ML20151K566
| ML20151K566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1984 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151H089 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-92 NUDOCS 8412190359 | |
| Download: ML20151K566 (2) | |
Text
.
P "he UNITED STATES
- "~k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f .i nacion av h
ag%v,,,../ "siYviE E*onE uSTE - '
)
AAUNGTON, TEXAS Mn1 NOV 141934
[g/ J f
MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations & Generic Requirements FROM: R. b. Ma'rtin, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDED FIRE PROTECTION POLICY AND PROGRAM ACTIONS This is in response to your subject memorandum of October 26, 1984.
I, and members of my staff, appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments on the Fire Protection Program Policy Steering Comittee report.
- 1. Region IV was planning to conduct two reviews during FY 1985 at a total cost of .2 FTE. We were prepared to squeeze this out of existing resources since these time-consuming reviews are not included in our g budget. Under the proposed program from the Steering Comittee, Region IV would be required to supply resources for 12 reviews. For half of these the Region IV inspector would be the team leader. By our conservative calculation this is a cost of 1.25 FTE.
Since this is an unbudgeted expenditure, we recomend that this cost be considered in implementing the program.
- 2. Item 2(d) "A referee will be established to promptly resolve significant differences between the inspection teams and licensees."
This appears to be an unacceptable approach. A review team or "referee" should be used to look at the requirements and estaolish the minimum acceptable conditions where differences between the lict:nsee and inspection teams are concerned. The central point of contact for issues described in item 3(d) should be utilized to resolve differences. This should not be a "referee," but rather a team of experts to provide interpretation of the NRC requirements. _,
,. /
ej 1\
Q Q Q I O Dv
/
n .
o' (' c,
-,--- - e ---m,,- - - - + - ,+-,-p n e,, -----~~~,,+.,m--
l' Victor Stello, Jr. , IEDROGR The important aspects of this approach include a) the full development of the acceptance criteria; b) the provision of an ins c) the training of inspection team members; and d)the pection quickprocedure; resolution of issues utilizing a technical review team and standard enforcement practices.
- 3. It would be helpful if the enforcement guidance set forth in Enclosure 4 addressed the appropriateness of the variety of enforcement actions taken to date. It would also be helpful to provide guidance on how to respond to questions regarding the appropriateness of enforcement action being held in abeyance pending further clarification of related requirements.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions regarding our comments, d
jh( / -
R. D. Martin Regional Administrator -
c:
( As.I, II, III, y R. C. DeYoung, IE H. R. Denton, NRR G. Cunningham, ELD W. J. Dircks, EDO
- g,Je'h.Vollmer,NRR I
f a n m
r - - - - -
-g- g ~,,- =,,--p~-* ,yr- = , - - - , e ew,+,v,.--- -,- - , , w+--.,,we e--+-,+- , - ,,w. - - , ,- -e----e,--,--+-,--..,,---+m --
~
ffkkA ?W
- M'cg* uenno svans /t[d ibro ,i NUcLFAR REGULATORY cOMMl!$10N
,,, ,;;f1*Amo 4 / otes n.vu, wuois som November 14, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements, E00 FROM:
James G. Keppler, Regional Adninistrator, Region III
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDED FIRE PROTECTION POLICY AND PROGRAM ACTIONS In response to Mr. Dircks' memorandum of November 2,1934, I have the following coments on the recommendations provided by the Fire Protection Steering Comittee in their memorandum to Mr. Dircks dated October 26, 1984:
- 1. I believe the Steering Comittee did a commendable job in dealing with the myriad of views on fire protection and recommending a course of action. The recomendations, in my view, e generally reasonable and ones which should provide a logical approacn to bring about a consistent response by industry to the fire protection problem.
2.
One area that does trouble me is the enforcement guidance which suggests
( that violations of fire protection requirements will only be Severity Level III or above when the ability to proceed to safe shutdown is impaired. If we had a major fire (e.g., cable spreading room), would we only classify the violations as Severity Level IV if we could shutdown the plant from outside the control room?
- 3. Since the Steering Committee recomendations represar.t a compromise of sorts, I would not expect total support within the agency staff for the recomendations. Since the Cor,nission is aware of differing' staff views on fire protection I think it would be beneficial to seek the views of all staff members involved in fire protection on the Steering Cocnittee's report --- and then provide in our report to the Comission, as appropriate, the rationale for not endorsing these views.
