VR-SECY-19-0071, - Denial of Petition for Rulemaking on Fire Protection Compensatory Measures (PRM-50-115; NRC-2017-0132)
| ML20056E508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/10/2020 |
| From: | Jeff Baran, Annette Vietti-Cook NRC/OCM/JMB, NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| Schumann S | |
| References | |
| NRC-2017-0132, PRM-50-115, SECY-19-0071 VR-SECY-19-0071 | |
| Download: ML20056E508 (3) | |
Text
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: Commissioner Baran
SUBJECT:
SECY-19-0071 - Denial of Petition for Rulemaking on Fire Protection Compensatory Measures(PRM 115; NRC-2017-0132)
Approved Disapproved X Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS: Below Attached X None Entered in "STARS" Yes X suture" No DATE
Commissioner Barans Comments on SECY-19-0071, Denial of Petition for Rulemaking on Fire Protection Compensatory Measures NRC regulations require nuclear power plant licensees to have a fire protection plan that meets specified criteria. Compliance with the fire protection plan is a condition of the plants operating license. Alternatively, a plant can voluntarily transition to a license condition that requires the plants fire protection plan to the meet the risk-informed provisions of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805. If a plant cannot meet the particular requirements of its fire protection plan, it must temporarily implement fire protection compensatory measures, such as the use of fire watches, surveillance cameras, or backup fire suppression equipment.
Site-specific compensatory measures are included in a plants NRC-approved fire protection plan, and compliance with the plan is mandatory.
The Union of Concerned Scientists and Beyond Nuclear submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NRC issue a rule to (1) define which fire protection compensatory measures are permitted and under what conditions and (2) establish a maximum duration that compensatory measures may be relied upon. The NRC staff recommends denying the petition.
The staff correctly points out that the compensatory measures allowed at a given site and the circumstances under which they would be used are laid out in the sites fire protection plan, which is approved by NRC and legally binding. I believe this element of the petition is adequately addressed by the existing regulatory framework.
However, there are strong reasons to proceed with a focused rulemaking to require a time limit on the use of compensatory measures to be included in a licensees fire protection plan.
There is no question that fire protection in nuclear power plants is safety significant. For the subset of plants that have transitioned to NFPA 805 and provided core damage frequency information to NRC, fire risk accounts for between 35% and 90% of the total core damage frequency of the plant. In other words, at some plants, the risk of fire is the single greatest internal plant risk.
A significant number of plants have relied on compensatory measures for extended periods of time. The petition points to Browns Ferry, which had fire protection compensatory measures in place for decades. This may be an extreme case. But according to the NRC staff, there are 46 units that have transitioned or are transitioning to NFPA 805 that have had compensatory measures in place for longer than 18 months. The staff does not know the full extent of the reliance on long-term compensatory measures because licensees are not required to submit this information.
The staff acknowledges that compensatory measures that were meant to be temporary have often been in place for extended periods of time and that this is not ideal. But the staffs position is that this long-term dependence on compensatory measures does not introduce a safety concern. Of course, NRC established specific requirements for fire protection plans by regulation in order to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. If the compensatory measures being relied on year after year at nuclear power plants across the country were the best way to protect against fires, those measures would presumably have been included in the 1980 regulation or NFPA 805. That they were not clearly indicates that these measures are not the best way to protect against the risk of fires at nuclear power plants.
I can think of no good reason to refuse to establish a time limit on the reliance on compensatory 1
measures. It is perfectly reasonable for NRC to expect nuclear power plants to meet regulatory requirements that have been in effect for many years. I agree with the staff that [e]mploying appropriate compensatory measures on a short-term basis is an integral part of the NRC-approved fire protection program. But indefinite, multi-year (or even multi-decade) reliance on compensatory measures is not the right way to protect nuclear power plants from fires.
For these reasons, I disapprove the NRC staffs recommendation to deny the petition for rulemaking. The staff should re-draft the Federal Register notice to grant the petition with respect to the request to define the maximum period of time that a nuclear power reactor can rely on compensatory measures. Instead of setting a generic time limit for each potential compensatory measure in a regulation, the rulemaking should require licensees to include site-specific time limits for each compensatory measure in their fire protection plans. These proposed time limits would be subject to NRC review and approval. The staff should provide a rulemaking plan to the Commission within six months.
2