ML20203F247
| ML20203F247 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/14/1985 |
| From: | Ramsey C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203F188 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-85-01, GL-85-1, NUDOCS 8604250090 | |
| Download: ML20203F247 (3) | |
Text
_ _________ _ _________________ ______ - -
[. #- .
g ase g UNITE] STt.TES
+
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MEGION Ill e g 799 ROOSEVELT RO AD GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOl$ 40137
- 0F 2 4 125 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert Ferguson, Chief. Fire Protection Section, Chemical gineering Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of uclear Reactor Regulation THRU: W. G. Guldemond, Chief, Operational Programs Section, RIII FROM: C. Ramsey, Reactor Inspector, RIII
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPON$E TO GENERIC LETTER NO. 85-01 AND SECY PAPER NO.85-306 In a meeting of October 29, 1985, with the NRC staff who were originators of Differing Professional Opinions (DPO's) concerning the NRC's Fire Protection Regulations Comissioner J. Asselstine requested that the DP0 originators express their coments voiced during the meeting via memorandum directly to the Comission. My coments on Generic Letter No. 85-01 were forwarded to you via memorandum dated October 25, 1985. Those coments did not reflect my
.1 views on SECY Paper No.85-306, which is a modified version of Generic Letter No. 85-01. Based on my review of SECY Paper No.85-306, I offer the following additional coments, most of which were discussed in the meeting with
- u. Comissioner Asselstine:
- 1. Inspections Issue: Whether the NRC should perform inspections at plants with uncompleted modifications at the request of licensees to help avoid costly design and implementation decisions.
Inspector Coments: The inspector feels that this approach may be useful in obtaining licensee compliance with the regulation. However, in view of no prior review of a licensee's analyses, it is not clear how such inspections should be conducted. In lieu of the previous approach, which required licensees to submit such analyses of fire hazard potential and safe shutdown capability to the NRC so that agreement on design and implementation decisions could be reached well in advance of NRC inspections, it is not clear how such agreements will be reached by individual inspectors in this new approach. -
For existing operating plants and plants under construction, we are probably past the point where a sequential approach is practical. This may result in prolonged delays in implemen-tation. In view of this, the inspector suggests that the proposed allowance for in-house analyses be tolerated with three provisions:
8604250090 851210 PDR REVGP NRCFIRPS PDR
. .e-Robert Ferguson 2 g4
- a. An incorrect or inadequate analysis be treated the same as a failure to install required fire safety features from an enforcement standpoint.
- b. NRR support be provided for all such inspections and review of analyses at the site either as part of the inspection process or as part of a separate program. The inspector feels this will be necessary to ensure a modicum of consistency as well as to avoid significant shortfalls in staffing levels.
~
- c. A licensee may not r'equest such an inspection unless the analysis is completed and modifications are proposed.
- 2. Standard Fire Protection License Condition Issue: Whether the proposed standard fire protection license condition is viable in all operating licenses.
Inspector Coments: The inspector feels that the standard fire protection license condition is needed for enforceability of NRC Fire Protection Guidelines and comitments made to the NRC by rI
- licensees. A standard license condition in each operating license would eliminate the variations in licensing a requirements that have created problems for licensees and NRC inspectors in identifying the operative and enforceable fire protection requirements at each facility.
If the proposal to incorporate the fire protection program for all plants into the FSAR is adopted, the inspector feels that the enforceability of what the NRC intends by its fire protection guidelines and requirements may be in question for
- the following reasons:
- a. Section 1.a. of the draft Enforcement Guidance for Fire Protection states, in part, "A notice of violation will be issued for a violation of a requirement. However, failure to meet fire protection commitments other than requirements will be designated as deviations."
As proposed, licensees will comit to comply with NRC guidelines as stated in the FSAR in order to comply with the NRC's fire protection regulations. It will be neces-sary to clarify the extent that such FSAR comitments are legally binding to the regulatory requirements delineated by 10 CFR 50, Appendix A General. Design Criterion 3; 10 CFR 50.48 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix R. If this is done.
i failure to implement and maintain the approved fire protection program may be appropriately enforceable under 10 CFR 50.48 and Appendix R to 10 CFR 50.
4
- _ _ , - - , __ _, -_ ____ _ . _ , _ -, - _ _ _ , , . ,, - _ . . _ _ ~ . , - _ _ _ _ .
r .
.oo o .
Robert Ferguson 3 40V 2 4 994 5
- b. Under 10 CFR 50.59, licensees are perinitted to perform analyses and make modifications to fire protection features without prior NRC review and approval. It appears that unless the FSAR descriptions are reviewed by NRR and fonnally accepted as documented in an SER, there will be no way for inspectors to know what is acceptable. In ad-dition, a method would have to be devised to ensure that the accident scenario (postulated fire) for affected fire areas.could not be changed under 10 CFR 50.59. A better approach would be to develop a rule to require compliance with the fire protection plan described in the FSAR.
- c. Without fire protection technical specifications, inspec-tors would have difficulty in determining surveillance requirements and limiting conditions for operation unless the FSAR described in detail what surveillance tests would be perfonned and what compensatory measures would be taken for inoperable or degraded equipment.
- 3. Draft Enforcement Policy Issue: Whether the draft enforcement policy, as proposed, reflects the
-} appropriate regulatory requirements that are enforceable.
- Inspector Coments: The inspector feels that irrespective of which !
approaches are taken for final implementation of Appendix R and the NRC's fire protection requirements, this document should be revised to reflect the applicable legally binding requirements and appropriate guidance describing violations and severity level categories that are comensurate with the level of '
importance that the NRC perceives fire safety.
y I Reactor Inspector cc: C. J. Paperiello L. A. Reyes
- W. G. Guldemond 1
j -
i 6
5 i
)
l C _ ___ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _