ML20132C659

Responds to 841026 Memo Re Fire Protection Policy Steering Committee Recommendations.List of Questions & Plan of Action Presented

ML20132C659
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/10/1984
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Harold Denton, Deyoung R, Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20132C663	List: ML20132C659 ML20133F578
References
RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 NUDOCS 8501280088
Download: ML20132C659 (8)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. , to / nclosure 5 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ 3, seassueesTon, p. c. sosas s .I.) DEC 101984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., DEDROGR Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR Richard C. DeYoung. Director. IE FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Opera,ti,o,ns $UBJECT: FIRE PROTECTION POLICY STEERING COMITTEE REcomENDATIONS In a memorandum dated October 26, 1g84, the Fire Protection Policy Steering Consnittee provided me with their recomended actions on the fire protection policy and program. Comunents on these reconsnendations have been received from the appropriate program and regional offices. The individual cousnents are enclosed. These consnents, although generally supportive of the Steering Cousnittee's work, raise a number of serious questions which need to be answered before we can proceed to the Consnission on this matter. They are: 1. Are all the recomunendations technically justified from the safety standpoint? 2. Are the resource estimates correct? 3. How will the inspection program be impacted to the extent that resources will_be diverted from other activities? 4. Considering the current status of fire protection capability at, operating plants, does the current risk dictate the reprogresseing of inspection resources for fire protection inspection? 5. Is the magnitude of the safety problem consnensurate with the proposed actions; e.g., no further schedular exemptions? 6. Should the revised interpretations and questions and answers be issued and what impact will they have on the overall program? 7. Do the recessnendations go beyond what the Consnission intended in promulgating Appendix R7 In light of the above I have decided to proceed in the following way: i 1. The Director NRR, should release the report of. the Steering Consnittee to the PDR and invite consnent by interested parties. Cosssents should be V analyzed 'ay NRR with assistance from IE and ELD as needed. This analysis should be provided as part of a Consnission paper. m j.AT b-

2 2. The Director NRR, should provide a quantitative estimate of the public risk associated with fire from operating plants based on their current status; i.e., incomplete compliance with Appendix R. This estimate should be based on your review of pertinent existing PRAs that p have been reviewed by NRC. The R0GR staff should be kept infomed of progress in this area. This estimate and associated ba:is should be provided in the Comission paper. I 3. The Director, IE, should provide an evaluation of the reprogramming of inspection activities that will be necessary in order to implement the Steering Comittee's recomendations regarding inspection. Inspection activities to be reprogrammed shall be identified and a basis provided. v This report shall be provided to NRR for the Comission paper and shall be i J consistent with the results of Task 2. 4. The Director, NRR, with assistance from the Directors of IE and ELD should prepare a Comission paper that addresses the activities to date and provides specific recomendations for Commission approval. That paper should address the specific questions identified above. Target date for providing the paper to the CRGR for review is February 1,1985. l hshould review the proposed Comission paper, address each of the i above questions, and make specific recomendations to me not later than 30 days after receipt from NRR. I ex~pect appropriate management representatives from NRR, IE and the Steering Comittee to attend the CRGR meetings on this issue to respond to 4 CRGR questions. M EBaciLB'sks J William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

As stated cc: R. Minogue G. Cunningham Regional Administrators Distribution Jconran JRoe WKane TRehm JSnierek VStello WDircks 4 ED0 rf DEDR0GR cf Central File OFL :DEDROGR

D R

DEDROGR

EDO f :

