ML061100235

NRC Staff Responses to Public Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1139, Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants, Dated September 2004

ML061100235
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/21/2006
From:	Lain P NRC/NRR/ADRA/DRA
To:
Lain P.W., NRR/ADRA/DRA, 415-2346
References
DG-1139 RG-1.205
Download: ML061100235 (15)

Text

Page 1 of 15NRC Responses to Public Comments on DG-1139February 2006NEI Comments and NRC Responses1.The final Regulatory Guide should explicitly endorse NEI 04-02 in its entirety, except for Chapter 6,which provides guidance for plants maintaining compliance with existing regulations. If the staffcannot endorse certain elements of the next revision of NEI 04-02, those should be explicitly statedalong with the staff positions that licensees should consider in lieu of the NEI 04-02 elements. Currently there are a number of staff positions in DG-1139 that are not stated as eitherendorsements of or exceptions to NEI 04-02. This places the licensee in the position of having tocompare the two documents to determine whether the positions are the same and lessens thevalue of NEI 04-02 as the accepted method for implementation.Response:The NRC staff agrees in principle. To the extent practical, the regulatory guideshould include precise exceptions to specific elements of NEI 04-02. It is alsodesirable for the endorsement of NEI 04-02 to be as comprehensive and straightforward as possible. These objectives are achieved in the final version of the regulatory guide to the extent that the final version of NEI 04-02 addressesthe NRC's positions.2.NRC should state in the Regulatory Guide a method for providing explicit approval of theelements of the new licensing basis. NRC stated that submittal of the revised fire protectionprogram for NRC review would not be required, and licensee compliance with NFPA 805 will beevaluated as part of the Reactor Oversight Process. However, inspection findings (or lack offindings) are not currently considered an acceptable method for approving a plant licensingbasis. This gap leaves no visible process for NRC approval of the new licensing basis. Onespecific consideration of this is as follows: Under "Fire Protection Program Transition," thesecond sentence of the first paragraph refers to license amendments, exemptions or deviationsthat have been previously approved by the NRC for the plant. It should be noted that the NRCmay not have issued a formal "approval" document, such as a safety evaluation report, forrequested deviations. Therefore, the NRC is placing the licensee in a situation where thelicensee must make a determination of whether or not the NRC tacitly approved the requesteddeviation. In this case, the guidance could be clarified by stating that not all deviations wereexplicitly approved by the NRC. It is still the licensee's responsibility to verify that the deviationis still relevant and representative of the current plant operations and configuration.Response:The staff agrees that the regulatory process will be improved if licensees'license amendment applications include specific details regarding elements of the NFPA 805 fire protection program that have not been previously approved by the NRC or may be subject to interpretation (e.g., program elements that are not specifically addressed in the regulations or guidance documents and may not meet the intent of those documents). These elements of the fireprotection program will be reviewed by the staff and, if acceptable, addressedin the SER. The final regulatory guide addresses this issue in accordance with this approach. The primary responsibility for review and approval ofthe fire protection program will be with NRC headquarters. The ReactorOversight Process (ROP) will provide program verification and monitoring.During the meeting on January 26, 2005, the industry reiterated its desireto obtain specific NRC approval for key elements of the new fire protectionlicense. NEI proposed to draft a list of key program elements that licensee's may choose to address in detail in their license amendment request documentation.

Page 2 of 15The NRC tentatively agreed to provide a correspondingly detailed safetyevaluation for these key elements of the program. The final regulatory guide has been revised to provide guidance consistent with this response.3.The regulatory treatment of "deviations" to fire protection requirements during transition to a fireprotection program allowed by 10 CFR 50.48(c) should be addressed further. The RegulatoryGuide should recognize the fact that the current licensing basis for some licensees may includedeviations to fire protection requirements that did not receive formal review and approval by theNRC. These include fire protection program changes implemented under 10 CFR 50.59 andGeneric Letter 86-10 provisions. While not considered "previously approved," they can beconsidered part of the plant licensing basis if they are of acceptable quality as discussed in NEI04-02 Section 4.3.2. Following the "safe-today, safe-tomorrow" approach, licensees should beable to carry these deviations forward into the new fire protection licensing basis allowed by 10CFR 50.48(c), provided that the conditions described in the original deviation, as may bemodified under the conditions of the existing fire protection program, are still representative ofcurrent plant operations and configuration.Response:"Deviations" that have been properly implemented by a licensee in accordancewith previously accepted methods (e.g., Generic Letter 86-10 evaluations) prior tothe transition can be carried forward in the transition under the "safety today, safe tomorrow approach." The transition process will not require NRC staff reviewof previously unreviewed deviations unless they are specifically addressed in the license amendment application; therefore, the staff cannot guarantee thatunapproved deviations will be found acceptable in the ROP following transition. To minimize the compliance and enforcement risk associated with the ROP, the industry is encouraged to use the insights gleaned from pilots applicable to reviewing deviations, the extensive industry experience related to performing deviation evaluations, and relevant existing regulatory guidance, to develop criteria that future licensees who adopt NFPA 805 could use to transition deviations.

