ML20198M874

Summary of 981011 NRC Reactor Fire Protection Insp Workshop in Rockville,Md.Purpose of Workshop Was to Discuss Options with Stakeholders Options for Future Direction of NRC Reactor Fire Protection Insps.Workshop Agenda Encl

ML20198M874
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/24/1998
From:	Marsh L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Holahan G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
FACA, NUDOCS 9901050390
Download: ML20198M874 (100)

Text

.

Qt.

e i

f UIU 4

[

t UNITED STATES g

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006& 4001 g*

December 24, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary M. Holahan, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Ledyard B. Marsh, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF NRC REACTOR FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION WORKSHOP HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1998 On November 10,1998, the Plant Systems Branch, Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), sponsored a one-day workshop on reactor fire protection inspections at the Double Tree Hotel in Rockville, Maryland. More than 170 people attended, about 150 worked for licensees, architect-engineer and consulting firms, such industry organizations such as the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group (BWROG), the press, and intervenor groups, and the rest were NRC staff from NRR, the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, the Office of Research, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and each of the four NRC regional offices.

The main purpose of the workshop was to discuss with the stakeholders options for the future direction of NRC reactor fire protection ir.spections in light of the lessons teamed from the fire protection functionalinspection (FPFI) pilot program. NRC staff and managers made presentations on the overall direction of performance assessment and NRC inspections, the results of the four FPFI pilot inspections, the results of FPFl-like inspections at the Quad Cities and Clinton, the types and frequencies of the inspection findings, the risk significance of the findings, and considerations for developing options for the future direction of the NRC reactor fire protection inspection program. The staff informed the workshop attendees that it will consider the input it received during the workshop in developing its final report to the Commission, noting that the report will: (1) provide an analysis of the FPFI findings, regional FPFI inspection follow up activities, and enforcement actions arising from the pilot FPFis; (2) provide information on the use of risk insights for fire protection inspections; (3) discuss and evaluate the types of NRC fire protection inspections that it has conducted since the fire f

protection regulation was issued in 1981; (4) address the strategies that the Commission expressed interest in the SRM of February 7,1997; and (5) recommend the appropriate types and frequencies of reactor fire protection inspection (e.g., NRC-lead and licensee self 3

assessments).

I CONTACT:

L. Whitney, SPLB/DSSA/NRR 301-415-3081 NM b' PDR ORQ NRRA 7 4 4 c L-I h /1 - /2 - f>

9901050390 981224 zy,\\

x

()

1

el e

w G.M. Holahan The staff reminded the participants that the objectives of the FPFI program were: (1) to inspect the Thermo-Lag corrective actions, (2) to assess the NRC reactor fire protection program to determine if it had appropriately address all fire safety issues, (3) to determine if licensees are maintaining compliance with NRC fire protection requirements, (4) to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the reactor fire protection program, (5) to reevaluate the scope of the reactor fire protection inspection program, and (6) to develop a coordinated approach for reactor fire protection and systems inspections. The staff stated that the inspections revealed deficiencies in one or more areas of fire protection defense-in-depth at each plant inspected, but not in all areas of defense-in-depth at any one plant. The staff noted that about one quarter of the findings were in the area of post-fire safe shutdown, an area not covered by the NRC core fire protection inspection procedure or licensee audits that are based on the core procedure. The staff also noted that one of the proposed benefits of the FPFI program, renewed industry attention to nuclear power plant fire safety, appeared to have been achieved. That is, implementation of the FPFI program led a number of licensees, including some that were not subject to pilot FPFis, to assess their fire protection programs. Several workshop participants, including NEl, expressed agreement with this assessment. The staff also noted that routine fire protection core inspections had not and would not have found many of the issues that the licensees identified in preparation for FPFis and during self assessment, or that the staff found during FPFis. Finally, the staff noted that the FPFI pilot program provided insights into the possible benefits and uses of licensee self-assessments as a reactor fire protection inspection strategy.

Staff and industry representatives also discussed the use of risk techniques and insights for fire protection inspections, for example, for planning lines of inspection inquiry and assessing the risk and safety significance of inspection findings. There was general agreement that the tools to measure the risk significance of specific fire protection inspection findings are not mature and that relying on the results of Independent Examinations of Extemal Events (IPEEE) needs to be carefully considered because of the assumptions that go into the analyses and the screenings.

The staff stated that it would document its conclusions regarding the safety and risk significance of the FPFI findings in its final report to the Commission on the FPFI pilot program. The staff noted that in that report it would also present options and its recommendations on the format, scope and scheduling of follow-on fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown oversight activities.

Representatives of two licensees of reactor plants at which pilot FPFI inspections were conducted discussed their experiences. NEl presented the results of an industry survey quantifying the frequency and focus of recent licensee self-assessments. NEl presented a preliminary proposal for an industry initiative to strengthen the self-assessment process using FPFI procedures and techniques. The staff and NEl agreed to meet to discuss further NEl's proposed initiative, and how it could fit into a framework for the reactor fire protection inspection program.

l l

In his remarks, Samuel J. Collins, Director, NRR, noted the significance of the Brown's Ferry fire and the continued importance of the lessons learned from that fire, discussed the value of l

the pilot FPFI program, and addressed the staff's and the industry's responsibilities to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety. Mr. Collins noted that

m G.M. Holahan l the NRC and licensees should continue to take appropriate actions to ensure that each plant's fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown design basis has been met. Mr. Collins noted that the NRC is open to stakeholder input on the future format, scope and scheduling of NRC fire l

protection and post-fire safe shutdown oversight activities. is the workshop agenda. Attachment 2 is a list of workshop attendees. consists of a one page " Fire Protection Functional inspection Assessment Tree" l

handout provided to all workshop attendees and copies of eight slides presentations delivered during the workshop (note that some speakers did not prepare slide presentations).

l is a list of the commission papers and inspection reports handouts prcvided to all workshop attendees. Attachment 5 is a summary of key messages received by the staff from public and industry attendees of the FPFI Workshop. Attachment 6 is a short background history of the events leading up to the Pilot FPFI Program.

Attachments: As stated (6) j l

l l

i h

4 9

k

G.M. Holahan the NRC and licensees should continue to take appropriate actions to ensure that each plant's fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown design basis has been met. Mr. Collins noted that the NRC is open to stakeholder input on the future format. scope and scheduling of NRC fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown oversight activities. is the workshop agenda. Attachment 2 is a list of workshop attendees. consists of a one page " Fire Protection Functional Inspection Assessment Tree" handout provided to all workshop attendees and copies of eight slides presentations delivered during the workshop (note that some speakers did not prepare slide presentations). is a list of the commission papers and inspection reports handouts provided to all workshop attendees. Attachment 5 is a summary of key messages received by the staff from public and industry attendees of the FPFI Workshop. Attachment 6 is a short background history of the events leading up to the Pilot FPFI Program.

Attachments: As stated (6)

DISTRIBUTION: SEE NEXT PAGE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECTIONC\\ WHITNEY \\FPFIMTG. SUM SPLB: OSSA SPLB:DSSA SPLB:DSSA LEWhitney:lp./

KSWest LBMarsh 1

12/ly98 3

124}/98 12/fM98 EXCEL LOG NUMBER

[3 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

l

'O Gary M. Holahan l

SUMMARY

OF NRC FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION PROGRAM WORKSHOP HELD ON NOVEMBER 10,1998 i

DISTRIBUTION-

~ Central File PUBLIC l

SPLB R/F SCollins RZimmerman BSheron LBMarsh l

SWest LWhitney CBajwa SPLB R/F EConnell JHolmes PMadden DOudinot l

PQualls MSalley RJenkins ASingh, ACRS

'WRuland, RI DLew,RI GBelisle, Ril GWeisman, Ril

~ RGardner, Rlli DButler, Rlli DChyu, Rlli TStetka, RIV PHarrell, RIV RBywater, RIV.

DAcker, RIV Regional Administrators l

l

l t

s ATTACHMENT 1 l

WORKSHOP AGENDA i

1 1

i i

i l

l l

i

l l

FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION WORKSHOP Location: Doubletree Hotel, Rockville, Maryland (Twinbrook Metro Stop) l Date: November 10,1998 7:30 - 8:00 Registration 8:00 - 8:10 Introduction and Presentation of Agenda L.B. Marsh, Chief, Plant Systems Branch, NRR 8:10 -8:25' Keynote Address Samuel J. Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8:25 - 8:35 Introductory Remarks by an Industry Representative Fred Emerson, Nuclear Energy Institute 8:35 - 8:50 NRC Fire Protection / Safe Shutdown Inspection Program Assessment and l

Comparison -is it Properly Focused?

