ML20151C523
| ML20151C523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/04/1981 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19284B784 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8103160946 | |
| Download: ML20151C523 (2) | |
Text
--
6
' y.a r e r.,
i.iT ED s1 Alls Erc1csm.
's J
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf' hsff,.,,y' Q"A i
we.tsmoron o. c.2 osse t.dQ' /
\\,
,/
February 4,1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert Ferguson, Section Lesder Fire Protection Section Chemical Engineering Branch, MQE, DE FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON FIRE PROTECTION RULE As a result of our recent meeting and a review of your January 5th and
~
January 26th memoranda on the same subject, and Mr. Benaroya's response also dated January 26, I would like to propose a resolution of your differing professional opinion.
This resolution is based on my belief that we are all trying to accomplish the same objectives but our approaches, although some-what different, are sufficiently close to allow compromise. Where differences currently exist they appear to be on the level or amount of required staff review, the time required to get a new fire protection rule out for public comment, and the effective date for application of that rule to OLs and cps.
Speaking first to the level of staff review required, our regulatory practice is one of audit rather than detailed analysis of all aspects of the licensee design. As such, you point out that a burden is put on the staff of knowing whether or not the licensee intends to meet all aspects of the Branch Tech-nical Position and Appendix R and to what extent.
You also state that if these " requirements" were part of a regulation that their impact on the licensee and his response to them would be different than if these " require-ments" are only regulatory guidance. While it could be argued that both of these methods of approach should result in the same end product I suggest that we could accomplish the same objectives if the licensees were requested to identify in writing deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for those plants currently being licensed. The staff could then review these deviations and make judgments on their acceptability.
You will recall that the Commission plans to implement a similar procedure some time in the future such that all licensees will be required to address deviations from current Standard Review Plans.
However, as an interim position for fire protection, I would reco : erd l
that this identification be required for all OLs scheduled to be issued beyond i
September 30, 1981.
I do not believe that it is necessary or an effective use of MRR rescu-car to re-review fire protection for plants currently being licensed as long as the staff can conclude that the BTP and Appendix R are ret.
Concerning the amount of time needed for getting the fire protection rule out for coment, you have stated that 50 could have a proposed rule issued withir.
2-4 months if the Commission so directed, In our discussions, wherein I state:
THIS DOCUMENT CONThlNS POUR QUAUTY PAGES 81031609.46
2-Robert Ferguson my belief that the new rule should not just be an assemblage of current practices but one where the staff thinks in more detail about both the generic and plant-specific items to be considered in the rule, we agreed that a much longer time would be required to develop such a rule.
In fact.
I' think we agreed that July of '82 was not unreasonable.
I feel this is
~
indeed appropriate and in consideration of the total context of this meni-orandum would request you concur in this view, lastly, you believe that the implementation of the new rule should include those plants licensed for operation after January 1st,1979 ' This is based on your belief that there may have been fire protection requirements included in the new rule which could significantly affect plants which fit between the implementation dates of Appendix R and the new rule.
I concur with this possibility and point out that perhaps plants licensed prior to January 1st, 1979, might also be in this position.
Therefore, I propose that when the new rule is issued for comment that specific consideration be-given to back-fitting for all plants.
Further, I propose that this new rule not only be applicable to future construction permits but also be applied to licensing actions on OLs on a reasonable schedule yet to be determined, In summary, I propose that we require licensees to identify deviations from the BTP and Appendix R for staff review for those OLs scheduled to be issued beyond September 30,1981.
In addition, I propose we take the necessary time to develop a new rule which will implement the generic and plant-specific fire protection requirements as discussed in SECY-80-546 with a target date of July 1982.
Finally, I propose that when the new rule is developed it be applied not only to future plants and future OLs on a reason-able schedule and consideration be given to backfitting on all plants.
I would appreciate your concurrence or further discussion of these proposals
~
by February 5th.
[ --
d Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering cc:
H. Denton E. Case V. Noonan e
---m.-
mm
-e-e--.
e ee w.
.w,rewe+-
y,+s,w
+-
f.e-,w
-w'e,.,,w~-,-.trr-w u-*=+-+
- *e-v-me-we t--v'--
t w
-t-'P--vr---- - + - + =,
w tw
- -vw w '
"-'",v-
- - * - -* +-' - '- --