ML20141N668

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Info Re New Interpretations of App R to 10CFR50 in Secy 85-306 Concerning Development of Fire Protection Programs.Info Requested Re Licensees Using Interpretations & Effect on Compliance Schedules.Supporting Info Encl
ML20141N668
Person / Time
Site: San Onofre Southern California Edison icon.png
Issue date: 02/20/1986
From: Asselstine J
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To: Stello V
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20141N666 List:
References
GL-83-33, NUDOCS 8603170478
Download: ML20141N668 (4)


Text

_

  1. g UNITE'J STATES

-8 NUCLEAR REZULATORY COMMISSION

( WASHINGTON. D.C. 20506

%, February 20, 1986 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER ,

MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM: James K. Asselstine - -

SUBJECT:

SECY-85-306 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMEllTATI0rt OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 In the attached vnte sheet, Comissioner Zech states that he has been told that many licensees have taken advantage of the new interpretations contained in SECY-05-306 and that they have used them tc develop their fire protection orograms. I would appreciate learning which Itcensees are already using the "new interpretations." I would also ifke to know how any such use of the new interpretations will affect the compliance schedules contained in the E00 tremorandum to the Comission dated Decenber 26, 1985 regarding the status of implenentation of Appendix R.

Finally, I would like to know how such use is constatent with repeated assurances by the staff that all fire protection SERs, including those for plants licensed after January 1,1979, have been based on Generic Letter 83-33 or the existing Branch Technical Position.

cc: Chairnan Palladino Comissioner Roberts Rec'd off, too ,

Comissioner Bernthal ble . . . R.-- a 4 -f (o, Comissioner Zech Tiare . .. . 77" * "--~A OPE OGC SECY 060317047s e60 206 PDR ADOCK O PDR F

goo --- 0016 3

[

  • i"' N 0 T A T I O N' V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J . CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ZECH

SUBJECT:

SECY-85-306 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 APPROVED X (w/coments) DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:

See attached comments.

W -

(f

~

. 510ilAlph 2 -/g -K Entered on "AS" Q / / gggg SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 u _-

3

.y -

. .l r

Commissioner Zech's comments on SECY 85-306 It is clear from the history associated with Appendix R that there has

'been considerable confusion in the industry, and to some extent the staff, on the exact meaning of all the fire protection requirements.

Generic letters have been issuedt task forces, workshops, and training sessions have been conductedt inspections have been completed; and, differing professional opinions have been submitted and resolved. Many of these past actions became part of a cooperative

effort between the staff and industry to resolve'the outstanding

' Appendix R issues. The result of this effort is the Generic Letter, interpretations, and question and answer documents proposed by the staff in SECY-85-306. I believe these documents will help clarify and expedite final implementation of the fire protection requirements.

Consequently, subject to the recommendations for improvement made by OGC.in its october 24, 1985 meno, I approve publication of the generic letter.

I'do not agree with several of the points raised by Commissioner Asselstine in COK7A-86-4. I do not believe that the staff's approach

  • will, in the end, make it more difficult for a fire protection inspector to conduct .his job. Eventually, all fire protection program requirements should be contained in the plant's FSAR which will provide a solid starting point to determine a plant's compliance with Appendix R. The proposed Generic Letter clearly states the documentation that will be required and expected by the NRC concerning licensee evaluations. In addition, this documentation is required to be readily retrievable.

I also believe that across the board, the nuclear industry, when compared to other industries, is required to install and implement one of the most rigorous and demanding fire protection programs in the country. Although there may be a few individual definitions or interpraations that can be debated as to whether or not they meet generally accepted industry codes, the overall program.that the NRC requires is clearly above average. The proposed Generic Letter may allow a licensee to make some changes to its fire protection program via the 50.59 process, but it also states that any changes made to the fire protection program that may adversely affect the plant's ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire would still need prior NRC approval. Consequently, we maintain control of major changes and continue to fulfill our responsibility to protect the public health and safety.

As a separate matter, I do not share my colleague's concern over the technical adequacy of the proposed documents. The staff has spent censiderable time conducting analyses and developing these documents for the precise purpose of providing guidance on acceptable technical cnd procedural responses. Although some DPos were submitted, I an informed that the concerned individuals are not appealing the agency resolution of those DPCs.

With regard to the " analysis" provided by the EDO to Commissioner Asselstine on November 18, 1985, it is my impression that the EDO did not intend this to be a backfit analysis. It is my understanding that staff determined that these interpretations which, if a licensee so

...boosentoimplementthem,cro1003rOctristivothncurrent

~

'- -requirement 3, cnd thcrOfcra a backfit cnalycio 10 nst rcquired.

However, the EDO did discuss some of the backfit considerations in order to provide the Commission information. I would certainly agree

.with Commissioner Asselstine that if this analysis was supposed to suffice as a backfit analysis, it would require significant improvement.

I agree that the proposed fire protection enforcement policy needs some improvement. .It does not seen appropriate that the NRC should be restricted to only a severity III, IV or V violation unless there was an actual fire. After reviewing the reactor operation requirements in our enforcement policy, it seems that existing enforcement policy guidance for a severity level one violation would require an actual concurrent fire, but not for a severity level two violation. The proposed fire protection regulations require an actual concurrent fire before either a severity level I or II violation can be imposed. I do not see why the fire protection regulations need to be more restrictive in this regard than the general enforcement policy.

Consequently, for purposes of the fire protection enforcement policy, I recommend that the staff propose additional and/or different guidance on when a severity level two violation is appropriate.

Lastly, I believe that the information contained in SECY-85-306 is, .

for the most part, already widely known throughout the industry as a result of the training sessions, workshops, and other staff interactions. Consequently, I as told that many licensees have taken advantage of this information and used it to develop their fire protection programs. As a result, this information will be applied by and benefit more than just those few plants who have not yet fully implemented Appendix R.

0

AJAC T)DK UNITED STATES y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y WAS*HNGTON. D. C. 20066

/'j

\ ***# MAR 11 N MEMORANDtM FOR: Comissioner Asselstine FROM:

Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Eyrcutive Director .

for One ations S!!BJECT: SECY 85-336 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 By memorandum dated February 20, 1986, you requested the following informatio.1 recarding SECY 85-306:

1. Which licensees are using the "new interpretations"?
2. How will any such use of the new interpretations affect the '

compliance schedules contained in the EDO memorandum to the Comission dated December 26, 19857

3. How is such use of the new interpretations consistent with repeated assurances by the staff that all fire protection SERs, including those for plants licensed after January 1, 1979, have been based on Generic Letter 83-33 or the existing Rranch Technical Position?

Throuch regional workshops and in Generic Letter (GL) 85-01 industry was G

informed of the "new interpretations" concerning Appendix R. In both the regional workshops and in CL 85-01 the industry was informed that the infomation concerning the new interpretations was draft and would not i

j become final until Comission approval. The following is a list of plants which have requested staff evaluation of their fire protection program I based on the interpretations contained in SECY 85-306:

t

1. Indian Point IJnit 3 2.- Maine Yankee
3. Oyster Creek
4. Tro.ian
5. San Onofre Units 1, 2 and 3
6. Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 1

With the exception of Maine Yankee, the staff is holding the SER$ on the above plants in abeyance until the Comission's final vote on SECY 85-306.

CONTACT:

John Stang, NRR yhOt40Tip v x28484

g' Comissioner Asselstine To the best of the staff's knowledge, the use of the new interpretations has not affected compliance schedules. However, compliance schedules for plant modifications have changed slightly since the EDO memorandum to the Commission dated December 26, 1985. The fire protection modification schedule has improved by three additional plants beina completed in 1986 rather than 1987. Three plants have pushed back their completion schedule for alternative shutdown systems from 1986 to 1987. Enclosures 1 through 7

.contain graphs and tables showing updated completion schedules for all plants licensed prior to January 1,1979 as of March 1,1986.

Finally, as indicated above the staff is holding all SERs concerning evaluations of the new interpretations contained in SECY 85-306 until Comission approval of SECY 85-306. To date with the exception of Maine

. Yankee all exemptions issued concernino issues covered in GL 83-33 have been based on GL 83-33 and not the new interpretations contained in SECY 85-306.

In the case of Maine Yankee, should the Commission decide that the new interpretations are not to be used but rather the guidance of GL 83-33 the

, staff.will reprocess the affected issues as exemptions. For all plants licensed after January 1, 1979 fire orotection SERs are based on the SRP and all deviations from the SRP are reviewed ard justified in the SER.

Original signed by Vi N T e N ',Jr.

6 4

Acting Executive Director for Ope ations

Enclosures:

1. Footnotes i 2. Fire Protection Status for Plants Licensed Prior to January 1, 1979
3. Plants with all Appendix R Modifications Complete l 4. Completion Status of Alternate Shutdown Systems 1 5. Completion Status of Fire Protection Modifications
6. Bar Chart of Completion Status for Alternate Shutdown Systems l 7. Bar Chart of Completion Status for Fire Protection Modifications cc: Chairman Palladino DISTRIBUTION Central File OCA (3)

Comissioner Roberts SECY (3)

Comissioner Bernthal NRC PDR w/cy of incoming Local PDR w/cy of incoming VStello Comissioner Zech PPAS (ED0#001453)

SECY EDO #001453 EDO Reading w/cy of incoming

.j OPE H. Denton/D. Eisenhut R. Bernero OGC JStang w/cy of incoming PD#1 Reading (w/cy of incoming) CJamerson OELD FMiraglia PD#1 Green Ticket File TNovak

  • SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE DBL:DIR*

DBL:PD#1* DBL:PD#1* DBL:DD*

D8L:PDf1* RBernero JStang:jg JZwolinski RHouston CJamerson 03/04/86 03/04/86 03/04/86 03/04/86 03/04/86 NRR:DD NRR:DIR EDO:A/DIR DEisenhut HDenton VStello 1; - - - _______/__/86 / /86 / /86

r Enclosure 1 FOOTNOTES The footnotes below will aid you in reviewing the following charts and graphs:

  • 1 50.48 Schedular Extensions Exemption Granted
  • 2 50.48 Schedular Extension Exemption Requested and Under Review by NRR
  • 6 Plants Following the 50.48 Schedule for Completion of F.P. Mods and Alt. 50 SYS
  • 7 Plants Operating in Noncompliance of the 50.48 Schedule with Approved Compensatory Measures ,
  • 9 Plants in Outage Will Not Restart Until Modifications Complete

.6 ,

Enclosure 2 APPE.N.~ DIX R SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS COMPLETION STATUS ALTERNATE FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1979.