Pat Madden, Fire Protection Engineering Section, SPLB/NRR 8:50 - 9:30 Summary of Fire Protection inspection Findings Pat Madden, Fire Protection Engineering Section, SPLB/NRR Ken Sullivan, Brookhaven National Laboratory i

i 9:30- 9:45 Break i

9:45-11:00 Use of Risk to Focus Fire Protection inspections and Evaluate Their Findings Scott Newberry, Deputy Director, Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, NRR Risk Panel Members:

I.

Ed Connell, Plant Systems Branch, NRR Nathan Siu, Probabilistic Risk Analysis Branch, RES Dave Modeen, Nuclear Energy Institute l

Doug Brandes, Duke Power 11:00 -11:15 Public and Industry Observations on FPFI Pilot Program Activities Charles Fisher, Florida Power and Light Tom Lillehei, Northern States Power

]

l i

11:15-11:45 Fire Protection Program Inspection - Options and Considerations l

L.B. Marsh, Chief, Plant Systems Branch, NRR L

11:45-1:15 Lunch Break 1:15 - 2:00 NRC Panel Discussion on Risk Significance of FPFI Findings l

L. Marsh, Chief, Plant Systems Branch, NRR A. El-bassioni, Chief, Licensing and Analysis Section, NRR J.S. Hyslop, Licensing and Analysis Section, NRR N. Sui, Probabilistic Risk Analysis Branch, RES P. Madden, Fire Protection Engineering Section, NRR 2:00 - 3:30 Stakeholder Views on Fire Protection inspection Program Options and Considerations j

i Ram Bhat, llinois Power Fleur de Peralta, Tri-En Corporation Wade Larson, Engineering Planning and Management Allan Holder, Entergy Operations, Inc.

Fred Emerson, Nuclear Energy Institute 3:30 - 4:15 Open Discussion and Question and Answer Session Sam Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Gary Holahan, Director, Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, NRR Steve West, Chief, Fire Protection Engineering Section, NRR Doug Brandes, Duke Power Dave Modeen, Nuclear Energy Institute 4:15 -4:30 Industry Closing Remarks Dave Modeen, Nuclear Energy Institute i

4:30 -4:45 Closing Remarks and Adjourn Gary Holahan, Director, Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, NRR Sam Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

~.

a a

_+_- - _...

u

2.... ___+ _ _

f e4 4

l l

l l

1

\\

l ATTACHMENT 2 WORKSHOP ATTENDEES t

4 1

4 1

e i

i l

l I

l NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NUMBER Bywater, Russ NRC, RIV 817/860-8289 Chyu, Dois M.

NRC, Rill 630/829-9616 l

Collins, Sam NRC, Headquarters 301/415-1270 Connell, Ed NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2838 Dey,Dr. M.K.

NRC, Headquarters 301/415-6443 l

Eaton, Tanya NRC, Headquarters 301/415-3610 l

El-Bassioni, Adel NRC, Headquarters 301/415-1094 Fuhrmeister, Roy NRC,RI 610/337-5059 Holahan, Gary NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2884 Holmes, Jeff NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2280 l

Jenkins, Ronaldo NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2985 i

Lew, David NRC,RI 610/337-5066 Madden, Patrick NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2854 Marsh, L. (Tad)

NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2873 l

Newberry, Scott NRC, Headquarters 301/415-3226 Ornstein, Ha!

NRC, Headquarters 301/415-7574 Oudinot Daniele-NRC, Headquarters 301/415-3731 Qualls, Phil NRC, Headquarters 301/415-1849 Salley, Mark NRC, Headquarters 301/415-2840 Singh, Jit NRC, Headquarters 301/415-6899 Siu, Nathan NRC, Headquarters 301/415-6380 j

West, K. Steven NRC, Headquarters 301/415-1220 Whitney, Leon NRC, Headquarters 301/415-3081 l

Wong, See-Meng NRC, Headquarters 301/415-1125 Woods, Roy NRC, Headquarters 301/415-6622 Young, Keith A.

NRC,RI 610/337-5293 i

t

. - ~. - ~.. _.

l 1

l Abbas, Rashid i

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (TVA) l 240 Concord Drive i-Madison, AL 35758 I

(256)729-7886 Aldieri, Joseph M.

Sargent & Lundy 55 Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603-5780 (312) 269-3681 Anderson, Richard C.'

Detroit Edison Fermi 2 Plant 2000 Second Avenue 240 EFZ TAC Detroit, MI 48226 (734) 586-1735 Bacanskas, Vincent P.

EOl-River Bend Station PO Box 220 St. Francisville, LA 70775 (225) 381-4628 i

Bailey, Les i

Southem Nuclear PO Box 1295 '

Birmingham, AL 35201 (205) 992-5286 Barbadoro, Peter J.

I Palladium Group 35 Hamess Lane Brointree, MA 02185 (781) 849-8540 Bassford, Brenda Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant j

1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway L

Lusby, MD 20657

.(410)495-3705 i

i l

l

- j

l..

I I

L.

2 Bhat, Ram P.

Illinois Power Clinton Power Station M/C V-928B i

Clinton, IL 61727 (217) 935-8881. Ext. 3963 l

Bhatty, Obaid TU Electric PO Box 1002 L

MS A08

. Glen Rose, TX 76043

.(254) 897-5838

.Biedenbach, Richard Rochester Gas & Electric Company 1503 Lake Road l

Ontario, NY 14519 (716) 771-3200 Boulder, Paul Virginia Power 5000 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, VA 23060 l

(804) 273-2219 i

Brandes, Doug Duke Power l

Nuclear Engineering Division l

PO Box 1006 -

Mail Code EC09H Charlotte, NC 28173 (704) 382-3922 Brastad, Gordon Washington Public Power Supply System WNP-2 L

Richland, Washington (509) 377-4705 l

Breglio, Peter Proto-Power Corporation 15 Thames Street Groton, CT 06340 (860) 446-9725 Ext. 3008 Buffington, Dale o

r l

3 l-Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant l

1650 Calvert Cliffs ParkwayLusby, MD 20657 (410) 495-3766 Burke, Stephen l

Boston Edison Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 600 Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, MA 02360 l

(508) 830-7998 l

Cain, Jim South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G)

VC Summer Nuclear Station MC-410, PO Box 88 Highway 215 Jenkinsville, SC 20065 l

(800) 868-6853 i

Cann, Francis, T.

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station i

PO Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 (315) 349-1220 Chung, Donald T.

Scientech, Inc.

Suite 500,11140 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 255-2263 Clariage, David L.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation PO Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839 (316) 364-8831 Ext. 4558 Cleary, Tom Northeast Utilities PO Box 128 Waterford, CT 06385-0128 (860) 447-1791 Ext. 3232 Cox, Frank R.

L STP Nucleat Operating Co.

South Texas Project i

I 1

o-4 l

PO Box 289 - N3010 Wadsworth, TX 77483 (512) 972-7188 Crawford, Howard C.

Three Mile Island /GPU Nuclear

- PO Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 l

(717) 948-8412 Crowther, John G.

' Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.

6100 Southwest Blvd.

Suite 400 -

Forth Worth, TX 76109 (817) 737-1162 Dahl, George Consolidated Edison Indian Point 2 Broadway & Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 (914) 734-5186 Davis, Stanford E.

Susquehanna SES PO Box 467 Berwick, PA 19603-0467 (717) 542-3915 de Peralta, Fleur Tri-En Corporation 1770 Fourth Avenue

. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 687-7385 Devine, Joe Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley Power Station PO Box 4 Shippingport, PA 15077 (412) 393-7884 l

l' Eitel, Lee AmerenUE Callaway Plant PO Box 620 Fulton, MO 65251 l

~

i 5

(573) 676--4311 Elliott, Kevin Scientech, Inc.

910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, MD 20878 j

(301) 258-2427 l

l Emerson, Fred NEl 1776 i Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 739-8086 Erdman, Ken Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station i

PO Box 399 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0399 (402) 533-6648 Ertman, Jeff Alliant Gas and Electric Duane Amold Energy Center 3313 DAEC Road Palo, lA 52324 (319) 851-7822 Esterman, Jeff Comed 1400 Opus Place Suite 400 Downers Grove, IL 60615 (630) 663-7662 Ettlinger, Alan New York Power Authority 123 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 681-6560 Findlay, Donald Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-3746

6 Finical, Richard L.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation i

PO Box 411

'I Burlington, KS 66839 (316) 364-8831 Ext. 4470 Fioravante, Nicholas E.

Technical & Management Consulting Services, Inc.

22312 Rolling Hill Lane Laytonsville, MD 20882 (301) 253-8677 i

Fisher, Charles Florida Power & Light Co.

PO Box 14000 700 Universe Blvd.

Juno Beach, FL 33408 (561) 694-3271 i

Fletcher, Mike Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation PO Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839 (316) 364-8831 Ext. 8005 Ford, Bryan Entergy 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 (601) 368-5792 Frumkin, Daniel Virginia Power 5000 Dominion Blvd.

