Monthly Status Report to Congress (18 pages) l 2.

1/29/81 SECY-81-85, Regulatory Flexibility Act i

of 1980; Certification for Recent i

Amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 (Narrative l

Explanation of Table S-3), SECY-80-448 (3 pages)

{

3.

2/19/81 SECY-81-114, Fire Protection Rule for.

Future Plants (20 pages)

's t

I i

l i

4 I

+

e l

A J

i b

.l h

I l

t i

4

?

i

i I

Re:

FOIA-92-436 t

APPENDIX E i

RECORDS PARTIALLY WITIIHELD i

NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION-l 1.

3/11/80 SECY-A-80-33, Director's Denial of 2.206'

[

Relief (In the Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company) (52 pages) EX.

5 2.

1/23/81 SECY-81-56, Review of Director's Partial-

]

Denial (In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company) (145 pages) EX. 5 l

i i

l

[

I r

h t

i l

I i

t 9

i I

VICTOR GILINSKY i

August 25, 1992 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Samuel Chilk ACT REQUEST Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission dl

-@2 - [8 [o i

Oc ed1-2 7-57z Washington, DC 20555 i

Dear Sam:

I am writing to follow up, af ter long delay, on our discussions over my collection of NRC papers at the Hoover Library.

l As you know the papers have been opened to the public with the exception of a set of about 700 or so whose public release gave concern to the General Counsel.

1 It seems to me that the best way to resolve the question of public availability of these remaining papers, and to do it in an amicable and fair manner, is for the General Counsel to formally apply to them the strict standards of the Freedom of Information Act.

i The papers are a well-defined category and there should be no problem in identifying them.

No doubt'the General Counsel has a list.

I expect the papers are all neatly stacked in a corner somewhere.

In order to trigger the formal review, I therefore request the papers i

in question be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Sincerely, 1e b [' '

/p i

/mi i

I 1

([ -

\\

() ?? _nre,

~OC: e an -

xc

__,,,,n

.=-

w,... -

f "%,

j',J 2;I[ j d

' h ' ' [/

t January 16, 1981 SECY-81-38 POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)

FOR:

The Comission FROM:

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

NRR MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS PURPOSE:

To obtain Comission appmval of the subject report and the Chairman's signature on the letter of transmittal.

DISCUSSION:

The NRR monthly status report is in nisponse to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.

The third NRR monthly status report and a draft letter of transmittal for the Chairman's signature are enclosed as Enclosures 1 and 2.

The report discusses the actions that were taken during the past month (December 15 to January 15) on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities.

Since past public hearings have proven to be longer in duration than expected, the staff is re-examining the assumptions used in developing the target schedules for contested cases.

The target schedules were developed by differentiating between moderate vs heavily contested hearings, but it now appears that application of the current standard assumptions may not realistically project the duration of the hearing and appeal process.

Results of the staff re-examination of target schedules will be presented in future reports.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Comission approve the report for transmittal to Congress by letter prepared for the Chairman's signature.

wVQ u k William u. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

NRR Monthly Status Report to Congress 2.

Draft Letter of Transmittal

Contact:

Darrell Eisenhut, DL SQAQQygg?

Off

[f/

X27221

Comissioners' coments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, January 27, 1981.*

~

Comission Staff Office coments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT January 22, 1981, with an infomation copy to the Office of the Secretary.

If the paper 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.

DISTRIBUTION Comissioners Comission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat i

• SECY NOTE: OCA has requested that the Comissioners act on this paper in sufficient time so as to meet the statutory requirement of submitting the report to Congress NLT the last calendar date of the month.

...aaw aus-+

me m._

. mms-a ee,ao wasme6 a

i

.n.e e

--saA ap1:

4

.y.

4 J+.W<-

s-f e.

. 6 1

l.

1 3'.

I 2..

g _

i l

)

4 i

1 i

2 1

. i a

b i

4 I

d i

.I d

n 1

4 A

l I

i i

t 1

I t

i s

Y 0

I i

l ENCLOSURE 1 l

l i

9 i.

1 I

I f

4

.I t

t r

k 1

a 6

't t

d i

l

?

)

a i

4

?

i i

4 s

1 1

5 4

1 4

2 i

F a

9 1

i 1.

t t

1 4

4

-,- - -.., - - ~,

-~ -..--.-- -

NRR K)NTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the third monthly status report to Congress, in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.

The second NRR monthly status report to Congress was transmitted by Tetter dated Decenber 31,1980 and covered the period from Noverber 15, 1980 to December 15, 1980. This third report provides a brief discussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between December 15, 1980 and January 15,1981.

Operatino Reactors During the reporting period, the major issues on operating reactors receiving staff attention included issuing Orders for additional requirements for operating BWR plants to improve the reliability of BWR scram discharge systems and issuing Orders to BWR plants for Mark I containment modifications.

A discussion of each of these follows.

As a result of the staff's review of BWR scram discharge systems, Orders were issued on January 9,1981, to 17 operating BWRs judged to have inadequate scram discharge volume to instrument volume hydraulic coupling. Orders were not issued to the other 5 operating BWRs since the NRC staff concluded that they were already adequate in this regard. The Ordars require implementation, within 90 days, of a system to automatically shut down the reactor when control air pressure falls to within 10 psi of the pressure necessary to connence opening the scram outlet valves, which are held closed 9

h by air pressure.

This measure is intended to prevent sustained low pressure in the control air system causing a potential loss of scram capability due to filling of the scram discharge volume, from leakage through the scram outlet valves.

On January 13, 1981, Confirmatory Orders were issued to the Licensees of 22 operating boiling water reactor facilities shich utilize the Mark I pressure-suppression containment design.

These Orders require that the affected licensees co@lete nodifications, as necessary, to confom to the Acceptance Criteria set forth by the staff in the Mark I Containment Long Tem Program Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0661) by schedules which have been established on a plant-specific basis. The schedules for completion of r

the last item on each of these plants range from October 1981 to i

January 1983 and were developed in consideration of the types of codifications needed, the availability of technicians and materials, and the schedules for plant refueling outages. These Orders also extend an exemption from General Design Criterion 50 (required margins of safety in the containment design) previously granted to the Mark I licensees upon the completion of a short-term assessment.

t

3 Operatino License Applications During the past month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be with OL applications. The staff is re-examining the assumptions used in developing the target schedules for contested cases since past

'public hearings have proven to be longer in duration than expected.

While the target schedules developed differentiated between moderate vs.

heavily contested hearings, it now appears that application of the standard assumptions may not realistically project the duration of the hearing and appeal process.

In addition applicants have been requested to i

provide updated information on their projected fuel load dates.

Results of the staff re-examination of target schedules will be presented in future reports.

i Since the.last report, there were no additions or deletions to the list of impacted plants (plants for which licensing is complete after the f

expected completion of construction). The status of impacted plants follows:

l i

f I

i

+

s r e

n m - ~

~

4 Zimmer - No change in status.

McGuire, Unit 1 - The SSER for low power operation at McGuire, Unit 1 was issued on January 8,1981. A decision regarding fuel loading and zero power testing is still expected in February 1981.

A decision on the full power license is expected to be issued in June 1981 (a five-month impact).

Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 - The nature of contentions filed on December 3,1980 are currently being reviewed to ascertain, among other things, how they will affect the length of hearings, the need for further appeals, and the determination by the Licensing Board concerning whether there is an advantage in separating low power and full power issues for hearing decisions.

Based on our current assessment of the contentions, an ASLB decision regarding a low power license for Unit 1 would not be expected to be issued before July 1981, followed by a review by the Appeal Board and Con?.ission, which leads to a October 1981 prospective decision date.

New construction completion date estimates for both units have been received from the Licensee. The impact on issuing a low power license for Unit 1 is estimated to be about seven months.

An ASLB decision regarding full power license for both Unit 1 and Unit 2 is projected for October 1981 with a licensing decision issued in January 1982. This corresponds to an overall inpact of ten nonths and three months for Unit 1 and 2, respectively.

t

San Onofre, Unit 2 - There is no change in the target dates for San Onofre, Unit 2.

The geologic and seismic Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was issued on December 31, 1980. The SER on other matters is scheduled to be completed in February 1981 with the start of hearing expected to be about July 1981.

Sm:ner 1 - Issuance of the SER is now projected for February 1981 which is a slip of one month from the earlier schedule.

Several reasons account for the slippage including late receipt of a letter from the U. S. Geological Survey (expected December 15,1980 I

but received December 30,1980), awaiting further applicant input.s in a nunber of areas and SER impact from several branches; e.g.

equipment qualification, seismology and emergency planning. Efforts are underway within the staff to resolve the outstanding issues to issue the SER in February 1981.

Issuing the SER in February 1981 leads to a projected licensing completion date in November 1981; with a current construction completion date of October 1981 a one month impact is estimated.

1 An updated surrnary for the impacted plants is presented in Attachment 1.

i t

L 6

I

. The status on plants which have been issued a low power license and for whjch a full power license is pending (Salem. Unit 2 and Farley, Unit 2) is as follows:

Salem, Unit 2 - Issuance of a full power license continues to be delayed due to the status of development of emergency plans. The NRC Safety Evaluation Report on all other matters is complete.

A full power license cannot be issued until first, the affected states (Delaware and New Jersey) have an adequate emergency response plan, and second, an emergency response exercise is conducted and NRC receives an assessment of the exercise from FEMA. Our current assessment of the status of the state and FEMA review indicates that the expected date for the conduct of this drill is March or April,1981.

Farley, Unit 2 - A full power license for Farley, Unit 2 is still projected for March 1981.

9 provides the current target milestone dates (as of January 15, 1981) for all pending OL applications and for those plants under construction whose projected construction completion dates are prior to January 1986.

Target dates which have been changed since the last report are identified with an underline.

I

~

l e

~

' i I

Licensing - Construction Pemits The staff has continued its effort to propose the manner and extent to i

which the TMI Action Plan should be applied to pending CP applications.

(There are 6 construction pemit applications.for 11 units pending and one manufacturing license for 8 units.) The staff has assessed the public

[

coments received and has developed i. proposed revision of NUREG-0718.-

Proposed Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction Permits and Manufacturing License. The staff met with the ACRS and

~

presented staff recomendations to the Comission (Policy Paper SECY 81-20) 4 t

in January 1981. At the request of one construction pemit applicant, t

further discussion with the ACRS and the Comission has been scheduled

[

in February.

ollowing a Comission decision on the staff recomendations, l

further cas specific action to include TMI-related requirements can be i

undertaken for the pending CP applications, j

i o

l

~

Attachments:

i 1.

January Report. - Updated Sumary for Impacted OL Plants.

j 2.

Target Dates of Licensing Steps for Plants Seeking Operating Licenses i

in the Next Five Years

l i

i i

i l

T

e h

O t

t

{

?

C s

I I

r h

e e

e I

A t

I i.

4 e

i C

I h

s e

ATTACHMENT 1 i

+

4 5

b f

f 1

t h

I 5

E I

k r

?

5 i

h o

C I

4 JANUARY REPORT DECEMBER REPORT ~ UPDATED SUPNARY FOR IMPACTED OL PLANTS JANUARY REPORT Construction Licensing Construction Licensing Plant Complete **

Effort 'omplete Delay (Hos.)

Complete **

Effort Complete Delay (Mos.)

Sumer 1 8/81 10/81 2

10/81 11/8) 1 Diablo Canyon 1 1/81 9/81(LP) 8 3/81 10/81(LP) 7 12/81 (FP) 11 01/82 (FP) 10 San Onofre 2 7/81 5/82 10 NO CilANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE Diablo Canyon 2 6/81 12/81 (FP) 6 10/81 1 /82 (FP) 3 Zimer 11/81 1/82 2

NO CHANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE 6/81(ZeroPower)1 PSGuire 1 1/81 2/81 NO CilANGE NO CHANGE NO CHANGE (FP) 5

• • Staff Estimate LP = Low Power License FP = Full Power License I

l l

b 6

n.

+

. =.

I i

h i

t 6

5 1

i t

ATTACHMENT 2

)

t.

F P

i 9

1 1

9 f

t

'e P

I I,

t 4

t 4

l 1

f f

i I

e a

h 9

e

TARGET DATES 0F LICEHSIHG STEPS F0R PLAHTS SEEK'IHG 0PERATIHO LICEHSES IH THE HEXT FIVE YEARS FSAR ER LATEST START ASLB LICENSING HRC EST.

PLANT DOCKETED DOCKETED SER SER SUPPL.

FES NEARING DECISIGH COMPLETE CONST COMP BEAVER VALLEY 2 02/83 02/83 02/85 05/85 05/85 06/85 10/85 '

06/84 06/84 12/85 12/85 BELLEF0HTE 1 06/78C 06/78C 02/84 05/84 07/82 H/A N/A BELLEF0HTE 2 06/78C 06/78C 02/84 05/84 07/82 H/A H/A 02/85 02/85 BRAIDWOOD 1 II/78C II/78C 06/82 09/84 02/84 04/84 02/85 04/85 04/85 BYROH 1 tt/78C ll/78C 06/82 09/82 05/82 07/82 02/83 04/83 04/83 BYROH 2 ft/78C tt/78C 06/82 09/82 05/82 07/82 02/83 04/84 04/84 CALLAWAY 1 08/80C 12/80 04/82 07/82 12/81 08/82 12/82 02/83 02/83 CATAWr.A 1 02/81 02/81 12/82 03/83 10/82 04/83 08/83 10/83 10/23 CATAWBA 2 02/81 02/81 12/82 03/83 10/82 09/83 08/83 02/85 02/85 CLIHTOH 1 08/80C 03/81 10/82 01/83 03/82 02/83 06/83 08/83 08/83 COMAHCHE PEAK 1 05/78C OS/79C 06/81 09/88 07/81 09/81 02/82 04/82 12/82 COMANCHE PEAK 2 05/78C Ol/79C 06/81 09/81 07/81 09/81 02/82 12/84 12/84 DIABLO CANYOH I 10/73C 11/7tC 10/74C 03/81 05/76C 12/76C 10/81 JL/jUL f/

WM DIABLO CANYOH 2 10/73C tt/71C 10/74C 03/81 05/76C 12/76C IE7Kl 1452 mm EHRICO FERMI 2 04/75C 04/75C 12/8 1 03/82 12/81 02/82 09/82 T'/82 1/82 FARLEY 2 08/73C 08/73C 05/75C 02/81 12/74C H/A H/A 03/81 03/81 GRAHD CULF f 06/78C 06/78C 04/81 09/81 07/81 N/A N/A 07/82 07/82 GRAND GULF 2 06/78C 06/78C 04/81 09/81 07/81 H/A H/A 08/85 08/85 HARRIS I 08/81 08/88 08/83 11/83 11/83 12/83 04/84 06/84 06/84 LASALLE 1 05/77C 05/77C 02/81 05/81 II/78C H/A N/A 05/81 06/81

^

LASALLE 2 05/77C 05/77C QL/L1 D3/B7 11/75C N/A N/A 06/82 06/82 LIMERICK 1 13/jj Q1tAJ 08/82 11/82 11/82 01/83 08/83 11/83 11/83 MCGUIRE I 05/74C 05/74C 03/78C 41461C 04/76C 02/81 04/81 06/81 01/81 MN MCGUIRE 2 05/74C 05/74C 03/78C qJ/O ls 04/76C 07/81 04/81 06/82 06/82 MIDLAND 1 11/77C 04/78C 07/82 10/82 04/82 12/82 07/83 10/83 04/84 MIDLAND 2 11/77C 04/78C 07/82 10/82 04/82 12/82 07/83 10/83 10/33 MILLSTOHE 3 02/83 02/83 02/85 05/85 05/85 06/85 10/85 12/85 12/85 PALD VERDE I 06/80C 06/80C 07/82 10/82 12/81 11/82 03/83 05/83 05/83 PALO VERDE 2 06/80C 06/80C 07/82 10/82 12/81 11/82 03/83 05/84 05/84 PERRY t 01/81 04/81 09/82 12/82 06/82 09/83 05/83 07/83 07/83 RIVER BEND 1 05/81 05/81 12/84 03/85 11/82 04/85 08/85 10/85 10/85 SALEM 2 08/7tc 11/71C 10/74C 02/81 04/73C H/A N/A 03/81 04/80C wm SAN ONOFRE 2 03/77C 03/77C 02/81 05/81 02/81 07/81 02/82 33732 07/81 mm SAN OHOFRE 3 03/77C 03/77C 02/81 05/81 02/81 07/81 02/82 10/82 10/82 SEABROOK 1 03/81 08/81 11/82 02/83 02/82 04/83 11/83 02/84 02/84 SEQUOYAH 2 01/74C H/A 03/79C 06/88 07/74C H/A H/A 07/81 07/81 SH00EHAM 01/76C Ot/76C JLLCU 09/81 10/77C ti l/ 1 06/82 09/82 09/82 SOUTH TEXAS 1 07/78C 07/78C 11/82 02/83 09/82 03/83 07/83 09/83 09/83 SOUTH TEXAS 2 07/78C 07/78C 11/82 02/83 09/82 03/83 07/83 09/85 09/85 ST LUCIE 2 01/81 01/8.1 02/83 05/83 12/81 06/83 10/83 12/83 12/83 SUMMER 1 02/77C 02/77C 02/8_t 09/81 02/81 05/81 09/81 11/81 10/81 WW

i.,

TAR 0ET DATE5 0F LICENSING S'T E P S F0R PLANTS SEEKINO O'PERATING LICENSE 5 IN THE NEXT-FIVE YEARS FSAR ER LATEST START ASLB LICENSING HRC EST.

PLANT DOCKETED DOCKETED SER SER SUPPL.

FES HEARING. DECISION COMPLETE CONST COM:

SUSOUEHANNA 1 07/78C 06/78C 04/81 07/81 01/81 03/81 12/89 02/82 03/82:

SUSQUEHANNA 2 07/78C 06/78C 04/81 07/81 01/81 03/81 12/81 04/83 04/83 V0GTLE I 10/82 10/82 10/84 09/85 01/85 02/85 06/85 08/85 08/85-WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 1 02/82 02/82 02/84 05/84 05/84 06/84 10/84 12/84 12/84 WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 2 06/78C 04/77C 03/82 06/82 06/81-N/A N/A 07/82 07/82-WA5HINGTON NUCLEAR 3 02/83 02/83 02/85 05/85 05/85' 06/85 10/85 12/85 12/85-WASHINGTON NUCLEAR 4 02/82 02/82 02/84 05/84 05/84 06/84 10/84-12/85 12/85 WATERFORD 3 12/78C 12/78C 07/81 10/81 08/81 12/81 07/82 10/82 10/82 WATTS BAR 1 10/76C lt/76C 07/81 10/81 12/78C N/A N/A 11/81 98/82 WATTS BAR 2 10/76C tt/76C 07/81 10/81 12/78C N/A N/A 94/83 04/83

)

WOLF CREEK 1 08/89C 11/80C 03/83 05/83 12/82 07/83 10/83 12/83 12/83 ZIMMER I 09/75C 09/75C 01/79C 06/81 06/77C 07/81 11/81 01/82 11/81 4:

~

1. INACTIVE STATUS un IMPACTED PLANTS MOVE OUTSIDE OF TIME PARAMETER

^

i Palo Verde 3 06/80C 06/80C 07/82 10/82 12/81 11/82 03/83 05/85 05/86 4

I e

{

l i

E

TAR 0ET DATES 0F LICEHSIHC 5TEPS F0R PLAHTS SEEKIHG C0N$TRUCTIOH PERMITS IH THE HEXY FIVE YEARS FSAR ER ACRS LATEST START ASLB LICENSING PLANT DOCKETED DOCKETED SER NEETING SER SUPPL.

FES HEARING DECISIDH COMPLETE ALLENS CREEK 1 12/73C 12/73C 1t/74C 12/74C 03/79C 17/90C Q1/D1.

H/S H/S BLACK FOX l 12/75C 12/75C 06/77C 07/77C H/S M 777D U5/7/c H/S N/S I

BLACK FOX 2 12/75C 12/75C 06/77C 07/77C H/S 02/77C 08/77C H/S H/S fCHEWHAVEN1 12/78C 01/79C N/S N/S N/S H/S N/S N/S H/S CHEW HAVEN 2 12/78C 01/79C H/S N/S H/S H/S H/S H/S H/S l

f PEBBLE SPRINGS 1 10/74C 08/74C 0t/76C 02/76C H/S 04/75C 05/78C H/S H/S PEBBLE SPRINGS 2 10/74C 08/74C 01/76C 02/76C H/S 04/75C 05/78C H/S H/S PERKIHS I 05/74C 06/74C 03/77C 04/77C 07/77C 10/75C 04/76C H/S H/S PERKINS 2 05/74C 06/74C 03/77C 04/77C 07/77C,

10/75C 04/76C H/S H/S PERKINS 3 05/74C 06/74C 03/77C 04/77C 07/77C 10/75C 04/76C H/S N/S PILCRIM 2 12/73C 12/73C 06/75C tt/75C 01/79C 10/74C 10/75C H/S H/S SKAGIT f Of/75C 09/74C 08/77C 11/77C 10/78C 06/75C 07/75C H/S H/S-SKAGIT 2 01/75C 09/74C 08/77C 1I/77C 10/78C 06/75C 07/75C H/S H/S I

U INACTIVE STATUS cu IMPACTED PLANTS l

f NOTE: Montague, Units 1 and 2, which were Shown in laSt report h8ve been Cancelled.

l l

l i

l l

l f

l L

A

.1 a

u

+

4 4

e P

9 e

t P

k t

'r I

t-i F

5 4

F i

i 6

t b

r b

ENCLOSURE 2 r

m f

)

i i

' i i

i L

J I

i P

f i

r

-+

7 DRAFT I

i The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman i

Subcommittee on Energy and Water 4

Development t

Committee on Approrpiations United States House of Representatives i

Washington, D.C.

