ML20207A610
| ML20207A610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Salem, Sequoyah, Vermont Yankee, Cook, 05000000, Trojan |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206H456 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-92, TASK-PII, TASK-SE EA-82-139, EA-83-085, EA-83-124, EA-83-85, EA-84-007, EA-84-036, EA-84-36, EA-84-7, EA-85-048, EA-85-48, SECY-85-306A, TAC-52060, TAC-64883, NUDOCS 8709170046 | |
| Download: ML20207A610 (4) | |
Text
7
- wa fe-n W h O\\
POUCYISSUE December 3,1985 S ECY-8 5-306 A Fyce:
The Czissioners From:
Williani J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Sub. ject:
RENRT ON CURRDIT FitE PROTECTION EWORCEMENT ACTIONS In a Staff Requirenaeats Memoranche dated Novescer 6,1985, the Ccenission requested a report from the staff on current fire prctection enforcesent actions as well as a suggested sched for affected licensees to co@ly with Appendix R requirement.
Enclosed is a list of significant esforcement actions that have been taken or are currently pending as a result of Appendix R inspections. The suggested schedule for affected licensees to comply with Appendix R will be provided in a separate paper.
As the staff indicated in SECY-85-3C6, draf t enforcement guidance on Apperdix R was developed in the spring of 1984 and it was deternit.ed that until that guidance and the interpretations of the rule were completed, enforcement actions based upon Appendis R shculd be placed or. hold (SECY-85-X6, page 2).
Four cases arisir.g more than tw: years ae9 and three mo*e recent cases are in this status. This includes C.C. Cook which would be perding for other reasons in any event.
In SECY-85 306, the staff recomended that the Comission direct the staff to use the guioance as the criteria for en'orcement of Appendix R requirements and to proceed to evalsate and issue pending l
enforcement cases in accordance with this guidance, i
G WilliaG. Otrcks Executive tirector for Operations
Enclosure:
Significant Appendix R Enforcenent Actions
Contact:
Jane A. Axelrad DISTRIBUTION:
x24909 comissioners OGC OCA (F7 h9 / 7 a:s4 OPE OIA
/
4y' 01 SECY bIE EE'E?i % sms m mor.N f,
~wns
-,~
SIGNIFICANT APPENDIX R ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS FACILITY INSF./IE VIOLATION CLASS BRifF DESCRlrTION
!!!.G.2.3-MET SHLlTDOW CONONENTS EA 82-139 NOT ADEQUATELF PN0iECTED FOR CtWONENT COOLING uiATER, "15ENTIAL Am NON-ESSENTIAL SERVICE MTER, PLANT AND CONTROL AIR SYS11MS, CONTNOL N00MS 1 AND 2 AND THE UNITS 1 AND 2 CASLE VAULTS.
!!!.J-!NADEQUATE EMERGENCY LIGHT!NG D'JRAT!M.
!!!.0-!NADfQU/R R.C. PLMP CIL COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR SSE.
TROJAM"
- 6/20-24/83 5-VIOLATIONS,
!!!.G.1.2.3; cx SEPARATION EA 83-85 7/26-28/83 SL !!! I'ROBLEM 0F CHARGING PW8PS, ASSOCIATED i
$100,000 PROPOSED COOLERS Alt CA8LES, RHR PLNS ON 9/29/83 AND CABLES, MISC: !!!.L.2-N0 MITIGATED 501 SOURCE RANGE ON RC T-HOT / COLD
$50,000'IMOSED OUTSIDE CONT 20L ROOM.
!!!.0-12/19/83 EXCES$!VE CIL COLLECTION TANK LLSE 0!L LIAKAGE.
i VERNNI TAMKEE 8/29/83 PENDING
!!!.G.1.2.3-!NADEQUATE EA 84-7 9/2/83 SEPARATION TO PROTECT TRAIN l
FOR EQUIPMENT AND CABLING j
OUTSIDE OF A! MARY j
CONTAlletEN' l
4 1
ss e
e
t FACl.ITY 1RSP./
E Y!0LATION CLASS BRIEF DESCRIPTION EA R ABER RtalP7 DATE 8 CP runv5ED OF TIG.ATIWI DATIS-4 ESSE 9/7-9/83 PERDI N
!!!.G.2-JWCT!0s 80xt$ IN EA 43-124 COMPORGT C90 LING HATER FOR REDUEANT TRAIR OF PWPS, VALVE 5 A2 RSTRt#UT5 WT PROTECTED.
III.G.3(a)-lh40 EQUATE ALTERRATE OR DEDICATED smlTDOW CAPA81LITY FOR M CONTROL RDOM Am CABLE l
SMtEADIES WW Tith' 00 GT SAT 15FY 4.2.