e 4 k

VStello

WD rc s NAME :WKane

JS DATE :12/3/84

12/ /84

12/ /84

12//d/84

.. to CRGR Briefing on Fire Protection The Committee was briefed by NRR (W. Johnston) on matters addressed in the proposed Fire Protection Guidance Package now scheduled for full review by CRGR at Meeting No. 79 on July 24, 1985. The package being discussed was that submitted by NRR to the EDO by memorandum dated June 24,1985, Denton to Dircks; that material was in turn distributed to CRGR menbers by memorandum dated 7 fy 25,1985, Stello to Bernero, et al. No additional briefing material was provided to the Comittee in connection with this briefing. The issues involved in completing implementation of the Appendix R rule regarding Fire Protection programs at operating reactors are long standing; and the Fire Protection Guidance Package that has been submitted for EDO office-level consideration now reflects a complex chronology of evolution over several years. This briefing was scheduled, therefore, in advance of final review by CRGR, to clarify any points or details identified by the Comittee in its review of that material to date, and hopefully to better focus the presentations and discussions regarding the proposed Fire Protection guidance package at Meeting No. 79. ~ The principal points developed in the discussions at this briefing were as follows: The staff's position is that the new Fire Protection Guidance Package 1. addresses procedural changes and clarifications of interpretations of existing requirements that do not result in imposition of new requirements on ifcensees. Accordingly, NRR believes that the package would not necessarily require CRGR review. It was noted in this context, that the EDO has indicated (in a memo dated 12/10/84 Dircks to Stello/Denton/DeYoung) that the Comission Paper involved should be reviewed by the Comittee; but it was also recognized that, with the passage of time and the turn of events since then (including extensive consideration by a senior management review team appointed by EDO), review by CRGR may no longer be considered necessary. The staff emphasized that the proposed Fire Protection Tech Specs, which 2. were considered by the Fire Protection Steering Group in their review of the new Fire Protection Guidance documents included in this package, are not now included in the package being considered by CRGR. The proposed Tech Specs involved are being further reviewed / developed in conjunction with the broader Tech Spec review and improvement efforts now underway separately within NRR. They will be submitted for CRGR review later, as appropriate. NRR has not prepared a cost-benefit analysis in connection with this Fire 3. Protection Guidance Package, because no new requirements are proposed / imposed or need justification. The NRR view is that this

2- = l guidance package only reflects an attempt to expedite implementation of 1 actions already specified or agreed to by the Comission, 4 Much discussion focused on the proposed Standard (Fire Protection) License Condition. The staff believes that it is necessary to put existing Fire Protection Program comitments into a more binding fom for some licensees, as part of an overall effort to better control / monitor changes made to previously approved Fire Protection system features or configurations. The staff also believes that it is appropriate to have all licensees on an equal footing with regard to documentation of plant-specific Fire Protection comitments (i.e., in the license condition fomat already specified by the Commission for the more recently licensed plants). The CRGR view was that the proposed Standard License Condition would, in 4 effect, make legal requirements out of what have previously been recognized as comitments to guidance (in effect elevating gJidance to the stature of a regulation or other such legal requirement). The proposed license condition does, therefore, involve new requirements (although, as proposed by the staff, the new legal requirements involved would not be imposed, but would be accepted voluntarily in response to " encouragement" by the Comission). The Committee felt, therefore, that the proposed license condition was inconsistent with the suggestion that CRGR review objectives in proposing the Standard (Fire Protection)g the staff's stated was not really required. Alternative ways of achievin License Condition for all licensees were discussed. One alternative mentioned was for staff to identify the Fire Protection Program features over which the staff thought it necessary to exert improved control / monitoring, and to make Tech Spec items of those features. The discussions on this point at this briefing were inconclusive; but this topic area was identified as a principal area for further treatment in CRGR Meeting No. 79 scheduled for i July 24, 1985, i a l l

s4.&W....$:. :... f@?.g.:;;... - ,,: 5

2..

A.:c.... %~-:,'. - f...:

.: j:.p'OM. qW.4_, m-

~~ a ,s.; .. : n.. .v ' n.v.. :., 2 *.5m@g$+N$hd~p...

• Mc : =~sH;

--:w ac r u.

:d.%2;.'. rx-' Nk

.+< x-vd syur .h:c... ..~,h'-=f85k;**'.'/m. T e_ ^ wmR. r. ': m : J, ~': 9 ..c+ i !.,.c. d,.. d*:P. 4.'*3y.. M to "Y A it.-? 5*.8H:. C k*..',*.';[' a*4 () f

• I 1.?. ;ii ?

!.1 2 W .b'! q j %'[. $.F:1

• 2

1 Notieer This opiales is sub to sesent swissen nefuse pisthetssa la the Fe$ erst neporter er D

.D.C. Usere ese seemssted !f - 4*; ~ to astify the Qark of nor sneenal errore in that assieseless may be 88:. < I ,a Mif-d g t' sK

W mass betere abs bound vetenas go to pseas.

s..s mnen erat,3 mont a%e.C03ft OI App 0815 M 3 Q. y' dim 55 T.a;aM 1 r .i gi rom Tss mastsier er coccars A sacss m en: eemanon.m g;&, y k'g, ' HLED MARi 6 3 2 .'N, No.811050 6a 3:- '"' C*""'**"'3M5it5iki'hswan g gj, j v. I M 7 NocLaAa RacULATonf Coaruussow,asurowsENT % r...,r q-% CAmoLINA Pows AND Iaout CourANY, n TsaVEN0m j;M). .h% 6.y 25.>: 5 f.gg.v.e }c. :c n: 4. M., il Petition for Review of an Order etthe .J.J.dM'i NuclearRegulatory Connadssion y;,, ' [&g, Yh'r ..v e ?.y "Es[i .i ..E E Argued January 29,1982 i i Decided March 16,1982 l h A [ 2 y a /smes NisAsd WeGarry, RI, with whosa NaNetu 1 7 WatWne 11 was en the brief for appeDant, and entered G e .i 4 appearanone for fatarvener. l,' . >.?.re*. KAelden I,. Fjaksich, Attorney, Noelear Regulatory I 4 ..f... N Q.

f. F,.' * ;

Ceauaission, with whosa done K. Ainig and Martin Green, Y".' e,ggg' Attorneys, Department et Jaeties, and 38ephen F. EG- ! h. 3.,T hf perin, Bolicitor, Nuclear Regulatory th=t=i=, woes en e tr-{, the brief for respondent. Rarvey J. Kneshusen and G. J'Isid .Soussert, Ill, also on, tared appearances for acependent. a-C 4. y,.9G - I'4. '.g's e 3 .s t m.,s,ees.t b,e.med weihin.34 d.er.e e.ne.r. enter, e.t suda.m.en,t. 'the es et esses e e. e. ..em . r. S..

4..

e W { t j.s + 3 '? Wh, . ~.c... .. -2.- y.em.e. p ss i.4. 4 - np: n k, '. * * i...'. ~ 1:

.:.b .;9,.n.:.5%: ?&"Q.e..ff72RQ)iMf:n. .':~i,C:

.% %2 E

.: W.b.9 h.% m .%f&.e T." Mrc m::. l. -p; .;q. 4X ~f.Q .. :..k 2 8:.gr.:.; .t p ':. :t :- rp. 8 f,l '/.iI;; - J A S. $. 75 plants.* The Comadesion, however, concluded that only i:E .C ,jf.; :. b.'t an ou onllection system oonld sufBelently protect the cool-jk ant pump lubricant been Art. The Anal ruk, therefore, yg 2 j stipulates only one snethod for pra*dag the lubrication f:Ah -( h,,:p,* r ou: an ou sonection system.10 C.F.R. I 50, App. R, y m.M. III.O (1980). 3p,. ; we. q. SJ M This rule-maldag feDowed an extensive process of plant V.i l i i 4 ,ijC by plant evaluations that had enhainated in NRC staf 7;7N 1*l approval of entire are protection programs at manyilu-pir$4.1 i clear power plants and of important portions of such JUtM e 1 programs at others. Even so,'the original nation of pro. .Q V e a^-.' posed rule-Mas anstained no indlestion of whether n r l g plants would be required to alter approved features to g 2 Y. g. 4 s. JN-E eamply with the new tiana. 'Ine Anal rule spectaed -. f g that most of the parti q _" -- =^ would not be in-vg Qp posed upon plants that had aseelved staf approval af $4.6 features before the efective date of the new rela.10 f.'4.yR. b, i-T.M. ' 'f;; r i C.F.R. I 50.d8(b) (1980). Three partienlar require-M ments, however, were to be applied to aB suelear plants ..~.'7L, o c. W. '#7Q.:1 operating before January 1,1979, regardless of whether ! 4M.'M*. ..;'.{? f t.?:U.'t. M'O they had reesived staf approval of these aspects of their

I

.. A.. - are protection program. Ed. These include the portions .p ;$' jQ.d 'T f.f. W of the are iw.f euen program abaBenged here: the stand-ards for protecting duplicate and alternative safe shut. M i;D;.r. Yi-down espaelty and the method for protecting the reactor { ecolant pumpinbricant.' g i ithin w 4 An enample is the Rebiamen 3 unit. evned by Carolina r. ( Power & IJaht . Carettaa Power and IJsht is an .,. ? ] tuterrenor in this la

t. Its heist explaims in great detail

4..$*

14 ,.;g;;.GT"p.*; / 9 how the Are protestien program as hally adopted by the NRC -?' ".. W: ts to make changes beyond these may require operatingpdirection of NRC stag dering the n-already undertaken at plant by plant evelaation presses. . &.. -mM ; g; l t ehanensed here. to c.r.m. e so.de(b)Mghting regoiressent not7. ige 7 i s'Iber aise inelade an ___. n 4./;. 4ffj;i. p . App.R,Izza <teso). Q.. .p.y G ...y. s... u z 4, .. rtiu . * =- Pr';,6 ;%:, n% f .$.n';.5,ec..M d v.s. i ..c i w Sm, mL

$;.!. D~.Y.a..[gfE. [e. m M lkN N :.y c.:)b' h.Q.; h:..;. N hk'

I i

n-

.wg$ya.v.g.. 2gya.9 3..u v..,,v:.:.... ; - .o .y . a,9. a. .~w:a.m.. 7. a. . e: - - -~ -..

.y,,,. 9l't .':" l..

h. '.

h x:., u e+. : n ~ - Lu w w'= ,- v.g 9 u "r ':'- jfe,w::., 4 e. '..e* 2

s. a.

. ~: a .. c.. *... <+ .:.4.

Mfj

-k 4..?Ge 3 l v O... '.

g,-

v.y.:.c i.

3...r i

..u-: f; [ M.~ ~ ~ afective date, licensees vers' alkmed to apply _for exemp- .,(:A g, ineiud"g"tbrW tE .5. ' I ~ et prior staff approval et protection systeins that did not

• -C.

r 1 ' ;1.' eonfona to the new rules. Ed. l .g_ _ q 1. tation of the new rules is.n.a, e ,.7 W /. senon an me exempaan neuest. Id. Ezanptions are to t .,N Wsredrey sne com_untasion upon a shering by the' M lieanese that the required plant medlSeation *Nrould not ' , M7,.y. y.'. P < enhance Are protection safety in the faellity er that,uch q,,,, a s i ~ modi 8estions may be detrissental to everaD daellity I L l'..y .. # 5', safety." Id. Apparently a number of such esemption i s gj 2'. 6'f. ;.# requests were Aled within the time provided and are now I .;7 under eensideration by the NRC. W '1 ' "" = by the [

3 h

NRC en the mnHaa remests em - a->ves na sub-9, (' ~ U.s. s m 0975). 2 M:~. II. Tsz AnequAcir or Tsz Norscs or Psorcezo i 3 . &.d RULs. L Ento ., Lag" p a'8.,.a*..8 f A. DWmm of W FmWes! Seek for fAe Prepmed hy, %:.).eQ Ruhs. The AAminke,ative Pneedure Act nquires an .,1 9[:; s,y.gf. ipA agency enga8ed in informal role-making to publish a j. i,p,. 4 notice et proposed raloanaking in the Federal Register 9s that includes *'either the tenas er abstanee of the pro-eyw:. - posed rule er a description et the abjects and lesnes i.J R.' ~

• tavolved." 5 UA.C.1558(b)(5) (1976). thama* Hat i< T

1. j Light's most serious complaint about the acties of pro-

ll ?[

h posed rulesnaking here is that it faded to indicate or

r. $

explain the technical basis en which the Canadeelen had 1 t relied in asleeting the propeesd rules. t The purpose.et the assunset period is to aBow fater. ?

.: '/

ested members et the public to assunuaiente infennation, bi $ eencarns, and critleians to the agency durfar the rule. l i,:- ef

,3 e( %g

' ' " c. -f

==Ma-process. If the acties of proposed rule.eeking falls to provide as seenrate picture of the reasoning that r r has led the agency to the proposed rule, interested parties l.' .wiB mot be able to emmnant ameaningfully upon the 4 I. ;'. ': .n w e *. he. M.q.

a. 2.

$.P.

..i ;.

'.v '],,,T,4.: a i 1 .V ~ 42 j pg. - s Skkh k f$ r.:,.. c :..=.. ::.:,..,..y.9 v.;.~..~t.p%. ut.L...W: b::.~.t. b.+. ~.m.. $ N ^ -2 ^' :" -~ ' i.'.

.; u,;%ipt.w.

.< :t;::,V &.'.. VK.-;;3. ^. :.*.\\ :.2 ;

• a g

i v. s,, se V. CONSAMON Our '- ^*= *a naheM the NRC's adestion of the Are i . we=d<= wa. = is e=t. At steen GTery siy et W way, the MMC's M WW9 M M Me h acties of proposed ru1Maaking was earsery and gave the industry the adatama opportunity to se sp;md. m agency's the pre { j sram sa its anal enna anos indeed. Surely, the ses W Wtlen En GrF Mi the M d M b N N when it regulates suelear power plaata, u the NBC. g i for the v in, ri.e se.ra u iis semi he. deed furthered the puMiesafety. g No.eiheises,. s i. a. se in w eh g l ns not a radleel departnie fremt the as it was ( l developed after the Breras Ferry and as it, was I erisinally professo. 'I I. pr#ef l ' that the hi==ta= was indeed earned M the puMie safety urgently requised a stringest are pretastien pre sram for anstear pe.erplanta. l j 1 '.E k N Ak % @ lfE M E E 8. M I1I M $ N i ) i 1 '}}