- 4. I support the proposal for conducting fire protection inspections; however, I am concerned that the resource impact may have been underestimated. If so, we may have to modify this effort.
OA- d%
fJames G. Keppler Regional Administrator cc: See attached distribution.
)( $1 l{\ nfI ;
o i gns j u jd' h 7,/
Victor Stello, Jr. 11/14/84 cc: W. J. Dircks, EDO R. C. DeYoung, IE H. R. Denton, NRR G. Cunningham, ELD T. E. Murley, RI J. P. O'Reilly, RII R. Martin, RIV J. B. Martin, RV R. H. Vollmer, NRR
't 1
! l y
f 7
e , g
'o g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j[ ,
t W ASHINCTON, D. C. 20555 l/
- Lndi*
. NOV 15 W 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:
REC 0HMENDED 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 comments on the report. I believe my coments can be addressed without impedance to timely initiation of the K --
Steering Comittee's recomended actions. As noted in my first coment, implementation of the increased pace of Appendix R inspections will somewhat k 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.
/
s ichard .D ung, Director l Office of ntpection and Enforcement '
Enclosure:
Coments on Recomended Fire Protection Policy and Program Actions cc: R. H. Vollmer, NRR l
l
. l
. : q -> ,> :/P q,,,r l A ,.
d,l
1 l
l 1
Coments on Recomended Fire Protection Policy and Program Actions l
1
- 1. While we, support the recomendation for expedited inspection of licensee compliance to fire protection safe shutdown requirements, the inspections will impact the inspection program. My staff has consulted with Regions I,11 and III regardinD specific resource requireme.nts and program impacts associated with the expedited inspection effort, and based on preliminary information, it appears that approximately ten (10) total regional FTE will have to be redirected from other activities to perfom the inspec-tions. It appears that approximately or.e-half (5 FTE) of these resources will come from resources designated for routine fire protection inspec-tions and the remaining resources (5 FTE) will be reprogramed by the Regions from other inspection efforts primarily in the engineering 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
'nyond CY 1985 in that followt:0 inspections will be required.
~
- 2. The report does not address inspection plans oeyond 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 7;;
these inspections for years af ter CY 1985. e l
( 3. The steering comittee recomends that the Generic Letter inform licensees that quality assurance applicable to fire protection systems is that required by GDC-1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Based on our experi-ence in the development of QA requirements for ATWS equipment, additional guidance may be required for application of GDC-1 to fire protection systems. Perhaps the "quality assurance" desired could better be termed "assurance of quality" to differentiate it from the concept of an independent QA organization.
- 4. The report indicates thdt 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. Fc example, will he or she be resolving disputes about whether violacions occurred? The effect of this on the enforcement process is unclear.
- 5. The report recomends that a standard fire 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.
. o
- 6. More guidance needs to be developed with respect to ;mplementation of the recomandation that extensions to 50.48(c) schedules will no longer be granteu and that when a licensee's schedule expires, appropriate enforce-ment action will be taken. For example, does this mean that pending schedulet exemption requests will be denied? If so, many licensees wilt ce in noncompliance and the egency must decide what, if any, enforcement action will be taken for such noncompliance. In addition, the letter seems to be internally inconsistent in that it su . ests that licensees in noncompliance can submit and justify minimum sches iles for completion of l fire M tection modifications and, in the footnote on page 2, that fire I protection modifications will be incorporated into "living schedules." l An aoproach to schedule requirements and exerptions needs to be developed that considers enforcement for failure to mcet the deadlines. l l
7 'he Generic Letter states on page 2 that "a showing of good faith attempt 60 complete implementation c' schedule may mitigate enfort. ment action for noncompliance with NRC requirwents." We view the schedule question as key in ligh' of other actions te deny schedule <xemptiors. To the extent j that "good faith" applies to other than schedule implementation problems, 1 the striement suggests that only willful violations (bad faith) will leac to enfoi;ement action. This sends tha wrong meS99e to licensees re-garding the importance the NRC placed on compliance with the fire pro-tection requirena ts.
- 8. The Generic Letter and the proposer Enforcement Guidance indicate that E !
"Failure to have such an evaluaticn available for an area where compliance with Appendix R is not readily demonstrated will be teken as prima facie
! ev'dence 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 cifferent 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 included and defined. We reconmend that the sentence bot;. in the Generic Letter and in the Enforceme..t Guidance be chan;ied to read, "Failure to have an adequate written evaluation evailable 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 eMorcement action.'
w
.r.
ty w
_ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ . - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - -