neers in Washington to be talk to the inspectors out in the field; then we will go out to the plant and see whether this makes sense. If we can't do any of that ahead of time because we don't have the analysis from the utility, it is almost impossible for us to do our job. That was one of these objections of these people as well, and it went to the very heart of what this group of utilities was proposing, which is basically to throw out the exemption process that everybody else was using to come into compliance with the rule, and instead to have a new approach for them. Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, and I guess I would question why-would you briefly address why you thought the exemption process was not adequate in this case, why Mr. Stello had to meet with the utilities and come up with some accommodation beyond the exception proc ess. Mr. ZECH. I would have to consult with him on that, if I may. Mr. DEFAZIO. Go ahead. While you are doing that, I will just read into the record from a document dated May 2, 1984, Memorandum for Robert L. Ferguson, Section Leader, Fire Protection Section, Chemical Engineering Branch DE, from five different fire protection engineers. On page 4, these five professionals state the new interpretation regarding the nature of fire area boundaries, which states that the "boundary walls and floor-ceiling assemblies need not be continuous; conflicts with previous staff criteria as defined in the branch technical position. Therefore, the technical basis for our review has been changed. This change has been effected as a result of utility initiatives via management directive, without following usual, appropriate NRC procedures or considering relevant staff input, which I would assume would be both the exception process and/or a new rulemaking. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-May 2, 1984 Memorandum for Robert Ferguson, from Fire Protection Engineers on Appendix R.] Since 1982, the NRR fire protection staff has performed their review of Appendix R exemption requests to a consistent basis. This basis has * been formally issued in Generic Letter 83-33. New interpretations of the basic Appendix R requirements have been developed. These new interpretations are contrary to existing guidance and will permit neither a timely nor consistent resolution of Appendix R deviations. Specific recommendations for resolution of the issues are proposed. Background by whom? where? doc.? During our reviews of a significant number of Appendix R exemption requests, whom? exemples? made up of: #+ Qual.? Robert Ferguson 1. Prevailing Staff View -2 The recently drafted "Interpretations of Appendix R" states that If, during the audit, the inspection team takes issue with the adequacy Originators Opinion Appendix R was promulgated as a means of expediting resolution of post- Additional Appendix R audits are scheduled to occur well into the future. It is also anticipated that unresolved audit issues would require NRC action, which would necessitate further delays. These delays would not be expected under the staff's previous approach because all significant technical issues would be resolved by NRR in advance of the audit. To the extent that plant modifications would be necessary to satisfy staff concerns, these modifications would be further delayed because agreement as to the nature of the modifications would not be reached" until some time after the audit. Whereas, under our previous approach, agreement is reached at an earlier stage and the schedule for completing the modifications commences well in advance of the audits, normally at the time the SER is issued. Under the new interpretations, no specific guidance is provided to the Licensees, confronted with the inadequacy of their evaluation at the In addition to the time considerations involved, areas that are not Under the new interpretations, licensees that have already committed to fire protection modifications in conjunction with previously requested and approved exemptions may now elect to delete their commitments from these modifications and propose a new approach which may provide a lesser degree of safety and which would not be ultimately acceptable to the staff. ке Under the new interpretations, greater reliance is placed upon the If, under the new interpretations, an audit team discovered a number of Robert Ferguson O 3. 4. -4 Because of the new interpretations it will now be the staff's position that all that a utility needs to do to justify fire area boundaries and the extent of fire detection and suppression is an "evaluation". It is therefore likely that an individual utility will have some form of evaluation available for the audit team. If serious safety problems are discovered during an audit, the inspection team will not be in a position to efficiently resolve or cite the utility for the condition because they have literally done what the new interpretations require. Also, there is nothing specifically written or implied in the interpretations that utilities will be sanctioned or cited for inadequate evaluations. With the reduced likelikhood of enforcement action, utilities will be less inclined to take the Rule seriously and the staff itself will be increasingly frustrated in their efforts to achieve resolution of unresolved issues. The new interpretation regarding the nature of fire area boundaries, At a meeting between the staff and the Nuclear Utilities Fire Protection Originators Assessment of Consequences The adoption of the new "Interpretations of Appendix R" undermines Related Efforts None Recommendations 5. 1. 2. Do not issue the "Interpretations of Appendix R" as presently Re-affirm that the staff positions as delineated in Generic Letter 83-33 are the basis for resolving technical issues associated with compliance with Appendix R. |