  1. ALTERtaTE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS STATUS SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION GRANTED ss- -

3 SCilEDU!AR E X E?. PTION U N D ER R EVIE'.'!

2 /- IN OUTAGE: RESTART AFTER MODS. COMPLETE 3o. .

OPERATING UNDER NON-COMPLIANCE A.C.M.*

2S- ~ COMPLETE Q. ,qtd L4 g. . COMPLYING WITH 50.48 SCHEDULE 20-bm

!2:15- -

to- -

ro E

a M 5- -

f l [$4j

/ " !N 1 7 __

El MARCH 1986

  • A.C.M. - APPROVED COMPENSATORY MEASURES

_ . . _ . __=

Enclosure 2 -

1 APPENDIX R STATUS OF FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1979.

  • RRE PROTECTION STATUS SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION GRANTED l ss- -

N SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION UNDER REVIEW i 30- - COMPLYING WITH 50.48 SCHEDULE OPERATING UNDER NON-COMPLIANCE A.C.M.* ,

25- -

i$; "

COMPLETE U IN OUTAGE: RESTART AFTER MODS. COMPLETE l

-i .

10- -

lv:  !

?k 2

52 -

10- -

en --

3 f. : i

= Eb  :

55 h{"

~

D- ~

= ')

Vs --

.%N

~

= fr 55 o

= /, = = M MARCH 1986

. APPROVED COMPENSATORY MEASURES

Enclosure 2

p. P' g? No.

'l 03/04/26 1, 1979 APPEtJDIX R STATUS FOR FLANTS LICENSED PPIGH TO J4N.

50.40 DATE ALT. DATE 59.40 DATE FIRE FACILITY DATE ALT. FROTECTIOri SHUTDONr1 SHUTDOWN TECHNICAL NAME. # SYSTEt1 S/D EVEtiPTION MODS SYSTEM COMPLETE AFF60VED COMPLE1E ISSUED COMPLETE 03/01/03 COMPLETE ARi:ANE A5 1 05/01/03 CO?tFLETE 03/01/03 COMILETE ARKAULAS 2 05/01/P3 COriPLE T E 03/01/03 COMPLETE LEAVER VALLEY 1 01/01/U3 03/01/04 CCMPLETE 04/01/82 cot!PLE T E DIG ROCK FOINT 01/01/03 03/01/33 03/01/04 03/0t/85 12/20/09 02/01/8? 12/20/D9 EROWN3 FERRY 1 10/01/03 to 49 12/20/80 02/01/03 ' 12/20/00 EROWNS FERRY 2 10/01/03 42 12

} 02/01/03 12/20/07 b BROWtJS FERRY 3 10/01/83 12/20/07 $9

??

12/31/09 UNDER REVIEH 12/31/89 BRUNSWICK 1 UNDEP REVIEW *6 46 06/70/90 UNDER REVIEW W: / 30 / 90 DRUN5WICM 2 Ut4 DER REVIEW $6 lb COMPLETE 00/01/02 COtirLETE CALVERT CLIFFS 1 09/01/02

' 03/01/04 00/01/02 COMPLETC 09/01/02 COMPLETE CALVERT CLIFFS 2 03/01/04 03/31/07 07/01/87 11/31/06 l COOPER STATION 04/01/04 47 46 0

COMFLETE tiO REQUEST 03/31/06 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 01/01/03 81 NO REOUCGT COMPLETE D.C. COOK 1 09/01/03 COMPLETE NO REOUECT COMPLCTE D.C. COOK 2 09/01/03 COMPLETE 12/31/09 11/01/02 12/31/09 DAVIS-DESSL 06/01/02 47

  • 7 00/01/94 06/30/07 02/01/03 06/30/07 DRESDEN 2 01/01/03 42
  • 2

w .

Png No. 2 03/04/06 2. 1Cr 79 AFPENEIX R STATUS FOR FLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JAN.

50.48 DATE ALT. DATE 50.40 DATE FIFE FACILITY DATE ALT. PROTECTION SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWil TECHNICAL (JAME 49 EXEMFT10N MODS SYSTEM SYSTEM S/D COMPLETE ISSUED COMPLETE APPROVED 06/30/87 02/01/03 06/30/07 DREEDEN 3 01/01/03 42 42 cot 1F LCTE 09/01/03 COfrLETE DUMJE ARNOLD 01/01/GJ 10/01/95 12/01/93 COMFLETE FARLEY 1 08/01/B3 41 04/30'07 02/01/84 1o/3 '06 FIT 2 P AT R I C!'. 04/01/84 40

  • 1 e

NO FEOUEGT COMPLCTE 08/v1/82 COMPLETE FORT CALHOUN 08/31/07 fl0 REOUEST OD/31/D7

$ FORT FT VRAIf 4 NOffE SUBMITT 47

$7

,0

. 04/30/G6 NO REDUEST 04/30/06 I GINNA 02/01/E5 41 41 f

08/01/84 COf'F L E T E. 11/01/02 COM8'LET C H D ROBIfl50N 2 11/01/83 11/01/04 04/30/96 11/01/04 04/30/f36 HADDAM f1ECK 40

  • 6 COMPLETE 04/01/04 11/31/06 I HATCH 1 02/01/03 61 f

COMPLETE 04/01/04 11/31/06 HATCH 2 02/01/53 91 10/01/04 CONFLETE 10/01/04 03/31/86 INDIAN POIllT 2 $6 O2/01/04 COMPLETC 04/01/04 COMFLETE INDIAN POIflT 3 02/01/04 06/30/07 O2/01/04 06/30/07 *1 NEWAUNCE t1 03/01/02 COMPLETE 04/01/04 COf1PLETE LACROSSE 07/01/03 09/01/02 COMPLETC O2/01/03 COMFLETE l

MAINE YANMEE 02/01/03 11/01/03 12/31/07 11/01/05 12/31/07 MILLSTONE 1 11/01/05 *6

$6

(~ . -. - -

I

)

Page No. 3 03/04/e5 1, 1979 AFFEllDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICEN3ED PRIOR TO JAN.

50.40 DATE 50.4G DATE FIRE FACILITY DATE ALT. .DATE ALT. PROTCCTION GHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN TECHNICAL NAME 41 EXEMPTION MODS SYSTEM SYSTEM S/B COMPLETE ISSUED COMPLETE Af' PROVED 12/31/D7 UNDER REVIEW 12/31/07 MILLSTONE 2 UNDER REVIEW 16 46 06/01/03 COMFLETE 12/01/03 COMFLETE MONTICELLO COMFLETE 03/01/03 COMPLETE TJ11JC MILE PT 1 O!/01/03 COMPLETE NO RPOUCCT COMPLETE

' NORTH ANNA 1 11/01/02 06/30/96 NO REQUEST 06/30/06 NORTH ANNA 2 11/01/G2 57 47 COMFLETE 12/01/84 COMPLETE OCONEE 1 04/01/63 12/01/04 COMFLETE 04/01/03 CONFLETE OCONCE 2 COMFLETE 12/01/94 COMFLETC OCONEE 3 04/01/63 9

10'31/06 12/17/02 10/01/06 OYSTER CREEE 11/10/92 81 h

o 41

( 02/01/83 COMPLETE 05/01/03 CONFLETC PALISADES 02/01/07 01/01/03 CONFLCIE PEACH EDTTOh 2 05/01/84

$2 COMPLETE 01/01/03 CCMFLETE FEACH LOTTOM 3 05/01/84 11/01/81 11/31/06 PILGRIM  !!/01/G3 11/01/86 86 l 46 12/01/04 l 07/03/85 12/31/86 07/03/05 12/31/06 POINT DEACH 1 07/03/05 *S 46 12/31/06 07/03/05 12/31/06 POINT BEACH 2 07/03/03 86 46 05/01/03 COMPLETE f10NE SUDMIT. COMPLETE PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 01/01/04 07/01/04 05/01/03 COMPLETE NONC SUDri!T. COMFLETE PRAIRIE ISLAND 2 01/01/04 07/01/G4 04/01/06 06/01/03 06/!O/06 OUAD CITIES 1 12/30/02 82

$2

~~

)

Pega No. 4 f 07/04/06 APPENDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED 1, 1977 PRIOR TO JAN.

/ 50.48 DATE ALT. DATE 50.40 DATE FIRE '

' FACILITY DATE ALT. PROTECTION SHUTDOWN SNUTDOWN TECHNICAL NAME 44 EXEMPTION MODS SYSTEM CYSTEM S/D COMPLETE ISSUED COMPLETE APFROVED 04/30/06 06/01/03 06/00/07 OUAD CITIEC 2 12/20/92 42 82 COMFLETE 06/01/83 COMPLETE RANCHO SECO flGNE SUDMIT.

COMPLETE 09/01/G2 COMFLETE SALEM 1 05/01/03 06/01/03 06/01/06 03/01/03 06/01/06 SAN ONOFRE 1 UNDER REVIEW 41 11 09/01/04 COMPLETE O2/01/05 COMFLC1E ,

GT LUCIE 1 07/01/86 11/01/02 07/31/86 SURRY 1 11/01/82 $7 87 12/31/06 11/01/02 12/31/06 SURRY 2 11/01/G2 el t7 Co/30/06 Oc> /01/ 04 06/30/86 THI 1 06/01/04 46

': 86 12/31/07 12/01/02 12/31/06 TROJAN NONE SUDMIT. 67 47 07/10/83 4

l' 12/31/06 03/01/84 12/31/06 I TURMEY POINT 3 04/01/84 42 42 iu 12/31/06 03/01/04 12/31/06 TURMCY POINT 4 04/01/94 42 62 05/01/02 COMPLETE 01/01/83 COMPLETE i VEAMONT YANKEE OG/01/02 COMFLETE UNDER REVIEW COMPLETE YANKEE ROWE COMPLETE 03/07/03 10/30/06

' ZION 1 03/17/03 07 cot 1FLETE 03/07/03 10/30/06 ZION 2 03/17/03 $7 l

Enclosure 3 m

3 Page tJo. 1 03/04/06 1. 1979 9 AFFENDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICEN3ED FRIOR TO JAtl.

WHO HAVE COMFLETED DOTH FIRC PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS

)- AND ALTERtJATIVE SAFE SHUTDOut4 SYSTC113 ALT. SAFE FIRC F60TEC1.

FACILITY MOD IFICA T IOf J NAME 18 SHUTDOWN GTATUS IS STATU3 ID CO'1PLETE COMFLETC COMPLEIC COMPLETC ARKANSA51 1 COMFLCTC COMPLETE ARNANSA3 2 COMPLETC COhi'L E T E ECAVLR VALLEY 1 I"!O I;OCI: POItJT COMF LETE COMPLCTE cot 1PLFT L CGT1F LC1E S CALVCRT CLIFFG 1 COMPLETE COMF 'LE I C h' CALVERT CLIFFS 2 COMF LETE COf tl LETE .

D.C. COOE 1 0

f cot 1PLETE CCttrLCTC ,

D.C. COOK 2 3

COMPLETE COtif'LC TE DUANE ARNOLO COMPLETE COrif LCTC i FORT C6LHOUN COMPLETE COMPLETC H B RODINSOf4 2 cot 1PLCTC COMFLETC INDIAN FOINT 3 l COMTLiTC LACROSSE COM"LEiC

  • COMPLCTC COMPLETC Malt 1E YAFFEC COf1PLETC CONTLEIC MotJT ICCLLO cot 1PLE TC COMPLETC NINC MILE PT 1 CUMf-LCTC cot 1F LCT C

- NORTH ANtJA 1 COMF LCTC cot 1rLC TC DCOtJEE 1 COMPLCIC l OCOtiCC 2 CUMPLETE COMPLETE COtirLETE OCOtJEE O COMFLETE Curif LCTC FALISADES COMPLCTC COMTLCiC PEfCH DDTTOM 3 COMPLETC COlil>LE I C l PRAIR!C ISLAND 1

.__t

+

ve g . - .

~

,o

)

Paget No. .2 03/04/G6 1, 1979 APFENDIX R STf4TU3 FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO 2AN.

WHO HAVE cot 1FLETED DOTH FInt PROTECT ION 110DIFICATIONS AND ALTERrtATIVE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYGTEt15 F I f,E Ff 40 T ECT .

FACILITY ALT. SAFE 3HUTDOWN MODIFICAT10t4 NAriE # STATUS 13 GTATUG IS cot 1PLET C COMPLETC COrdFLE.T E COhrLCTC FR/4If?IC ISLAND 2 cot 1PL ETE COMPLEIC F:ANCHO SECD CONFLETE CUf17 'L E TC CALE!1 1 cot 1PLCTE COMPLETE ST LUCIE 1 CO!1F 'LET E COf tf I C1C VEF NONT 't' A' S 51F COMPLETE COMFtf?it YAhhf!E PUNE 8

av F '

  • ' Enclosure 4 Pace f4a. 1 03/04/l!6 1, l'?77 4

APPCflDIX R DTATU3 FOR PLANTG LICENSCD F RIOT < TO J AN.

COMrLCTION STATU3 OF ALTERf4 ATE GNUT00Wil OYSTCt1C

)

FACILITY DATC ALT. IF M3T CHUT DCWf 4 CONFLCTC.

NANC tt SYGTEM S/14 FOOTf10TC COf tPLCit ARVANGAL 1 COfffLCiC AGt:AttI A3 2 CCMFLCTC

}

1CAVEh VALLCY 1 CC"1F LCT C h

Blu PCCt: l'OI!1T COrif LC TI:

CALVCET CLIrr._ 1 COMFLCfC CALVCPT CLIfTG 2 CUf 1H.01 C CR f C TAL F I'Kf. 7 CONit t il D.C. COG) 1 CUMr I.CT F i

D.C. CODE 2 COMPLETE l

t

! CUANC ,Er10LD CDMT LI:11.'

I FORT CALHOUf1 COMPLCTC i

I H D FDDINCGN 7 Cf]I1F LC I C f

HATCH 1 cot 1rLC T C i HATCH C CurIPLctC IflDI AN f Of f4T 3 LOMTLCTC LAci<OG3C COllrLCTC f f1AlllC Yarn.CC COMPLCfC MOrf f !CCLLO CortiLCTC filric N TL C r T ! COMrLCTC fiOrsTH ArtfJA 1 COMFLCTC OC0f4CC 1 COrif LIJIC OCOf4LC 2 COfir LC TL OCOritC 3 COMrLCTC

Faga tio. 2 1, 1979

Y AFPLNDIX h OTATU3 FOR PLAtJTG LICCtJGED FRIOR TO J Atl.

COMFLCTIOff STATUS OF ALTCRf1 ATE SHUTDOWt1 SYGTCtH DATE ALT. IF NOT FACILITY COMFLCTC.

NAtlC ff CHuiDOWT4 GYSTCM S/D FOO Tf40TC cot:PLETE FALISADCC COf1PLETC FCACH COTTott 3 COM)LCTE F T' A f fs I E l'1LAf1D 1 COMPLETE FRA!RIL IEt.A::D 2 COMfLCTC RAfJCHO ECCO COMPLCTC DALC r1 1 cot 1FLETE GT LUCIL 2 COMPLCfL VCr MCtJT Yard CIl cot 1PLCTC YANICC FOUC CO*1PLCIC Z IUtl 1 Col tFLC IC ZIOll 2 COtif LE T E 6

G j i Jt J,1 04/30/06 t1 l

06/01/06 *1 GAf4 Of4'Xht 1 10/01/06 41 h FARLCY t

$ 10/01/06 81 i OYSTCA CCCCF 04/06/07 81 F1TEFAf ff!CK FCWAUf JL C 96/90/07 41 04/01/06 82 UUAD CITICG 1 04/30/06 82 CUAD CITACG 2 12/01/06 8:

TURI CY POf fli 0 12/21/U6 82 TUfft:CY PO! fit 4 02/01/07 82 FCACH DOTTOM 2 06/30/07 82 Di CGDtti 2 06/30/07 92 DACLDCtl 3

e- = . .. .

i Page IJo. 3 03/04/06 1, 1977 AIPEf4 DIX R CTATUS F0F: I LAtlTS LICCICCD FRIOR TO JAtl.

CDNF 1 CT JON STATUS OF AL TEPr! ATE SHUTDOWri SYSTCMS DATE ALT. IF NOT FACILITY COMPLETE, t!A M C tt CHUTLOWT1 SYSTCtl S/D FOOT f10T C COr1FLCT C 12/27/00 $2 Er3WrJG FChRY Z 01/01/06 46 IllDIAN FOIt:T 2 v4/50/US $6 FADDAT1 t{CL 06/30/06 46 TNI 1 11/31/05 96

/ F ILONIt1 12/31/06 46 POltlT ECACH 1 s ta FOlt1T DEACH 2 12/31/06 03/31/117 46 1 CCOT Efi CTATIOt1 12/',1/07 (6 i MILLOTONC 1 t

10/71/07 e6 111LLSTOf1C 2 i

12/01/07 46 l [J<tJN ~ W I CI: 1 t 06/36/90 46 I FFJtlGWICl; 2 06/M /06 87 ft]rTil ANNA 2 o'7/01/06 87 LURRY !

{

12/31'06 87 4 TUtiRY 2 OO/01 e 07 87 FORT GT VRA!il 12/31/37 t

TPUJAtJ i

12/31/I'? 47 DAV!G-0ESCC 12/20/E 7 89 LROWfC FEPRV 3 12/20/08 #9 DROWil!3 FERRY 1

pmw v - - -

r Enclosure 5

) Pcgo tio. 1 0:/04/0h 1, 1777 APPCt!Di t R GTATUG FOR PLA14TG LICENCED PRIOR TO JAN.

COMPLETION STATUS OF FIRC PROTECTION MODIFICATIONG

}

FACILITY DATE FIRC IF tlOT PROTCCTION COMPLETE, NAt1C n MODIFICATIOt1 FOOTriOTC

\

S/D COf1PLETE AV AN3AG 1 COMPLETC A$.t.AftSA9 COMFLCTU LEAVCR VALLCY 1 COriPLCTC 1110 TsOll' POINT COMILCTC CALVCRT CL!rrS 1 COMPLCTC CALVEPT CLIFFS 2 CGhrLETC D.C. COO) 2 CCftPLCTC D.C. CO(9. 2 cot 1T LCI C CU/.NE AT;iJOLD COMTLCTC FAfiLEY 1 CD;1PLCTC

)  ;

FOR7 C(LHOUN COMt'LC1E 1 r

i 54 11 f 0 D I N'.iO P1 2 COMiLCTC l ItJDI Afl F 0114T 2 COMrLC1C i

Itin! AU F Ollif 3 COtitLC1C l

l COMI'LETC LAch03CE MAltlE YANFCC COMF'LC TC MOtiTICCLLO COMFLCTC t

N!flE MILE PT 1 cot 1PLE T C 1 I

tJORTH AtatJA 1 cot 1PLC f C OCONCC 1 COMILCTC OCOtlCC C COMt'LCTC OCOfJCC 3 COMPLETC PAL!GADCG COMrLETC l l

i 2 y Pago Na, 03/04/B6 1, 1977 0

.AFPCNDIX h GI ATUS FOR PLAtJTS LICENSED FRIOR TO JAN.

COMPLE FIOt1 STATUS OF FIRE PROTEC~ !ON MODIFICATIOt4S 15 Ji FACILITV DATE FIRE PRJTECTION CON-LETE.

NAMC M FOOT f JOTC f10DIF IC AT IOt1

$/D COMPLETE FEACH dol' TOM 2 CO!1PLETE FEACH bt' T T O!1 3 COttPLETE F R Alfi!E I HL hf 40 1 CONFLETC PRA1RIC IL' LAND 2 C0f1PLETE hANCH3 SECD COtTLElE COMF LE TC 2 ftLEh 1 5T LUCIE 1 COMFtETE a

VERT 10NT YANF EE cot 1Ft ET E h

YANhEE ROUE CCtPLE T E 41 CRYGTAL RIVER 3 03/31/b6

[

I 04/70/06 *1 CINNA 11 UhN CliorFF 1 00<01/0$

f

$1 OYSTER CFEEK IG/31/06 s1 e

HATCH 1 11/31/95 t

81 HATCH 2 11/01/06 2

Ot;/50/e7 tEWAUNEC 06/30/06 42 OUAD CITIEG 1 12/31/06 *2 TUHFCY Politi 3 12/01/06 82 TURl'EY PO!!1T 4 0L/30/07 02 DHLSDCN 2 06/00/07 92 DREGDCfi 3 06/30/07 82 OUAD CITICG 2 82 PROWNC FCFinY 2 12/20/00 86 HADDAM tlCCM 04/30/06

__t___.

t Page No. 3' 03/04'G6 1, 1979 APPENDIX R GTATUS FOR PLAT 4TS LICENSED.FRIOR TO JAN. ,,

COMPLCTION STATU3 OF FIRE FROTECTION MODIFICATI0tJS DATE FIRE IF NO1 f*ACILITY CDt1PLET E.

NAME # PROTECTION MODIFICATION FOOTHOT E S/D COMPLETE 06/30/86 86 TMI 1 11/31/86 *6 PILGRIM 12/31/H6 $6 POINT SCACH 1 12/31/06 86 POINT DEACH 2 12/31/G7 *6 MILLSTOriE I 12/31/07 86 MILLSTONE 2 12/31/0? th DRUtJ3 WICK 1 06/30/90 lb .

DRUNSWICK 2

(

06/30/06 47 '

fJORTH ANNA 2 07/31/06 *?

SURRY 1 g

y 10/30/06 *?

ZION 1 10/30/06 $7 ZIOtJ 2 11/31/06 $7 COOPLH STAItOtl I 12/31/06 97 SURRY 2 12/31/06 97 TROJAN 00/31/07 97 FORT ST VRAIN 12/31/09 97 s DAVIS-PEGSE 10/31/06 40

!- F1TZPATRICK 1;/20/07 8?

Dh0WN3 FERRY 3 49 DROWNS FERRY 1 12/20/0?

, =

n - ___

- .=a 1 . _ , e., . , ,

~

Enclosure 6 1

COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS 1979.)

(FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,

= 67 66 my v-N ',: e v

s2 s3 I>. .. $.::.5, v< ,6 x -:' COMPLETE m.: . -

l.x $X, C. s, y .

,-<. v ,< ...

- .-h se- -

s.

.. s.. ,. , y. .., s.:..

NOT COMPLE TE Ms.(  :

-$.$ '$$v-:' ($:S

..,..,v.

v..s, yv ..,

N .4 - 4.. ..-<

'N.

v,:.v,;

.- t.. v> ..v .- -

..v.

v.m 51 v+

s. sy-X.

s v.- '

5:8 s . .-

?:S.

ee- -  :$.$.v 5 v $.

$.,$. .. .sv. ss..

M+>-

s v.- +.v ..s-.v<

vv -

svi s +- lvg':

y.  :$.$y .s h

$$.:, 34 U1 Xy:,, .gv. ss.,v.

. v. v. .,.y s .::.v .sv

.v x-xys4. s.,.,+. . s., s.v

-s .v v v..->

v.+

m. . g.sv v ." .v g s .:. .s., v.v v.v.-

v.-

  • sg +<- ss xx.

- s. . ,

,v.v s .- -

v i

I .v-X,v xq s.. cN.- {+.v -

.- s.v

5. ve.x. l l

lgO . . ,i,

- I v+\, . .

v.,.

v. .;c. s...>.e..

. .. ..v.j, g.

gg- <sv, .f.

,N.f

  • v.. .

.e.

.y v.N

v. ..

.X.;v.

+++- v,v,/

.v.

s=.#. .I

(

g ., .

y s =,*

v.,s,N,-

., s.pg

%y N 4. .m y .% .,,g s.v s.s

'E v*v.

s'N.N . - c, gj. .N

.N-v.+<-

.Q v.v.,.

.f+g v..v g fp

.vg D Ox.

= .y

. ~. . y+f.

vy

.y Z v .N,o v. X-<

'N.:eN.., .; v.v.-

. .; v,*.

ss-c v,.v. . .sv. ...

pp;

s. .s ,N . .s:.

. .v,;

, ,s. .,

v v..

3. .

v c.s v.x. - -

.Ns N x.NNN

. y,. .y. .s-

. + s, .ss ,.-u..s%

. .s , 16 .fs

.vh

- .v

- .- .s

.v.s v...- h.

...v..-X c...

c. :,

.v$.s Nsv. - .-u

.ve ...

"- N.s.

1 N.- Nv:s;.s. - .v.s vy .ve .

e. . .

! ..v. .y:. ..

l gg .. .vc.

.v ,. X e.-h

.s.

- .s . .

e.v.

..., L.s. .s ..

.vNs E. .s%

.sv.

S.

,.N;Q

.s y e.-

k-s ..

.v.

. .s 2..

up, $ .eN:s. 4 .n :-- v.

q.

.w s. vv c., , . . . .e. . - ....,sc, . .9. ,

i sg .v. .-<.s ..s

. u. .. .sss l .s;.s O

  • # c.N *am ._%_.*1.

.u'.N.

.sg

  • m .*N.*

m*# g

.-c4 .N e

1988 1987 1988 1989 1990 YEARS 1

. . - - - . ,n M

. . e. . . . - _ -

Enclosure 7 1

I

COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR APPENDIX R FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS (FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1979.)
1. 67 66 m.<,.s .v.v. -

l  ;-;.,

O$ 0-  :+X$-l 63 +:?

<-X-A COMPLETE

S+:

62 , , , , .

US.;$ -: $-

S.$.s$ .y. .-

og- .

w-e.-

..s.~.s. -

./ ,.. .

.s. .. ..

+:

+- NOT COMPLETE

+ ....+-- 0.. .-

..- (S.:...o .-. .,.....

. .. . .. ..: ... y ., y:. .

5,4,. ..

,s .- .s ,.- .s.:::.. .s,. ,.

..:s,

.s . ::

..s.< ... -.

as- -

s., .-.. y. *-

..s..y-  ;

+.-

s -< .

....+

1

.s..- ..- .:../

s..+.., .

s. .- r,, ..

y.,.- .~. .

F,,.. ../. .

..'.%.- .s. ,,s. .

..- s.,,.4. .

t. s..

.,...:s. .~, ..,+ . .,s.., . . . . <.s-

~n< .  :./.<.-

~. - e..

.- .: s,..s .

r.q. .. s.

. ,..y, u.< . -. ,.e

.es . .

s:.- . ..

+,: .

l

. .- s: s.. s. .,

s. y..ss..-

y,.y, s.. s.:..

s.,-c

.. y . .. . . .,.,.,-

s....

s.

sy.. .

+ . . .s ,.,.  :.,

./  :..- ...:<.

...'-.~

.. . s.:.

.s s .. .-

@ :.  %+.: s..- . .s -

g3 3e. .

. . ....y.

.s.... .

-.r.s..-

s.

p. .e<

3E  ::N'$.-

ss - s$.'.$ .- .. 6.::.35

.<S.

3  : 0:S $$$  ::.:8 z :35  ::':3 5.:,5, O.

. ..: . ..  :.S.$

.c.3.:-.

s..s-:

. ...s

.s so. .

.s.,.. . .... . . . .s

. .. .,.../.,.. .

. . ..:.- . , . . .. . I .

., ,,..s ..-

s,...,. . . ... ...: .. . .. , . . -

. , ~..., -

,,.s.

.. .s...-...

. . .-. .. . . . . .ye ... -. . . .

,2 ...-

s .-

s..s.:~.-

s- . ..

.. ...- .. .y.

s..<..-

~ - .

.- ..s.s

..~.

~

,9 .. . ., s. - ,

s. ......

+ . ..

...s . ..

s. . s.,..... .

. . .,.s. .- . .

O..s., .r- ..,.y <

. .... . . ,,. ;. S .

,..e, .

+; .s.

sy- .s.

,.s. -, ,

c s. .

+ . .+

.. :.. .. .- o

..s ,

.. . ..s. ~ .

a 198s 1987 1988 1989 1990 YEARS - _

p. _ . , _ . - .. ..- . . _ . . . . . . .- _ ._ _ .. .

._..........T.,...

~ ~~' ~

s *

/  %, UNITED STATES

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ WASH 6NGTON, D. C. 30005 EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL l

FROM: DUE: 03/07/C6 EDO CONTROL: 001453 DOC DT: 07/20/86 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE j FINAL. RFPLY:

TZ:

STELLO h FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** PRIORITY ** SECY NO:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR v

DESC: ROUTINO:

P STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION STELLO OF APPEND 1X R TO 10 CFR 50 (SECY-85-306) ROE REHM DATE: 02/24/06 SNIEZEK

ASS 10NED TO
NRR CONTACTt DFNTnN MINOGUE TAYLOR OCUNNINOHAM SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKG:

A6 NRR RECEIVED: 2/24/86 ACTION:

% ]W"-

I NRR ROUTING: . DENTON/ElSENHUT

, PPAS t M0558URG x

L , o y( .

t q ,,

's ap

)

8 5 r 7 4 4

~

{y. - ,_

UNITED STATES

/ NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l WA5MINGTON. D.C. 30006

  1. February 70, 1986 omes or Tus commiss'owan MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations FRON: James K. Asselstine m -

SUBJECT:

SECY-85-3C6 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLFFFf:TATI0li 0F APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 in the attached vote sheet, Comissioner Zech states that he hes been told that many licensees have taken advantage of the new interpretations contained in SECY-85-306 and that they have used them to develop their fire protection programs. I would appreciate learning which licensees are

.already using the "new interpretations." I would also like to know how any such use of the new interpretations will affect the compliance schedules contained in the E00 remorandum to the Comissier dated Decerter 26, 1985 regarding the status of implementation of Appendix R.

Finally, I would like to know how such use is consistent with repeater assurerces by the staff that all fire protection SERs, including those for plants licensed after January 1,1979, have been based on Generic Letter 83-33 or the existing Branch Technical Position.

cc: Chairnan Palladino Comissioner Roberts RM'd off. tpo .

Comissioner Bernthal 8838...&.-.M Comissioner Zech Time . .. ,. ,1.?. ,, , N

, .- f 6 OPE OGC SECY

(,f 0Njd A

E DO --- 001 # S 3

VOTE NOTATION RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMuE4 J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ZECH

SUBJECT:

SECY-85-306 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 APPROVED X (w/co='at5) DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING. REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:

See attached coments.

k w..?ed siuna, v

h. .

l YES NO

~

l'/$<f Entered on "A

  • Q / / gggg SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 l

Commissioner Each's comments on SECY 85-306 It is clear from the history associated with Appendix R that there has been considerable confusion in the industry, and to some extent the ctaff, on the exact meaning of all the fire protection requirements.