' Glen Allen, VA 23060 (804) 273-2309 Gatlin, Dan South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G)

VC Summer Nuclear Station l

MC-410, PO Box 88 l

Highway 215 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 (803) 345-4590 Geaney, George r

i

.~

7 Proto-Power Corporation 15 Thames Street Groton, CT 06340 (8 ',0) 446-9725, Ext. 3006 Gerwe, Bruce Carolina Power & Light Robinson Nuclear Plant West Entrance Road Hartsville, SC 29550 (843) 857-1628 Gorman, Tom PP&L 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101 (610) 774-7762 Greenberg, Mark RG&E 1503 Lake Road Ontario, NY (716) 771-3251 Gregerson, James Southem Califomia' Edison 2307 Via Clavel i

San Clemente, CA 92673 l

(949) 368-2664 Guariglia, Joseph Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station PO Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 (315) 349-7765 Gunter, Paul NIRS 142416th Street, NW Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 328-0002 l

Hampshire, David J.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company i

l l

8 Diablo Canyon Power Plant PO Box 56,104/4 Avila Beach, CA 93424 (805) 545-4054 Hanson,Roy Alliant-Gas and Electric Duane Arnold Energy Center, PSC 3313 DAEC Road Palo, IA 52324 (319) 851-7411 Hardy, Steve -

Carolina Power & Light Brunswick Nuclear Plant PO Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 (910)457-2743 Heatherly, Ira M.

Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street, LP 4J Chattanooga, TN 37402 (423)751-4393 Herman, L. Paul HSB Professional Loss Control 1017 Mayfair Drive Libertyville, IL 60048 (847) 362-5314 l

l i

h r-

..-. <.~,

_. ~. -,..-

I 9

Heysek, William GPU Nuclear-TMI

{

PO Box 480 Middletown, PA 17547 (717) 948-9191 Hodge, Mike Arizona Public Service Co.

~ 5801 S. Wintersburg Road Tonapah, AZ 85354 l

(602) 393-6803 l

Hoffman, Roy Wisconsin Public Service N490 Highway 42 Kewaunee, WI 54216 (920) 388-8480 Holder, A.L.

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Waterford 3 PO Box B Killona, LA 70066 (504) 739-6697-i Huston, Roger Licensing Support Services 4204 Christine Place 4

Alexandria, VA 22311 (703) 671-9738

. Jones, David H.

Southern Nuclear PO Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 (205) 992-5984

- Kahl, Harold Duquesne Light Company Beaver Valley Power Station PO Box 4 l

Shippingport, PA 15077 (412) 393-5064

10 Kalantari, Robert Engineering Planning & Management (EPM) i 20 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 (508) 875-2121 Kilroy, Robert J.

Consumers Energy - Palisades Plant 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530 (616) 764-3277 Kleinsorge, Elizabeth A.

Duke Engineering & Services 400 S. Tryon Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 373-3595 Kobus, Dave Washington Public Power Supply System PO Box 968, Mail Drop PE27 Richland, Washington 99352 (509) 377-8237 j

Ladd, Robert L.

Wisconsin Electne Point Beach Nuciaar P: ant 6590 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 (920) 755-6929 Lancaster, Ken Florida Power Corp.

15960 Powerline Street Crystal River, FL 33629 (352) 563-4608 Larson, Wade Engineering Planning & Management (EPM) 20 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 (508) 875-2121 i

i i

_ _. +

11 Law, Robert O.

NAESCo Seabrook Station

- PO Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874-0300 (603) 474-9574 Ext. 2000 Lechner, James E.

Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Nuclear Station PO Box 98 Brownville, NE 68321 (402) 825-5686 Lefkowitz, Harold Duke Power Corporation Oconee Nuclear Station PO Box 1439 l

Seneca, SC 29679 (864) 885-3445 j

Lillehei, Tom Northem States Power Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant

- 1717 Wakonade Drive East, Welch, MN 55089 (651) 388-1121 Ext. 4373 Ludlow, Christopher Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-4170 Luker, fra F.

Southem Nuclear Operating Company PO Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 (205) 992-7205

i t -

l 12 Makar, Mary D.

First Energy Corp.

Perry Nuclear Plant 10 Center Road l.

Perry, Ohio 44081 (440)280-5137 Mathur, Kiran PSE&G PO Box 236, MC N25 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 (609) 339-7215 Mattingly, Kevin Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Ca! vert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)4954 931 Mays, R. Ben TU Electric PO Box 1002, MS 006 Glen Rose, TX 76043 (254) 897-6816 McCann, Edward Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-2389 McClougnan, Steven R.

American Electric Power Cook Nuclear Plant 1960 North Lincoln Park West # 2402 Chicago, IL 60614 (773) 529-4640 McDevitt, Bill Duke Engineering & Services 901 East 8th Avenue l

King of Prussia, PA 19406 l

(610) 337-6821 McGinnis, Frank t

l

r..

13 Engineering Planning & Management (EPM) i:

20 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701

.(508) 875-2121.

' McKenney, Hugh Northeast Utilities Millstone Nuclear Power Station 156 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06385-0128 (860) 447-1791 Ext. 2359 i

McMahon, Robert Rochester Gas & Electric 1503 Lake Road Ontario, NY 14519 (716) 771-3338 McManis, Joe Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station.

PO Box 399 Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0399

-(402) 533-6648 McMorrow, Colm Boston Edison Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 600 Rocky Hill Road Plymouth, MA 02360

..(508) 830-8362

~ Miller, William H., Jr.

Duke Engineering & Services Northeast Utilities, Millstone Station Rope Ferry Road (Rt.156)

Waterford, CT 03385

(860) 447-1791 Ext. 6045 Minnick, Steve

Limerick Generating Station PO Box 2300 H

Sanatoga, PA 19464 (610) 718-3550 l.

l.

Modeen, David J.

j Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Generation Division.

_ _ _ _. ~ - _

14 1776 i Street, NW, Suite 400

. Washington, DC 20006 (410) 799-2776' Moudgill, Ashok

' PSE&G PO Box 236, MC N25 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 (609) 339-1658 Murphree, C.M.

Southern Corapany Services, Inc.

l Mail Bin B241, PO Box 2625 Birmingham,' AL 35202

)

(205) 992-6612 Murtha, Matthew J.

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Rt. 2 Oak Harbor, OH 43449 (419) 321-7747 Notley, David SAIC 12100 Sunset Hill Road Recton, VA 20190 (703) 318-4500 O'Connor, Andrew Parsons Energy and Chemicals Group, Inc.

267u Morgantown Road,-

Reading, PA 19607

. (610) 855-2946 O'Connor, Thomas A.

l

- Three Mile Island /GPU Nuclear PO Box 480 I

Middletown, PA 17057 (717) 948-8135 f

.m.

15 O'Neill, Edward A.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station PO Box 52034, MS. S. 7005, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 (602) 393-2547 Olson, Robert D.

- Northern States Power Company Monticello Station i

' 2807 W. Highway 75 Monticello, MN 55362

' (612) 271-5157 Outlette, Paul Engineering Planning & Management (EPM) 20 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701

)

(508) 875-2121

. Pacher, Joe Rochester Gas & Electric 1503 Lake Road -

Ontario, NY 14519 (716) 771-3566 Parker, David Southern Company 42 Inverness Parkway j

Birmingham, AL 35242 4

(205) 992-5010 Parmelee, Bob Carolina Power & Light Brunswick Nuclear Plant PO Box 10429 i

Southport, NC 28461 (910) 457-2785.

Pasquarello, Joseph M.

Parsons Energy & Chemical Group 2675 Morgantown Road Reading, PA 19607 (610) 855-2636-m

--.-rm-r-

__~_ _ _. _ _ _.. - _. __ _._._._ _ _.

16 l

Pechacek, Joe

' New York Power Authority James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 268 Lake Road PO Box 41 Lycoming, NY 13093 (315) 349-6518 Pellizzari, Francesco Engineering Planning & Management (EPM) 20 Speen Street Framingham, MA 01701 (508) 875-2121 Petersen, Tom Comed Quad Cities Nuclear Station 22710 206 Avenue North Cordova, IL 61242 (309) 654-2241 Pokora, Bohdan M.

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Northeast Utilities System Millstone Station 475/2 Rope Ferry Road Waterford, CT 06386 (860)447-1791 Ext.4491 Pragman, Christopher J.

PECO Energy 965 Chesterbrook Blvd.

MC 63A-3 Wayne, PA 19087 (610) 640-6694 Raimondo, Tony NISYS Corporation 4233 Pleasant Hill Road Suite 200 Duluth, GA 30096-6332 (770)497-8818 l

I I

e*

l 17 l

Raju, Arumuham Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station PO Box 63 Engineering Services Bldg.-2 Lycoming, NY 13093 (315) 349-7020 Ribeiro, Joe DE&S 1 Huntington Quad Suite 4S09 Melville, NY 11747 (516)420-3215 Rispoli, Ron Entergy RT #3 Box 137 G, GSB-1E Russellville, AR 72801 (501) 858-4915 Roberts, Daniel J.

