Skip to main content

NRC’s Blog on Fire Protection at US Nuclear Plants

By

There’s been a lot of confusion and misinterpretation over the past week in the media about how US nuclear plants meet fire protection regulations. NRC’s Director of Public Affairs, Eliot Brenner, posted a piece over the weekend clearing it up:

Let’s start with the bottom line — every U.S. nuclear power plant complies with the relevant NRC requirements for protecting its reactor from fire hazards. There may be confusion over the “exemptions” sometimes issued to some plants under the NRC’s least flexible fire protection approach, called Appendix R.

Appendix R is effectively a one-size-fits-all approach for plants that are in fact custom-built projects. Newer plants tend to be built closer to Appendix R requirements, while older plants are more likely to have difficulty meeting the goals.

The NRC knew from the start that the appendix wouldn’t apply to every part of every plant, so plants were going to apply for exemptions where Appendix R didn’t make sense. The NRC has a well-established process for reviewing exemption requests, which must have solid technical support in order to get approved. The federal court covering southern New York recently upheld the agency’s process — in fact, the court’s ruling even noted the NRC rejects exemption requests if they’re not justified.

You can see an everyday example of exemptions at the DMV, when it comes to having “acceptable vision” for a drivers license exam. Since not everyone’s vision falls in the acceptable range, DMV regulations allow people to wear glasses or contacts. This can be considered an “exemption” from uncorrected vision requirements that’s still acceptable and compliant with the law.

Even if a plant has exemptions from parts of Appendix R, the NRC is satisfied that plant has an appropriate overall fire protection program.

…

Bottom line? The fix for an exemption or a compensatory measure has to be safe. Otherwise it won’t fly with the NRC.

There's more I left out so be sure to stop by and see the rest.
Labels:

Comments

Sam The Fire Protection Man said…
Safety issues in the nuclear industry have been blown way out of proportion and this post puts a valued sense of realism on the subject. There's always a risk of fire, but as long as it's suitably risk assessed and managed properly then we're all safe. The NRC are doing enough to ensure that.
September 12, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more