20515 i

Dear Mr. Chairman:

-[

i' This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in i

House Report 96-1093. Our third monthly status report is enclosed and covers the period from December 15, 1980 to January 15, 1981. This third i

report discusses the actions that were taken during the last month for t

operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities.

i

[

Sincerely, 1

.I John F. Ahearne Chairman

{

Enclosure:

NRR Monthly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Meyers I

j

_,__.____-_.__-_____-]

p s'* c

, 'l i, !

February 19, 1981 g{

j

$gthyp

\\.,',. /

/7 RULEMAKING ISSUE "pi S

"" 55MAffirmatiori) 17 yM

1. t-r From:

Executive Director for Operations 5M A

Subject:

FIRE PROTECTIOR RULE FOR FUTURE PLAKTS Discussion:

SECY-80-546 was developed in response to the Cannission e-quest for staff discussion on the " development rf requirements and the level of detail to be included in the ble for Future Plants" (see =emorandum from Chilk to Dircks, drted Itovember 3, 1980). The staff recomended in SECY-80-546 tfat the Commission adopt Alternative 3 which would 1) result in a fire protection rule containing well defined requirements in these areas which ere generic and appliccble to most plants, while leaving plant dependent features to staff evaluation under rrre general requirements, and 2) direct the staff to issue such a fire protection rule for public coment by July 1,1382. to SECY-80-546 rnntained a sample r21e typifying the option recormended. The sample rule state: that it would be applicable to nuclear power electric generat ng stations whose construction permit applications were docteted after January 1,1982. Lef t silent in the sample rule and in the staff written and oral discussion with the Comrssion was the treatment of plants between Appendix R to 10 CR Part 50 and the new rule, since in previous discussions wit

• the Comission the staff had indicated it would apply the BT~r :nd Appendix R to such plants, starting with the hTOL's.

A differing professional opinion relating to tb. development, timing, and application of the new fire protect on rule was received by memoranda dated January 5 and Janua y 26, 1981.

This matter, handled in accordance with the Comission pro-cedure for differing professional opinions, has oeen resolved in a manner which requires amendment of SECY-8(-546. Correspon-dence related to this resolution is included as Enclosure 1.

The elements of the resolution, which include a oartial re-iteration of the staff position in SECY-80-546, are as follows:

1.

The staff will require licensees to identifj and describe differences between the BTP and Appendix R and the design and proce&ral methods proposed for the pla-- for those OL's scheiled to be issued af ter September 30, 1981.

Contact:

R. Vollmer SECY NOTE: This paper s pplements Ei;Y-80-546.

Inasmuc6 X27207 as it contains an amend ent to the e-iginal recorrrnendattae, Comissioners who have previously vc ed are requested to }'.

subnit new response sheets.

o.noinnnin

~

j ig G.

T 7

s 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.

t 3.

The new rule will be applied to both future CP's and OL's on a reasonable schedule, and consideration be given to i

backfitting some or all of.the new rule en all plants 1

when its provisions are developed.

As a result, the following should be added to the staff reccanenda-l tion on page 5 of SECY-80-546:

"In the-interim, licensees

.11 be required to identify and describe differences between the BTP and Appenoix R and the design and procedural methods proposed for the plant for those OL's scheduled to be issued after Septen6ar 30,1981. The new rule will be applied to CP's and OL's on a reasonable schedule, 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 Comission Staff Offices N,

Exec Dir for Operations V

]

.ACRS b

ASLBP

_/

William.J. Dircks Sect etariat Executive Of-ector for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Mano to H. Denton from R. Vollmer, dated February 12, 1981 2.

Sample Rule on Fire Protection for Future Plants Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary 3

by c.o.b. Friday, March 6,1981.

Comission Staff Office cornments, if any, should be submitted to the Comissioners NLT.

February 27, 1981, with an infomation copy to the Office of the Secretary.

If the paper

)

is of such a nature that it requires additional time for ar6alytical review and coment, the Comissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments r.ay be expected.

This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of Marchl6]981. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Comunission Schedule, when published,

9 1

1 r

a L

\\

l 1

1

pn RMTED STATER 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COChilSSION g

g ma smasma.a c.suas

\\..../

~

FEB 1 2I!E1 4

MDORANDtM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Richard H. Yo11ser Director Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

REC 0!NENDED RES0llfTION OF'lIFFERING FROFESSIONAL OPINION (R FIRC PROTECTION RlLE

Reference:

1)

Memorandum to V. Benarcya, Chief. Chemical Engineering Branch, DE frtsu Robert L. Ferguson, Section Leader.

Chemical Engineering Branch dtd January 5,1981 2)

Memorandum to V. Benaroya, Chief. Chemical Engineering

~

Branch, DE from R. Ferguson, Chenrical Engineering Branch, DE dated January 26, 1381 i

3) Memorandum to R. Ferguson, Chenical Engineering Branch, DE from V. Benaroya, Chief, Chenrical Engineering Branch, DE dated January 26, 1981 4)

Memorandum to R. H. Yollmer, Director, Division of Engineering from Vincent S. Neonan, Assistant Director, Materials 1 Qualifications Er.gineering, DE dated February 2,1981 5)

Memorandum to R. Fergusen, Chemical Engineering Branch. DE from Richard H. Vollmer, Director. Division of Engineering dated February 4,1981 6)

Memorandum to Richard Vollmer, Director, Divison of Engineerfag 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 try his memoranda of January 5 and 26, 1981 (references 1 and 2). These numeranda were answered by memoranda from the Branch Chief, Assistant Director, and Director in Phr. Ferguson's inusediate chain of conrr.and dated January 26, February 2, and February 4.1981 respectively (referwee 3, 4 and 5). Finally, by a memorandum datt February 6,1981. W. Fergusom restated his proposed course of action.

I have completed my evaluation of this diffe. ang professional opinion and the purpose of this meno is to give you my recomunendation for resolution. The differing opinian is not of a technical nature.

It concerns 'clicy, specifically, the development, a. n 4 t a (10 9 K h

'h % h }.

1 FEB 12 381 Harold R. Denton -

timing, and application of a new fire protection rule which would containthe elesments of the Branch Technical Postion (BTP) and. Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix F).

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 recomended alternative la this Comnission paper concerning the technical content was prepared and strongly endoned 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 Consission's consideration of Appendix R, the staff informed the Comission 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 is 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 mero:

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 cocrnent on or about July 1981.

