ML20133F578
| ML20133F578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1985 |
| From: | Stello V Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132C663 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 NUDOCS 8510110122 | |
| Download: ML20133F578 (13) | |
Text
-
+4...'
.f
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
{
I wAsmwof uN, D. C. 20665 k*****,
AUG 211985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 79 I
The Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Wednesday, July 24, 1985 from 12:30 -6 p.m.
A list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
1.
N. Randall (RES) presented for CRGR review the proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, " Radiation Damage to Reactor Vessel." Enclosure 2 sumarizes this matter (Category 2 item).
2.
J. Funches (NRR) briefed the CRGR concerning the current request to OMB for approval to continue to impose the reporting and recordkeeping l
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.
p.
The Part 50 reporting and rec'ordkeeping burden on reactor permittees/ licensees is currently estimated to be around 4-million hours
($240 million) per year. Approximately 1-million hours of the annual l
burden involve reactor operating and maintenance staff, which is i
principally concerned with plant safety. The Part 50 reporting and l
recordkeeping burden on the NRC is currently estimated to be around 23 million) per year. The current burden estimate 380thousandhours({hourreductionfromthe1982 estimate.
(Enclosure 3, l
reflects a 2-million.
which was used to brief the CRGR, provides suninary burden information.)
The CRGR strongly encourages NRC efforts to assure that only necessary reporting and recordkeeping requirements are imposed by NRC especially where reactor operating and maintenance staff burden is involved, l
3.
J. Knight (NRR) briefed the CRGR concerning pressure isolation valve (P!V) test requirements. Enclosure 4 sumarizes t11s matter (Category 2 item).
i 4
J. Knight (NRR) presented for CRGR review the proposal for improving Fire Protection. Enclosure 5 summarizes this matter (Category 2 item).
l 0510110122 850821 PDR REVGF NRQCRGR MEETIN9079 PDR i
l Q As0\\
\\
\\
\\ \\
l I
I
,,e AUG 211985 Enclosures 2, 4, and 5 contain predecisional information and therefore will not be released to the Public Document Room until the NRC has considered (in a public forum) or decided the matters addressed by the enclosures.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Walt Schwink (492-8639).
s ictor Ste r,
hairman Uomittee to Revi w Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: Comission (5)
SECY Office Directors l
Regional Administrators CRGR Members l
G. Cunningham l
N. Randall J. Funches J. Knight I
i l
l t
,, to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 79 Fire Protection J. Knight (NRR) and W. Johnston (NRR) presented for CRGR review a Fire Protection-related package that included (a) detailed interpretations and guidance relating to implementation of Appendix R requirements, (b) a proposed new Standard Fire Protection License Condition, (c) proposed Guidance for Enforcement Actions Concerning Fire Protection Requirements, and (d) a proposed Generic Letter for implementing (a), (b) and (c) preceding. Copies of the briefing slides used by NRR at this meeting are attached (see Attachment 1 to this Enclosure). The complete Fire Protection Package considered by the Committee at this meeting was transmitted to the ED0 by memo dated June 24, 1985, Denton to Dircks; it included the following items:
1.
Attachment A Commission paper entitled " Staff Recommendatinns Regarding the Implementation of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50," and enclosures as follows:
- a. - memo dated 10/26/84, Fire Protection Steering Committee to Dircks, " Recommended Fire Protection Policy and Program Actions"
- b. - memo dated 5/3/85, Vollmer to Denton, " Updated Recommendations on Fire Protection Policy and Program Actions"
- c. - (proposed) Generic Letter on Fire Protection
- d. - (proposed) Interpretations of Appendix R
- e. - (proposed) Appendix R Questions and Answers
- f. - (proposed) Fire Protection License Condition
- g. -(proposed)GuidanceforEnforcementActionsConcerning Fire Protection Requirements
- h. - memo dated 6/27/84, Olmstead to Vollmer, " Fire Protection - Response to Trubach memo on Appendix R Guidance" 2.
Attachment B
-NRR Response to W. Dircks 12/10/84 memo, and enclosures as follows:
- a.
" Resolution of Coments on the Recomendations of the Fire Protection Policy Steering Comittee" (50 F,R 2056,1/15/85; GL R
85-01)
- b. - memo dated 3/20/85, Speis to Knight, " Risk Perspective on Fires in Nuclear Power Plants," and attachments:
i
. " Risk Significance of the Current Status of Fire Protection Capability at Operating Plants," and Appendix to " Risk Significance of the Current Status..."
- c. - memo dated 3/6/85, Taylor to Knight, " Resource Estimates for Proposed Expedited Fire Protection Inspections" 3.
