ML20151K508
| ML20151K508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/15/1984 |
| From: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H089 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-92 NUDOCS 8411210104 | |
| Download: ML20151K508 (3) | |
Text
.
/ Ng UNITED sTATIs i/r i e 8 3 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'~
V p
{ g ' , j 'j wAsMiwoTow. o. c. zoess gd$
k*]/ gov 13 s84 -
MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements Office of the Executive Director for Operations FROM: Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDED FIRE PROTECTION POLICY AND PROGRAM ACTIONS I have reviewed the subject recomendations from the report of the Fire Protection Policy Steering Comittee and support the general thrust of the proposed actions as an effective means to expedite implementation of Fire Protection Requirements. Enclosed are my coments on the report. I believe my coments can be addressed without impedance to timely initiation of the Steering Comittee's recomended actions. As noted in my first coment, implementation of the increased pace of Appendix R inspections will somewhat impact other IE programs in the Regions. We will provide further details of .
the impact after we develop the schedules and inspection plans with the Regions.
J s
ichard . ung, Director Office f pection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Coments on Recomended Fire Protection Policy and Progr:m
~
Actions cc: R. H. Yollmer, NRR l
_.,a" %.
O
~ ~ ~
ff c . .
Coments on Recormended Fire Protection Policy and Program Actions
- 1. While we support the recomendation for expedited inspection of licensee compliance to fire protection safe shutdown requirements, the inspections will impact the inspection prograr:. My staff has consulted with Regions I, II and III regarding specific resource requirements and program impsets associated with the expedited inspection effort, and based on preliminary infonnation, it appears that approximately ten (10) total regional FTE will have to be redirected from other activities to perform the inspu-tions. It appears that approximately one-half (5 FTE) of these resources will come from resources designated for routine fira protection inspec-tions and the remaining resources (5 FTE) will be reprogramed by the Regions from other inspection efforts primarily in the enginetring area.
IE Headquarters will'make every effort to further increase contractor support to the Regions in the area of fire protection in order to reduce these program impacts. The resource impact will also be felt in years beyond CY 1985 in that followup inspections will be required.
- 2. The report does not address inspection plans beyond CY 1985. It is our understanding and plan to support fire protection safe shutdown inspections at all facilities. The results of the expedited inspection effort for CY 1985 will provide necessary feedback on the timing of these inspections for years after CY 1985.
- 3. The steering comittee recomends that the Generic 1.etter infonn licensees .
that quality assurance applicable to fire protection systems is that i a
, J required by GDC-1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Based on our experi-ence in the development of QA requimments for ATWS equipment, additional hp guidance may be required for' application of GDC-1 to fire protection systems. Perhaps the "quality assurance" desired could better be tenned "assurance of quality" to differentiate it from the concept of an independent QA organization.
- 4. The report indicates that a referee will be established to promptly resolve significant differences between the' inspection teams and licensees.
(Recomendation 2). The role of the referee needs to be more clearly defined. For example, will he or she be resolving disputes about whether violations occurred? The effect of this on the enforcement process is unclear.
- 5. The report recomends that a standard fin protection condition be placed in each operating license. This would be particularly useful from an enforcement standpoint to ensure that a standardized require-ment exists against which enforcement action can be taken. However, consistency of enforcement will still be difficult to achieve unless the approved programs to which the condition refers are reasonably consistent.
d
e
( . .
N l
- 6. More guidance needs to be developed with respect to implementation of the reconnendation that extensions to 50.48(c) schedules will no longer be granted and that when a licensee's schedule expires, appropriate enforce-ment action will be taken. For example, does this mean that pending scheduler exemption requests will be denied? If so, many licensees will be in noncompliance and the agency must decide what, if any, enforcement i action will be taken for such noncompliance. In addition, the letter l seems to be internally inconsistent in that it suggests that licensees in ,
noncompliance can suomit and justify minimum schedules for completion of I fire protection modifications and, in the footnote on page 2, that fire l protection modifications will be incorporated into "living schedules." l An approach to schedule requirements and exemptions needs to be developed that considers enforcement for failure to meet the deadlines. ;
1
- 7. The Generic Letter states on page 2 that "a showing of good faith attempt to complete implementation on schedule may mitigate enforcement action for noncompliance with NRC requirements." We view the schedule question as J key in light of other actions to deny schedule exemptions. To the extent that "good faith" applies to other than schedule implementation problems, the statement suggests that only willful violations (bad faith) will lead to enforcement action. This sends the wrong message to licensees re-garding the importance the NRC placed on compliante with the fire pro- l tection requirements. I
- 8. The Generic Letter and the proposed Enforcement Guidance indicate that
. "Failure to have such an evaluation available for an area where compliance with Appendix 3 is not readily demonstrated will be taken as prima facie evidence that the area does not comply with NRC requirements, and may result in enforcement action." The term "prima facie" is a legal tem with many different meanings and should not be used here. The phrase "an indication" can be substituted without a change in the intended meaning. In addition, the concept of "adequacy" of the analysis should be i included and defined. We reconnend that the sentence both in the Generic I Letter and in the Enforcement Guidance be charged to read, "Failure to have an adequate written evaluation available for an area where compliance with Appendix R is not apparent will be taken as an indication that the area does not comply with NRC requirements and may result in enforcement action."
2-l
-- -- . . . _ . .- - __ - . - . . - -