This would be applied to new CP applicatior.s and OL applications on a reascrable schedule. The new rule would consist of the present BTP and Apper. dix 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 opir. ton, 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 ir.atter. 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 new 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.

d FEE !! 1931 Harold R. Denton 3.

The new rule be applied to future CP's and OL's on a reasonable schedule and t.onsideration be given to backfitting on all plants.

I believe that this would assure that no eversight of important devii.tions from staff fire protection criteria would occur for future OL's and that appropriate tackfitting consideration would be given to any new important features of a new 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 critaria for, the staff's fire protection review as OL's, I do not believe that it would be productive or an enhancement of plant safety to alter the methods of confucting our review except as identified in itern 1 inanediately above.

1 Therefore, I recocrend that the steps 1-3 above be adopteu as a suitable resolution of the differing professional opinion.

If you concur with this resolution, we need to so infom Mr. Ferguson.

In addition, I will prepare an addendte to SECT 80-546 to infom the Cocrtission of our intent to apply the forthcoming rule to OL applicationes on a reasonable schedule in addition to all CP applications and that consideration will be given to backfitting selected issues ae all plants.

I will also forward Mr. Ferguson's dissest and resolution thereof to the Comission for their informaticn.

i If you wish additional infomation or discussien on this matter, I wtmld be happy to set up a meeting between you and any or all of the participants.

~

//s~-

/

Richard H. Vollrier, Directc.

l l

Division cf Engineering 4

Enclosures:

j 1.

Mem to V. Benarcya 4

fr R. Fergusor dtd 1/5/S1 2.

Memo to V. Benartya from R. Ferguson dtd 1/26/81 3.

Meco to R. Ferguson fr V. Benaraya dtd 1/26/81 4.

Memo to R. Vollmer fr V. Noonan dtd 2/2/81 5.

Meco to R. Ferguson fr R. Vollmer dtd 2/4/81 i

6.

Memo to R. Vollmer fr R. Fergusor dtd 2/6/81 cc:

E. Case i

V. Noonan V. Benaroya l

R. Ferguson 1

p g

.p E

WAT,*68NGTON.D C W.

• ,g%.*.y\\ - fl 1s, g

JANO 5 1E MEMORANDUM FOR:

Victor Benaroya. Chief Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering FROM:

Robert L. Fergutson, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION - FIRr PR31ECTION RULE 1.

Present Management Position Fire protection requirements for plants ifcensed to operate after January 1,1979 should not be specified by replation other than Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Guidelines for the implementation of Criterion 3 are provided in other staff docu ents.

2.

Originator's Opinion Fire protection requirements for plants licensed to operate after January 1,1979 should be specified by regulation.

This position differs from the present management position in that it places rest of the burden of providing an edequate fire protection program on the licensee rather than on the staff revientr.

At present, the licensee describes his fire protection program to seet NRC guidelines, and the staff reviewer reviews this description and visits the plant to detemine whether NRC guidelines will be ret and whether the features provided to meet the guidelines provide an adequate fire protection program. Our site visit is after the plant is80-90t complete so that the actual :enfigurations of protection can be exza-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.

warded by letter.

In those instances if the staff reviewer is not thorough and persuasive, the fire protection for systems important to safety may not meet NRC requirerents.

The fire protection features that protect public-health and safety, and the safety margin in such protection, are determined by t% policy decisions.

These decisions detemine the systems imortant to safety that r.ast survive a fire and the fire protection features are necessary to assure that such htsD C T1a6 2d*T/u 74 Qwpgb % %

\\

Victor Benaraya.

.M0LE systes:s survive. These features include post-fire capability for reactor coolant injection, reactivity and inventory control. decay heat removal, and process sonitoring as teell as the fire barriers or Mysical separation which assures this post-fire capability.

These l

features will not be determined by the designers using general criteria.

Regulations are required to assure that appropriate design features are installed to assure post-fire shtrtdosi capability la a timely manner.

The requirements which implement NRC policy on fire protaction must be stated in the Regulations so that the designers and operators are aware of the requirements early in the design and throughout the Itfe of the 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 cancerned parties:

Licensees.

Applicants Designers, Reviewers Inspectors and the pubite tsould have a clear understanding of our requirements.

It is '%i. art to haue an efficient rethod for determining if modifications are necessary in aperating plants and, if so, to implement them within a reasonable time.

The statement rf the requirement in the Regulations most he specific enough 2

to preclude insdequate fire protectics without restrictial the range of acceptable alt.ernatives.

i For example, the level of specificaticn such as "It shall he possible to safely shutdown the reactor" does not assure that a,dequate reactor coolant makeup capability survives fire.

One licensee ny provide only 20 gpm to accomodate normal leakage, another say provide 150 gpm to accccnodate leakage of a power operated relief valve that fails to ruclose completely, and another say provide a complete train of high and low pressure infection to accomodate open relief valves.

Ot,viously, the margin of protection to the public afforded by these alternatives are very differnst.

One or more of these alternatives may not be acceptable to the Cornission-and must be precluded by specific language of the requirement.

This opinion does ret take issue with NRC technical requiruseets.

It only recorrends that such requirements cover all plants licensed to operate after January 1,1979, be specified by Regulations,and be made effective as soon as possible after the SRP Section 9.5-1 is revised.

3.

Originators Assessment of Non-A&ptica Fire protection progra ts in operating plants will vary sipificantly because of the strong dependence on the staff review and the audit nature of such review.

l Plant modifications will continue to be required late in the licensing process.

Such sodifications will provide acceptable configarations but will i

' Victcr Benareya JAN 0 5 W not have the same margin of safety er 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 barrie separation between all safety systems in.all areas of the plant.

Considerable industry and staff resaurces will be wasted on repetitive i,

discussions of generic ksues that should be resolved by NRC policy decisians.

Considerable industry and staff resources kill be consu ed in developing criteria which do not define liRC fire protection policy sufficiently to taprove the licensing process, t

)

The lett policy for fire protection programs will not be defined by an appropriate level of specification to assure adequate fire protectir.n programs in operating plants.

The sitimate consequence of an inadessate fire protection in an operatir.;

plant emuld be sufficient fire induced damage to systems inportant te safety such that significant core desage occurs and fission products are released fross the containment.

4.

Status of Related Efforts At present the Consnission is considering:

(1) the need for a fire protection rule, (2) the plants to be covered by the rule, (3) the lesel of specification in the rule, and (4) the schedule for completing sud.

a rule.

s

- _s Robert L. Ferg o, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineerin; dranch Division of Engineering I

f l

2 i

I

i

~

I 1:.