Also, licensees should ensure that the conditions described in the original deviation, as may be modified under conditions of the existing fire protection program documentation, are still representative of current plant operationsand configurations.4.Section B, Discussion, fourth paragraph - this paragraph appears to limit the use of futureeditions of NFPA 805 by a licensee, via a license amendment, to only those areas pertaining torisk-based or performance-based alternatives. However, a licensee may request an exemptionto 10 CFR 50.48(c) to adopt a newer edition of NFPA 805 in its entirety. The last sentenceshould be modified to include use of future editions of NFPA 805 by requesting an exemption orvoluntarily as a result of direct rulemaking to adopt future editions. The standard licensecondition in Regulatory Position 2.2 should reflect this also.Response:10 CFR 50.48(c) allows licensees to "submit a request to use risk-informed,performance-based alternatives to compliance with NFPA 805." Licensees are permitted to submit a license amendment application to use any component, system, methodology, etc., required by a future edition of NFPA 805. The finalregulatory guide will be revised to note that the NRC may incorporate by referencefuture editions of NFPA 805. Should this occur, licensees may submit a license amendment application to adopt all or part of the future edition of the standard in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c)(4).

Page 3 of 155.10CFR50.48(c) does not endorse the following elements of NFPA 805: (1) the Life Safety Goal,Objectives and Criteria in NFPA 805 Chapter 1; (2) existing cables that meet the exception inNFPA 805 Section 3.3.5.3; and (3) water supply and distribution systems that meet theexception in NFPA 805 Section 3.6.4. The Regulatory Guide should address these in Section C.Response:10 CFR 50.48(c) clearly identifies that these aspects of NFPA 805 are notendorsed. Supplementary information presented in the Federal Register notice(FRN) associated with the 10 CFR 50.48(c) rulemaking process describes why these aspects of NFPA 805 were not endorsed.6.Regulatory Position 3.1.2 states that change evaluations should demonstrate that adequatedefense-in-depth and safety margins are maintained. Several industry guidance documents,including NEI 00-01 and NEI 04-02, have provided criteria for conducting these evaluationsbased on Regulatory Guide 1.174. NRC should specifically accept these industry guidelines orprovide explicit guidelines in the Regulatory Guide for assessing the adequacy ofdefense-in-depth and safety margins.Response:The final regulatory guide endorses both NEI 00-01 and NEI 04-02. Any aspectsof these two documents that are not endorsed are described in the finalregulatory guide.7.Regulatory Position 3.1.2 (d) does not agree with NEI 04-02. It does not make sense that a 'riskevaluation' needs to be performed if the 'deterministic' approaches are deemed to satisfy thenuclear safety criteria (since they are the Appendix R requirements, without the option ofperforming engineering equivalency evaluations). It would be equivalent to stating that certainaspects of Appendix R, even if met, do not have acceptable risk. NEI 04-02 has been clarified toinclude a review of defense-in-depth and safety margins for all changes. This should meet theNRC's intent without the need for a risk assessment for plant changes using the deterministicapproach.Response:In principle, the staff does not agree that a risk assessment is not required fordeterministic plant changes. NFPA 805, Sections 2.2.9 and 2.4.4, "Plant ChangeEvaluation," require the assessment of risk for all plant changes. Specifically, Section 2.4.4 states that the plant change evaluation process "shall consist ofan integrated assessment of the acceptability of risk, defense-in-depth,and safety margins." NFPA 805, Figure 2.2, "Methodology," clearly shows that a risk impact evaluation must be performed for plant changes, whether using the performance-based approach or the deterministic approach. It makes sense to evaluate deterministic plant changes because it is possible for deterministic plant changes to result in large changes in risk that do not meet the acceptance criteria of NFPA 805 and Regulatory Guide 1.174 and, therefore, would not beacceptable to the NRC. A licensee that transitions from an Appendix R-basedfire protection program that has been reviewed and accepted by the NRC to an NFPA 805-based program is replacing the prescriptive, deterministic criteria of Appendix R with a wholly risk-informed, performance-based program.

Since the NFPA 805 fire protection program is risk-informed, any changes to the program by the licensee must include an evaluation of the impact on risk.The type, scope, and depth of the risk assessment associated with a plant changeevaluation should be determined by nature of the plant change and the potentialfire risk implications. The intent is to use an appropriate graded approach.