Generic letters have been issued; task forces, workshops, and training sessions have been conducted; inspections have been completed; and, differing professional opinions have been submitted cnd resolved. Many of these past actions became part of a cooperative cffort between the staff and industry to resolve the outstanding Appendix R issues. The result of this effort is the Generic Letter, interpretations, and question and answer documents proposed by the ctaff in SECY-85-306. I believe these documents will help clarify and expedite final implementation of the fire protection requirements.

Consequently, subject to the recommendations for improvement made by OGC in its october 24, 1985 meno, I approve publication of the generic letter.

I do not agree with several of the points raised by Commissioner Asselstine in COMJA-86-4. I do not believe that the staff's approach' will, in the end, make it more difficult for a fire protection inspector to conduct his job. Eventually, all fire protection program requirements should be contained in the plant's FSAR which will provide a solid starting point to determine a plant's compliance with Appendix R. The proposed Ceneric Letter clearly states the documentation that will be required and expected by the NRC concerning licensee evaluations. In addition, this documentation is required to be readily retrievable.

I also believe that across the board, the nuclear industry, when compared to other industries, is required to install and implement one cf the most rigorous and demanding fire protection programs in the country. Although there may be a few individual definitions or interpraations that can be debated as to whether or not they meet generally accepted industry codes, the overall program that the NRC requires is clearly above average. The proposed Generic Letter may allow a licensee to make some changes to its fire protection program

'via the 50.59 process, but it also states that any changes made to the fire protection program that may adversely affect the plant's ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire would ctill need prior NRC approval. Consequently, we maintain control of major changes and continue to fulfill our responsibility to protect the public health and safety.

As a separate matter, I do not share my colleague's concern over the technical adequacy of the proposed documents. The staff has spent considerable time conducting analyses and developing these documents for the precise purpose of providing guidance on acceptable technical cnd procedural responses. Although some DPos were submitted, I an informed that the concerned individuals are not appealing the agency resolution of those DFOs.

131th regard to the "analysisa provided by the EDO to Commissioner Asselstine on November 18, 1985, it is my impression that the EDO did not intend this to be a backfit analysis. It is my understanding that Ctaff determined that these interpretations which, if a licensee so

F

  • l
  • ch'oose3 to implement thca, cre 1000 restrictivo th n curr:nt
  • ~ .. requirement 3, and thcraf:ro o backfit Cnaly310 10 n:t r quired.

However, the EDO did discuss some of the backfit considerations in  ;

order to provide the Commission information. I would certainly agree with Commissioner Asseletine that if this analysis was supposed to I suffice as a backfit analysis, it would require significant improvement.

I agree that the proposed fire protection enforcement policy needs some improvement. -It does not seen appropriate that the NRC should be restricted to only a severity III, IV or V violation unless there was an actual fire. After reviewing the reactor operation requirements in our enforcement policy, it seems that existing enforcement policy guidance for a severity level one violation would require an actual concurrent fire, but not for a severity level two violation. The proposed fire protection regulations require an actual concurrent fire before either a severity level I or II violation can be imposed. I do not see why the fire protection regulations need to be more restrictive in this regard than the general enforcement policy.

Consequently, for purposes of the fire protection enforcement policy, I recommend that the staff propose additional and/or different guidance on when a severity level two violation is appropriate.

Lastly, I believe that the information contained in SECY-85-306 is,. .

for the most part, already widely known throughout the industry as a result of the training sessions, workshops, and other staff interactions. Consequently, I as told that many licensees have taken advantage of this information and used it to develop their fire protection programs. As a result, this information will be applied by and benefit more than just those few plants who have not yet fully implemented Appendix R.

(.

.a u.

UNITED STATES i

.[

a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 l was6HNGTON, O. C. 20666

....* gy MEMORANDIN FOR: Comissioner Asselstine Victor Stello, Jr.

tw FROM:

Acting Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

SECY 85-306 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 By memorandum dated February 20, 1986, you requested the following information reoarding SECY 85-306:

. 1. Which licensees are using the "new interpretations"?

2. How will any such use of the new interpretations affect the compliance schedules contained in the E00 memorandum to the Commission dated December 26, 19857
3. How is such use of the new interpretations consistent with repeated l assurances by the staff that all fire protection SERs, includinq those for plants Ifeensed after January 1,1979, have been based

! on Generic Letter 83-33 or the existing Rranch Technical Position?

Throuch regional workshops and in Generic Letter (GL) 85-01 industry was informed of the "new interpretations" concerning Appendix R. In both the f regional workshops and in GL 85-01 the industry was informed that the information concerning the new interpretations The was draft and following is a would list of not plants become final until Comission approval.

F which have requested staff evaluation of their fire protection program

' based on the interpretations contained in SECY 85-306:

1. Indian Point Unit 3
2. Maine Yankee i
3. Oyster Creek
4. Tro.ian l
5. San Onofre Units 1, 2 and 3 p 6. Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 With the exception of Maine Yankee, the staff is holding the SERs on the above plants in abeyance until the Comission't final vote on SECY 85-306.

CONTACT:

l John Stang, NRR x28484

t ..

Commissioner Asselstine )

To the best of the staff's knowledge, the use of the new interpretations l

has not affected compliance schedules. However, compliance schedules for

! plant modifications have chanced slightly since the EDO memorandum to the Comission dated December 26, 1985. The fire protection modification schedule has improved by three additional plants beino completed in 1986 I rather than 1987. Three plants have pushed back their completion schedule for alternative shutdown systems from 1986 to 1987. Enclosures 1 through 7 contain graphs and tables showing updated completion schedules for all plants licensed prior to January 1,1979 as of March 1,1986.

h Finally, as indicated above the staff is holding all SERs concerning evaluations of the new interpretations :ontained in SECY 85-306 until

Comission approval of SECY 85-306. To date with the exceotion of Maine Yankee all exemptions issued concerning issues covered in GL 83-33 have been

! based on GL 83-33 and not the new interpretations contained in SECY 85-306.

In the case of Maine Yankee, should the Comission decide that the new interpretations are not to be used but rather the guidance of GL 83-33 the staff will reprocess the affected issues as exemptions. For all plants

-licensed after January 1,1979 fire orotection SERs are based on the SRP and all deviations from the SRP are revie g ng jus , i i d in the SER.

Victor Stello Victor Stello, Jr.

1 Acting Executive Director for Operations 1

i

Enclosures:

1. Footnotes
2. Fire Protection Status for Plants Licensed Prior to January 1, 1979 Plants with all Appendix R Modifications Complete 3.

4 Completion Status of Alternate Shutdown Systems

5. Completion Status of Fire Protection Modifications
6. Bar Chart of Completion Status for Alternate Shutdown Systems
7. Bar Chart of Completion Status for Fire Protection Modifications cc: Chairman Palladino DISTRIRUTION Central File OCA (3)

Comissioner Roberts SECY(3)

Comissioner Bernthal NRC PDR w/cy of incoming Commissioner Zech Local PDR w/cy of incoming VStello EDO #001453 PPAS (ED0#001453)

SECY w/cy of incoming OPE EDO Reading H. Denton/0. Eisenhut R. Bernero OGC JStang w/cy of incoming PD#1 Peading (w/cy of incoming) CJamerson OELD FMiraglia PD#1 Green Ticket File TNovak

  • SEE PREVIOUS PAGE FOR CONCURRENCE DRL:DIR*

DRL:PD#1* DBL:PD#1* DRL:DD*

DBL:PDf1* RBernero JStang:jg JZwolinski RHouston CJamerson 03/04/86 03/04/86 03/04/86 03/04/86 03/04/86 NRP.:DD NRR:DIR EDO:A/DIR DEisenhut HDenton VStello

_ _ - - - - _ _ 1 J 86__ _ ___/___/86___ ____/_/_86

Enclosure 1 FOOTNOTES The footnotes below will aid you in reviewing the following charts and graphs:

  • 1 50.48 Schedular Extensions Exemption Granted
  • 2 50.48 Schedular Extension, Exemption Requested and Under Review by NRR
  • 6 Plants Following the 50.48 Schedule for Completion of F.P. Mods and Alt. SD SYS
  • 7 Plants Operating in Ncncompliance of the 50.40 Schedule with Approved Compensatory Measures  ; ,
  • 9 Plants in Outage Will Not Restart Until Modifications Complete

~

s

  1. .g *
  • 4 e

s.

's

\

'\

\

\

\

s g_ _

\

. . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . ~ . _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . - _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ , , , , . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . .. __A-..,._..., .

~ ,- y n-- -

.=m.m - "-

.. y y .g . - - .cu.

. . . 7:

- - 2 I :"  ; i% * ' '%- - -

--_ ~ ..- . ...

'. .L..

e :_ .-4; -

', Enclosure 2

c. ,.

APPE.KDIX R STATUS A.LTERNATE' ' SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS COMPLETION1, 1979.

FDR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY

  1. ALTERMTE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS STATUS ,

SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION GRANTED ss- - X SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION UNDER REVIEW N5b IN OUTAGE: RESTART AFTER MODS. COMPLETE so. -

OPERATING UNDER NOM-COMPLIANCE A.C.M..

2s- - I COMPLETE 0

COMPLYING WITH 50.48 SCHEDULE 4

O 20- -

x h

z 1s--

10- -

m ,-

e m s --

3, n

) -

~

  • l J .__

i MARCH 1986 l

  • A.C.M. - APPROVED COMPENSATORY MEASURES

4 Enclostre 2 ..

i APPENDIX R L STATUS OF FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS r FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1979. L

" ' FIRE PROTECTION STATUS SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION GRANTED 35- - ,

r j N SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION UNDER REVIEW

. 30- - COMPLYING WITH 50.48 SCHEDULE  ;

i OPERATING UNDER NON-COMPUANCE A.C.M.*

f COMPLETE g,, IN OUTAGE: RESTART AFTER MODS. COMPLETE f 1 .

10- -

i o l io-- . ==

h $ 5 O* "

f --

= ,
:  :

55 '

i

. O

= / == E -

l MARCH 1986

  • APPROVED COMPENSATORY MEASURES

~

fW"

??

. Enclosure 2

)

P No. 1 03/04/86 1, 1979 APPENDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JAN.

50.48 DATE ALT. DATE 50.48 DATE FIRE FACILITY DATE ALT.. PROTECTION SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN TECHNICAL NAME # EXEMPTION MODS SYSTEM SYSTEM S/D COMPLETE ISSUED COMPLETE APPROVED COMPLETE 03/01/f COMPLETE ARKANSAS 1 05/01/83

-COMPLETE 03/01/83 COMPLETE

' ARKANSAS 2 05/01/93 COMPLETE 03/01/03 COMPLETE BEAVER VALLEY 1 01/01/83 08/01/84 CCMPLETE 04/01/82 COMPLETE BIG ROCK POINT 01/01/83 03/01/83 03/01/04 03/01/S5 12/20/89 02/01/83 12/20/89 EROWNS FERRY 1 10/01/83 49

$9 10/01/83 12/20/88 02/01/83 '12/20/88 h BROWNS FERRY 2 42

  • 12 l 12/20/87 10/01/93 12/20/87 02/01/03 f

1 LROWNS FERRY 3 19 49 h

12/31/89 UNDER REVIEW 12/31/89 BRUNSlJICK 1 UNDER REVIEW 46 16 06/30/90 UNDER REVIEW 06/30/90 BRUNS 4ICK 2 UNDER REVIEW $6

$6 l

COMPLETE 08/01/02 COMPLETE

> CALVERT CLIFFS 1 09/01/82

' 03/01/84 08/01/82 COMPLETE 09/01/82 COMPLETE CALVERT CLIFFS 2 03/01/94 03/31/87 07/01/83 11/31/86

' COOPER STATION 04/01/84 *7

$6 NO REQUEST 03/31/86

. CRYSTAL RIVER 3 01/01/83 COMPLETE

  • 1 NO REOUEST COMPLETE D.C. COOK 1 09/01/83 COMPLETE NO REQUEST COMPLETE 09/01/83 COMPLETE D.C. COOK 2 12/31/89 11/01/82 12/31/89 DAVIS-DESSE 06/01/82 *7
  • 7 08/01/84 06/30/87 02/01/83 06/30/87 DRESCEN 2 01/01/83 42
  • 2

_s_m-..

,y y, k

e g- no. 2 1979

' AFPET; DIX R ST ATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO J AN. 1, 03/04/66 50.48 DATE ALT. DATE 50.48 DATE FIRE.

FACILITY DATE ALT. PROTECTION SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN TECHNICAL NAME # EXEMPTION MODS SYSTEM SYSTEM S/B ISSUED COMPLETE APPROVED COMPLETE 06/30/87 02/01/03 06/30/07

.DRESDEN 3 01/01/83 $2 42 09/01/83 COMFLETE 01/01/83 cot 1FLETE DUANE ARNOLD 12/01/63 COMPLETE 08/01/83 10/01/96 FARLEY.1

~

61 p.

04/30/87 02/01/84 10/31/86 FIT 2 PATRICK 04/01/84 $O 41 NO REQUEST COMPLETE 08/01/82 COMPLETE FORT CALHOUN 08/31/87 NO REOUEST 08/31/07 FORT ST VRAIN NONE SUBMITT 9'

04/30/86 NO REQUEST 04/30/86

) GINNA 02/01/e5

  • 1 11/01/82 COMFLETE 9 08/01/84 COMPLETE

.H B ROBINSON 2 11/01/83 i

k 11/01/84 04/30/86 11/01/84 04/30/86 46

! HADDAM NECK 46

$ 04/01/84 11/01/06 02/01/93 COMPLETE I HATCH 1 41 l

i 04/01/84 11/31/86 02/01/83 COMPLETE 11 HATCH 2 I COMPLETE 03/31/86 10/01/84 INDIAN POINT 2 10/01/84 46 O2/01/84 COMPLETE 04/01/84 COMPLETE INDIAN POINT 3 02/01/04 06/30/87 KEWAUNEE O2/01/84 06/30/87 *1

  • 1 03/01/82 COMPLETE 04/01/84 cot 1PLETC LACROSSE 07/01/83 08/01/82 COMPLETE O2/01/83 COMPLETE MAINE YANMEE O2/01/03 11/01/03 l 11/01/85 12/31/87 11/01/85 12/31/87 96 MILLSTONE 1 *6

1 ,

P1ge Nr. v 03/04/86 1. 1979 AFFEMDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JAN.

50.48 w

DATE ALT. DATE 50.48 DATE FIRE FACILITY DATE ALT. PROTECTION SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN T ECHillC AL NAME 4t EXEMPTION MODS SYSTEM SYSTEM S/B COMPLETE ISSUED COMPLETE APPROVED 12/31/87 UNDER REVIEW 12/31/07 MILLSTOME 2 UNDER REVIEW 46

  • 6 COMFLETE 06/01/d3 COMPLETE MONTICELLO 12/01/83 COMPLETE 03/01/83 COMPLETE NINE MILE PT 1 03/01/83 COMPLETE NO REQUEST COMPLETE NORTH ANNA 1- 11/01/02

'06/30/86 NO REQUEST 06/30/06 i NORTH' ANNA 2 11/01/82 *7

  • 7 g

CCMPLETE 12/01/84 COMPLETE

? OCONEE 1 04/01/83 COMFLETE 12/01/84 COMPLETC OCCNEE 2 04/01/93 cot 1PLETE 12/01/94 COMPLETE OCONEE 3 04/01/93 10/31/86 12/17/82 10/31/86 OYSTER CREEK 11/18/82 *1 41

'?

i 05/01/83 COMFLETE O2/01/83 COMPL ETE PALISADES r

02/01/87 01/01/03 COMPLETE

! PEACH BOTTOM 2 05/01/84

  • 2 f
COMPLETE 01/01/83 COMPLETE PEACH BOTTOM 3 05/01/84 11/31/86 11/01/81 11/31/86 l PILGRIM 11/01/83 36
  • 6 12/01/84

} 07/03/85 12/31/86 07/03/85 12/31/86 POIt1T BEACH 1 07/03/85 *6 36 12/01/86 07/03/85 12/31/86 POIt1T BEACH 2 07/03/85 *6

  • 6 05/01/83 COMPLETE PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 NONE SUBMIT. COMPLETE 01/01/84 07/01/84 05/01/83 COttPLETE FRAIRIE ISLAND 2 .NONE SUBMIT. COMPLETE 01/01/94 07/01/84 04/01/86 06/01/93 06/30/96 QUAD CITIES 1 12/30/82 *2

$2

l

}- .P-..g No. 4

'03/04/86 1, 1977 APPENDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED 50.48 FRIOR TO JAN.

DATE 50.48 DATE FIRE DATE ALT. DATE ALT. PEOTECTION FACILITY SHUTDOWtl TECHNICAL-NAME 4 SHUTDOWN EXEMPTION MODS SYSTEM- SYSTEM S/B COMPLETE COMPLETE ISSUED APFROVED 06/01/03 06/30/87 12/30/82 04/30/86 QUAD CITIES 2 *2

  • 2

)

06/01/83 COMPLETE NONE SUBMIT. COMFLETE RANCHO SECO 4

09/01/82 cot 1FLETE 05/01/83 COf1PLETE SALEM 1 06/01/83 03/01/03 06/01/86 UtIDER REVIEW 06/01/86 41

[ SAN ONOFRE 1 *1 C

O2/01/85 COMPLETE 09/01/84 COMPLETE

[ ST LUCIE 1 11/01/02 07/31/86 e

11/01/82 07/01/86 *7 SURRY 1 $7 b' 11/01/82 12/31/86 i 11/01/82 12/31/86 47

SURRY 2 47 i

I 06/01/84 06/30/86 06/01/84 06/30/86 *6

! TMI 1 *6 12/01/82 12/31/86 NONE SUDMIT. 12/31/87 47 TROJAN t7 07/10/83 i

03/01/84 12/31/86 04/01/84 12/3 /06 TURKEY FOINT 3

'i 03/01/84 12/31/86 04/01/84 12/31/86 42 TURKEY POINT 4 *2 05/01/82 COMPLETE 01/01/83 COMPLETE VERMONT YANKEE 08/01/82 COMPLETE UNDER REVIEW COMPLETE YANKEE ROWE 03/07/03 10/30/86 03/17/83 COMPLETE $7 ZION 1 03/07/83 10/30/96 03/17/83 COMPLETE *7 ZION 2 3 6

  1. [

Enclosure 3 f.

Pace No. 1 03/04/86 1. 1979 APFENDIX R STATUS FOR FLANTS LICENSED FRIOR TO JAN.

1 WHO HAVE COMPLETED BOTH AND FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS ALTERNATIVE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS ALT. SAFE FIRE PROTECT.

FACILITY MODIFICATION NAME tt SHUTDOWN STATUS IS STATUS IS COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE ARKAN2AS 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE ARRAN5HS 2 COMPLETE COMPLETE BEAVER VALLEY 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE PIG ROCK POINT COMPLETE CONFLETE CALVERT CLIFFS 1 COMPLETE COMPLElE CALVERT CLIFFS 2 COMPLETE COMPLETE 9 D.C. COOK 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE i D.C. COOK 2 e

COMPLETE COMPLETE

[ DUANE ARNOLD

COMPLETE COMPLETE i FORT CALHOUN COMPLETE COMPLETE H B F
OBINSON 2 COMPLETE COMPLETE INDIAN FOINT 3 COMPLETE COMFLETE LACRO3SE
COMPLETE COMPLETE MAINE YANKEE COMPLETE COMPLETE MONTICELLO COMPLETE COMPLETE NINE MILE PT 1 i

COMPLETE COMPLETE NORTH ANNA 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE

> OCONEE 1 COMPLETE COMFLETE OCONEE 2 COMPLETE COMPLETE OCONEE 3 COMPLETE COMFLETE PALISADES COMPLETE COMPLETE PEACH BOTTOM 3 COMPLETE COMPLETE PRAIRIE ISLAND 1

jgy.

s Page Na. C 03/04/86 1,- 1979 I APPEND 1X R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED FRIOR TO JAN.

WHO HAVE COMPLETED BOTH FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS AND

)

ALTERNATIVE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS ALT. SAFE FIRE PROTECT.

FACILITY MODIFICATION NAME # SHUTDOWN STATUS IS STATUS IS COMFLCTE COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE

' FPAIRIE ISLAND C COMPLETE COMPLET E

- RANCHO SECO COMPLETE COMPLETE SALEM 1

f. COMPLETE ST'LUCIE 1 COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETC 9 VERMONT YANKEE COMPLETE COMPLCTE YANKEE RONE 1

I it t

J.

.e ,

t

  1. "'" . , e e. .

Enclosura 4 Page (40. 1 s

f. 03/04/86 1, 1979 g

APPENDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTG LICENSED PRIOR TO JAN.

COMPLETION STATUS OF ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS DATE ALT. IF NOT FACILITY COMPLETE.

NAME # SHUTDOWN SYSTEM S/B FOOTNOTE cot 1PLETE ARKANSAS 1 COMPLETE ARKANSAS 2 COMFLETE BEAVER VALLEY 1 COMPLETE BIG ROCK POIf1T COMPLETE CALVERT CLIFFS . COMPLETE CALVERT CLIFFS 2 COMPLETE CRYSTAL RIVER 3 COMPLETE D.C. COOK-1 COMPLETE D.C. COOK 2 COMPLETE D

DUA!4E ARNCLD COMPLETE FORT CALHOUN COMPLETE H B ROBIN 3DN COMPLETE HATCH 1 COMPLETE

,f I HATCH 2 COMPLETE

, INDIAN POINT 3 COMPLETE L

LACROSSE COMPLETE t

F. MAINE YANUEE COMPLETE MONTICELLO COMPLETE r

NINE MILE PT 1 COMPLETE NORTH ANNA 1 COMPLETE OCONEE 1 COMPLETE OCONEE 2 COMPLETE OCONEE 3 COMPLETE

._ m . _

P. .

g Page No. 2

} -'

03/04/06 1, 1979 APPENDIX R STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JAN.

COMPLETION STATUS OF ALTERNATE SHUTDOWil SYSTEME DATE ALT. IF NOT FACILITY COMPLETE, NAME # SHUTDOWN SYSTEM S/B FOO1 NOTE COMPLETE PALISADEE- COMPLETE PEACH DOTTOi1 3 COMPLETE PRAIRIE ISLAIJD 1 COMPLETE

}

O PRAIRIE ISLAND 2 COMPLETC D

RANCHO SECO. COMPLETE SALEM 1 COMPLETE ST LUCIE 1 COMPLETE

- VEFMONT YANKEE COMPLETE

.c YANKEE FCt!E COMPLETC

! COMPLETE j ZION 1 ZIOtt 2 COMPLETE 04/30/96 *1 GINNA 06/01/86 *1 GAN ONOFRE 1 f *1 FARLEY 1 10/01/86 f

10/31/86 *1 t OYSTER CREEK 1;

04/30/87 *1 FITZPATRICK 06/30/87 *1 KEWAUtJEE i

04/01/86 *2 t DUAD CITIES 1 04/30/86 *2 OUAD CITIES 2 12/31/06 *2 TURKEY POINT 3 12/31/G6 42 TURKEY POINT 4 02/01/87 *2

PEACH BOTTOM 2 06/30/87 *2 DRESDEN 2 06/30/07 *2
DRCSDEN 3

v_ .. ,

e.

Page No.- 3 03/04/86 1, 1979 APPENDIX R STATUS FOR PLAf4TS LICENSED FRIOR TO JAtl.

COMPLETION STATUS OF ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SY3TEMS DATE ALT. IF NOT FACILITY COMPLETE, NAME # 'EHUTDOWN SYSTEM S/D FOOTtJOTE COMPLETE 12/20/80 $2 EROWNS FERRY 2 03/31/G6 86 I!!DI AN POINT 2 04/30/06 *6 HADDAt1 NECK 06/30/86 86 TM1 1 11/31/G6 t6 PILGRIM 12/31/06 46 FOINT BEACH 1 12/31/86 *6 FOINT BEACH 2 03/31/07 *6 COOPER STATIOf f 12/31/07 16 MILLSTONE 1 7

12/31/87 *6 NILLSTONE 2 12/31/89 $6 BRUNSWICK 1 06/30/90 86 BRUNSWICK 2 06/30/06 87 0 NORTH ANNA 2 l 07/01/86 *7 1 SURRY 1 I 47 I SURRY 2 12/31/06 f 08/31/87 *7 FORT ST VRAlt4 l-12/31/07 47 TROJAN 12/31/89 *7 DAVIS-BESSE 12/20/07 *9 BROWNS FERRY 3 12/20/09 *9

.BROWrJS FERRY 1

psu-wpma -

w .

Enclosure 5 Page No. 1 C3/04/06 1, 1979 y APPENDIX R GTATUS FOR FLANTS LICENCED PRIOR TO JAN.

p COMPLETION STATUS OF FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIOriS DATE FIRE IF NOT FACILITY COMPLETE, tiAME # PROTECTION MODIFICATION FOOTtJOTE S/B cot 1PLETE ARKANSAS 1 COMPLETC ARKANSAS 2 COMPLETE

)

BEAVER VALLEY I COMPLCTE BIG ROCK POINT COMPLETE CALVERT CLIFFS 1 COMPLETE

)

CALVERT CLIFFS 2 COMFLETE D.C. COOK 1 COMPLETE F D.C. COOK 2 COMFLETc

- DUANE ARNOL.D COMPLETE FARLEY 1 COMPLETE I

FORT CALHout1 COMPLETE H B FOBINSON 2 COMPLETE i

i INDIAN POff4T 2 COMPLETE h

I INDIAfl POINT 3 COMPLETE LACROSSE COMPLETE MAINE YANKEE COMPLETC s MONTICELLO COMPLETE NINE MILE PT 1 COMPLETE NORTH ANNA 1 COMPLETE OCONEE 1 COMPLETE OCONEE 2 COMPLETE OCONEE 3 COMPLETE PALISADES COMPLETE

P

y. .

Page No. 2 03/04/86 1, 1979 APPENDIX H STATUS FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JAtl.

COMPLETIOtJ STATUS OF FIRE PROTECTIOtl MODIFICATIONS DATE FIRE IF NOT FACILITY COMPLETE, NAME # PROTECTION t10DIF IC AT IOf 4 FOOT f10TE S/B COMPLETE PEACH DOT 70;1 2 COMPLETE PEACH BCTTOM 3 cot 1PLETE FRAIRIE ISLAND 1 COMPLETE h~

FRAIRIE ISLAIJD 2 CO!1PLETE i RAtJCHO SECO COtPLETE COfiFLETE SALEM 1 I ST LUCIE 1 COMFLETE VERiiONT 'tANMEE COMPLETE YANt<EE ROWE cot 1PLETE f

03/31/86 *1 CRYSTAL RIVER 3 f *1 G If jNA 04/00/96 l

06/01/86 *1 EAtl ONOFFE 1

-10/01/86 *1 ii OYSTER CREEK l

11/31/06 51 HATCH 1

  • 1 HATCH 2 11/31/86 i 81 KEWAUNEE 06/30/27 06/30/86 42 OUAD CITIES 1 12/31/06 *2 TURVEY POINT 3 12/31/06 *2 TURKEY POINT 4 06/30/07 *2 DRESDEN 2 06/30/07 *2 DRESDEtt 3 06/30/07 42 OUAD CITIES 2 12/20/08 *2 BROWrJS FERRY 2 04/00/06 86 HADDAM NECK

Pagt tio . 3 03/04/85 TG JAN, 1, 1979 AFPENDIX R STATUC FOR PLANTS LICEt45ED FRIOR COMPLETIOt4 STATUC OF FIRE PROTECTIOt] MODIFICATIO!45 i

DATE FIRE IF NOT FACILITY COliPLETE.

NAt1E t! PROTECTION MOD IF I C AT 10!4 FOOTNOTE S/B COMPLETE 06/30/36 26 TN! 1 11/31'86 46 PILORIM 12/31 -% $6 FOiliT EUf,CH I 12/31/G6 $6 POINT IhEACH 2 3

12/31/87 86 3 MILL 5 TONE 1 12/31/G7 *6 11ILL dTONE 2 12/31/G9 $6 ERUN2WICE 1 06/30/90 #6 g ERUTCUICK 2 06/30/06 87 f40RTH At;NA 2 07/31/06 47 SURRY I 10/30/96 *7 IlON 1 10/30/06 47 ZIOtj 2

} 11/51/96 *7

COOPER STATIOtl I *7 i SURRY 2 12/31/06 i #7 i TROJAtt 12/31/06 08/01/87 $7 FORT ST v'R A l t!

V' DAVIS-EESSE 12/31/09 10/31/06 40

> FIT 7PATRICE 12/20/07 49 DROWiJS FERRY 3 12/20/09 89 PROWNS FERRY 1

- - .= -- --- - . . , - - .. yw

..,..- . . e-

.a - . .

Encl:sure 6 COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS 1979.)

(FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,

7. 67 66 XO +O

_X +

63 N

Tx<-L COMPLETE s' s' '

62 m gny- 3+'g3i w ,

ms .:.m

.w .

v.v.w sw; so- -

v.s v.v .

NOT COMPLETE S ss

.x :>

v  %:$.v$

s. w . .

w:s g. ..-:  :::$.$.

i .q w %.: .s ..

g,.3 :i:':i:  :!:'.:v.'$'

5? .Q+ +w.

s. , .w, ..

W.:

.v.y s .

go. y .

.~.ye k.:v .y s.,$.

.. s.w.

m ,

,y$$. ;x.+< '

vc $. .

i

  1. :$Q:  %'$$ .

m g>$"y$ .s...

0+-

sw wff s.... .

y ,.,, .

e y.. . , . s.v.

h- s N

e..s. s e.

.v "s. h.. .-

+ o:ss. x -

<<.>, +s, F..X,.

40 . . . .v. .v. .N$>.

s e -A r.. .s,. v i.sys. .s y.

.s g. A- . > .y+

s.s; +>t, &,. ~w.v.:-> l s+

,s c>.

sw

>AN v "-

-X.

v=. v..-..v

>v. v.. -

hv=>,

+X* r*+>

.w <+w> '

  • +s> . w<. v..