Attactment C j
"NRR Coments on the Steering Comittee Report" In addition to the documents listed above, the Comittee had the benefit of several other related documents provided by ROGR staff in connection with review of these Fire Protection matters, as indicated below:
1.
Memo, dated 12/10/84, Dircks to Stello/Denton/DeYoung; " Fire Protection Policy Steering Comittee Recomendations" (see Attachment 2 to this Enclosure) 2.
ROGR staff sumary of discussions at the preliminary briefing provided to CRGR at Meeting No. 78, regarding the Fire Protection Package listed in 1.a thru 1.h above (see Attachment 3 to this Enclosure) 3.
Excerpts from a U.S. Court of Appeals Decision, dated 3/16/82, regarding disposition of a Petition for Review of the NRC Order Imposing Appendix R (see Attachment 4 to this Enclosure) y The principal objectives of the staff in developing the proposed fire protection guidance and related implementing documents were to (a) facilitate understanding of the requirements of Appendix R for all licensees and applicants, (b) to expedite compliance with Appendix R in older plants, and (c) to better assure consistent levels of fire protection safety in all plants.
The bulk of the detailed guidance developed by the staff, to facilitate mutual understanding among the util.ities and the staff regarding acceptable ways of complying with the requirements of Appendix R, is contained in documents entitled " Interpretations of Appendix R" (Item 1.d above) and " Appendix R Questions and Answers" (Item 1.e above). The basic content of these proposed guidance documents has been known to and agreed upon by the staff and the utilities, and fairly-well set, for more than a year now. The detailed contents of those documents were worked out on the basis of close coordination and interaction between the staff and utilities' representatives. The staff stated that this guidance does not involve any new technical requirements.
In addition to the two detailed interpretation / guidance documents noted above, the Fire Protection Package proposed by the staff also addressed several fire protection policy issues that were examined at the request of the EDO by a senior management review team (the Fire Protection Policy Steering,Comittee).
The Steering Comittee developed a number of recomendations aimed at expediting implementation of Appendix R and at assuring more consistent levels of fire protection safety in all nuclear plants, including the older operating huiii r
a r
. plants as well as the more recently licensed ones. Most notably, the Steering Comittee's efforts resulted in the proposed new Standard Fire Protection License Condition, the proposed Fire Protection Enforcement Guidance, and a recomendation for no further schedular exemptions in completing implementation of Appendix R.
Major points of discussion at this meeting regarding the proposals put fomard by the staff in the Fire Protection Package were as follows:
1.
Need for Appendix R and Proposed Measures for Expediting Its Implementation The staff focused on facilitating and expediting Appendix R implementation in developing the Fire Protection Package, and did not really attempt to reexamine or reaffirm at this point the safety need for the fire protection measures specified in Appendix R as suggested by several questions posed by the ED0 in his December 10, 1984 memorandum to the program offices and DEDROGR (Attachment 2 to this enclosure; e.g.
Questions 1, 5 and 7). The staff was assertive regarding this approach in discussions with CRGR at this meeting. The staff's view seemed to be that Appendix R is a "given," i.e., it imposes Commission-approved requirements that are expected to be implemented expeditiously now, not further questioned and delayed. The staff emphasized that considerable (and, in some cases, repeated) delays have already been experienced in attempting to implement Appendix R, to the point that the Agency risks being severely criticized, or perhaps even sued, for failing to implement in timely fashion its own regulations, if it seriously contemplates and/or permits further delays in implementing Appendix R at this point. Given that view, the staff felt that the Fire Protection Package that has been developed is appropriately responsive to the ED0's December 10, 1984 memorandum laying out and scoping the Comission paper intended to draw together all the separate elements and issues of the overall fire protection picture for Commission consideration and decision.
The Comittee acknowled' ed the staff's concerns regarding such possible g
repercussions of further delay in implementing Appendix R, and felt that it was appropriate to bring those concerns to the attention of the Comission. Given CRGR's chartered function, however, the Comittee considered it appropriate also to examine whether in the staff's view there is still seen a compelling safety need for the fire protection measures specified in Appendix R, or whether in concept and/or implementation to date Appendix R requirements go beyond what is actually prudently required for adequate fire protection safety. This seemed necessary, in fact, in order to better understand and judge the staff's current proposals, particularly those which appear to involve significant new requirements, impose significant backfits, or othemise suggest some significant impact (e.g., the "no further schedular exception" recomendation and the Standard License Condition proposal).
l l
4
.. 2.
Changes to Previously Approved Staff Positions In response to the Committee's request to identify any changes to previously applicable staff positions involved in th? proposed Fire Protection Policy, the staff indicated the following:
a.
