Text

Submits Revised Paragraphs 2 & 3 to Encl 4 of SECY-85-306 Re Fire Protection License Condition.Related Info Encl
	ML20211J320
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/08/1985
From:	Lieberman J; NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Vollmer R; 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 8606260317
	Download: ML20211J320 (12)
	v • d • e

.

October 8, 1985 Note to Richard Vollmer, Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement COMMENTS ON FIRE PROTECTION LICENSE CONDITION I would suggest that enclosure 6 of SECY 85-306 be revised as follows:

In paragraphs 2 and 3 delete the word "significantly" before the word

" decrease."

It will be difficult enough to determine what a decrease will be without the need for another subjective standard such as signi-ficant. Neither 6 50.59, 9 50.54(a) or i 50.54(p) use a standard of signi-ficance. Why should a licensee be allowed to make changes that decrease the effectiveness of an approved program.

In paragraph 3 add "by a fire protection engineer" after the words fire protection program" in the next to last sentence. This will add assurance that the review will be performed by a qualified person.

In paragraph 3 add the following sentence to the end:

"The firit report shall be submitted within 12 months of the effective date of this condition."

This change is suggested because of an ambiguity that has arisen under the annual reporting requirement of i 50.54(a)(3) which in turn references s 50.71 that provides fer i.he first update to be submitted after 24 months.

Please call me if you have any questions on these suggestions.

L'In,,~

James Lieberman, Director s

and Chief Counsel Regional Operations and Enforcement Office of the Executive Legal Director cc:

J. Axelrad, IE W. Shields, OELD 8606260317 860619 p

PDR FOIA 9'l GARDE 86-274 PDR FOte 8b-D7T j gLB A-81

i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 STATUS OF INTERPRETATION OF APPENDIX R FIRE PROTECTION f

k-G FatR Jto -D74 N-@

J.P. KNIGHT X27027 4

SLIDE 1 FIRE PROTECTION EVENTS e

NRC COMMISSION PUBLISHES RULE ON FIRE PROTECTION N0v 1980 e

NUCLEAR UTILITY FIRE PROTECTION GROUP (NUFPG) FORMED 1981 e

EXEMPTION REQUESTS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED 1982-83 e

INSPECTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPENDIX R BEGAN FALL 1983 e

STAFF ISSUES GENERIC LETTER 83-33 FALL 1983 NUFPG ORGANIZES WORKSHOP ON APPEliDIX R TO SOLICIT INDUSTRY e

EXPERIENCE FEBRUARY 1984 e

NRC HOLDS REGIONAL WORKSHOPS SPRING 1984 e

FIRE PROTECTION POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE (FPPSC) FORMED AUGUST 1984 e

FPPSC REPORT COMPLETED AND ISSUED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS EARLY 1985 e

PUBLIC COMMENTS EVALUATED AND INCORPORATED MAY 1985 o

CRGR REVIEW

_ JULY 1985 l

l

PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,

1979 E

APPENDIX R

E COMPLETION STATUS OF FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1985 s

ON Sij.48 SCHEDULE 12 PLANTS SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION UNDER REVIEW 5 PLANTS t

17%

12%

SCHEDULAR EXEWPTION GRANTED 8 PLANTS 1

\\

OPERATING IN NON-COMPLIANCE A.C.W.13 PLANTS 19%

WODIFICATIONS COMPLETE 27 PLANTS BREAK DOWN OF FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATION STATUS e

A.C.W. - (APPROVED COMPENSATORY WEASURES)

PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,1979 j

APPENDIX R ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS COMPLETION STATUS AS OF SEPTEMBER 1985 SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION llNDER REV6EW J PLANTS ON 50.48 SCHEDULE 18 PLANTS 13%

27%

SCHEDULAR EXEMPTION GRANTED 8 PLANTS I

11%

OPERATING IN NON-COMPLIANCE A.C.W. 7 PLANTS 37g l

ALTERNATE SHUTDOWM SYSTEMA COMPLETE 25 PLANTS I

BREAK DOWN OF THE COMPLETION STATUS OF ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS il.

l A.C.W. - (APPROVED COMPENSATORY MEASURES)

~

COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR 0 APPENDIX R

FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS PLANTS LI C E N S E D PRIOR TO JAN.

1, 1979 70 m

63 3: z 60 61 g

l' M

51

?

/j 3,

a,_

a7 p, y$(w,

[h $$ $

h 4 li 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 YEARS 63 IS THE # OF PLANTS WITH SCHEDULES (4 PLANTS ARE UNDER REVIEW)

COMPLETION SCHEDULE FOR e

ALTE R N ATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS PLANTS LICENSED PRIOR TO JAN.

1, 1979 7o

"~~

60 61 G[@So--

l'l l

Y//

s<

1 Z O 3:

O 4o --

mP kD 31

/

l 3

i so--

g h~~

7

=

cn :

so--

'/)

n 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 YEARS 63 IS THE # OF PLANTS WITH SCHEDULES (4 PLANTS ARE UNDER REVIEW)

SLIDE 6 I

i GENERIC LETTER No FURTHER 50.48 SCHEDULAR EXEMPTIONS HIGH STANDARDS FOR SCHEDULAR EXEMPTIONS UNDER 50.12 l

1 UTILIZE INTERPRETATION DOCUMENT INSPECTION PROGRAM s

DOCUMENT COMPLIANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE l

ADDITION OF FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM TO FSAR 1

l

1 1

SLIDE 7 i

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUE THE GENERIC LETTER INSPECT WITH PRESENT RESOURCES l

ENDORSE THE CRITERIA FOR ENFORCEMENT i

ENDORSE INCORPORATION OF FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM IN i

THE FSAR IN LIEU OF A LICENSE CONDITION

C O M P LETI O N SCHEDULE FOR APPENDIX R

FIRE PROTECTION MODIFICATIONS PLANTS LI C E N S E D PRIOR TO JAN.

1, 1979 7

66 67 62 63 so--

9 Os 51 so--

r SiEi 8 j 4o--

3'

,o..

E 2o--

D to--

7

)

o 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 s

YEARS

CO M P LETIO N SCHEDULE FOR ALTE R N ATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS PLANTS LIC E N S E D PRIOR TO JAN.

1, 1979 7

67 66 62 63 So--

E 54 59 so--

s h 40--

%N

!iE E 31 3m so--

r 83 m

g 20--

z 10--

O 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 YEARS

l 9

LICENSE CONDITION ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE PRE-79 PLANTS POST-79 PLANTS POST-79 PLANTS LICENSED NOT YET LICENSED STATUS QUO

1) INDIVIDUAL LICENSE

1) MISCELLANEOUS LICEi1SE

?

CONDITIONS RE FIRE CONDITIONS RE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN h PROTECTION PLAN AND RHEN C0"PLETED).

~

APPENDIX R.

r

2) APPENDIX R. III G, J, & 0 2) VARYING DEGREES OF ARE APPLICABLE BY RULE.

ENFORCEABILITY.

.y 86f qu :4w4

1) VOLUNTARY

1) APPENDIX R, III G, J,

1) MUST ENFORCE UNDER 50.59; I)WOULDENFORCEUNDER50.59.

INCORPORATION IN

& 0 REMAIN APPLICABLE CANNOT CITE DIRECTLY COULDN'T CITE DIRECTLY FSAR.

BY RULE.

AGAINST COMMITMENTS.

j T) DELETE EXISTING

2) STATUS OF REQUIRED 2)DELETIONOFLICENSE

2) WOULD NOT IHSERT LICENSE

. LICENSE CONDITION.

COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE CONDITION MAY REQUIRE CONDITION AT ALL.

PROTECTION PLAN REMAINS SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS THE SAME.

DETERMINATION.

B) MANDATORY INCLUSION

1) APPENDIX R, III G, J,

1) CAN DIRECTLY ENFORCE

1) COULD DIRECTLY ENFORCE IN FSAR

& 0 REMAIN APPLICABLE UNDER RULE OR LICENSE UNDER RULE OR LICENSE BY RULE.

CONDITION.

o) REQUIRED TO COMPLY

2) COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE

'2)bOL 3

2) ROBAB WITH FSAR COMMIT-PROTECTION PLAN WOULD 8

'sp.d-i N OF BACKFIT MENTS BY RUL'E OR BE RE UIRED BY RULE OR L-STANDARD LICENSE ORDER.

IDERED (A B

).