III.L.1.t.3-IRADEQUATE ALTEneATE SWTD0tsi CAPA91LITY FOR FW,115 AN VALVES, l
LOS5 OF 0FFICE POWER, LOS$ OF PZR EATERS. DC COLD Am WT LEG TDFERATURE INDICATION.
III.G.1-!WDEQuATE FIRE PROTECTION FOR AFV.
!!!.J.-
EMRGELCY LIGHTIIIG DURATION t
L FOR BATTERIES AND NO LIGHTIM IR 50E ACCESS A00TE5 L'iADI M 5AFE 5HUTDOWN MANUAL VALVE CONTROL STATIONS.
t 5ALEM 12/5-6/83 PENDIM
!!!.G.1-IRADEQUATE SEPARATION
[
EA 84-36 FOR CHARGING PU F5 AREA, SWITCHGEAR ROCR, INTAKE STRUCTURE MCC BAY, RS C00LI M FAN 5 CHILLED WATER PLMP 5.
l 3
!!!.G.2-INADEQUATE SEPARATION FOR PRE 550RIZER HEATER LEVEL AND INSTRtf0 TAT 10N CA8INET.
!!!.G. I.2.5-INADEQUATE SEPARATION FOR RHR PLMPS.
i i
RECENT INSPECT 10R5 l
t SEquCYAH 1/14-18/85 PENDIM
!!!.G.2 36 EXAPPLES OF FA 85-44 INADEQUATE SEPAAATION.
III.G.2-295 CIRCUIT 5 MOT ADEQUATELY SEPARATED.
i
!!!.L.5-13 COLD SHUTDOW i
TRAIR5 NOT ADEQUATELY SEPARATED.
(FOR THE A80VE 1.E., AFW, CCW, CVCS, t
E55. R/.W C00L1Rii WATER, 5.G. IN)ENTDRY CONTROL, i
DNSITE POWER 015TRIBLIT10N.)
111.J-INADECUATE DURATION i
FOR DOGDICY BATTERIES.
!!!.0-RCP OIL COLLECTION SYSTEM NOT ADEQUATE FOR SSE,
.-,,,_,-,,--,--------,_---,__,.-,e-
_,_,,--,n.
t
\\
3 FACILITY INSP./IE VIOLATION CLASS BRIEF KSCN!PTION EA Rp5ER NEGIFT DATE
& CP rarv5ED OF TIRATI(N swee 6/3-7/85 PDGING I!!.E.t.a.b,c-IRADEQUATE EA 35-101 SEPARAT10R KTEER CARE TRAYS FOR DEREllIE M8F.
!!!.E.2.a/b-ND ONE-NOUR FIK tutRIER FOR 3-50VRCE RAEGE i
IItSTm8 0 TAT!0R CA R ES.
TECM $PEC 3.7.10-!NOPERA8LE FIRE BARRIERS FOR SWITOEEAR mot AIE INTUIEDIATE INILDINE FIRE AREA.
5USQUDumA 2/11-15/85 PENDING
!!!.E.2./!!!.E.3 FIRE ZDE ANALYS!$ INSTEAD OF AREA; IHt-5EPAAAT!0N OK BUT 10 AUTC SUPPRE5510M (PWruAL ONLY). EQUIPMENT RDOYAL ROON ONLY MD PARTIAL ALTTO SUPPRE55!OR.
I 1
i 1
.i I
i i
I i
l 2
l I
l j
l l
l
q.'
j,@' 'q f,
1 umeen eravu j
wucteAn nesun,4toav connassa f,
j d{/
ese.e
(/
e m e u vn.,u mei.
ii, g
y-t;
} h00 h
\\
g.ber+ h n u ne4 M MOIW WUM FOR:
. Chief Fire Protection Section, Chemical inoer og ach, 3utvision of Engineering, Office of l
l 1 ear Reister Regulation l
s l
72U:
ti. 4. es,1densed. Chief. Operational Progrees Section. All!
j l
7851:
C. Reesey, hekter !nepector. All!
i
$WSJ(CT:
SUppltMENTAL E SPONM 10 SINEAIC LETYtt No. 86 01 20 f
i SECY PAPER N0. N 306 i
In a meeting of October 29. 1906 with the NAC ttaff who were originators of i
Otfferies professionel Opinions ($P0's) concernia the NRC's Fire Protection Segvlattaan, Consisstener J. Asselstine requested that the Op0 originators t
l express their consents voiced during the emetine vla memorandum directly to via assorandun da% cessents en Steeric Letter Ao. M-01 were forwarded to you the Caumission.
i i
i ted Osteter fl. H05. These cessments did not reflect my i
vieve en SECY Paper No. M-306 epich is a sedified version of Generic Letter i
he. M 01. Sased on g review of NCY Pager no. 86 306, I offor the following i
eddittenal corrents, meet of dich were dsecussed in the meeting with Commissioner Asselstime:
1 1
1.
Iasoec11ons f
Issue:
Whether the NRC should perform inspections et plants with uncespleted modif tsetiens et the request of licensees to help aveld costly desip and implementation decisions.
l
(
!* specter Casments: The ins ctor fetis that this approach may be useful in obtaistag if as compliance with the regulation. However, in vleu of ne p review of a licensee's enelyses, it is not r
cleor how such 5ttens should be conducted.
In lieu of the l
previove appreeste dich required licensees to submit such analyses of fire 03 4r4 potential and safe shutdown capability to the NAC so that egreeeest on design and taplementation decistems could to reeched well in advance of NRC inspections, i
it 15 not clear her sweh screements will be reached by individual inspectes in tAis new approach.
i 4r entsting omtting plaats and plants under construction, we l
v a.s prebebly past the point where a sequential approach ~is l
practical.
This any result in prolonged delays in impleten-l tation.
In view of this, the inspector suggests that the t
proposed allowance for in house analyses be tolerated with three previsions:
UWI S
4'us;75 ypp
'Y Robert Ferguson I
s.
An incorrect or inadequate apelytis be treated the saw is a failure to install regiired fire safety feature troe an enforcosent stendpoint.
b.
NWA support be provided f ar el) such inspections and i
resview of entlyses at the site either es part of the fnspection process or as part of a separate progree. The inspector feels this will be necessary to ensus a codicum of consis@y as well as to avoid significan shortfalls in suff eeeis.
c.
A licensee any not request such an inspectfon unisss the l
analysis is completed and modifications era proposed.
7.
$ t e nda rd F i rt P_ re,teg t,ipe, },$ppj)_C,ggi,t,tpp
!ssve Whether the propesed standard fire protection license condition is viable in all eperating licenses.
l trapector Ceseents: The inspector feels that the standard fire protection uunse conditi.e si needed for.nforceabiny of aC rire Protection GuideHnes and commitments made to the NRC by licensees. A stedard license condition in elch operating license would eltninete the variations in lic ensteg requirements that have created problerns for licensees and NRC inspectors in identifying the operative and enforceable fire protMttee requipements at each facility.
j If the propcsal to ixorporate the fire protection prograr for I
all plants into the FSAA is ado >ted, the inspector fee s that l
the enforceabilik of what the GC intends by its fire i
protection guidelines and requirements may be in question for I'
the following rettees a.
Section 1.4. of the draf t taforcerent Guidance for Fire l
Protection states. in pert, 'A notice of violation will be issued for e violation of a requirement.
However, failure l
to meet fire protection consitments other than
{
requirements will be designated as deviations."
)
As proposed licensees will coseit to comply with 'RC guidelines as stated in the F5AR in order to cos'. ply with l
the NAC's fire protection resulations.
It will be neces-i sary to clarify the extent tht such F5AR comitrents are J
legally binding to the regulatory requirements delineated by 10 CFR 50. Appendix A General Design Criterion 3; i
10 CFR 50.44 and 10 CFR $0. Appendix R.
If this is done, j
failure to topleaent and maintain the approved fire l
protection program may be appropriately enforceable under 10 CFR 50.48 and Apperdia R to 10 CFR 50.
j I
i
i a
Robert Forp son
),
I b.
Uader 10 CFA M.H.11censees are perr.itted to perfom
-l analyses and eeke modificettees to fire protection features without prior NBC review and approval.
It apwars that l
unless tw FtM descriptions are reviewed by (tR and i
formally accepted es documentM in en SIR, there will be no way for inspetters to know W t is acceptable.
In ad-dition, a meted would(have to be devi ed to ensure that the occident scenerie postulated firt for affected fire I
artes could not be changed ucder 10 CF 50.59. A better f
approach wouW be to develop a rule to require cos911ance with the ! ire protection plan described in the FSAR.
inspec-l Without f tM protection technic 61.pecifications c.
ters would have difficu1V in deteretning surveillance i
requirteents and limiting conditions for operation unless L
the FSAA deoeribed in detail what surveillance tests would be performed and dat compensatory measures wculd be tahn for inoperable er degraded equipment.
!i 3,
Orsf t Enforcement Policy l
i i
Issuet Whether the draft enforcement policy, as proposed. reflects the l
appropriate regvletory r>quirements that are enforceable.
Inspector Cosments: The inspector feels that irrespective of which I
approaches are tehen for fine) is9 ementation of Appendix R and 1
the hRC's fire protection requirements this decurent should be revised to reflect the applicable legally binding requirements l
and appropriate pidance describing violations and severtty l
level categorie that are corrensurate with the level of importance that the NRC perceives fire safety.
(
I i
I d
. g,inipector l
3 neactor l
l t
t I
)l l
+i i
-