The " Interpretations of Appendix R" (Item 1.d of the Fire Protection Package) reflect changes to previous staff positions in six identified areas, the effect of which is to allow licensees greater flexibility in proposing acceptable ways of complying with Appendix R without the need for exemption (s).
b.
No new technical staff positions are imposed or implied by any of the extensive guidance material provided in the proposed " Appendix R Questions and Answers" document (Item 1.e of the Fire Protection Package). The intent of that document is to provide detailed clarification / guidance for licensees in areas where it was specifically requested and, in doing so, to reflect previously approved staff practice in the implementation of Appendix R to date.
c.
If imposed by NRC, the proposed Standard Fire Protection License Condition (Item 1.f of the Fire Protection Package) would involve new requirements, in the sense that for some licensees some comitments to staff guidance would become enforceable as legal requirements.
However, the staff has only recomended that it be "made available" for voluntary subscription by licensees; as proposed, therifore, the staff believes that the Standard License Condition imposes no new requirements or backfit.
d.
Schedules for completion of implementation of Appendix R by individual licensees are established by regulation under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.48, as modified under the tolling provisions of 10 CFR 50.48 if requested and justified. The staff feels that anple relief has already been granted, where justified, from the schedules established basically by 50.48. The staff position, therefore, is that the "no further schedular exception" recommendation (see Item 1.c of the Fire Protection Package, at p.1) does not involve any new requirement or changed staff position, or impose any backfit as currently defined.
With regard to the proposal to "make available" a Standard Fire Protection
' License Condition preferred by the staff, the Cor.mittee wondered if the staff seriously expected any licensee to voluntarily subscribe to a measure that would, in effect, make legal requirements of what were previously only commitments to staff guidance regarding their fire protection program. The staff responded that the wording of the preferred Standard License Condition had been designed to actually facilitate changes to approved fire protection program features for some licensees (e.g., in cases where some parts of a licensee's fire protection program
\\
.. are covered by comitments already documented in a license condition and the licensee is therefore required arbitrarily to submit an amendment for changes), as well as to make binding licensee commitments that are not presently docums.nted in a license condition or covered by 10 CFR 50.59.
More specifically, the staff explained that for licenses issued since about 1982 the Comission has directred that a license condition be imposed requiring compliance with the licensees fire protection program.
For these cases, the new license condition is intended to permit licensees to make changes in their fire protection programs by a process similar to FSAR changes under 50.59, but still comply with the Commission guidance that there be a license condition. For older licenses there is a broad range of license conditions, some requiring compliance with certain (but not necessarily all) fire protection features. For these cases, the proposed license condition is intended to cover most aspects of some licensees fire protection programs than the current license condition; on the other hand, the license condition would permit, for some items, changes under procedures similar to 50.59 rather than by amendment. (For most plants, the fire protection program was not submitted as part of the FSAR and so would not be covered by 50.59.)
The Comittee suggested, with respect to NT0Ls, that the staff re-examine whether the 1982 Comission directive actually required use of a licensee condition rather than other methods for assuring enforceability. If so, the Committee felt that the staff should explain the problem to the Comission and ask whether the Comission might reconsider that instruction initially developed in 1982 when Appendix R was published.
After considerable discussion on these points, the Comittee recommended that the staff consider having 'all licensees and applicants submit their fire protection program as part oi the FSAR in which case 50.59 would apply directly without need for the new license condition. Such a measure would still involve a new requirement for some licensees; but it is less intrusive as an imposed regulatory measure and has the added advantage of not appearing to elevate fire protection systems / features to a level of safety prominence exceeding that of other, safety-related plant systems / features (such as ECCS or protection systems) that typically are described in the FSAR but are not covered explicitly by a license condition. The Comittee indicated that they could support such a measure as satisfying reasonably the apparently legitimate concerns and objectives of the staff in this area.
With regard to the recomendation for "no further schedular exemptions" in completing implementation of Appendix R, the Comittee expressed serious reservations on the basis that the staff's proposal seemed to deny even the availability of the exemption process specified under 10 CFR 50.12 (except in a context requiring subscription to "living schedule"), and to
. prejudge adversely the merit of any argument that might be offered by a licensee or other interested party as justification for delaying the
. schedule for full implementation. This seemed questionable in the context of an existing, explicit Comission policy that encourages continuing reassessment of the need/ justification for existing regulatory requirements, and recognizes the appropriateness of balancing considerations of safety importance/ priority vs availability of resources in detennining schedules for implementing NRC requirements (... and not just in a living schedule context.) Note was also taken by the Comittee in this context of a 1982 U.S. Court of Appeals decision (see Attachment 4 to this Enclosure) in which disposition favorable to NRC of a challenge to the order which imposed Appendix R seemed to be premised on assurances offered the Court regarding the availability to licensees of the exemption process with respect to any aspect of Appendix R in the implementation of that controversial rule. For these reasons, the Comittee felt that a very compelling safety rationale would have to be offered to justify anything like the stringent "no further schedular exemption" recommendation put forward by the staff in this package. Since that was lacking, the Committee indicated that they could not support the staff's proposal in that regard.