Comed 1400 Opus Place, Suite 500 Downers Grove, IL 60615 (630) 663-7636 Robosky, Andy Scuth Carolina Electric & Gas VC Summer Station Nuclear Station MC-805, PO Box 88 Highway 215 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 (803) 345-4765 Sampson, James TVA

- PO Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35602-2000 (256)729-7420 L

t s

l

s*

18 Schoppman, Mike FP&L 11304 Coral Gables Drive N. Potomac, MD 20878

.(301) 762-9032 Shields, Bill Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2901 (202) 208-6387 Shumaker, Denis PSE&G PO Box 236, MC N25 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 (609) 339-1852 Sims, Roger Carolina Power & Light Brunswick Nuclear Plant PO Box 10429 Southport, NC 28461 (910)457-3300 Sinopoli, Cliff Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1G50 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-6520 Sohlman, Wayne R.

Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited 1201 Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 573-2282 Stanley, Mike Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-4931 Stellfox, David McGraw-Hill

.o..---__,-~

e 19 1200 G Street, NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 383-2162 Stephenson, David First Energy / Davis-Besse j

5501 North S.R. 2 i

Oak Harbor, OH 43449 (419) 321-7267 Stokes, Matt DE&S Staff Augmentation, IP2 5104 Penny Road Raleigh, NC 27606 (919) 834-0369 Stramback, George GENE 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 (408) 925-1913 Sullivan, Ken Brookhaven National Labs PO Box 5000, Bldg.130 Upton, NY 11973-5000 (516) 282-3957 i

3 Sutter, Theresa A.

Bechtel Power Corporation 9801 Washingtonian Blvd, Gaithersburg, MD 20878 (301) 417-4244 Sutton,' Dom Southern Nuclear Operating Company Farley Nuclear Plant Hwy. 98 South Columbia, AL 36319

-(334) 814-4560.

20 Sydnor, Russell Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-4953 Szabo, Thomas S.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.

3 Executive Campus PO Box 5200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 (609) 482-3542 Tolete, Dean Southem California Edison SONGS PO Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674 (949) 368-8301 Vance, J.C.111 Southern Company Services, Inc.

Mail Bin B241, PO Box 2625 Birmingham, AL 35202 (205) 992-7733 Votuli, Carmen RG&E 1503 Lake Road l

Ontario, NY 14450 (716) 771-3350 White, R.V.

TVA - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant PMB 3A-BFN, PO Box 2000 Decature, AL 35602-2000 (256) 729-2468 Wiegand, David W.

STP Nuclear Operating Co.

South Texas Project i

PO Box 289 - N3010 l

. Wadsworth, TX 77483 (512) 972-7574 Wood, Julia

21

' Baltimore Gas and Electric Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, MD 20657 (410)495-2366 Zielonka, Andy T.

Florida Powac & Light

. Turkey Poe.t 9760 SW 344th Street Florida City, FL 33035 (305) 246-6206 i

(

i

aso b A. Abd h4 d A-4 m-m ma-3.m.m

.a

%684 J -4 M M J

I-.d 4 Ad +AJE.d +A t + #

A muO fr jam d n =EAwA _ A.a.n.1 df4 eOhi he+M. s1 44 e4 - Me 4 m,4

>+.phw.f.M-RW W4s4 d.4E ndE4&M w_

. =.e.pdEi*.d5-.da. M P-k a h ah-o.-

4Jm_ q gom ein~.d.

T l

W ATTACHMENT 3 FPFI ASSESSMENT TREE HANDOUT AND ElGHT SETS OF PRESENTATION SLIDES' l

i I

7 1

l-I l

1 e

L t '

1 t

f i.

v.

m

,-.-.y.

y

.-_..,.=--

DATE:

' FIRE' PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION ASSESSMENT TREE REACTOR PLANT NAME:

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF PLANT FIRE PROTECTION PERFORMANCE I

I I

I FIRE PROTECTION FIRE PROTECTION POST-FIRE PROGRAM MGMT&

POTENTIAL PROGRAM SYSTEMS AND SAFE SHUTDOWN CONFIGURATION FIRE RELATED ADMINISTRATION FEATURES CAPABluTY CONTROL VULNERABluTIES LICENSING AND LICENSING AND U

FIRE PROTECTION EVENT BASED DESIGN BASES DESIGN BASES DESIGN BASES AND POST-FIRE FIRES SAFE SHUTDOWN MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES, PROCESS ORGANIZATION &

FIRE DETECTION MANAGEMENT AND ALARM EQUIPMENT, PLANTTRANSIENTS FIRE INDUCED REPAIRS, &

OVERSIGHT SYSTEMS SHUTDOWN SAFETY FIRE PROTECTION AND POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN FIRE PROTECTION FIXED AND CON M RA M I

NS ELECTRICAL PROCEDURES AUTOMATIC SYSTEM CONTROL FIRE SUPPRESSION PROTECTION ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS MANUAL FIRE POST-FIRE FIRE INDUCED SUPPRESSION SAFE SHUTDOWN RELEASE OF CAPABlWTY RADIOACTIVE GENERAL EMPLOYEE AND FIRE WATCH TRAINING FIRE BARRIERS GREEN

GOOD YELLOW

= ADEQUATE FIRE BRIDGADE AND RCP OIL COLLECTION RED

DEFICIENT l

FIRE RESPONSE SYSTEMS BLUE

NOT EXAMINED l

i l

Idtroductory Remarks Fred Emerson NEI NRC Fire Protection Functional Inspection Workshop November 10,1998 QEI I

industry View of Workshop

. Oppommity

. Begin to improv. cost-effectiveness of fire proteccon and safe shutdoati assessments

= Challenge

. Address industry and NRC issues wnh FPFis QEI Fire Protection Functional Inspections a Benefits

. Re-examinanons needed

. Risk informanon considered to some degree a Difficulties

. Costly

. Safety sigmficance of findmgs in doubt

%EI 1

l l

1 t

i Industry Goals for NRC l

i Workshop i

i e Recommend method to improve fire protection assessments

. Strengthen assessment process l

. De cost effectzve

. Stay within framework of genenc changes to assessment process

. NRC and mdustry auessment roles e ininate dialog with NRC to improve I

assessment process g

I 1

i i

I-l l

I

{

i a

b 2

FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM WORKSHOP i

NRC FIRE PROTECTION / SAFE SHUTDOWN INSPECTION PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND COMPARISON IS IT PROPERLY FOCUSED?

I i

i NOVEMBER 10,1998 i

Patrick M. Madden Senior Fire Protection Engineer Fire Protection Engineering Section Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

i O__VERVIEW What is inspected and who does it?

e I

Insights - NRC baseline / core vs. FPFI e

i f

2

. 4. 7 s

What is inspected and who does it?

Baseline / Core (IP 64704 - Fire Protection Program)

Implementation of routine fire protection program i

Quality Assurance program i

Fire prevention I administrative controls Functional cbndition of fire suppression systems Fire brigade activities i

Resident / Regional inspectors - 32 hours3.703704e-4 days <br />0.00889 hours <br />5.291005e-5 weeks <br />1.2176e-5 months <br /> onsite Regiotsal Initiative (IP 64100 - Postfire Safe Shutdown ~, Emergency Lighting, and Oil Collection Capability) l Inspection conducted one time at each facility in the early 80s l

)

i i

Region / NRR - 128 hours0.00148 days <br />0.0356 hours <br />2.116402e-4 weeks <br />4.8704e-5 months <br /> onsite Regional Initiative (IP 64150 - Triennial Postfire Safe Shutdown Capability Reverification) i t

Initiative Not budgeted, only limited number of inspections performed 3

-- --____ j

l Fire Protection Program Functional Inspection (FPFI) Pilot Program l

Principle focus - plant fire protection features, post-fire safe shutdown design, l

compliance with the fire protection lice ising bases and fire protection program l

elements covered by existing NRC guidance and regulations.

[

i Secondary focus.- fire safety. considerations not expressly addressed by the j

fire protection regulation, but by other regulatory programs (e.g. event initiated fires, fire induced transients, seismic fire interactions).

f APPROACH Headquarters Team Concept -400 hours onsite (Team Leader, FPE, EE, RSE, Region-Fi and PRA Specialist)

Region Team Concept / Self Assessments - 128 hours0.00148 days <br />0.0356 hours <br />2.116402e-4 weeks <br />4.8704e-5 months <br /> onsite (Regional Team Leader, HQ-Appendix R Resources, Region-FI) j I

5 i

4 l

1

1 INSIGHTS l

implementation of the fire protection plan was not reviewed as part of the initial f

App R inspections. Integration of FP / App R elements not validated.

i i

i The application of QA principles to App R implementation was not assessed by the initial App R inspections.

l t

I Pre-FPFI inspection procedures did not verify App R SSA/SSD compliance was l

being audited by hcensee programs.

i Administrative controls (fire prevention measures) is overly emphasized by the core.

i Engineering of plant fire protection systems, their design basis and compliance with minimum industry fire protection standards is not an area addressed by l

pre-FPFI inspection procedures.

j i

Fire brigade performance and NRC expectations not fully inspected by core

[

inspection procedure.

l 5

t

INSIGHTS - Cont.