' G : w i-T 0V*;3b" FOR:

V. Senaroya, Chief Chr.:ical Engintxt ing.6 ranch Divisic.n of Es.,ie.. ering f'.0":

R. Fccrusen, f.ction Leader Firt.'rotecticn Section Ch' ical Engin. cring tranch Divisien of Engincering DI: ERII;G PR(IE5510!!AL OPil:10!i - FIRE FROTECTIO!i T

SU3 JECT:

RLLE SUPPLElitlT 1 This att.orandus is in response to the request of V l'oonan on January 19 j

indicate how the ED0's reconmendatiens stated in SECY-80-5 i

B31 that I dated December 23, 1980 affect the subject differir.g professional apir.iar Two recer..endati. s are contained in SECY-30-546.

y co

ents on the tre as folloas

i 70 T. t.t.-.m. d a.t.i.on fl:

• fi.c ;. otection nile,t:ith t;cil defined rer;uire: 2-15 for generic iti :

plic tle to r.ost plants, and general requiren,er..s for plant depen:'t -

i

. t ares, should be issued for public ccznent by J ly 1,1932.

hir.jtor's Opinion _

! agree.;it.h the EDO reco=cn:'ations reszrding tet.r.nical ctntent e~$ '.i.E h c.-e.'i r : :

cf specification (as reflectec by Enclossre 2 to SECY-EO-Et5);

Escase SD has assis::t mot ap te with the schedule fcr it.plu..catation.

in dref tir.g a revision to SRP 9.5-1 in 14 foir.st sf a proposed a;;er:'..:

i J

b CFR Part 50, I believe SD c:.1d have a propo:c' rule issued for p :":

cc. ent.;it.hin 2 - 4 r,onths if the Ccrnission dirc-ted the issuance of : z propo ed rule on such a schec le.

At the prcscnt tice, te are c.:loting s.Everal '.' 1;plicatioas per yEE.

f The prc pt issuance of a prc;csod rule dich statss current ca prehers'.s requirc 3nts will be helpful to both the applictr..s :nd the staff in c: -

pieting these evalutions expeditiously and with a dnirum of backfit proble.ms.

EDO Rect-Endation !?:

1he fire protection rule for f.,ture plants shcu 2; ply to nuclear ;: :r electric generating stations.: ase constructicr. ;c.c..its s;tre dociete: ;f _-

January 1,1982. (See Enclos re 2 SECY-EO-546).

4 e

es o 816 09 3 6

.g gy agice

l J. -. sya 2-

'i. i.is..tcr's Cainion Ti.e fire protection rule steuld cpply to plants liceised to tperate after

':ruary 1,1979.

These plants are of prc:ent ccncern to the staff, is.t.st.ry

. d public.

The present Apper. dix R to 10 CFR Part E3 appl e.s to pl;ots i

liccrised to c;,trate prior to Jan.uiry 1,1579. Tne E'..','s r- -- :ne t i m r.14

!..c an A,pcr. dix t.o 10 CFR Part. 50 for piants license: to ;;. rate arte.r l:..ary l a

l 1592 (assuning a 10 year cc:struction si.ccdule). Therefore, the t.2ny pl.is i

to be licenst d to operate sit Ecn 1979 :r.d 1992.:culd rot t2 co.ered by 13.c rr :lat* ens.

This gap uouM prct31y give rise to a test cf backfit prc.1.

7 D.ch prctici.:s can be avoid-d by i.:.. ing all plants cc.uid ty the re;ul?::ca frc= Jaraary 1,1979.

i i

SECY-BG-546 states that:

i J

The main purpose of issuing a fire ;rotection rule fcr r.ew plants at this time is to ar.plify ir. the regulaticns those fire protection features necessary for plant safety ar.d to r

j 1

codify the istC policy for the level of fire prcis: tion, Further, soth a rule.culd sandar3:e the recuir5 :-nts, eid i

f. s t.i, ii..prc'. e tr.e ef ficie cy appliccr.ts early in the cksi t

cf r:p!!! cry reviev: rd r !. i. *. lin < s is t er.cy.

se 7tctcrs

..:t.ld 1"cly cnhance tsat Ic.cl of 3fr-ty ;cc.in: ty fire i

j i

Tretecti.n features.

Eis p.rpose is best accc ;1ishcd by p., ;tly issuir; a fire protecticn rule

?.3 t arplies to plants lice: sed t: cperne af ter Jar..try 1,1979.

i I

I% 7,AC-1. -.

. <. ~.

R. L. Tcrguser., 5+:,.icn L;ider Fire Trctccticn SE:tien Chenic 1 Engireerin; Ererth Civisi:, of Ergir.wir; l

j i

e i

i a

e r

.. ~._.......

., - +

l u-.,o ;

y y C. Fi:'-

~

i FD'.ORANDU!4 FOR:, Robert Ferguson, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering F10**:

Victor Benaroya, Chief Chemical Engineering branch Division of Engineering DIFFERING PROFESSIOWJ. OPINIO: - FIRE PROTECTID*. RUL S3BJECT:

by memorandum from you to me of January 5,1981, you cocmerrted on a) you insagreed with the management position on the a ount of detail a rule for fire protection requirements f'or plants licensed to operate after January 1, B79 should contain; and b) the specified regulations be rMe effective as soon as possible after the SRP Section 9.5-1 is revised.

The present management recommdation on the new rule is enuncia ed in SECY-80-546, " Fire Protectior ble for Future Plants" dated Dece er 23, E30.

In my opinion, the position yo. reconrneed on the a amt cf detail and the one in SECY-80-546 are consistent, therefore, it should r.ot be considered a differing professional opinion.

As to the date the fire protection rule should be made applicable, I cannet agree that the revised SRP Section 9.5-1 will act require cansicerable wri Let ne quote frot SECY-E -545:

before it can be issued as a new rule.

Recceraendation:

It is recorrnended that the Coctrission adopt Alternative 3 and direct the staff to issue a fire protection rule for public coment by July 1, 1982. This cate is consistent with the available staff resources, considering that the ifciited 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 Connissioners have not acted on the rule cr. fire prw-tection for new plants. The Ccruissioners have been inferned that there are dffering staff opinions.

You vill be inforrad on the de:isions taken by the Comissiant.n.

For the record, I received you-me.o on January 19, 1981.

fkNb'" arm '

Of Victor Benarrya, Chief Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineerin; 4198160941

n Am sm

-w a,\\

l i

cc:

H. Denton R. Vollmer V. Noonan Y'

e 9

d i

f J

t t

i 1

e 1

1 i

ii l

b

.I d

i

l.

l d

I i

i i

l i

l

+

9 l

i a

l J

l h

u.

J e

I

.p**sq UNITED sT ATEs

[ },.

• ^ j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.Ase.sTom o.c mst

, g y'~ /e/

f

%,,^."

~

FEP 2 1921 MEMORA?OJM FOR:

Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering FROM:

Vincent S. Hoonan, Assistant Director Materials & Qualifications Engineering l

SUBJECT:

DIFTERING FROFESSIONAL OPINION ON FIRE PROTECTION L.E By this enemorandum I am forwarding to you three enclosures on the at:.s subject.

Enclosures 1 and 2, dated January 5 and January 26, are Rooer:

Ferguson's differing professional opinion on fire protection rule an:

Encicsure 3, dated January 26, is Victor Senarcya's response to Mr. Ferguson as required by the NRC policy on differing professional opinions. Mr. Benaroya is Mr. Ferguson's imediate supervisor.

I persor6 ally met with Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Benaroya on this subject.: rel; me better understand the exact nature of Mr. Ferguson's concerns and :c effer a proposal addressing his concerns which I felt would satisfy his obje:tiens.

At the present time all safety evaluations on fire protection are re:. iring the licensee to be in full ccr.pliance with the General Criterion 3 o' Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, the Branch Technical Position (BTP) ar.:

Appendix R.