3.
Appendix R or Proposed Requirements That Go Beyond Safety In response to a request by the Comittee to identify areas in which Appendix R requirements and/or provisions of the proposed Fire Protection Package go beyond what would be required reasonably for safety, the staff stated that they were simply not in a position to determine what parts of Appendix R are absolutely necessary for safety. The staff stated that Appendix R requirements (in fact, fire protection safety features generally) are deterministic type involving judgment and considerations of defense in depth to mitigate the many uncertainties involved (e.g.,
initiating fire frequency, size, spread, etc). The staff feels comfortable that, collectively, all of the staff's fire protection requirements / positions provide at least the degree of fire protection safety sought; but individually any single element of Appendix R or a licensee's overall fire protection program might be difficult to justify either on the basis of safety need or cost effectiveness.
In this context, it was noted that NRC fire protection requirements were drawn initially in an environment in which the guiding philosophy or approach was simply " prevent fires to prevent fire damage." The question posed by the CRGR here, however, seemed to reflect a different perspective; specifically the Committee seemed to be asking "What degree of fire damage will result in an unacceptable degree of safety degradation?" The Comittee agreed that these were much different perspectives, and
-acknowledged the difficulty in sorting out "to what degree" Appendix R and the currently proposed Fire Protection Package go beyond what is required minimally for adequate fire protection safety. Nevertheless, the question posed seemed to some a valid one, in view of incipient concerns that have been noted within both the industry and the staff regarding the possible adverse safety impacts that could result from implementing unnecessary modifications to facilities to achieve levels of protection against postulated fire hazards that are not actually needed.
. In this context, the Comittee considered briefly, possible alternatives to going forward with the Fire Protection Package and completing expeditiously the implementation of Appendix R.
Basically, the alternatives seemed to be (a) starting over again with development of a new Fire Protection rule based on well defined fire protection safety needs and objectives derived from consideration of the risk / safety importance of the safety equipment to be protected from fire hazard, and (b) deferring completion of implementation of Appendix R to consider integration of its safety objectives with other closely-related pending safety issues (e.g., USI A-45 Decay Heat Removal). Both alternatives appeared to involve significant delay in closure of the fire protection issue; and it was noted that up to 70-80 percent of the total resources required to complete Appendix R were probably already expended. On balance, in view of all these considerations, the Comittee agreed that the best course of action was to complete as expeditiously as possible the implementation of Appendix R.
4.
Lack of Clarity in the Wording of Proposed Guidance The Comittee expressed concern that literal application of some staff positions (as presently worded) contained in the proposed " Appendix R Questions and Answers" document was impossible, and that attempting to apply them literally could lead to degradation of safety. An example focused on was a provision in the response to Question 5.3.10(c), which specifies that licensees must assure that_" safe shutdown capability should not be adversely affected by a fire in any plant area which results in simultaneous spurious actuation of all valves in high-low pressure interface lines." (see Item-1.e of the Fire Protection Package, at p.26). Possible specific applications of that position in licensing reviews that were explored by the Comittee reinforced the conclusion that literal impicmentation of this position and guidance was impossible. The most serious concern on the part of the Comittee was that in actually applying thit guidance, as written, in licensing reviews to date, individual reviewers may have caused licensees to implement administrative controls (e.g., locking out circuit breakers or valve controls) which cumulatively could result in serious interference with prescribed operator actions and/or safety systems operation in response to severe transients or accidents.
The staff indicated that, in practice, the position was not applied by staff reviewers literally as written i.e., considering possible simultaneous spurious actuation of all high/ low pressure interface valves in all lines / functions involving such interfaces. Instead, the staff appTies this position only to those valves or components whose control / power cables could be affected simultaneously by a postulated fire in one fire area. Typically a licensee may have to rack out the breaker supplying power to a motor-operated valve or lock out the controls for such a valve, in order to assure that at least one valve, in a line containirg two or three isolation valves, remains open/ closed (as required) when short circuits due to fire damage in control cables could spuriously actuate valves if such administrative controls were not implemented.
