ML20112E880
| ML20112E880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1985 |
| From: | Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton, Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-85-01, GL-85-1, NUDOCS 8503270230 | |
| Download: ML20112E880 (3) | |
Text
y_
l%sccasin Electnc m cown 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 March 18, 1985 Mr.
H. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. H. Thompson, Director Division of Licensing Gentlemen DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 GENERIC LETTER NO.'85-01 FIRE PROTECTION POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE REPORT POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Generic Letter 85-01 forwarded to all licensees a
" Fire Protection Policy Steering Committee Report".
The letter stated that a notice would be published in the Federal Register providing an opportunity for public comments on this report.
Although this letter was dated January 9, 1985, Wisconsin Electric did not obtain a copy of this report until February 14, 1985. and then only after requesting a copy of the report from our NRC Project Manager.
This is the second recent occasion in which Division of Licensing correspondence has been received well after the correspondence date (Generic Letter 84-24 was received three weeks after it was dated), and suggests that it may be appropriate for you to review the distribution process for this type of correspondence.
Although the Federal Register comment period expired the day after we received this report, we have prepared several comments and trust that you may be able to give these comments some consideration.
The comments are listed by reference to the enclosure to the report. - Proposed Generic Letter on Fire Protection A.
Schedular Exemptions The letter proposed that no further extensions to the schedules in 10 CFR 50.48 (c) be granted.
The apparer.t intent of this proposal is to get the licensee's attention BBA *I888R 8188 %
h i
F PDR g ()
i
- s a
a
-Mr. H. R. Denton March 18.:1985 i.
and to attempt to force bnplementation of Appendix R b-requirements no matter what~the cost or consequences.
This is unsatisfactory since unavoidable delays.in equipment delivery and installation do occur.
Allowing no schedular extensions will force the NRC into enforcement action, even
'in.those cases where a delay is unavoidable or is not the fault ofLthe licensee.
Schedular extensions should be available i
if the extension request meets certain requirements, such as a
. stipulation that the' delay is not the fault of licensee-and that the delay was unavoidable.. One method of. extension is E
-through the granting of an. exemption under 10 CFR 50.12.
Additionally, NRC schedular estimates are frequently underestimated.
,This is readily apparent in the NRC's post-TMI requirements (NUREG-0737) and especially in the requirements of Appendix R i
itself.
Therefore, schedular exemptions should be available.
B.
Revised ~ Inspection Program t-F The NRC proposes to inspect at least one site in 1983 for each licensee who has not-had an Appendix R inspection.
This stepped-up inspection program is intended to expedite compliance
-verification and to provide the NRC staff with earlier indication of problems associated with implementation of
[
fire protection features.
The scope of these inspections-should be strictly limited to only Appendix R implementation.
An expanded review, including 10 CFR 50 Appendix A compliance and commitments and the fire protection program in general, would further confuse the Appendix R issue and would not meet the intent of the stepped-up inspections.
An inspection of a licensee's overall' fire protection. program should be conducted only'after Appendix R bnplementation is complete.
I These inspections should be conducted as a working meeting between the inspection team and the licensee..The threat of enforcement actions should not be used, especially.considering the fact that Appendix REguidance has varied significantly and the fact that many licensees have not fully implemented-their Appendix R' program because of delays in the NRC' approval of
-licensee proposals.- ~ We have experienced problems in the past t
7 in communicating with the NRC staff regarding Appendix R.
These problems have resulted in considerable waste of time and~ engineering effort.
As an example, our initial meeting with the NRC staff for resolution of our Appendix R exemption requests-occurred in March 1983.
Twenty months later, in i
December 1984, another meeting was held at which issues which we thought were resolved in 1983 were resurrected,. reassessed, 3
and determined by members of the NRC staff to still be open items.
Because of this history of divergence in guidance and inter-l j
pretation, enforcement actions would seem to be inappropriate until after final Appendix R program approval has been i
issued and the full program implemented.
4
Mr.lH..R. Denton -March 18, 1985 Encl'osure 4 - Guidance for Enforcement Actions 2.
Severety Categories-c.
Severity III This section states that failure to have available a written evaluation of an area which does not readily demonstrate Appendix R complian:a is automatically a Severity III violation.
This " guilty until proven innocent" concept would emphasize quality of commu-I nication rather than quality of engineering.
Since that. approach is contrary to the cooperative spirit L-normally espoused by the NRC and would not necessarily
' improve the degree of fire protection, we recommend it be deleted.
e
-Enclosure 5 - Fire Protection License Condition-i The enclosure proposes a fire protection license condition.
Such a license condition is.not required.
Licensees are already committed to operate their plants consistent with the statement of this license condition.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
[ [G/
Vice President-Nuclear Power C. W. Fay copies to Secretary of'the Commission NRC Resident. Inspector
.