The engineering adequacy of passive plant fire protection features and fire barriers used to protect SSD functions, including their design and licensing basis not addressed by pre-FPFI inspection procedures.

The initial App R inspection procedure provided no guidance for confirming the adequacy of SSA/SSD methodology and assumptions.

Core inspection procedure does not require App R program elements to be audited.

50.59, post-fire safe shutdown operability, configuration management and reportability program areas not fully addressed by pre-FPFI inspection procedures.

Additional inspection guidance is needed to fully assess the adequacy of fire risk analysis, its assumptions, methodology and the perceived results.

\\

6

i FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION WORKSHOP l

.l

SUMMARY

OF FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION FINDINGS i

i NOVEMBER 10,1998 i

t Patrick M. Madden Senior Fire Protection Engineer l

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and t

Kenneth Sullivan j

Brookhaven National Laboratory j

5 FORMAT OF INSPECTIONS i

i t

3 FULL-SCOPE FPFis (2 BWR + 1PWR) e I

2 REVIEWS OF LICENSEE SELF-ASSESSMENTS (1BWR e

+1PWR) t 1 CONFIRMATORY ACTION VALIDATION INSPECTION (BWR) i i

k i

i 1

1997 - 1998 QUICK-LOOK CONCLUSIONS INSPECTION RESULTS INDICATE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES e

MAY EXIST IN O.NE OR MORE ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH AT ANY GIVEN PLANT l

l t

e SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE.OF INDIVIDUAL FINDINGS IS DEPENDENT ON OVERALL FP PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS AND SHOULD BE JUDGED IN A PLANT-WIDE CONTEXT i

i 2

1 0

l t

PILOT FPFI OBJECTIVES PRIMARY:

l USE RISK-INFORMED APPROACH TO:

l e

ASSESS IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS OF DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH PRINCIPLES, e

PROVIDE ADDED FOCUS ON CONFIGURATION l

MANAGEMENT PROCESSES SECONDARY:

l e

DEVELOP ASSESSMENT CAPABILITIES FOR FIRE-RELATED VULNERABILITIES I

- Limited focus during pilot inspections 3

- i

DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH 1.

FIRE PREVENTION 2.

SUPPRESSION ND DETECTION 3.

FIRE PROTECTION OF SAFE S.HUTDOWN CAPABILITY l

i t

i l

i i

y ;

FPFI INSPECTION ELEMENTS l

i FP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION - DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH l

i e

FP SYSTEMS AND FEATURES - DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH i

e POST-FIRE SS/D CAPABILITY -DEFENSE-IN-DEPTH e

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND CONFIGURATION CONTROL o

POTENTIAL FIRE RELATED VULNERABILITIES l

i I

I 5

i

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FE4 DINGS Defense-in-depth Element :

Fire Prevention e

t i

Observed Weakness Frequency Control of Combustibles 3/6 Compensatory Measures 2/6 RCP Oil Collection 1/2

[

6

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS i

Defense in Depth Element:

Detection and Suppression 1

Fixed and Automatic Detection and Suppression Systems

(

l Observed Weakness Frequency i

Design or installation Detection 5/6 did not meet industy Sprinklers 5/6 standards or codes of record Gaseous Acceptance Testing 2/6 Suitability for 1/6 Hazard Hose Stations 4/6 L

i

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS Defense in Depth Element:

Detection and Suppression Manual Fire Suppression (Fire Brigade)

Observed Weakness Frequency Equipment 3/4 Drill Performance 3/4 Qualifications 1/4 Pre-plans / Strategies 3/4 8

1

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS l

Defense in Depth Element:

Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability j

Fire Barriers Observed Weakness Frequency Doors 2/6 i

Fire Area Barrier Design / Test 4/6 Penetrations Design / Test 1/6 Degraded / Missing Passive 3/6 l

Barrier (SSD equipment) l 9

i

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS 4

Defense in Depth Element: Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown e

Capability i

1 Post-fire Safe Shutdown Capability i

Observed Weakness Frequency Analysis deficiencies 4/5 i

Procedural deficiencies 5/5 Implementation (tools, 4/5 equipment, human factors access etc.)

I Emergency Lighting 3/5 I

Communications 3/5 10 i

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS Defense in Depth Element: Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown e

Capability Electrical System Protection anc Associated Circuits Observed Weakness Frequency Electrical Distribution 4/5 System (Coordination, MHIFs)

Analysis and Protection for 4/5 Fire-induced Spurious Actuations or Signals 11

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS e

IPEEE Review Observed Weakness Frequency Assumptions 3/3 Analysis / Modeling 2/3 i

t L

12 j

i

SUMMARY

OF INSPECTION FINDINGS l

Potential Fire Related Vulnerabilities Observed Weakness Frequency Evaluation of Fire Induced Plant 3/5 Transients:

Hi/ Low Press. Interface SBO I

Rapid cooldown Significant loss or inadvertent actuation of safety functions I

13 1

t

USE OF RISK TO FOCUS l

l FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS AND EVALUATE THEIR FINDINGS BY Scott F. Newberry, Deputy Director i

Division of Systems Safety and Analysis, NRR November 10,1998 i

i

_j

BACKGROUND Fire Protection Activities and Issues FPFI Guidance, standards, and rulemaking Penetration seals Thermolag fire barriers Circuit analysis Licensing Issues IPEEE reviews and followup

BACKGROUND (cont.)

1 Fire events are significant contributors to risk (CDF) at many plants based on fire risk assessments (e.g. Fire Risk Scoping Study, IPEEEs)

Risk assessment tools and data are not as mature as those used for 1

internal events analysis i

t USE OF RISK INFORMATION h

Pre-Inspection Preparation Participation with the Inspection Team j

i Assessment of Inspection Findings i

Post-Pilot Reactor Fire Protection Inspection Program Options l

f

RISK INFORMED INSPECTION AREAS V_ulnerable Areas Combustible Sources: MG Sets, Feed Pumps Potential for Common Failure: Cable to Redundant Equipment in Common Area, Control Systems Interactions Key Barriers of Defense Detection and Suppression Fire Barriers Manual Fire Fighting / Suppression Safe Shutdown Capability Ateas Screened Out by IPEEE, Yet Potentially Risk Significant

l ASSESS INSPECTION FINDINGS AND PROGRAM CHANGES Eollow enforcement policy a,d procedures As_s_e_ss findings using risk-informed approach (Regulatory Guide 1.174)

Compliance l

Defense-in-depth j

i i

Margin r

Risk impact 1

Monitoring strategies Assess follow-on options (content and direction) l

\\

- -. ~. _,-

PRESENTATION BY TOM LILLEHEI NORTHERN STATES POWER l-l Define Scope Of Work '

• Minor update to program

+ Major update to program

---Major Tasks

+ Revise Safe Shutdown Analysis

+ Revise Fire Hazards Analysis.

+ Revise Fire Strategies Analysis

+ Revise combustible loading calculation

+ Revise electrical / mechanical calculations

+ Eliminate /mmimize wrap matenal i.

I MajorTasks i

l

+ Evaluations of recent regulatory issues:

- GL 9248 Thermolag Issues

- IN 9218 Hot short issues

- Fire bamer tested configurations j

- Emergency lightmg

-Et e

i

i L

i i

What Resources Are Required I

\\

+ In House Resources

- Engineenng i

)

- Licensing

- Operanons

- Quality.

+ Out House Resources

- Mulople contractors as team augmentauon

- Full service A/E for majonty of effort I

Acceptance Criteria

+ Regulatory Commitments

- Pre Appendix R Plant

- Post Appendix R Plant

+ What Exemptions Exist?

Are New or Revised Exemptions Required?

+

• Other Commitments?

I i

i i

i Schedule

• Commitment Dnven

+ Budgetary Driven l

l l.

i y

4

- 1 j.

n a

l....

u l

t.

l l

Verification OfThe Program

+ InternaFExternal Quality Audits

- Part of regular or expanded scope QA audit

- Special QA audit by contracted QA specialist l

- Independence and ngor must be clear

- NRC will review results and may or may not use as a self assessment l

Verification OfThe Program

+ Internal Self Assessment

- Performed by team of utihty personnel

- Abihty to provide independence must be clear l_

- NRC audits results of self assessment against reduced scope review module Verification Of The Program

+ External Self Assessment

- Contract to full service A'E with FP expenence.