.. A similar question was raised regarding the wording and intent of
" Interpretation" #1 (see Item 1.d of the Fire Protection Package, at p.1),
which seemed to indicate that an exemption would be required if a licensee proposed anything except process monitoring instrumentation capable of providing a direct reading of reactivity in connection with the reactivity control function of a reactor. In application, the staff has accepted a source range monitor as providing the capability for a direct readimg of reactivity, but rejected a proposal to use boron concentration readings in conjunction with rod position indication to provide equivalent reactivity monitoring capability. Some thought that (a) neither of those schemes provided a direct indication of reactivity; but (b) properly designed and implemented, both schemes provided equally acceptable indication of reactivity. It appeared that both schemes would require an exemption, however, under a literal reading of the language of the rule involved. Confusion resulted in the discussions of this matter, because the current staff position (and the guidance intended by the staff in the proposed " Interpretations" document) is that both schemes are acceptable without exemption.
As a generalization of the specific concerns noted above regarding the wording and intent of the proposed guidance documents, the Comittee noted that there are a number of areas in which similar questions could be raised. The staff took note of the Comittee's concerns in this regard but cited a number of indications that, despite such problems or awkwardnesses in the specific wording of the guidance documents in question, sufficient mutual understanding exists between the staff and licensees regarding the meaning and intended application of the proposed guidance that it could be usefully applied in facilitating and expediting the implementation of Appendix R.
One important indication noted in this context was significantly improved fire protection inspection results over the last year. The staff agreed to spot check on current and past staff practice in the two specific areas identified; but expressed confidence that application of the guidance in question by staff reviewers in the past has not resulted in degradation of safety at any operating reactor.
Conclusions and Recommendations As a result of the discussions of these matters with the staff, at this meeting and in the preliminary briefing provided by the staff at Meeting No. 78., the Comittee concluded the following:
On balance, it appears that the best course of action for the agency at this point is to complete the implementation of Appendix R.
The Comittee believes that the detailed guidance proposed by the staff in the Fire Protection Package can be usefully applied in facilitating that process and recomends that the Fire Protection Package be forwarded for Comission consideration, subject to the following caveats:
_g_
+
1.
The Committee does not support the recommendation for "no further schedular exemptions" for reasons indicated in the preceding (chiefly lack of a clear and defensible safety need). The Committee believes, however, that the staff's concerns regarding possible repercussions of failure to complete expeditiously implementation of Appendix R at this point as indicated in the preceding, and the related view that an amendment to Appendix R may be required if further schedular relief is to be granted, should be more clearly articulated to the Commission as the overriding decision factor if that is the staff's view.
2.
The staff's proposal to make available a Standard License Condition for voluntary subscription by licensees should be modified as
-indicated in the preceding to more effectively achieve the staff's legitimate objectives as discussed in the preceding.
3.
Explicit wording should be added to the implementing Generic letter that will be issued to licensees and applicants to make clear that the staff positions contained in this Fire Protection Package package (particularly in the document entitled "Interpretaticos of Appendix R") do not have a stature beyond that of regulatory cuidance (i.e.,
the positions involved identify one, but not the only, acceptable way of complying with the Comission's Fire Protection regulations).
i i
. to IMPLEMENTATION,OF APPENDIX-R (FIRE PROTECTION)
TO FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS PURPOSE:
OF APPENDIX R.
EXPEDITE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF APPENDIX R IN OLDER PLANTS.
BETTER ASSURANCE OF CONSISTENT LEVELS OF FIRE PROTECTION AT ALL PLANTS.
COMMISSION PAPER DESCRIPTION:
4 INTERPRETATIONS OF APPENDIX R APPENDIX R QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS STEERING COMMITTEE ON FIRE PROTECTION POLICY 6ENERIC LETTER ON FIRE PROTECTION FIRE PROTECTION LICENSE CONDITION GUIDANCE FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
. ~
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT THE COMMISSION DIRECT THE STAFF TO:
1.
ISSUE THE GENERIC LETTER WITH ATTACP.MENTS.
2.
CONDUCT FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FIRE PROTECTION RESOURCES AND AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION B 0F THE GENERIC LETTER.
3.
UTILIZE THE GUIDANCE IN ENCLOSURE 7 AS THE CRITERIA FOR ENFORCEMENT OF APPENDIX R REQUIREMENTS.
4.
ENCOURAGE LICENSEES TO ADOPT THE STANDARD FIRE PROTECTION LICENSE CONDITION SET OUT IN ENCLOSURE 6.
5.
PROCEED WITH MODIFICATIONS OF FIRE PROTEC-TION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ONGOING EFFORT ON TECHNICAL SPECI-FICATION IMPROVEMENTS.
.. _.