ML20249C715
| ML20249C715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1998 |
| From: | Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Dey M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20249C707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807010081 | |
| Download: ML20249C715 (1) | |
Text
-
g
[ %r i
_q UNITED STATES l j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 206S6 0001
\ *****/ June 12, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Monideep K. Dey Probabilistic Risk Analysis Branch Divis' ion of Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Bill M. Mo ing D e' clod Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW CONCERNING FIRE PROTECTION On March 25,1998, you submitted a Differing Professional View (DPV) conceming the approach for potential revision of the NRC's fire protection regulations. As you know, in accordance with NRC Management Directive 10.159, a DPV Panel was formed to review your DPV and the information contained in several SECYs that discuss potential revision of the fire protection regulations. The Panelincluded John W. Craig as Chairman, Richard H. Wessman, and John H.
Flack.
The Panel's report is attached. Two of the issues, discussed with you and contained in the report, are the absence of either a safety issue or industry's statement of a need for a revision of fire protection regulations This DPV and the issues are not related to the resolution of an identified safety issue. Rather, the DPV involves a policy issue related to the potential expenditure of staff resources to develop risk-informed, performance-based fire protection regulations. A letter dated May 5,1998, from the Nuclear Energy Institute to Chairman Jackson discussed industry's views concerning the need to revise these regulations. This letter stated "The industry sees no safety benefit in replacing 10 CFR 50.48 and Appendix R with a new fire protection rule." This letter also stated that "The fire protection rulemaking should be canceled rather than deferred." This letter is also attached to the report.
Your DPV and the Panel's report will be forwarded to the Commission. Additionally, a copy of this report will forwarded to the Public Document Room in accordance with the Handbook in Management Directive 10.159(B)(4)(e).
I have reviewed the report and concur in the Panel's findings and recommendations. While the discussion of the issues is a summary, I believe that your views were objectively and properly considered. Iintend to implement DPV Panet Recommendations B, C, and D. Recommendation A was included in the actions the staff recommended as Option 2 in SECY-98-058.
Please review the attached report to determine whether you choose to continue to pursue the issue through the Differing Professional Opinion process. Additionally, please provide any a comments you may have related to the Findings contained in the report. l l
If you have any questions conceming the report or related issues, please let me know.
Attachment:
As stated cc w/o attachment:
A. Thadani, EDO )
l )
L eso7otooet veose6 Ili I PDR ORG fetes l PDR L
_.