- Must maintain independence

- NRC audits results of self assessmentin accordance with reduced scope review module i

t l

l i

l'

i

[

i L

(,

l-f Verification OfThe Program

+ Do Nothing

- NRC reviews complete program as per basic FPFI

- All program discrepancies become fmdings -

[

unless previously self idenufied.

l' i

i i

i t

t t

i

! Conective Actions i

i

+ Programmatic Changes

+ Procedure Changes j

f:-

+ Physical Plant Modifications Documentation Of Discrepancies i

• Program To Track Discrepancies

-- Part of existmg system

- Special adnunistranve procedure 1,

l 4

4 I'

}

Fire Protection Inspection Workshop Fire Protegtion Program Inspection Options and Considerations 2

November 10,1998 L. B. Marsh, Chief Plant Systems Branch i

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Background

Original purpose of FPFI l

Regulatory snvironment change Workshop is final activity of pilot FPFI program Final task is to assess options and make recommendations for future reactor fire inspections Recommendations will be based on integrated assessment of a wide variety of factors Stakeholder input is key ingredient i

i r

Assessment Factors:

Regulatory Environment f

l Mechanics and Costs I

Results and Benefits 1

General C'onsiderations t

i

Regulatory Environment:

Stakeholder input The " Big Picture" and the role of NRC inspection and oversight Past interactions with Congress and Commission OlG report about Thermo-Lag experience Strategies suggested by Commission

.I Mechanics and Costs:

Leadership for future inspections Inspector expertise and team composition Inspection scope, frequency and method Cost and resource implications for the NRC l

i NRR and regional staff and training Contractor support Cost and resource implications for the licensees Inspection support vs program fixes

Results and Benefits:

i Overall importance to public health and safety Assessment of risk significance of inspection findings Assessment of other inspection and event experience Assessment of safety benefits i

[

General Considerations:

Existing or planned industry initiatives Balance between NRC oversight and industry initiatives Observations about core inspection program

i

==

Conclusions:==

I:

Recommendations will be based on integrated assessment of a wide variety of factors Recommendation due to Commission by end of 1998 l-f i

l;\\

l1 !\\iii ll!,

i:l_

e N 3

a 0

r 1

1 N

R

, A0 SE TV 8

1 1

NI 9

_ K S

1 ME T

9 WYr C

C t

1 A M E h

0, ONR a

E K R S

F SF B1 i W T

PA'-

O GEE r

- spa O R RAB a

P e

IMe:

OS SE mb m

O P P P R

e N O' NE FN v

_ I Ce o

L A

N

- OR E C L

T I

S

_ L

. NF I

I L

..C

$m

1. m 8 lq _

M

_E_

CPS Fire Protection Program tandardSel Assessment ypical QA Audit -

\\hhl[l Addresses Implementation of Procedures

. Reviews Known Material Problems

• $lya Considers Timeliness of Responses Addresses Administrative Issues 4

a$k

@W W

m s

a e

r s

n g

s i

e l

ot e

r n.

n d

i Pe.

d iu m.

a e

G ns R

A sg os i

e t

t r

Qt n

l c

s a

l uf g

i s

t a

sf o

e s

c et k

al A

e i

torl R

PRS c

yt e

a Pe A

T nt B

eS7 y

n uR e

a i

P

9. B O mqC r

9 1

n wd s

e FF sdh eie e

e SS y, vv ss a

g i

aire a sinh PP CCMDRBA

$l

.bm bhkR

,am a

i

t

}l

i i

,l;l, l

l11 e

S m

P B

a C

o rt T

gn e

oe t

v i

ne r

m F

ev

_ Ps d

mi s

_ ne F

a ge s

n en I

ah os P

s ne is t

Ft r a r cA.

npeMp ged

_ e m

t xvSo l

i o

e dEloPC rS.

n yvC

_ P e

rn d

d.

Pt yn I

e e7 sl

_ id.

9 yue Ba rFn.9 Bdndh 1

nn et a

nI ot p

- Sp.

ce e

e r s v

niur eD Px

_ CE.

n r

ur oei J

DFPDI

?

,,~

['

.[n

.l!

ii l1l!\\:

,; l !

g e

c y

m n

c e.,

a a

ap, i

r l

u o

p q

gc.,

m e

o o

's d

rS.,

C s

A i

Pt a

n,is d

n B

ne.

s n

g i

i m

y g

a s

o l

t s

a m

g e

n n

D c

s n

s oi e

e e.

A n

i t

sl t

s R

e u hn a

t os n

c l

e go wiLx i w

o i.i S

Pr A

y

+

Lt od e

s a

n d-dndi e yc o

v e

e--

t e

n eR cii rd-upaR8 nnt a

i pn eu r

Fn.hSA gE 1

grmt e

a.,

_ S p,,

eh E2 s

9 emn i

f eE mo e

t P

ai C 'x S

w D I

PN EC P

I h

h e@n

,-l,Rf s

Y i':

l l

1ll ll

,1l.

j!

s m

s P

n e

e Fio l

ap.

b t

na r

i o

t oi gc s

v o

u s

e

_ rS b

nD Pt ms o

n s

n t

d i

ne.

e o

o a

n r

s Ci im u

e t

s c

a o

i i

t a

nf t

s dt nl oi s

i uid n

c s

e v

s e

e e

ci nict o

g o

c o

sl aMi t

t s

r i

n a

u s

os rA.

pat aCl t

e a

c r

nD

_P d e EAT 9v a

c c

nEl r

e e

n n

ef P

e i

id a

a vOd y

i r

t f

r ni a

e o

r l

t l

Fn.l e

c o

of a

i a

v n

r S

et e

r L

atcB t

_ Sp r

i r

n e

e e

r f

r P

a o

oiPf C 'x

. uSMCCFFEF i

b a

m k

,h.

e y g. l l & $

l d

i t

. i i),

ll!

ll

,l l

l; m

d s

e i

a s

r p

d y

o el gt a

l n

e s

n or e

v sA e

e Pm D

d c

s r

e ns e

d nd s

a o

s oe.

c Al Md i

i s

n d

y pt o

t s

d e

l miM I

e e

c eI u

eA t

o ct v

l e

niC r

n t

e c7 e

s nCl i

on c

a x9 o.

aE9 ms wV P

r n

r e

Pr 1

gr oO g

C ro r,

ugd MLa eFF t

FeA gu I

r f

Ah 8

o i

s P

nb f

S 1

m Fn F ama s

2 r

l t

e o

Si CPeS ef 9

e v

uaN h

t Pc RPoP sSI T

C4 NFNFIs 58 1@a 12@

l.

4e?.

s.

ij

l,l:

t!i!!

l

!l!

- mm.

a a

r e.

n o

gT i

o tc t

r n.

e n

r t

- Po.

e a

t i

o t

r m

ts na

- ou P

s e

e s

R i

l r

e t

i s

r 1

c a..

F s

o e

v A

F 7

f E.

9 o

to f

s rl 9

l i

e Pa 1

es s

c Sn a

i i

e c.

r, S oB l

e di r

e..

mes e

ip..

b l

u maatal m

FS eigdc a

cr t

c rolin c

_ SC.

e er ao e

_ P R.

DVPVCB

_ C l

$l hb h,m l

h.a

\\

\\

eu

' i

. ;I i:l r [Ill!'

1\\

m m

r a

r a

a r

e s

g g

Y d

o r

o o

P r

e M

ndt n

P O

e n

o i

n s

a t

n I

sl c

o eP e

i s

s rf t

sd o

o tc n..

e r

e o

rd n

P t

i.

gA o

e o

s o

yit r

uPt rl i

r e

F Plc cl nl e

p e

e a

r m

l i

i b

r o

t iC nD o

a C

F i

a s

V C..

t s

e n

S uo A

PR.bu sp C

SIsU

!.!%i8 h,E

,li

'fA gs a~h g h t w ;a

- =

FPFI for thought...

ee an;awmaswamus,,,,

l Fleur de Peralta Tri-En Corporation i

November 10,1998 fdeperalta@tri-en.com What is FPFl?

- m m,,,,,,;eme mom,_

E May eventually supersede NRC Inspection Procedures 64100,64150 and 64704 I Provides comprehensive guidance to NRC and utilities on expectations of FPP I Improves consistency of NRC approach I Confirms Design and License Basis for Fire Protection Programs 11/10,98 Tri-En Corporation 2

l 1

What does this mean?

n,-m nn,m, mum.,g,_,

Spend more $ss?

Another Plant burden?

Time to hire consultants?

More regulatory activity?

NOT NECESSARILY!