Types of risk assessments include logical risk arguments based on fire protection Page 4 of 15engineering judgments and evaluations, or may include the use of acceptedprobabilistic safety assessment (PSA) methodologies. The scope and depthof evaluations should be commensurate with the complexity of the plant change, the technical issues involved, and the potential risk associated with the change. Based on these considerations, the evaluation may range from a simple qualitative fire protection determination to a complex multi-discipline analysis.8.Regulatory Positions 3.1.4 and 4.2 - more clarity is needed as to how NRC w ill approve the use offire modeling techniques and how licensees may subsequently use them. First, it is unclear if theNRC intends to issue safety evaluations for each of the methods and models that the NRC willreview and approve for use for fire modeling. Second, it is also unclear how the NRC will treatthe topical reports discussed in Section 2.4.2 of NEI 04-02. Third, there should be a provision forlicensee use of models or methods not specifically covered by this regulatory position that eitherhave been approved for use by other licensees, or are commonly accepted in the literature asvalid calculational methods.Following initial approval, licensees should be able to implement the method or model withoutreceiving prior NRC approval, provided that the licensee can demonstrate that their use of themethod or model meets certain quality assurance/control and experience requirements, is usedwithin the limitations and constraints provided in the NRC's approval, and is appropriate for theintended application. These implementation provisions can be verified during inspections.Response:Fire models do not require prior NRC approval. Section 2.4.1.2.1 of NFPA 805states that only fire models acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction shall beused in fire modeling calculations. The NRC's current plans are to issue a NUREG-series report that documents the acceptability of the fire modelsevaluated by the NRC, including validation and verification of the models(draft NUREG-1824, "Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Modelsfor Nuclear Power Plant Applications," was issued in December 2005). As stated in the second paragraph of Regulatory Position 4.2, to the extent the NRChas documented the acceptability of the fire models, the licensee need onlydemonstrate that the models are applied appropriately (i.e., within the boundaries, limitations, and constraints of the NRC's acceptance as documented inthe NUREG-series report).Licensees may apply fire modeling methods other than those documented inthe NUREG-series report, but such methods are still subject to being deemedacceptable to the NRC (e.g., as part of the NRC's routine oversight of the licensee's fire protection program). The licensee is responsible for documenting the application of these methods, including their validation and verification,in a manner sufficient for the NRC to determine acceptability.Another approach to generic acceptance of fire modeling methods may includethe industry submission of topical reports for NRC review. Topical reportssubmitted for NRC approval will be treated as discussed in Section 2.4.2of NEI 04-02. An SER will be issued on the topical report, and the licenseecan use the amendment process to adopt the topical report. The licensee's documentation must demonstrate that the topical report has been usedin a manner consistent with the NRC's approval.

Page 5 of 159.Regulatory Position 3.2, Fire Protection Program Documentation, third sentence - this sentenceshould be expanded to also state the "design-basis document" should not be confused with theplant specific "licensing basis documentation."Response:This portion of Regulatory Position 3.2 has been deleted. Section 5.1.1.1of NEI 04-02 adequately addresses this comment.10.Regulatory Position 3.3 states in part, "Licensees should identify the sources of radioactivematerials that could be released during a fire (e.g., wastes, resins, and spent fuel) and evaluatethe fire protection provided for these sources and the adequacy of fire response procedures tomanage or control radioactive release." The NFPA 805 performance criteria for radioactiverelease do not include 'fire protection features' for radioactive materials. Section 1.5.2 states,"Radiation release to any unrestricted area due to the direct effects of fire suppression activities(but not involving fuel damage)..." This regulatory position should be revised.Response:The final regulatory guide has been revised to be consistent with the NFPA 805performance criteria, as stated in Section 1.5.2 of NFPA 805.11.Regulatory Position 4.4, Circuit Analysis. The NRC states that the method in NFPA 805Appendix B is an acceptable method for identifying circuits related to nuclear functions. TheNRC also states that they plan to endorse NEI 00-01 for circuit analysis once certain commentshave been addressed. The circuit analysis methodologies in Appendix B to NFPA 805 and NEI00-01 are contradictory, and the method in Appendix B does not reflect the risk insights from RIS2004-03 that NRC requested be included in NEI 00-01. We recommend that the RegulatoryGuide withdraw its endorsement of NFPA 805 Appendix B as an acceptable method for circuitanalysis and endorse NEI 00-01.Response:The specific contradictions of concern between NEI 00-01 and Appendix Bto NFPA 805 are not identified in the comment and, therefore, are not specificallyaddressed in this response. The final regulatory guide does not endorse specific guidance in the NFPA 805 appendices, but includes the general statement that"Appendices A, B, C, and D provide useful information for implementing the requirements of NFPA 805. The staff finds the specific guidance contained in these appendices to be acceptable to the extent that this guidance is specificallyendorsed in the positions contained in Section C of this regulatory guide."12.Related to Comment 3, many existing licensing bases do not include explicit NRC approval oflicensee assumptions about the number of fire-induced spurious actuations to be considered. The Regulatory Guide or NEI 04-02 should recommend that each licensee state clearly in thelicensing basis their assumptions about the number of spurious actuations to be postulated.Response:Chapter 4 of NEI 04-02 describes (in general terms) the reviews, evaluations,and documentation necessary to transition the current fire protection licensing basis to a fire protection program based on NFPA 805. That chapter includes discussion and guidelines with regard to transitioning fire protection program elements that have not received explicit NRC approval (e.g., number of spurious operations). Documentation of analytical assumptions supporting or demonstrating the nuclear safety capability meets the performance criteria is required bySection 2.7 of NFPA 805. NFPA 805, the regulatory guide, and the NEI 04-02guidance are not intended to be prescriptive with regard to the specific content of the licensee's program documentation. This allows licensees the flexibility to document their programs in a manner consistent with existing plant practices, as long as the requirements of NFPA 805, Section 2.7, are met.

