ML20211J203

Updates Response to 851031 Differing Prof Opinion (DPO) Re Interpretation 3 of App R.For Listed Reasons,Dpo Fails to Justify Mod of Staff Decision to Implement Interpretation 3 or of Existing Evaluation of App R Exemption Requests

ML20211J203
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/19/1986
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Whitney L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML20209D558	List: IA-86-274, Advises That Listed Secys Will Be Forwarded to J Curtiss, Associate Counsel,Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, Committee on Environ & Public Works,On 860210 Under Encl Cover Ltrs.W/O Encls ML20209D553 ML20209D568 ML20209D679 ML20209D686 ML20209D691 ML20209D771 ML20209D775 ML20209D781 ML20209D784 ML20209D788 ML20209D794 ML20211J190 ML20211J203 ML20211J248 ML20211J261 ML20211J281 ML20211J299 ML20211J320 ML20211J350 ML20211J362 ML20211J373 ML20211J378
References
FOIA-86-274 NUDOCS 8606260270
Download: ML20211J203 (2)

Text

-___

,i ~ , ,

r MEMORANDUM FOR: Leon E. Whitney, Reactor Engineer Operating Reactor Programs Branch Division of Inspection Programs FROM: James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION CONCERNING FIRE PROTECTION (DP0 85-02)

In accordance with Manual Chapter 4125, this is in response to your differing professional opinion (DPO) concerning " Interpretation Three" of Appendix R.

I have reviewed your statement of DP0 dated October 31, 1985, and your memorandum of November 12 to Steven D. Richardson, as well as material relevant to this DP0 contained in a memosandum from Steven D. Richardson to me dated November 8, 1985, which is enclosed. Based on my review, I have determined, for the reasons set forth below, that this OP0 fails to justify modification of the staff decision to implement " Interpretation Three" or of existing agency practice in the evaluation of requests for exemption from specific Appendix R requirements. Therefore, I consider this DP0 to be resolved.

In your statement of differing professional opinion, you state that

" Interpretation Three" directly contradicts the bases of 10 CFR 50 Appendix R and 10 CFR 50.48 because it allows, in the exemption process, assessment of freedom from fire damage based on factors other than the specific Appendix R provisions. The exemption process allows departurt: from 860626027o 060619 g40 @osef$74 PDR 94 5 .??g G V __.-

C r

~

lV

- , e l

Leon E. Whitney  !

specific Appendix R provisions based on demonstration of equivalent fire protection safety. If the licensee can show that the structure, system or component under consideration can perform its intended function before, during and after the postulated fire then the goal of equivalent fire protection safety has been met. Therefore, I consider the guidance contained in " Interpretation Three," which is consistent with the staff's past practice regarding Appendix R exenptions, to be appropriate.

}

You suggested two possible resolutions to your DPO, one of which was Commission i review of your DP0 and subsequent approval of Interpretation Three. You should note that your DP0 was transmitted to the Commission by a memorandum from Mr. Dircks dated November 5,1985. i l

)

James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

As stated l cc w/ enclosures:

W. J. Dircks RM I i

e 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ - -- J