11/1098 Tri-En Corporation 3

Let's maintain our focus

~

,,m,_,_4emm,,,,_

I General Design Criterion 3

" structures, systems, and Components important to safety slyall be designed and located to minimize...the probability and effect of fires and explosions..."

I Defense-in-depth protection of the public health and safety I Minimize the risk of fire-induced radiological hazards to the public, environment, and plant personnel

\\ Tri-En Corporadon 11/1098 4

l 2

l

2

.m

_m._

sa __

m.m mm m_

.m__

_._m l

Tools for the Trade

< unemeemenme==gymmerem,,_,,,

I Management Commitment I Engineering I Plant Operations I A Dedicated Organization 1 Fire Protection Engineers i Ucensing Engineers I safe shutdown system Engineers l PRA expertise I operations Staff 11/10/9a N Tri-E'n Corporation 5

How deep do we look?

mswa,mmenewcaammmamu,,

E Effective QA Audits?

I Had Independent Self Assessments Recently?

I Strong Plant oversight committee?

=> Leads to Plant's ability to find Industry and Plant-specific issues l.

11/10 S 8 Tri-En Corporation 6

i I

3

Other indicators...

l 27

,,me w,um,m I How comprehensive were past NRC inspections?

I Is FPP current with Industry Issues?

I Does your Plant perform comprehensive Operating Experience Reviews?

I Do the trends of Pilot FPFI's apply to your Plant?

11/10/98 Tri-En Corporation 7

Where do I begin???

aanon mmmug:mmmmme,_,

I Dedicated FPP organization?

I Keeping,FPP documents current?

I Extent of Quality Issues?

I Good License Commitment Reviews?

I Strong configuration control processes?

I Comprehensive procedures?

I Any licensee internal concerns?

11/10/98 Tri-En Corporation 8

I l

4

s.

1.

• l Now get Started...

x-;m,,3;gammay,m.%,,_,

I Inspection Procedure 40501 I Assess overall Fire Protection Program I Ask key Fire Protection Personnel I Review vulnerabilities with current industry issues I Concentrate on programmatic issues I Get expert help where you see fit 11/10Sa Tri-En Corporation 9

Existing Plant Processes rmwee mwansaamaanamn, I Configurat. ion Control Program I QA Program I Administrative Control Program I Licensing Commitment Control I Design Basis Controls I Corrective Action Program 11/10/98 Tri-En Corporation 10 i

5

.y i

Reportability Considerations

,an m,,ggramem,m,,,

E 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 criteria E Non-conformance to 10 CFR 50.48 and applicable sections of Appendix R?

I Outside technical basis of NRC-approved Exemptions / Deviations?

I Gray areas?

I NUREG 1022

)

kTri-En Corporation 11/10/98 11 In Closing m

,,ym=ymeeemm,,,,,,,,

Fire Protection Programs:

E are important to the safety of the public I are here to stay...

even for decommissioned plants AND even if FPFI does not continue...

Self-assessment is a good thing!

11/10/98 Tri-En Corporation 12 6

[4 o 4 l

^

l i

Functionalinspections:

Industry Activities and Recommendations Fred Emerson

{

NE!

l NRC Fire Protection Functional Inspection Werkshop November 10,1998 EI i

i i

I Topics 4

~

. Introduction j

l e Industry activities e Recommendations i

Y' 6

l i

introduction

= important to have strong, cost-effective fire protecnon and safe shutdowTi programs

. NRC FPFI plans heightened r - s 1 % ' need for good self assessments orinter.<;dlity vaments NEl concerned about utility and NRC resources invested in FPF!s l

l 1

yI I

l

l..

l i

Industry Activities e Goal: Assure strong programs with reduced assessment resources by both staff and industry e Fire Protection Working Group actions

. Discussed need for industry self-assessments with f

generie mdustry guidance

. Focused scope and reduend remurces l

. Reduce need for scope of frFis.

l

. Preimunwy de usuons wth NRC

. Reviewed NE! strawman for conduct of self. ygl assessments

- e I

industry Activities a FPWG recommended NEI survey of extent and scope of recent plant assessments and self-assessment.

I e Survey completed shortly before NEl Fire Protection Information Forum l

l i

e Survey Questions e Performed self-assessment of FP or SS capabilities since 7-1-97?

s Participated in cooperative assessments with other utilities since 7-1-97?

e Provide information on:

. Scope (FP, SS. or elements of either)

. Depth (thorough, sampimg. or verucal shce)

. Methods (utihty staff, contractors, external unhry staff)

. Conclesions (areas adequate or needing gg further attention) def.

.. -e.

l L

i l

Survey Results a Responses from unlities represennng t4 plants I

i e Self-assessments performed by more bn half of

. repornng plants

. Almost all used sorne consukast suppor'

. I1 of these wars supported by stafrfrom oiber salus

. Some plants reported triennial audits, some of which were supported by outside utihty staff

= No assessments performed by about 1/3 gg g of reporung plants I

- i Survey Results e Of the plants performing self-assessments

. 60%. both FP and SS programs reviewed

)

20 %. $$ prog am revien-ed

{

. 20%. FP program reviewed I

l P1..E 8 i

.v i

l e

Survey Results e Of the plants performing self-assessments

. 70%. thorough revitw

. 20%. samphng basis

.10%. vemcal shce j

l l

8l tl-

) 1

-wrr e

x,

m,

--,v re.-

e

,.+~e y

v v

Survey Results e A number of plants reported fire protecton j

programs m good shape a Some areas identified by more than one plant as needing attention

. Program documentanon

. Emergency hghung

. Fire bngade actmoes QEI I

Survey Conclusions I

~

. Since the start of the FPFis:

. Numerous plant self assessments

. Sigmficant use of personnel from other utilities

. Most conducted in-depth assessments

. Most reviewed both $re protecnon and safe shutdown programs

= Utility driven self assessments can achieve desired performance results without the cost and orgamzanonalimpact of NRC FPFis EI I

A New Assessment Process l

= NE! rpproach for regulatory oversight

. Thresholds for NRC acnon l '

. Routme level of oversight focused on perforirance l

. R :gulatory threshold for mereased NRC mspecuas before safety threshold reached

. safety threshold far oven regulatory actan to assure pubhc heatrh a safety

. Thresholds a blend of regulatory requirements and nsk aughts QEI t

I i

j Amew Performance Seses Assessment, AnapoeWon and fahrverment A NEW REGULATORY OVERSIGHT PROCESS 1

Reelemary Aspee biedel Is. = - - -

l l

f

{

Ts.o as'

-i I

I,

'l

=

Ta.e i

A New Assessment Process l

. Regulatory oversight recornmendations in*: grate l

heensee audits'self-assessments into regulatory Oversight i

I l

l l

V' i

i l

l 5

} Rech. informed. Prefernsanessesed Anneeen.ent, inspecuen end Enforcement A NEW REGULATORY OVERSIGHT PROCESS

(

Resuleserv Oversett Model Lasennes Papvute hM

$df Asassmes &

/

l Aedit Plans gun,an, t

/

l' km l ia j~

l.

' se p

l Lw)N Convet l

m _ -. /

e.

j new, Fem

{

inewman Dehacas I}

I j

1 i

F

e a 1

1 e

i i

i NEl Recommendations e

e Advantages j

. Systemane process for assunn:: strong FP.'SS programs I

. Integrates into genene assessment process changes

. Cost-efrecove for planis

. Reduces NRC resource requirements l

1lses NRC guidance

. More performance-based V'

l NEl Recommendations J

= Plants perfom systematic fire protection / safe shutdowT1 self-assessments

. Integrr.ted into revised assessment process being I

developed by industry and NRC

= NRC develop inspection modules from existing FPFIinspection guidance

. Clear performance entena in modides NEI i

NEl Recommendations l'

I e Plant self-assessments on an ongomg basis

. At least one individual from another utihty on assessment team e

l

. Use all NRC modules over space of several years

. Repeat cycle when all modules unlized

. Initially use verucal shce self-assessment to estabhsh pnonties for module use l

. Eventually use performance entena for l

. Pnoritmng module use

. Establahms length of assessment cycle EI

-~

ts <

V 1

l l

NEl Recommendations j

e NRC and industry develop acceptable performance indicators for rnodule areas by December 1999

. NE! form new issue Task Force to work with NRC j

l e NRC discontmues FPFIs

. Current format too resource intensive

. NRC provide over.ight commensurate with plant self.

assessments process through hmited regional NRC assessments gl i

NEl Recomroendations e Self-assessment findings reflected in existing plant corrective acnon programs

. Appropnate pnonnes assired e improvements made m emely manner appropnate to pnonty I

YEI i

L_

Conclusion e NEI recommendations ofter significant advantages over current FPFI program o Need to take advantage of this opportunity to improve FP/SS assessment in a cost-effective l

manner l

vu g,

\\

ATTACHMENT 4 LIST OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE COMMISSION PAPERS AND INSPECTION REPORTS PROVIDED TO ATTENDEES 1.