Page 6 of 1513.DG-1139 does not provide guidance related to recovery actions (known as "manual actions"under current regulations). We recommend that guidance be provided in the Regulatory Guide orNEI 04-02 to address (1) feasibility or acceptance criteria, and (2) criteria for deciding whichrecovery actions need a change analysis to implement them. The Regulatory Guide should alsoprovide direction as to when risk-informed or performance-based change analysis is required forrecovery actions. We further recommend that the feasibility criteria in Inspection Procedure71111.05, dated March 6, 2003, be utilized.Response:Since manual actions are not an option available in lieu of the requirementsof 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, III.G.2, when plants transition to NFPA 805,they need to consider all manual actions that did not receive staff approval as "changes" and, in accordance with Section 4.2.3.1 of NFPA 805, they must be evaluated using the performance-based approach in Section 4.2.4 of NFPA 805.

Appendix B-2 to NEI 04-02 provides the feasibility and reliability criteria thatshould be considered during the change evaluation process. Impact on risk, defense-in-depth, and safety margin must also be assessed.14.The Regulatory Guide and NEI 04-02 should provide guidance for temporarily not being able tomeet the performance criteria (i.e., compensatory measures).Response:During transition of the licensee's fire protection program, and prior to approvalof the license amendment to adopt NFPA 805, the licensee's current fire protectionprogram governs the treatment of identified noncompliance and necessary compensatory actions. Section 3.2.3(2) of NFPA 805 requires that a licensee adopting NFPA 805 must have procedures that implement compensatory actions for systems credited in the fire protection program that cannot perform theirintended function. Additional guidance has been added to the final regulatory guide with respect to plant changes pending acceptance. The final regulatory guide does not include additional guidance with respect to compensatory measures.15.Section B, Discussion, fourth paragraph, last sentence - this statement implies that licenseesmay use specific risk-informed or performance-based alternatives included in the 2001 Edition ofNFPA 805 without submitting a license amendment. Clarification should be provided, consistentwith the requirements of the regulation and guidance document, to clearly state therequirements for using the alternative approaches provided in NFPA 805, 2001 Edition. See alsoComment 9.Response:See the staff's response to Comment #4.16.Fire Protection Program Transition", third paragraph, second sentence - the modified fireprotection program cannot be implemented until the approved license amendment is received bythe licensee. This sentence should be modified to provide this clarification.Response:The NRC staff agrees. Clarification has been added to the final regulatory guide.17."Transition Identified Noncompliance and Interim Enforcement Discretion Policy", last paragraph,second sentence - please add a clarification that the "letter" is the licensee's notice of withdrawalletter.Response:The NRC staff agrees. Clarification has been added to the final regulatory guide.

Page 7 of 1518.Regulatory Position 1 states in part, "In addition, the NRC's endorsement of NEI 04-02 does notimply its endorsement of the references cited in NEI 04-02." It would be helpful when finalizingNEI 04-02, to know what specific references the NRC does not endorse. This could then beclarified in NEI 04-02.Response:The purpose of the regulatory guide is to provide the NRC staff's position withregard to NEI 04-02. The NRC staff has not performed a detailed reviewof the references cited in NEI 04-02 or reference citations that may exist in those references. To the extent that documents (other than documents issued directlyby the NRC) have been endorsed by the NRC, the endorsements are describedin other regulatory documents.19.Regulatory Position 2.2 - the standard license condition contains an incorrect reference. "10CFR 48(a)" should be "10 CFR 50.48(a)." Also, NFPA 805 is endorsed in two parts of theregulation. The reference to "10 CFR 50.48(c)(2)" should also include "10 CFR 50.48(c)(1)."Response:The typographical error has been corrected, and the reference to the rulehas been be simplified to 10 CFR 50.48(c).20.Regulatory Position 3.1 states in part, "The version of NEI 02-03 currently available to the NRChas not been reviewed and endorsed by the NRC for application to a risk-informed,performance-based fire protection program." NEI 04-02 is expected to include more detail for the'change process' in the final version. Specific NRC concerns with respect to NEI 02-03 usage ina risk-informed, performance-based fire protection program should be clarified, such that NEI04-02 can be finalized.In addition, Regulatory Position 3.1.1, Configuration Control and Change Screening, suggestsusing 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) as a method to identify changes that require an evaluation. Withrespect to fire protection program changes, this is a misapplication of 10 CFR 50.59. Undercurrent regulations, as noted in NEI 96-07 Revision 1 (endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guide1.187), Section 1.2.1, "Where a licensee possesses a license condition that specifically permitschanges to the NRC-approved fire protection program (i.e., that has received the standard fireprotection license condition contained in Generic Letter 86-10), subsequent changes to the fireprotection program would be controlled under the fire protection program and not under 10 CFR50.59." Related to NFPA 805, 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) states, "The provisions in this section do notapply to changes to the facility or procedures when the applicable regulations establish morespecific criteria for accomplishing such changes." 10 CFR 50.48(c)(3)(i) allows a licensee toadopt a fire protection program that complies with NFPA 805. NFPA 805 provides specificcriteria for accomplishing changes to the fire protection program. Therefore, per 10 CFR50.59(c)(4), 10 CFR 50.59 does not apply for fire protection program changes. However, there maybe certain activities for which a license would need to apply both the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59and that of 10 CFR 50.48(c). The requirements of each regulation should consider only thoseeffects that are pertinent to the scope of the regulation being applied. The reference to 10 CFR50.59 in this section should be either deleted, or modified to reflect the requirementsof the regulations.Response:The references to 10 CFR 50.59 have been deleted from the regulatory guide. With respect to NEI 02-03, the staff endorses the specific NEI 02-03 guidance referenced in Revision 1 of NEI 04-02.

Page 8 of 1521.Regulatory Position 3.1.2 (a) discusses the concept of 'free of fire damage' with respect toevaluating plant changes. Specific guidance is provided for demonstrating 'free of fire damage'when using fire modeling to evaluate the change (paragraph 3 of this subsection). As discussedduring meetings held with the staff, and as discussed in NEI 04-02 Section 5.3.1 (bulleted list"Acceptability Determination" bullet), 'free of fire damage' can be demonstrated using riskassessment alone. Regulatory Position 3.1.2 should be clarified to include this aspect ofdemonstrating 'free of fire damage'.Response:Regulatory Position 3.1.2(a) [now Regulatory Position 3.2.2(a)] states thatthe methodologies described in NFPA 805 (or the approved license condition) may be used to demonstrate that the nuclear safety performance criteria are met.

The second paragraph describes how demonstrating "free of fire damage" relates to meeting nuclear performance criteria, so it follows that any approaches of NFPA 805 (or the approved license condition) can be applied to demonstrating "free of fire damage."Fire modeling is addressed in Paragraph 3 in order to clarify the NRC staff'sposition regarding appropriate margins between the maximum expected fire scenarios and limiting fire scenarios when using the fire modeling approach.

This position related to fire modeling does not imply that fire modeling is the only acceptable approach to demonstrating "free of fire damage."22.Regulatory Position 3.1.4 and 3.1.4(b) - the references to Regulatory Positions 3.5.1 and 3.5.2should be changed to 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.Response:Noted; these numbers have changed in the final regulatory guide.23.Regulatory Position 3.1.4 - in several places the Regulatory Position indicates that requests forapproval for fire protection program changes can take the form or either license amendmentrequests or exemption requests. The rule itself refers only to license amendment requests. Please clarify whether exemption requests are also acceptable.Response:License amendment requests apply to approval of fire protection programchanges that are alternatives to NFPA 805, 2001 edition. References to exemption requests as a means to obtain NRC approval of this type of changehave been deleted from the final regulatory guide. Also see the staff's response to Comment #4 regarding future editions of NFPA 805.24.Regulatory Position 3.1.4 (b), last bullet, indicates that "changes that deviate from other specificNFPA 805 requirements" will require NRC approval. The NRC should clarify the "changes"and the "other specific NFPA requirements" being referred to by this sentence.Response:Regulatory Position 3.1.4 (now Regulatory Position 3.2.4) has been expandedto provide additional guidance on which changes require NRC approval.25.Regulatory Position 3.2 is unclear as to whether the NRC endorses the discussion of licenseedocumentation provided in NEI 04-02 Section 5.1.1.1. Please provide clarification.Response:This regulatory position was deleted based on the additions that NEI madeto Revision 1 of NEI 04-02 regarding program documentation. The NRCendorses NEI 04-02 as described in the regulatory guide.

Page 9 of 1526.Regulatory Position 4.3 does not mention Appendix I of NEI 04-02 nor does Regulatory Position3.1.2. Please clarify as a part of addressing Comment 2 above.Response:The NRC staff endorses Appendix I as revised for Revision 1 of NEI 04-02. Since the NRC generally endorses NEI 04-02 (except where specific exceptionsor clarifications are provided in the regulatory guide), it is not necessary to identify individual sections as being endorsed. Where the regulatory guide refers to a specific section of NEI 04-02, it does so to highlight the guidance provided in the section.

Page 10 of 15Progress Energy Comments and NRC Responses1.Section 3.1.2 indicates that the evaluation of fire protection program changes should demonstratethat adequate defense-in-depth is maintained. It is suggested that the inclusion of examples ofacceptable defense-in-depth analysis would promote better understanding of the limits of suchevaluations.Response:As discussed in response to NEI Comment #7, defense-in-depth is a generalprinciple that must be considered in the course of evaluating a wide varietyof potential plant changes. Accordingly, there are many acceptable ways to demonstrate adequate defense-in-depth. The NRC staff agrees that examplesof plant change evaluations involving demonstrations that defense-in-depthhas been maintained may be helpful. The industry may consider developing such examples and incorporating them in NEI 04-02 or other industry guidance document for staff review and endorsement.2.A well-understood licensing basis needs to be an end product of the transition to a risk-informed,performance-based fire protection program. Known differences in understanding of the currentlicensing basis between the NRC and the licensee need to be explicitly addressed for everymajor area of fire protection. Therefore, it is suggested that a transition summary document, asdescribed in NE1 04-02, needs to be submitted as part of the license amendment for each plant.Response:The staff agrees. See the responses to NEI Comments #3 and #4.

Page 11 of 15STARS Comments and NRC Responses1.Section A, Introduction, 5 th paragraph, states that this draft regulatory guide "endorses NEI 04-02, Revision F, with some exceptions and clarifications." This section then states that the staffplans to address and resolve the public comments, along with NEI and interested members ofthe public, prior to issuing the final regulatory guide. Based on this information, it is expected thatthis draft regulatory guide will be greatly simplified, and that it w ill endorse NEI 04-02, Revision0, without exception or clarification.Response:No response necessary.2.Section B, Discussion, 4 th paragraph, last sentence - this statement implies that licensees mayuse specific risk-based or performance-based alternatives included in the 2001 Edition of NFPA805 without submitting a license amendment. Clarification should be provided, consistent withthe requirements of the regulation and guidance document, to clearly state the requirements forusing the alternative approaches provided in NFPA 805, 2001 Edition.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #16.3.Section B, Discussion, 4 th paragraph - this paragraph appears to limit the use of future editionsof NFPA 805 by a licensee, via a license amendment, to only those areas pertaining to risk-based or performance-based alternatives. However, a licensee may request an exemption to 10CFR 50.48(c) to adopt a newer edition of NFPA 805 in its entirety. The last sentence should bemodified to include use of future editions of NFPA 805 by requesting an exemption, or voluntarilyas a result of direct rulemaking to adopt future editions.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #5.4."Fire Protection Program Transition" - the second sentence of the 1 st paragraph refers to licenseamendments, exemptions or deviations that have been previously approved by the NRC for theplant. It should be noted that the NRC may not have issued a formal "approval" document, such asa safety evaluation report, for requested deviations. Therefore, the NRC is placing the licenseein a situation where the licensee must make a determination of whether or not the NRC tacitlyapproved the requested deviation. It is suggested that this guidance be clarified by stating thatnot all deviations were explicitly approved by the NRC. In these cases, it is still the licensee'sresponsibility to verify that the deviation is still relevant and representative of the current plantoperations and configuration.This section should also recognize that changes may have been made to deviations usingthe provisions of the standard license condition. The fact that a deviation, or a change thereto,may not have received formal NRC review and approval should not be used as a criterion fordetermining whether or not the change represents a noncompliance. Non-compliance should bedetermined solely on the merits of the deviation. Does it provide an adequate level of safety, and isit appropriate for the current plant operating conditions and configuration? If so, then thedeviation should be acceptable and not subject to regulator enforcement due to the fact that it maynot have been formally approved by the NRC.Response:See the responses to NEI Comments #3 and #4.5."Fire Protection Program Transition", 3 rd paragraph, 2 nd sentence - the modified fire protectionprogram cannot be implemented until the approved license amendment is received by thelicensee. This sentence should be modified to provide this clarification.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #17.

Page 12 of 156."Transition Identified Noncompliance and Interim Enforcement Discretion Policy", last paragraph, 2 nd sentence - add clarification that the "letter" is the licensee's notice of withdrawal letter.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #18.7."Appendices to NFPA 805"- the purpose of this regulatory guide is to endorse NEI 04-02,Revision 0, as an acceptable method for meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c). Therefore, the focus of the RG should be directed to NEI 04-02, not to NFPA 805, which hasalready been endorsed by virtue of rulemaking. This section, and other sections pertaining solelyto NFPA 805, should be deleted or modified to address a corresponding section of NEI 04-02.Response:The regulatory guide paragraph in question appears in the "Discussion" sectionof the guide. This information was included in the regulatory guide to reiterate the staff's position relative to the appendices to NFPA 805, which was discussed in the rulemaking statement of considerations, but is not directly addressed in the rule text. The appendices are not considered part of the endorsed standard.

If NEI 04-02 is revised to contain this information or establishes a position on use of the NFPA 805 appendices that is acceptable to the staff, the regulatory guidecan be modified accordingly.8.Section C, Regulatory Position - this section will change significantly based on expectedcomment resolution and revision of NEI 04-02, Revision F. NEI 04-02, Revision 0, should beendorsed without comment or exception.Response:See the response to STARS Comment #1.9.Section 2.1, Fire Protection Program Noncompliance - this section states that certain portions ofNEI 04-02 discuss NRC enforcement discretion during transition to NFPA 805. It is notappropriate for an industry guideline to provide, state, or otherwise define NRC policy. Theinformation regarding NRC enforcement discretion provided in NEI 04-02 should be removedand relocated to this regulatory guide, or it should be revised to state "NRC enforcementdiscretion for noncompliance issues may be exercised during the transition to NFPA 805. Referto the current NRC enforcement discretion policy provided in-."Response:The enforcement policy information is covered in Section B, "Discussion,"of the regulatory guide and includes the necessary references to the policy and related documentation. This discussion makes reference to Section 3 of NEI 04-02 as providing additional guidance. This additional guidance is acceptable to the staff.10.Section 2.2, License Change Amendments - Section 4.6.1 and Appendix H of NEI 04-02,Revision F, should be revised to meet the requirements of NEI White Paper, "Standard Formatfor Operating License Amendment Requests from Commercial Reactor Licensee," and RegulatoryIssue Summary 2001-22, "Attributes of a Proposed No Significant Hazards ConsiderationDetermination."Response:NEI 04-02 should be revised to address this comment.11.Section 2.2, License Change Amendments - Section 4.6.1 and Appendix H of NEI 04-02,Revision F, should be revised to include the affidavit and/or sworn statement (28 USC 1746) thatis required for license amendment requests.Response:NEI 04-02 should be revised to address this comment.

Page 13 of 1512.Section 2.2, License Change Amendments - the standard license condition contains an incorrectreference. "10 CFR 48(a)" should be "10 CFR 50.48(a)."Response:See the response to NEI Comment #20.13.Section 2.2, License Change Amendments - NFPA 805 is endorsed in two parts of theregulation. The reference to "10 CFR 50.48(c)(2)" should also include "10 CFR 50.48(c)(1)."Response:See the response to NEI Comment #20.14.Section 2.2, License Change Amendments - the standard license condition does not account forthe adoption of newer editions of NFPA 805 that may occur in the future. As stated, the licensecondition would require the licensee to adopt whatever edition of the standard that 10 CFR50.48(c)(1) and 50.48(c)(2) currently endorse, without considering the fact that the licenseeadopted a specific edition of the standard. The license condition should state the specific editionof the standard being adopted, with the ability to adopt later editions without prior NRC approvalprovided that the new edition has been reviewed and approved for use by the NRC.Response:Although NRC endorsement of future editions of NFPA 805 in 10 CFR 50.48(c)would require rulemaking, the rulemaking by itself should not require licensees to submit an amendment request to modify their license conditions to clarify the applicable NFPA 805 edition that applies to their fire protection program.

Therefore, the proposed license condition will be revised to include wordingidentifying the specific edition of NFPA 805 that is applicable to the licensee.15.Section 3.1, NFPA 805 Fire Protection Program Change Evaluation Process - the NRC shouldreview, resolve comments, and endorse the guidance provided in NEI 02-03, "Guidance forPerforming a Regulatory Review of Proposed Changes to the Approved Fire ProtectionProgram," as soon as possible.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #21.16.Section 3.1.1, Configuration Control and Change Screening - this section suggests using 10CFR 50.59(a)(1) as a method to identify changes that require an evaluation. With respect to fireprotection program changes, this is a misapplication of 10 CFR 50.59. 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) states"The provisions in this section do not apply to changes to the facility or procedures when theapplicable regulations establish more specific criteria for accomplishing such changes." 10 CFR50.48(c)(3)(i) allows a licensee to adopt a fire protection program that complies with NFPA 805.NFPA 805 provides specific criteria for accomplishing changes to the fire protection program. Therefore, per 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4), 10CFR 50.59 does not apply for fire protection programchanges. However, there may be certain activities for which a license would need to apply boththe requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 and that of 10 CFR 50.48(c). The requirements of eachregulation should consider only those effects that are pertinent to the scope of regulation beingapplied. The reference to 10 CFR 50.59 in this section should be either deleted, or modified toreflect the requirements of the regulations.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #21.17.Section 3.1.1, Configuration Control and Change Screening - this section appears to be editorialin nature. This section should be revised to simply reflect that the configuration control andchange guidance provided in NEI 04-02 is endorsed without exception.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #2.