. I (3:

LaJ g .

%"+ -

. +;

v..

  1. +e-v.

v..

W-

we w.

v,.s,v.-

.w.

CD v.

s.

we, a.. w:.

4x.

. f+ .

y .- 4.

+y+

N.A. .x,.<s. 4.,:v..

.:h ., . .

v. .. .

g.:

w .

. .s .

O h, -'.s. .s,. .

+;. .yw+ +n

'2:

g'h;g w,x+; .

w.-

w.- F.w ...

ss *>

v.. .v.f.

v. v. . ..y e.:. . w, y.. .v.+. e.ys.

20 . y -s 4, -. X s .esh

.yre. .v .

c.v

.~..a

e. . .

e s

.s+.

f.ss e..

.w.

.. ss e.v,

.%s 16 . p+. -

.:.:+ e.:+

+.v c-

..y.

xX-s

.sX-

-. . .v.. .

+-

l:4;v+,.

r.,"v..,-

....v,

<. v .w

.v v.. s.x. .

we v.v v.sv..

v v.. v. ..v. .

v..v. .

10- -

NQ s

- <M we .vQ s v.

, . %".s;

..s.

y;+

>:c. .s -

v.:v v... .,.

s. _4 A.,s..

y.... .,- 3..

.s.:.v

.s.,

4 s. . %w. v; e .. m-,

w.e u- - -

+..

m._..<

g

, w.m.

m.-

f o

.u O

1987 1988 1989 1990 1986 YEARS - . - - - .  :-

-.__-. w.~- - - - ,- -- - -m y .vu-

' ~. - .

. ~ -

.___. _.'.~

Encl:sure 7 COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR APPENDIX R FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS 1979.)

(FOR PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 7o 67 66 m .. wg ~.-

535)yi5 h5 5"" COMPLETE 62

.m.v-h:

- v.

4,3 h 4,-

mn sx

>b

<p

s..

eo. - +,

,6)y.:S NOT COMPLETE

X:"5 F5:4 54
[
y."

,4h. .

34, a 0:8 yv 4:4 v.y m.'"

>:v<

4s

- :p;v.X ss

4,:-:

..y.

2 .-:

x.o:

(.y.

J2;:

so-  :.ix,. .s.

x.v.8~- .. .v.

U U.

8.,58;.y h...!b.y y,ik!8, ,Ih

,;.y- .

v.v v.y- v .y< ,.v v.,, v.,

.+-- s. v.s.; v. -+.s.,. +s .- --

- +.y, v.

.s y-v,h v.v v v".^y ,

vs< y ."M n m.. y#Ay's X.,"4,

" ,X:".

.-;4.,

--s X,4,

> X ,:

-y.+.

,s. ..... s. . .

+;+ ,<,,.,. .

La A. ',v.)'f^.  ;+;.

o --

. ~

s v, sy ,, v...,~,.- ..h s<y

- . y,> v.. <, , p+v.-

s .

v.v s..y, y sy.- v,,a. , y..,v.

m g. sy ,,s.,s . ,y . ...,. .."

. .v. ,..

</..y, ., < :p-s  :

<< h,

'I p .. s. v 4...-:-:-

s.

< ,.X.

z -

.- ,m.y;.

,s, . .s; .-

,4.^".<

v,., <. . .. -, - ,

s v.,. . . .

.> <o,,,

.,y

~...

8. s,.y:3, 3. .:,S, x:5 .

so--  : '4 4 :23

. s y. . . .

+,y,

,. .y, ss,-,

<v, y+s-

<v..,

s,,. .

. ,. .~

.v.

v..v. .

v ,

.s. v.

. . , ... v,

+.v. .  ;

... 33 . ..

><:.!.$ <:32,. 0. ,.:-$. .> ..

$.i:

..i.h S,

,. . s,. s

. ...s v. .

sv. ..v-.v. .v to - ,. s

  1. <p, s s

s . . .s

+:+  :+:.

+,: s s

34,.-. .

s... . . . .. .. . .

v.v 4 s.

v.vv vh y .- -

X ; "+X v$X hX  :+X -

+

<->> -MO +:+ v.. .. O 4"p, s

A sv. _._.- . m...s-

. ., sv.

m ..- 1 .

o 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 YEARS _-_

- = " - - ' - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _

/  %, UNITED STATES E g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 FDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL l

FROM: DUE: 03/07/86 EDO CONTROL: 001453 DOC DT: 0?/20/86 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE FINAL. RFPLY:

TO:

STELLO

/ FOR SIGNATURE OF: ** PRIORITY ** SECY NO:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC: ROUTINQ:

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION STELLO OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 (SECY-85-306) ROE REHM DATE: (2/24/86 A'iSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACTt DFNTftN d

P SNIEZEK MINOGUE TAYLOR GCUNNINGHAM 3 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS: p p

NRR RECElVED: 2/24/86 ,,

ACTION: J85LWRNElIO ye '

NRR ROUTING: DENTON/EISENHUT PPAS h MOSSBURG h

b a

, y e

{ .*[- <

g.

(h k'

Pb ,

P=

  • r .-

/ *g UNITED STATES

! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ $ WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000s

%, February 20, 1986

..s . s commissioNan MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM: James K. Asselstine -

SUBJECT:

SECV-85-306 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLFFFMTATI0ft OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 In the attached vote sheet, Comissioner Zech states that he bes been told that many licensees have taken advantage of the new interpretations contained in SECY-85-306 and that they have used them to develcp their fire protection programs. I would appreciate learning which licensees are already using the "new interpretations." I would also like to know how any such use of the new interpretations will affect the compliance schedules contained in the EDO memorandum to the Commission dated Decerter 26, 1985 regarding the status of implementation of Appendix R.

Finally, I would like to know how such use is consistent with repeated assurarccs by the staff that all fire protection SERs, including those for plants licensed after January 1,1979, have been based on Generic Letter 83-33 or the existing Branch Technical Position.

1 cc: Chairnan Palladino Comissioner Roberts Rec'd off. roo .

Comissioner Bernthal Date. . . ? .-- A 9 -f 6 ~

issioner Zech Time. .. . ,g g{]

OGC SECY

  1. [

EDO - - 0016 3

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

NOTATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ZECH

SUBJECT:

SECY-85-306 - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPENDIX R TO 10 CFR 50 APPROVED X (w/coments). DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:

See attached coments.

W

  • uwnaw u YES NO Entered on "AS" M / /

SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80

i

  • l l

Commissioner Zech's comments on SECY 85-306 It is clear from the history associated with Appendix R that there has been considerable confusion in the industry, and to some extent the ctaff, on the exact meaning of all the fire protection requirements. i Generic letters have been issued; task forces, workshops, and i training sessions have been conducted; inspections have been -

completed; and, differing professional opinions have been submitted i cnd resolved. Many of these past actions became part of a cooperative offort between the staff and industry to resolve the outstanding Appendix R issues. The result of this effort is the Generic Letter, '

interpretations, and question and answer documents proposed by the ctaff in SECY-85-306. I believe these documents will help clarify and cxpedite. final implementation of the fire pror.ection requirements.  !

Consequently, subject to the recommendations for improvement made by l OGC in its October 24, 1985 memo, I approve publication of the generic  !

letter. j t

I do not agree with several of the points raised by Commissioner 1 Asselstine in C0K7A-86-4. I do not believe that the staff's approach, l will, in the sad, make it more difficult for a fire protection inspector to conduct his job. Eventually, all fire protection program l requirements should be contained in the plant's FSAR which will i provide a solid starting point to determine a . plant's compliance with l Appendix R. The proposed Generic Letter clearly states the

  • documentation that will be required and expected by the NRC concerning  !

licensee evaluations. In addition, this documentation is required to be readily retrievable.

I also believe that across the board, the nuclear industry, when  !

compared to other industries, is required to install and implement one  !

of the most rigorous and demanding fire protection programs in the (

country. Although there may be a few individual definitions or l interpraations that can be debated as to whether or not they meet i l

generally accepted industry codes, the overall program that the NRC requires is clearly above average. The proposed Generic Letter may f allow a licenses to make some changes to its fire protection program i via the 50.59 process, but it also states that any changes made to the l fire protection program that may adversely affect the plant's ability '

to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire would I otill need prior NRC approval. Consequently, we maintain control of major changes and continue to fulfill our responsibility to protect  !

the public health and safety.

As a separate matter, I do not share my colleague's concern over the i technical adequacy of the proposed documents. The staff has spent considerable time conducting analyses and developing these documents for the precise purpose of providing guidance on acceptable technical 1 cnd procedural responses. Although some DPOs were submitted, I an informed that the concerned individuals are not appealing the agency ,

resolution of those DPOs. l With regard to the " analysis" provided by the EDO to Commissioner l Asselstine on November 18, 1985, it is my impression that the EDO did not intend this to be a backfit analysis. It is my understanding that i ctaff determined that these interpretations which, if a licensee so

-'wea- - c-wew wom e _ _m_ pc

c

r. ..  ?- , . ... .. . ..
  • [: oo:00 to 1 plement th00, cro 1cco rOctrictivo then current requirements, and therefore a backfit analysis is not required.

However, the EDO did discuss some of the backfit considerations in order to provide the Commission information. I would certainly agree with Commissioner Asselstine that if this analysis was supposed to suffice as a backfit analysis, it would require significant improvement.

I agree that the proposed fire protection enforcement policy needs come improvement. It does not seen appropriate that the NRC should be restricted to only a severity III, IV or V violation unless there was en actual fire. After reviewing the reactor operation requirements in cur enforcement policy, it seems that existing enforcement policy guidance for a severity level one violation would require an actual concurrent fire, but not for a severity level two violation. The proposed fire protection regulations require an actual concurrent fire before either a severity level I or II violation can be imposed. I do not see why the fire protection regulations need to be more restrictive in this regard than the general enforcement policy.

Consequently, for purposes of the fire protection enforcement policy, I recommend that the staff propose additional and/or different guidance on when a severity level two violation is appropriate.

Lastly, I believe that the information contained in SECY-85-306 is, .

for.the most part, already widely known throughout the industry as a result of the training sessions, workshops, and other staff interactions. Consequently, I am told that many licensees have taken cdvantage of this information and used it to develop their fire protection programs. As a result, this information will be' applied by and benefit more than just those few plants who have not yet fully implemented Appendix R.

.