ML20211J350
| ML20211J350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/02/1985 |
| From: | Gray J NRC |
| To: | Black S NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D558 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-274 NUDOCS 8606260323 | |
| Download: ML20211J350 (2) | |
Text
c : .. - -
3sll 6hield Ikz 85 i
~
Note to: S. Black
- From: J. Gray
SUBJECT:
MODIFIED FIRE PROTECTION LICENSE CONDITION You have asked for comments on some proposed modifications to the standard fire protection license condition which we insert in nearly all new OLs.
The proposed modifications would (1) delete references to specific FSAR versions identifying the fire protection program actually approved and (2) add a provision which explicitly defines what must be analyzed to determine whether a change to the fire protection program involves an unreviewed ::afety question under 10 CFR 6 50.59. My comments follow:
(1) The apparer.t purpose of deleting reference to a specific version of the FSAR which defines the actually approved fire ,-
protection program is to make it clear that the licensee is free to modify the approved plan in the manner authorized by the regulations and parts (b) and (c) of the fire protection license condition. You need not delete the specific FSAR revision to do this, however, since the words " subject to provisions (b) and (c) below" make it clear that the licensee is required to maintain and implement the actually-approved fire protection program as permissibly modified. The current language, which references a specific FSAR version, does not preclude changes to the fire protection program. (Moreover, you propose to retain the reference to the fire protection program "as approved in the SER through Supplement No. X" and this defines the specific, actually-approved fire protection program just as effectively as the reference to a specific
, FSARversion). In short, I don't see that deletion of reference to a specific FSAR version is necessary or serves any purpose.
(2) By the proposed addition to part (c)(1) of the license condition, you would define the manner in which the licensee is to determine whether a proposed change to the fire pro-tection program involves an unreviewed safety question under 10 CFR 50.59. Although you can, through a license condition, impose additional requirements on the licensee, you cannot ,
relieve him from explicit requirements of the regulations '
without granting an exemption. The proposed modification to condition (c)(1) could be interpreted as an attempt to do just that. Specifically, in stating 8606260323 860619 PDR FOIA GARDE 86-274 PDR D
FM86W1 <
l33 --_- - - - _ - - . _ _ . . _ . - -
N -
1
. y. .
-2
"[f]or the fire protection program, the determination of the involvement of an unreviewed safety question defined in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) would be based on the.
' accident . . . previously evaluated' being the fire hazards and potential consequences for the fire area affected by the change . . .,"
the proposed condition might be read as limiting the licensee's unreviewed safety question analysis for a fire protection program change to an analysis of whether the program change would increase fire hazards or the consequences of a fire in the area affected by the change. 10 CFR 50.59 requires more. You can, of course, require that the licensee's 10 CFR 50.54 analysis include, among other things, a consideration as to whether the program change " increases fire hazards or potential consequences for the fire area affected" but there should be no indication that the unreviewed safety question analysis is limited to that.
I understand that there is a generic letter currently being prepared which will suggest that for purposes of fise :
protection changes under 10 CFR 50.59, licensees should consider, among other things, changes to the five protection hazards analysis. This would avoid the problem which I note in your proposed license condition (c)(1) and also avoid the situation where one license will look different than all the others. Rather than modify condition (c)(i) as you suggest, you should rely on the generic letter to tell licensees what their 10 CFR 50.59 analysis for five protection changes should include.
. Gray cc: J. Scinto W. Shields s
._. . __