ML20079R312

Requests Meeting to Discuss NRC Position Re Fire Protection Reviews Per IE Insp Repts 50-373/83-44 & 50-374/83-38. Imposed Requirements for Discussion Listed.Util Position Encl

ML20079R312
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	01/27/1984
From:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
7995N, NUDOCS 8402020162
Download: ML20079R312 (8)

Text

,

.- N Commonwealth Edison

) one First National Plaza. Chicago. Ill.nois

( CM Address Reply to: Post Offer,e Box 767 (j/ Chicago. Illinois 60690 January 27, 1984 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Appeal of Certain Fire Protection Positions NRC Docket-Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a): LaSalle County Station Unit 2 License NPF-18, dated December 16, 1983.

(b): NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/83-44 and 50-374/83-38 dated December 12, 1983.

Dear Mr. Denton:

The purpose of this letter is to request that we meet with your staff promptly to discuss certain positions recently taken by the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Inspection and Enforcement in their fire protection reviews and inspections regarding Fire Protection at LaSalle County Station. It is noted that these positions which are documented in References (a) and (b), are also being applied, to varying degrees, to other Commonwealth Edison Company facilities.

Our request is directed to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), although the pasitions with which exception is noted have been taken, in part, by both NRR and the Office of Inspection and En forcement (I&E) .

The imposed requirements that Commonwealth Edison Company desires to discuss are:

1) Application of GDC 1 to Fire Protection systems and equipment.

Commonwealth Edison Company believes that GDC 1 does not apply i

to Fire Protection Systems and equipment. SRP 9.5.1 supports our position.

2) Impor.ition of all aspects of all NFPA codes. As to provisions of NFPA codes which have not been adopted by the NRC in its regulations, Commonwealth Edison Company believes that compliance is only required in those cases where we have made specific commitments, and that the codes allow for engineering judgement to be utilized in application of the NFPA guidance.

8402020162 840127 M PDR ADOCK 05000373

" " ,n[F p

a  !

H. R. Denton January 27, 1984 3)' Imposition of surveillance tests in excess of those currently prescribed by the NRC BWR Standard Technical Specifications.

This specifically includes:

a) Requirements that periodic fire pump tests be in accordance with NFPA-20.

b) Requirements that fire damper surveillances include a periodic operability test of a sample population of accessible dampers.

Commonwealth Edison Company believes that new, previously unimposed requirements should be processed through the normal regulatory channels. We think it is inappropriate and unfair to impose these requirements during the inspection process.

4) Imposition of NFPA 51b training requirements for fire watches.

Commonwealth Edison Comany believes that the mere reference,

"(see NFPA 51b)" in the guidance document to which we have committed, does not represent a formal requirement for line by line compliance to all aspects of NFPA 51b and is not a basis for enforcement action.

Each of the above positions is addressed in detail in the

' enclosures. As previously discussed with Mr. D. Eisenhut, et al, of your staff on November 29, 1983, it is requested that these issues be expedi-tiously resolved. Specifically, resolution of these issues no later than February 10, 1984 the extended would due date forallow conclusion response of this to(b)pic to Reference concurrent

, prior with to full power license issue for LaSalle County Station Unit 2, and prior to initial license issue for Byron Station Unit 1.

l Finally, it-is noted that substantial effort is currently l

underway on several fronts regarding the issues of Safety-Related and l Important to Safety. There is no need to resolve that issue in L

connection with the four appealed positions. Similarly, we are not disputing the NRC's authority to regulate nuclear power plant fire protection. Rather, as addressed in the enclosures, we believe that regulation by the NRC should proceed in an orderly manner with appropriate reviews as new generic issues are identified.

,w s -e --y- <c-e

a H. 'R . Denton - 3- January 27, . 984 If there are any questicns in this matter, please contact the Commonwealth Edison Company Nuclear Licensing Department.

Enclosed for your use are one (1) signed original and forty (40) copies of.this letter and the enclosures.

Very truly yours, Cordell Reed Vice President CWS/lm Enclosures cc: Mr.-T. Novak (Federal Express) ,

-Mr. V. Stello (Federal Express)

Mr. J. G. Keppler, Region III NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS Mr. P. P. Steptoe, IL&B 7995N s - - - - - , --wrr ,* , , , , - ~ . ~ - . ~ . -=--,,-~r- *--,--,--,~v- ---- , , - .- . - -

Enclosure 1 Position:

Application equipment. of GDC 1 to Fire Protection systems and 4

In Inspection Report Nos._50-373/83-44 and 50-374/83-38, philosophy applied noncompliance by the NRC in support of four of the itemsthe is that: of Criterion 1 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 is applicable to fire protection systems, structures and components such as those required by 10 CFR 50.48, requires compliance with quality standards, and requires records commensurate with the safety functions to be performed.

In some esses this interpretation appears to be essential to the NRC Staf f's finding that there has been an item of noncompliance.

Commonwealth applies Edisonsystems.

to fire protection disagrees that Criterion 1 of 10 CFR Pa;t 50 makes clear, As Criterion 3 of 10 CFR Part 50 fire protection systems are provided to protect " structures themselves safety."

are not " structures,' systems and components importa Moreover, Nos. 50-373/83-44 and 50-374/83-48the interpretation suggested in Inspection Report

-prntection systems are " structures, leads to absurd results: if fire safety" then firesystems.

fire protection protection systems would be required to protect thesystems and com A review of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section I reveals a definition of Shutdown, or Design Basis Accidents. Safety Function as systems which are req Fire protection systems and equipment perform does not apply. none of these functions and, therefore, again GDC-1 4

l' Finally, we note that the suggestion that GDC-1 applies to fire protection is inconsistent with the Standard Review Plan, Section 9.5.1 and the CLI-78-6, Action, Commission's decision in Petition For Emergency and Remedial 7 NRC 400, 406-407, 421, 427-428 (1978), both or which identify legal requirements, not including GDC-1, applicable to fire protection.

With respect to the SRP, it is noted that the NRC has freely and uldely listed compliance SRP. Thewith GDC-1 as acceptance criteria for various sections of the NRC, however apply GDC-1 to fire protection, as repr,esented has made a clear decision in Section 9.5.1. We to not concur with this published position of the NRC.

' 7995N

= -

)

Enclosure 2 s

Position: Imposition of'all aspects of'all NFPA codes

, -There is a second, independent problem with the application of GDC-1 in' Inspect' ion' Report Nos. 50-373/83-44 and 50-374/83-48. The Inspection Report apparently takes the position that GDC-1 makes all provisions of all NFPA Codes legally binding on Commonwealth Edison (even though individual paragraphs of the FSAR list which parts of the NPFA codes that Commonwealth ddison considers applicable and has committed to implement). But GDC-1 does not state that licensees and applicants must follow all " generally recognized codes and standards." It merely states that:

Where generally recognized codes and standards are used, they snall be identified and evaluated to determine their applicability, adequacy, and sufficiency and shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure a quality productinkeepIng/with (emphasis added)._

the required safety function.

The use of GDC-1 to require unreferenced codes and standards on the nuclear industry is legally unsupportable. This seems to be a clear violation of due process of law and a violation of the provisions of the Administration Procedure Act governing publication of rules, rulemaking, and sanctions, 5 U.S.C.A. SS 552, 553, and 558. It would also be inconsistent with the Commission's own backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.135, the Commission's recent policy statement on proposed backfits, 48 Fed. Reg. 44173 (September 28, 1983) and its backfitting directions to the Staff referred to in the Policy Statement.

An example of the I&E application of GDC-1 to require compliance with all portions of all NFPA codes, even though there is no commitment to all portions of all NFPA codes,_ is found on page 30 of the inspection report:

1/ See also December 19, 1983 letter from H. R. Denton to T. S. Ellis, III, Esq. of Hunton and Williams, which states, in pertinent part:

...GDC-1 mandates the-application of quality standards and programs " commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed" and expressly allows the use of

" generally recognized codes and standards" where applicable and sufficient." .(emphasis added)

Note the distinction Mr. Denton makes between what GDC-1 mandates and what it allows.

S- . _ _

l "NFPA Standards specify requirements for surveillance testing of fire (protection) systems, equipment, and components._ The licensee committed to develop and implement the' fire protection program in accordance with NFPA codes and standards throughout the FSAR.

The licensee failed to establish adequate quality assurance acceptance / rejection criteria as required by NFPA codes and standards for the following surveillance tests:

(1) LES FP03, Hydrogen seal oil deluge initiation circuit functional test. Does not incorporate NFPA 13 requirements.

(2) LOS FPAl, fire protection flow path valve cycling. Does not incorporate NFPA 24 requirements.

'(3) LOS FPA2, fire protection. system function test. Does not incorporate NFPA 20 requirements in that it only requires verification of flowing 2500 gpm at 108 psi.

(4) LMS FD06, fire protection hose station valve operability and flow verification. Does not incorporate NFPA 14 requirements.

(5)- LMS FP09, yearly maintenance of AFFF fire extinguisher. Does

-not incorporate NFPA 10 requirements.

(6) LOS FPA3, fire protection sprinkler and deluge system drain flow and. cycling test. Does not incorporate NFPA 13A requirements.

This is considered a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design' Criterion 1, and an example of a noncompliance (50-373/83-44-03h) and open item (50-374/83-48-24)."

Commonwealth Edison Company must disagree with the NRC positions:

1. That GDC-1 applies-to fire protection. See Enclosure 1.

2. That commitments to use the guidance of a few specific portions of NFPA codes in the FSAR is interpreted that we have committed to all NFPA codes. 'Our commitments are not to all NFPA codes and engineering judgement is utilized in application of the guidance.

.3. That compliance is required to a set of codes and standards for which, to our knowledge, the NRC has not published endorsements or reauirements. It has been our experience that, in those cases that the NRC expects or desires or requires compliance with codes and standards, the NRC publishes official guidance (i.e., Regulatory Guides) which specifically endorse in entirety cr endorse with exceptions and additions.

7995N

i Enclosure 3

~

s Position': '

IAposition of surveillance. tests in excess of those currently prescribed by the NRC BWR Standard Technical Specifications.

During final review' of fire protection issues, the NRC staff required that surveillance testing be imposed on LaSalle County Station in excess of the requirements provided in the published NRC BWR Standard Technical Specifications. This mahdate of additional requirements is in violation of the guidance in H. R. Denton's Office' Letter No. 38 and is inconsistent alth the Commission's' published positions, guidance, and rulemaking on backfitting. These are'withcut question generic issues. The Staff has circumvented the preceribed methods for imposing new requirements, including cost / benefit' Af'erminations and a'pproval by CRGR. We think thct it is inappropriate and-unfair to impose these requirements during the inspection process withoue benefit. of the prescribed rigorous review process required internally, within the tGC.

The specific examples of additional surdeillance requirements being imposed are:

a) Requirements that periodic fire pump tests be in accordance with NFPA-20. Technical Specification 4.'7.5.1.1 lists the survell-lance requirement- for' the fire pumps. ~

Commonwealth Edison Company belihves that theiappropriate requirements for the technical specifications are-those necessary to verify adequate

, system operation. Tnis is consistent with the NRC's application of other Standard' Technical Specifications. The NRC staff, however, required and im' posed NFPA-20 150% requirements. It is ?

noted that we never committed to all aspects of NFPA-20, but rather that the fire pumps sould be installed per NFPA-20.

Commonwealth" Edison Company disagrees ~with imposition of this position, especially in view of the apparent lack of any NRC p}ublishedendorsementcofallaspectsofN'FPA-20.

b) Requirements that fire dampeh surveillances include a periodic operability _. test of a sample population of accessible dampers.

The original Unit 1 techutcal specifications and the Commonwealth Edison Company proposed Unit 2 technical specifications were exactly the-same as the NRC BWR Standard Technical Specifica-tions. The inclusion of this item as NPF-18 License Condition 2.C.15.(h) is a clear example of a ratchet that circumvented the prescribed NRC procedure for imposition of new generic require-ments, including cost / benefit determinations and approval by CRGR.

1

\ \

e 7995N

- b..

Enclosure 4 Position: Imposition of NFPA 51b training requirements for fire

, watches.

LaSalle County Station is committed to the 1977 " Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities" document per Amendment 63 of the FSAR. A review of how the 1977 guidance incorporates NFPA guidance reveals:

Section 1.0.b.(2) . ." . Using the following NFPA publications for guidance to develop the fire protection program:

No. 4..."

Section 1.0. f. (5) ..." The recommendations for organization, training, and equipment of " Private Fire Brigades as specified in NFPA No. 27-1975 ...are considered an appropriate criteria...".

In this case, however, we note that nowhere does the 1977 guidance docunient state that NFPA Slb recommendations are to be used as guidance nor that NFPA 51b is considered appropriate acceptance criteria. Rather, Sections 2.0.(b).(1), (2), and (3) are followed simply by "(See NFPA

-51b)". There is no requirement fnr compliance. There seems to be no legal' basis for requiring compliance with a vague reference in a guidance document. We further note that the Standard Review Plan (SRP 9.5.1) clearly states the NRC's acceptance criteria for a fire protection program. SRP 9.5.1 is silent on the issue of fire watches. Thus, the

! NRC staff and management have formally not required compliance to NFPA 51b fire watch criteria.

This is without question a generic issue. The staf f has circumvented the prescribed methods for imposing new requirements, including cost /

benefit determinations and approval by CRGR. We think that it is inappropriate and unfair to impose this requirement during the last moments prior to license issue without benefit of the prescribed rigorous review process required internally within the NRC.

I 7995N

_ . _