/

CONDITION.

V-fwp [ I,% D g

ve r a -

f*D pg,/0 4 y

gata.

4

UNITED STATES f

v g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o

s,...>.y,j e

8 NOV 2 71985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Direc' tor

~

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:

Faust Rosa, Chief l

Electrical, Instrumentation & Control Systems Branch l

Division of PWR Licensing A 1

SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION OF THE DP0 ON

" INTERPRETATIONS OF APPENDIX R" As requested by your memorandum of June 15, 1984, I have conducted an inde-pendent assessment of the subject differing professional opinion (DPO). The DP0 was filed jointly by five staff fire protection engineers (R. Eberly, D. J. Kubicki, and J. F. Stang, Jr. of CMEB/NRR; and C. B. Ramsey and J. M.

Ulie of RIII). The DP0 concerns certain new interpretations of Appendix R which are considered by these staff members to be contrary to existing guidance and not conducive to timely or consistent resolution of Appendix R issues.

Based on my assessment, I have concluded that the DP0 fails to justify modifi-cation of a management decision, policy position, or a proposed or existing agency practice. Therefore, I recomend that no action need be taken, i.e.,

that the DP0 be considered resolved in accordance-with NRC Manual Appendix 4125 Section G.1.c.

The basis for this conclusion is provided in the following paragraphs. Enclosure 1 provides a chronology of DP0 documentation and a list

~

of relevant reference documents.

The DPO, which was filed on May 2, 1984, takes issue with the proposed new

" Interpretations of Appendix P." (Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power l

Facilities Operating Prior Tc January 1, 1979). The proposed interpretations were developed by management level fire protection staff with input from IE, ELD and DEDR0GR. A draft of the proposed interpretations was distributed to and discussed with utility representatives at the NRC Regional Workshops on Fire Protection held during the March-April 1984 time frame. At these work-shops the draft was characterized as being tentative, with formal issuance at a later date being considered.

The staff DP0 is primarily concerned with Section 4, Fire Area Boundaries, and Section 5, Automatic Detection and Suppression, of the Interpretations of Appendix R.

The Interpretations allow penetrations in fire area boundaries and partial area coverage for fire suppression and detection if it can be established by analysis that adequate protection is provided for the fire hazards associ-ated with the area. Such analyses have previously been approved by the staff as exemptions. Additionally, in contrast with prior practice, the "Interpreta-tions" do not require submission of fire haza'rds analyses for staff review or the filing of exemption requests prior to fire protection inspections; but the o

p '/

n,.

n n; T 1,s -

't 4 !

'4 9 N ulygm H 14 q

g

& ea

?..

-- l

l*

l H. Denton )

./

\\

analysis must be available for NRC audit. The DP0 states that not requiring i

exemption requests is in conflict with Generic Letter 83-33 which was issued previ'ously to clarify staff positions on these and other issues, and which is deemed preferable.

The issues raised by the DP0 are not of a tiechnical nature but relate to NRC fire protection policy. Therefore, a resolution could only come about as a result of a comprehensive review of this policy undertaken by an appropriate 1

level of NRC management. Such a review has been performed by the Steering Committee on Fire Protection Policy which was convened for this purpose in-September 1984. This comittee, which was composed of individuals at the Division Director level of management, drew its membership from NRR, ELD, IE, and three of the Regions. The recomendations and the fire protection guidance package contained in the Steering Comittee final report were' incorporated in i

SECY-85-306 (Enclosure 2) which was submitted to the Comission by the EDO on September 17, 1985. Enclosure 2, in addition to the staff recomendations and the guidance package, includes discussions of all aspects of the fire protection issue including the DP0 and, with its enclosures, documents the scope and depth of the policy and program review performed by the Steering Comittee.

The " Interpretations of Appendix R" which are included in the guidance package y

do not differ significantly from the original version on which the DP0 was i

based. The Steering Committee reviewed the positions defined in the " Inter-pretations" and concluded that they are technically and legally consistent with the requirements of Appendix R. includes a staff recommendation to the Comission to fonnally issue the " Interpretations."

In making my assessment of the DP0 I have: (1)evaluatedtheDP0 documentation i

and references listed in Enclosure 1, (2) met with the DP0 originators and other senior staff members involved in fire protection to explore the technical, legal and procedural aspects of the issue, and (3) participated in the discussions of the DP0 and related fire protection concerns in the meetings of the Steering i

Comittee (as Chairman of its Working Group).

I concur in the Steering Com-mittee's conclusion that the positions defined in the " Interpretations" are technically and legally onsistent with Appendix R.

I further conclude that this issue has received the management review commensurate to its importance 1

to safety. My recommendation for resolution of the DP0 is based on this i

assessment.

l A Comission meeting was held on October 3,1985 to discuss the staff recem-mendations. At this meeting the Comission requested that the originators of the DP0 provide a written sumary statement of their position in view of the staff's recomendation in regard to the DPO.

(It is noted that to date the Comission has not taken action on the staff recomendations.)

In a response to the Comission's request, Mr. Stang stated that the proposed i

resolution adequately satisfies his concerns raised in the DP0 and that he j

considers the DP0 resolved.

l i

l H. Denton,

1 Mr. Ulfe's response provided additional coments on the possible adverse effects of implementing the " Interpretations." He also indicated that the intent of his DP0 was to make NRC management aware that the '" Interpretations" represented a significant change in NRC policy and practice, and that this ob-jective had been achieved.

In a recent telephone conversation with me, Mr. Ulie confimed that he now considers the DP0 issue closed.

Mr. Ramsey's response provides detailed cements primarly expressing disagree-ment with the staff recomendations in the following areas: adequacy of current guidance to the industry, documentation required to demonstrate compliance, Interpretations of Appendix R. Appendix R Questions and Answers, QA require-ments, and fire hazard analysis. Most of these coments extend beyond the scope of the original DPO. However, in my view, they do not change the basic character of the DP0 which relates to matters of NRC fire protection policy.

The Steering Committee review of fire protection policy encompassed the areas addressed by these additional coments. Therefore, I conclude that the resolu-tion of the DP0 on the basis described above remains valid.

Mr. Kubic.ki has not provided a written response to the Comission's request.

However, in a recent conversation with me on this matter he indicated that his views as expressed in the DP0 remain unchanged.

It should also be noted, as a matter of record, that Mr. Eberly has left the Comission for employment in the private sector. No further action is required by Manual Chapter 4125 in this cu e.

In sumary, my resolution of the DP0 is based on the premise that the DP0 is primarily concerned with NRC fire protection policy and, therefore, its re-solution could only come about through a comprehensive review of this policy by an appropriate level of NRC management. Such a review has been completed by the Steering Committee on Fire Protection Policy. The conclusion reached by the

{

Steering Comittee is that the " Interpretations of Appendix R" is technically I

and legally consistent with Appendix R.

Based on this the staff has recom-r' ended to the Comission that the " Interpretations" be formally issued.

This in effect, states, that the DP0 fails to justify modification of a manage-nent decision, policy position, or a proposed or existing agency practice.

Therefore, I recommend that no action need be taken, i.e., that the DP0 be considered resolved in accordance with NRC Manual Appendix 4125, Section G.I.c.

M Faust Rosa, Chief Electrical, Instrumentation &

Control Systems Branch Division of PWR Licensing A i

Enclosures /cc: See next page i

4 I

\\

I

- f H. Denton l

Enclosures:

1) Chronology of DP0 Documentation and Listing of Relevant References

2) SECY-85-306, Staff Recommendations Regarding the Implementation o' Appendix R to 10CFR50 dated September 17, 1985 cc: w/o Enclosure 2:

D. G. Eisenhut T. E. Murley, RI J. N. Grace, RII J. G. Keppler, RIII R. H. Vollmer H. Thompson W. V. Johnston J. L. Funches J. E. Lyons V. Benaroya R. L. Ferguson W. M. Shields T. V. Wambach cc: w/

Enclosures:

D. J. Kubicki C. B. Ramsey, RIII J. F. Stang, Jr.

J. M. Ulie, RIII l

1 l

ENCLOSURE 1 CHRONOLOGY OF DP0 DOCUMENTATION AND LISTING OF RELIVKNT REFERENCES CHRONOLOGY:

1.

May 2, 1984, Memo from Randy Eberly, Dennis Kubicki, Chuck Ramsey, John Stang and Joe Ulie to R. L. Ferguson; Differing Professional Opinion