ML20249C725

Discusses Dpv Re Fire Protection.Concurs in Panel Findings & Recommendations

ML20249C725
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/12/1998
From:	Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20249C707	List: ML20249C706 ML20249C715 ML20249C720 ML20249C724 ML20249C725
References
NUDOCS 9807010103
Download: ML20249C725 (2)

Text

, . _ _ _ _

.s

• 3 f **%y% UNITED STATES s e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

? Ef WASHINGTON, D.C. 20%%c001

• • • • • ,o$ June 12, 1996 t

MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan ExecutivgDirector for Operations FROM:

')Qm%w Bill M. Moms, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

SUBJECT:

DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW CONCERNING FIRE PROTECTION (WITS NO. 9800079)

The staff was directed on September 11,1997, to take several actions, including providing feedback to the Commission on various issues related to a potential new fire protection rule. The staff documented its review and discussed tne issues related to the development of a risk-informed, performance-based regulation for fire protection in SECY-98-058, dated March 26, 1998. The Commission was b iefed on the issues discussed in SECY-98-058 on March 31, 1998. On March 25,1998 Monideep K. Dey submitted a Differing Professional View (DPV) conceming the approach for potential revision of the NRC's fire protection regulations.

, Mr. Dey's DPV provided a differing view on several of the issues discussed in this SECY and i proposed additional options to pursue in developing new fire protection regulations.

In accordance with NRC Management Directive 10.159, a DPV Panel was formed to review Mr.

Dey's DPV and the information contained in several SECYs that discuss 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 (Attachment 1). Two of the issues discussed in the report are the absence of either an identified safety issue or an industry statement of the need for a revision of current fire protection regulations. This DPV and the issues are not related to the resolution of an identified safety issue. ather, the DPV involves a pclicy issue related to the potential expenditure of staff resources to develop risk-informed, performance-based fire protection regulations. Additionally, in a letter dated May 5,1998, from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to Chairman Jackson, NEl 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 DPV Panel's repod.

I have reviewed the repod and concur in the Panel's F;ndings and Recommendations. The Panel's report has been provided to and discussed with Mr. Dey.

9907010103 990626 P f PDR ORG tetEB i:

' PDR iu

s t

L. Joseph Callan 2 June 12, 1998 I willimplement DPV Panel Recommendations B, C, and D. Recommendation A was included in the actions the staff recommended as Option 2 in SECY-98-058. Additionally, this memorandum

! forwards the DPV Panel report which includes Mr. Dey's DPV through the Director, Human Relations, to the Public Document Room in accordance with the Handbook in Management Directive 10.159(B)(4)(e).

l l If you have any questions concerning the report please let me know.

Attachment As stated cc:

A. Thadani, EDO H. Thompson, EDO

• P. Bird, HR S. Collins, NRR M. Dey, RES t

1 l

i u______._ _ _ _ _ _ . J