SECY-96-187 dated December 24,1996 " FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM"(with Staff Requirements Memorandum dated February 7, 1997) 2.

SECY-98-187 dated August 3,1998 " INTERIM STATUS REPORT - FIRE PROTECTION FUNCTIONAL INSPECTION PROGRAM" 3.

Inspection Report 50-458/97-201, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (Pilot) FPFI 4.

Inspection Report Nos. 50-387/97-201 and 50-388/97-201, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Pilot) FPFI 5.

Inspection Report Nos. 50-335/98-201 and 50-389/98-201, St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Pilot) FPFI 6.

Inspection Report Nos. 50-282/98-106 and 50-306/98-106, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (Pilot Appendix R Self-Assessment) FPFI 5

I

,g-v\\

l l

l ATTACHMENT 5 KEY MESSAGES EXPRESSED BY STAKEHOLDERS AT THE REACTOR FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION WORKSHOP HELD NOVEMBER 10,1998 1.

NRC FPFI activities have heightened industry awareness of fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown issues, the importance of fire protection programs, and the need for licensee self-assessments in this area. It is important to have strong, focused, in-depth, cost-effective fire protection and safe shutdown programs. Re-examination of commercial nuclear power plant fire protection along the lines of the pilot FPFis is needed.

l 2.

Some commercial nuclear plant fire protection programs may not be fully adequate l

(" viable") today, in part due to a lack of industry awareness of important issues in this technical area. Some licensee representatives expressed uncertainty as to what constitutes compliance with the present fire protection requirements. This uncertainty arises due to issue complexity, technical ambiguities, multiple interpretations, numerous and sometimes vague documents (e.g., Branch Technical Pnsitions, Generic Letters, Bulletins, Information Notices, Safety Evaluation Reports, etc.), and changing expectations.

l 3.

More effort is needed to provide a consistent yardstick for assessing the safety and risk significance of fire protection inspection findings. Tools and data for fire risk assessment are not fully developed. Common wisdom derived from IPEEEs may be wrong regarding the expected location of significant fires. Operational data suggests that it is more likely that safety significant fires would occur in switchgear rooms and turbine halls, rather than in control rooms or cable spreading rooms. To illustrate IPEEE/ Appendix R disconnects, one licensee representative commented that, in IPEEE space, loss of charging capability is not risk-significant. However, in post-fire safe shutdown space, (if credited in the analysis) loss of charging capability can lead theoretically to inability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown.

4.

The first three major team pilot FPFis were conducted over a too short period of time given their broad scope and in-depth approach, were too resource intensive, and were costly to support, requiring augmentation by contractors and A/E firms (even though licensee preparation efforts should have been mainly comprised of revalidations of existing capabilities). Some expressed the view that the FPFis were not cost effective relative to the safety significance of the inspection findings. One licensee representative l

stated that narrowly focusing on licensees' fire protection program configuration management under 10 CFR 50.59 would be more efficient than the broad scope FPFis.

l S.

Fire protection and safe shutdown self-assessments have been common in the nuclear industry since 1997, but not all licensees have conducted them and not all of those self-assessments have been broad and in-depth. There are still questions within industry as to what constitutes compliance with Appendix R requirements.

6.

The risk-informed, draft inspection procedure developed by the NRC (Tl 2515/XXX) for the pilot program was accepted as a source of appropriately structured, effective and l

v_

2 efficient lines of inspection inquiry, and also a source of insightful and detailed inspection guidance.

7.

NEl proposed, as one possible future course of action, a fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown re-examination model consisting of licensee-managed self-assessments.

Licensee QA departments, onsite and corporate oversight committees, and reciprocal assistance from the staff of other nuclear utilities may be adequate for supervising independent self-assessments. Self-assessment discrepancies would be tracked in existing internal licensee corrective action systems, and such discrepancies would result i

in programmatic changes, procedural changes and/or physical plant modifications. In support of this effort, the NRC would develop inspection

• modules" from the existing FPFI Tl (preserving their risk-informed features), and insert clear performance criteria developed jointly by NRC and industry. All of the modules would be applied by each licensee over several years, and the cycle would repeat. Priorities for module use would be based on the results of initial" vertical slice" self assessments. Module priorities and the length of the assessment cycle would eventually be based on demonstrated long-term performance of each licensee. Acceptability criteria would be required, and graded (e.g., A --> F or 1->100) findings may be useful (to establish standing with industry peers, to assist in obtaining licensee management approval of fire protection enhancements, to obtain fire protection resources at reactor sites, to help with variable regulatory oversight schemes, and to assist licensees in applying methods used at the highly graded reactor plants). Assuming a cyclicallicensee self-assessment process is instituted, the NRC would maintain its oversight function through limited self-assessment review inspections (" regulatory engagement" in the terminology of the "New Regulatory Oversight Process" above) conducted by the NRC regional offices.

8.

The Nuclear Energy Institute stated that systematic licensee fire protection / safe shutdown self-assessments should be integrated into the revised assessment process being developed by industry and the NRC under the "New Regulatory Oversight Process" initiative.

~_..

y

)

ATTACHMENT 6 PILOT FPFl PROGRAM BACKGROUND HISTORY In 1992, as part of the Thermo-Lag Action Plan (developed in response to the fire resistance derating of this widely used fire barrier material), the NRC staff committed to reassess the NRC reactor fire protection program. In 1993 the staff committed to specifically consider fire events, licensee fire protection program deficiency reports, NRC inspection findings, the scope and adequacy of the existing NRC reactor fire protection inspection program, and the need to inspect non-Thermo-Lag fire protection features in response to ongoing NRC programs such as self-induced station blackout, fire barrier penetration seals, turbine building assessments, and Individual Plant Examinations of External Events (IPEEEs). From 1992 to 1995 the staff noted that licensees were proposing a broad range of Thermo-Lag corrective actions, usually fire j

barrier reduction programs typically involving some or all of the following features-I Reassessment and revision of reactor plant post-fire safe shutdown analyses, e

e Redefined fire barrier boundaries, New, or newly selected, safe shutdown components, Engineering evaluations to justify removal or non-upgrade of Thermo-Lag fire barriers, o

and e

Exemption requests from Appendix R requirements.

In 1995 the staff informed the Commission that it was considering a Fire Protection Functional Inspection (FPFI) Program covering all aspects of nuclear power plant fire safety (including Thermo-Lag barriers), and providing for more e'ficient, comprehensive and effective inspections. FPFI program objectives were:

To support establishment of a strong, broad-based and coherent NRC Fire Protection e

Program commensurate with the safety significance of the subject, To inspect Thermo-Lag fire barriers and corrective actions, e

To inspect non-Thermo-Lag fire protection features in response to other ongoing NRC e

programs such as self-induced station blackout, fire barrier penetration seals, turbine building assessments, and Independent Plant Examinations of External Events (IPEEEs),

To provide an immediate safety benefit from renewed industry attention to nuclear power e

plant fire safety, To develop criteria for licensee fire protection self-assessments, e

To potentially identify fire protection improvements on the basis of plant specific risk considerations, To address balance of plant fire risks, To address smoke propagation and manual fire fighting operations and their impact on e

equipment operability and operator actions, To review licensee fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown configuration management, e

To address the scope and adequacy of the existing NRC fire protection inspection e

program and improve its effectiveness, To ensure compliance with NRC post-fire safe shutdown regulations and commitments, o

To focus resources on the fire protection issues of most importance (e.g. licensee control e

of fire protection design and licensing bases, and those fire protection program elements covered by existing NRC regulations and guidelines,

3m. gf 1

2 e.

To provide clear guidance to the staff and nuclear industry regarding oversight of the reactor fire protection program, and To improve internal consistency in the oversight of the NRC fire protection program, e

in 1996 the staff developed a draft FPFI Temporary Instruction (Tl 2515/XXX) inspection procedure for four headquarters-lead, major team pilot inspections. The draft Ti addressed five major areas:

Fire Protection Program Administration, e

o Fire Protection Systems and Features, e-Post-fire Safe Shutdown Capability, e-Program Management and Configuration Control, and e

' Potential Fire Related Vulnerabilities.

The Commission directed, among other things, that the staff consider the inspection of licensee fire protection self-assessment efforts.

-In 1997 and 1998 the NRR staff ccnducted announced pilot FPFl inspections at River Bend, Susquehanna, St. Lucie and a pilot self-assessment review at Prairie Island. The draft FPFI procedure was provided to the pilot plants as part of the inspection notification process. During the pilot FPFI time period, two major, non-FPFI fire protection and post-fire safe shutdown

. inspections were conducted at Quad Cities and Clinton.

l 1

~

l l

l L

r.

j i

i I

,,