In Eddition, I would also propose that we request fron : s licensee, in writing, any deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for -eir particular plant. This list of deviations could also be made as a c: :ition l

that, prior to full power oper ation, the licensee would state that r.: :evi-ations exist or submit to the staff the list of deviations for the sta#f's review and concurrence.

i In cirraary, I do not believe.5'.r. Ferguson or myself are really in dist;ree-ment but we probably do not fully agree on the method of implementa: : ci the new fire protection rule wtich is scheduled for completion July 1,1952.

Dr:til the rule is drafted and ;ablished I believe my proposal on har.fing tne plants that we license pricr to issuance of the rule would give :. e staff reasonable assurance repercing tne licensee's

.pliance to tre # ire protection issue.

/

kW

[

.N nan, Assistant Di e:::-

i MateFials & Qualifications Engimerir.;

Division of Engineering

Enclosures:

As stated n.

e w, ~.

y

mum

_,, s* ' s.

• illD 5T A115

[p,J e$n..

j

~,m.

ffuCLE AR RE GULATORY COf.i:.ESIOr.

.C* %[~e r.c.mNctoN. D cJoh%

q..;] J j

,,J February 4.1931 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Robert Ferguson, Section Leade-i Fire P' otection Section r

Checical Engineering Branch, r E, DE i

FROM:

Richard H. Vollmer. Director Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

DIFFIRING PROFESSIONAL OPINIDE C*i FIRE PROTE."."10!i F.ULE As a result of our recent meeting and a review of your January 56 and January 26th memoranda on the same subject, and P.. Benaroya's response also dated January 26. I would like to propose a resolation of yourr differing i

professional opinion. This resolution is based or ey belief thrt we are all i

trying to accomplish the same objecti.ves but our a:; roaches, altncugh some-what different, are sufficiently close to allow cc,,ro tise.

Lfhere di f ferernces currently exist they appear to be on the level or a sunt of regr' red staf f review, the time required to get a new fire prote: tion rule out *:r public i

coment, and the effective date for application o' that rule to C.s and Crs-Speaking first to the level of staff review recaired, our reculat:ry practice is one of audit rather than detailed analysis of aT1 as.pects of t3e licenset design. As such, you point out that a burden is pt on the staff of knowi ;

whether or not the licensee intends to meet all a::ects of the franch Tect.-

nical Position and Appendix R and to what extent. You also state that if these *r*quirements" were part of a regulation that their impact an the licensee and his response to them would be differert than if these " require-l ments* are only regulatsry guidance. While it coCd be argued t:at beth c' i

these rethods of approach should result in the sare ene product. I sugeest that we could accomplish the same objectives if tie licensees we-e requests:'

to identify in writing deviations fror the STP and Appendix R fcr those plar s i

currently being licensed.

The staff could then review these deviations and i

make judg ents on their acceptability. You will recall that t.he Co=nissict plans to implement a sirilar pt tedure some time it the future sch that all licensees will be required to address deviations f :. :urrent Stedard P.eviS i

Plans.

However, as an interir. position for fire y:tection, I ac::1d reco : e-:

that this identification be required for all OLs s:$eduled to be issued bey:r-:

i September 30, 1981 I do not believe that it is recessary or an effective use of NF.P. resources to re-review Ure protection *:r plants currently beir.;

licensed as long as the staff can cenclude that tte ETF and Apperrix R are r ::.

j Concerning the amount of time needed for petting t*e fire proter *:en rule cut for co : ent, you have stated that SD could have a :-oposed rule i: sued wit 6.ir 2-4 months if the Connission so directed.

In our tiscur ' ions, w e-ein I statr:

hkl75k(f

F.cbert Ferguson ry belief that.he new rule should not just be an assemblage of current practices but one where the staff thinks in more detail about both the generic and plant-specific items to be considered in the rule, we agreed that a much longer tim.e would be required to develop such a rule.

In fact, 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 meri-

=

orandum would regeest you concur in this view.

Lastly, you believe that the implementation of the new rule should include those plar.ts 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.

1975, 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 su= nary, I propose that we % quire licensees to identify deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for rzuff review for those OLs :;cheduled to be issued beycnd September 30. 1 931.

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-80-54E with a target date of July 1932.

Finally, I propose that when the new rule is developed it be applied not only to future plants and future Ots 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.

1

/)

((y Y.

P.ichard H. Yo11mer, Director Division of Engineering cc:

H. Denton E. Case V. Noonan

.es'e.

LifitT[ D sT ATE s

~ [ ",. [ ~;

NUCLE AR REGUL AT ORY CO'.*.*.*lSSION c

v.emciou o c m,:

i S~

N a....J i

FE5 0 6 E MEF.3U:.M FOR:

Richard H. Vollmer, Director i

Division of Engineering FR0v.:

Robert Ferguson, Section Leader Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch Division Engineering SLEJECT:

DIFFERIRB PROTESSIOiAL OPIti!Ot; - FIRE Mt0TECTIOri RULE SUPPLEMENT 2 Your cerxrrandum to 2, dated February 4,1981, on this subject requested my concurrence or coernents on the following proposals:

1.

All plants now scheduled to be licensed to operate after September 30, j

1931 wculd be required to identify deviations from leC fire protection acceptance criteria. Such deviations would be specifically evaluated in the staff SER prior to licensing.

l 2.

All plants licensed to operate between January.1,1579 and Septe. der 30, 1911 wculd 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 to issue for coment on or abcut July 1982. This rule would cc.tain the asse blage of present acceptance criteria in the fors of requirements.

The requirements would be applied to new CP applications ar.d to OL applications on a reasonable schedule.

Ccesideration wcs.id te given to backfitting on all operating plants.

To identify the issues. I propose a coarse of action to achieve the sa= goal, i.e., a rule which states NRC fire protection requirements for all operating plants, as follows:

A.

All plants licensed to operate af ter January 1,1979 would be required to r.ect the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFF 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 (4pendix Flj which we plan to issue for cennt on or about July ?!E1.

This rule would contain the assemblage of present acceptance criteria in the form of requirenents. The requirerents would be applied to new CP ap;1ications and to OL applications on a ressenable schedule.

Furtner ta:tfitting would oot be necessary because it has already been acc:=p-lished ur. der A above.

kkl)D (C.?iX(

i 9

' ry.

as

)

Richcrd H. Tciber.

i C.

If the Mtc determines that other requiressents are necessary, they l

would be added to. Appendix f to 10 CFR 50 annually or as they are-developed, whichever is longer.

i From the above, it appears 'that there is concurrrence as the end goal.

I recccmend ry The issue concerns the method used to achieve the goal.

i

-sethod becasse:

All licensees and applicants are given early notice of our regrirh l

with a minisman of staff effort.

This early metice allows applicants to meet the resprirements with a mininum of effort because they know the restuirements early in the desiys By providing better separation at this time,they can reduce the need for some automatic suppression systems and extra barriers and also assure time survival of more shutdown systems for any fire.

f Fever sodifications will be required late in construction when they are more costly and usually do not provide as muuch margia as original desays features.

The burden of providing adequate fire protection is placed on the liamsees and can be readily checked and assured by the !;RC Inspectors with a canr.n of ef f or.t.

It is easier for the staff to acconplish since we still have the perseneel that are familiar with our fire protection requirements and the rule:mkur:p If we wait until July 1982, we c.ay have new persomel. asim-:p procedures.

new personnel.with little or.no experience in dealing with the preles encountered over the past.several years, I doubt that the proposed sced.:.le

}

J of July 1982 could be met.

C

[Mm/

Robert L F g ison, Section Leader l

Fire Prot io ) Section Chemical Eng.deering Branch t

Division of Engineering i

cc:

H. Dentan r

E. Case

/

V. f.sonan /

Y. Benaroya t

I t

I

's.

a a

4 s.

a m1a

-_a

.o._a

.z.e.u-b

.,y,,

I d

J 0

t

)

i a

e 4

i h

d 1

}

+

)

i f

1 a

J 4

3 l

I i

l' i

e i

l i

J l

l I,

l i

1 i

s i

d k

n l

i l

l l

g i

1 l

I a

l t

l l

I e

l

L

^

ENCLOSURE 2 SAMPLE RULE ON FIRE PROTECTION FOR F'JT'0.E PLN.Ti (

)

I.

INTRODUCTIOK AND SCOPE all CP and OL applications for This Appendix applies to nuclear power electric cenerzting g

stations on a schedule yet to be determined.

~

With respect to cer*ain generic issues fsr suth facilities, it sets forth fire protection fett:.res re:;uired to

}

i satisfy Criterion 3 of Appendix A to this part.

~

Criterien 3 of Appendix A to this part spe:!f'es tnat *St.: teres, systems, and cc:ponents in:pertant to safety shall te cesignet and I::sted

+

to sinimize, consistent with other safety requi.e eets, the ; ta.:ility

[

and effect of firts and explosions."

When censidering the effects of fire, tAsse syste:s ass::itted with i

achieving a.d rair:taining safe shutdewn conditi:.s assa:e z.a,': #r::-tart:e j

i to safety te:suse da.a;e to them can lead t: c: e ca. a;e res.lti. ; f :a

~'

less of coolant th-cugh hotloff.

I The phrases 'icpertant to safety," er "safat,- e*ated,' will :e used throughout this Appendix R as applying to all safety f..ctic s.

T ephrase

" safe shutdewn" will be used threughout this A; e :'x 4 as a;;iy'r; to both het and cold shutd wn functierts.

f t

3 1*

}

!t f* "'%s

i...';

}

\\

r SECY-81-8c l

's..... /

pa!j i

5 January 29, 1981 sy RULEMAKING ISSUE

.W[ft j-rrr 9 2

c.'

h7 i

The f.wwniv(:bgOtation Vote)

For:

U 3

. ' O ; p.y.

i l

From:

William J. Dircks

~

,* ' v4 n,,,, 7 %

Executive Director for Operations cc~,,

• /

j Subiect:

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1980; CERTIFICATI 7'

FOR RECENT AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 51 (NARRATIV //-

%d EXPLANATION OF TABLE S-3). SECY-80 448 N'i

To obtain Comission approval for a Regulatory Flexibility f

Purpose:

ct Negative Certi fication l

Discussion:

At a Decceber 11, 1980 affircation session the Comission l

approved, with revision, a proposed explanatcry narrative for Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environnental Data, and a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing the publication i

i j

of the draf t narrative and conditions for the Table's use.

l j

This approval was noted in the December 15, 1980 memorandum l

i from the Secretary.

l l

After final Cornissicn action on SECY 8C 448 in December, the i

j Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L.95-354) became effective on January 1, 1981. The purpose >f the Act is to preserve l

the competitive position of small entities.

It reautres each l

)

Federal agency to analyze the economic impact upon small j

entities of every proposed rule published after January 1,1981, and to publish an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register.

However, the requirement to prepare an analysis does not apply if l

if the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not, promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial j

i i

number of small entities. This certificathn, together with a succinct statement explaining the reasons for the certification, must be r iblished along with the proposed rule.

i 1

The proposed rule approve' :r SECY-80 448 affects only the licensing and operation nuclear power plants.

These i

plants do not fall withi, the definition of "small entities" j

set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations l

issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this

/

l proposed rule does not fall within the purview of the Act.

Furthermore, the notice of proposed rulemaking contains a l

narrative explanation of Table S-3 and does not impose k

addi tional requi rements.

l l

Contact:

i J. M. /elton. ADM 492-7211 83 02 2 00 ~7 1/

l i

9

t

.a 2

1 Enclosure A is a new page 67 for the FEDERAL REGISTER notice which was approved as part of SECY-80-448. The page has been revised to include the certification statement.

l Recommendation:

That the Conmission:

Approve the certification statement on the enclosed page 67 that the proposed rule will not have a signf ficant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Note that the rule previously approved, and with the new page 67 added, will be published in the Federal Register.

Note that in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Chief Counsel. Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, will be informed of this certification and the reasons for it.

Note that until arrangements can be further discussed with the Small Business Administration, all rules, including minor rules which the EDO is authorized to approve, will be forwarded to the Commission for approval of the Regulatory Flexibility issue.

d it (lff[

J. Dircks 5.

WiExecutive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated Conmissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b.

f Wednesday, February 18, 1981.

4 Conmission Staff Of fice conments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLTIf Tuesday, February 10, 1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.

the prper is of such a nature that it reoutres additional time for analytical review and apnrised of when connents may be comment, the Conmissioners and the Secretariat should ba expected.

i DISTRIBUTION j

Conmissioners Conmission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACR5 ASLBP Secretariat 1

l

w 67 b

oncluded that when they are spread over rAny power reacto 5, they add an g

j gnificant amount to the environmental impacts of an individual reactor. Thus.

specific value for socioeconomic considerations was placed in Table 5-3.

1 its effort to update Table 5-3, the Comission h perfoming socioeconomic udies which are intended to provide more detailed data on the impacts actually (perienced as a result of construction and operation of the facilities nvolved in each step of the nuclear fuel cycle. The studies may provide

.nformation that will pemit an incremental assessment of socioeconomic impacts i

attributed to the fuel cycle activities.

Secticn IV - References 1.

NUREG-Oll6, Section 4.11.4, p. 4 '68.

2.

Ibid, p. 4-170.

3.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Policy Research Associates, " Socioeconomic Impa cts :

Nuclear Power Station Siting," NUREG-0150, June 1977.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY STATEMENT In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Comission hereby certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant ecc.tomic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants that do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601 or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Since these companies are dominsnt in their service areas, this proposed rule does not fall within the purview of the Act.

Furthermore, the notice of proposed rulemaking contains a narrative eFplanation of Table 5-3 and does not impose additional requirements.

Secs. 161(b) and (1), Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948, 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(b, Sec.170, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 576, Pub. L.94-197, 89 Stat. 1111 (22 U.t.

22l0);

Sec. 201, Pub. L.93-438, as amended, 88 Stat.1242, 89 Stat. 413 (42 U.S.'.

ESal;.

Dated at Washington, DC this day of 1981 For the Nuclear Regulatcry Corrie.

Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Comission

_