Page 14 of 1518.Section 3.1.2, Fire Protection Program Change Evaluations - this section appears to repeatinformation provided in NEI 04-02 and NFPA 805. This section should simply state that theguidance provided in NEI 04-02 is endorsed without exception. This comment also applies to theother sections of the regulatory guide where information is repeated, but no new information isprovided.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #2.19.Section 3.1.2, Fire Protection Program Change Evaluations, (c) - this section states that riskincreases do not need to be individually tracked for Region IV, although cumulative risk shouldbe tracked. If the risk increases associated for a proposed change is so insignificant that theincrease is essentially imperceptible in Region IV), then it would take a significant number of suchchanges for the risk to be increased to where a definite change is perceptible. Tracking suchsmall changes in risk is an undue burden that does not result in any increase in benefit ornuclear safety. This requirement should be deleted.Response:NFPA 805 clearly requires that cumulative risk be considered in plant changeevaluations. As indicated in the regulatory guide, tracking individual changesin risk is not necessary to keep track of cumulative risk. Also, Region IV is not included in Regulatory Guide 1.174, and the NRC staff does not consider it usefulto define a Region IV that is specific to risk-informed, performance-based fire protection.20.Section 3.1.2, Fire Protection Program Change Evaluations, (d) - this section adds an additionalnew requirement to changes that are justified using deterministic approaches. The requirementto assess risk for deterministic changes is inappropriate, since changes that are justified using adeterministic approach have been deemed acceptable without consideration of risk, i.e., they areinherently "safe." This requirement should be deleted since it does not provide any benefit orincrease in nuclear safety, and it is inconsistent with how other deterministic regulations areapplied.Response:See the response to NEI Comment #8.21.Section 3.2, Fire Protection Program Documentation, 3 rd sentence - this sentence should beexpanded to also state the "design-basis document" should not be confused with the plan-specific "licensing basis documentation."Response:See the response to NEI Comment #10.

Page 15 of 1522.Section 4.2, Fire Models, 3 rd paragraph - it is unclear from this paragraph if the NRC intends toissue safety evaluations for each of the models that the NRC will review and approve for use forfire modeling. The NRC should treat fire models in the same fashion that other evaluationmethodologies, such as that used for structural, SSC performance, or accident responseanalyses (etc.), are treated. The NRC should document their review and approval of eachmodel in a safety evaluation report (SER). The SER should identify the limitations andconstraints associated with the model being reviewed. Licensees should be able to implementthe approved model, without receiving prior NRC approval provided that the licensee meetscertain quality assurance/control and experience requirements, the model is used within thelimitations and constraints provided in the SER, and the model is appropriate for the intendedapplication.Response:The NRC staff does not intend to issue SERs for each of the fire modelsdescribed in the Regulatory Position 4.2. The NRC will issue a NUREG-seriesreport documenting the staff's acceptance of fire models and the limitations and constraints associated with the model. See the response to NEI Comment #9 for related details. Licensees will be able to implement the approved modelsas indicated in the comment. The final regulatory guide does not require that approved fire models be submitted unless applied outside the limitations and restraints of the V&V, does not meet quality requirements, etc.23.Section 4.2, Fire Models, 4 th paragraph - licensees should be provided with the flexibility to usenon-standard models that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC for use by a differentlicensee without prior NRC approval provided that the same conditions described in 22 aboveare met. The information provided in this comment, along with comment 22, are generallyconsistent with the guidance provided in NEI 96-07, Revision 1, "Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59Implementation."Response:See the response to NEI Comment #9.24.This regulatory guide intends to endorse a significant amount of other items, ranging from firemodels, guidance for fire PRAs, to industry guidance documents such as that pertaining to circuitanalysis (NEI 00-01). The issuance of this regulatory guide may be premature due to the amountof pending information that is to be incorporated into this regulatory guide.Response:As stated in the comment, there are a number of ongoing activities to establishNRC positions and industry guidance on a number of topics with ties to NEI 04-02and this regulatory guide. It is the staff's opinion that these activities (e.g., review of NEI 00-01) are sufficiently mature in their development to move forward with issuing this regulatory guide and the associated endorsement of NEI 04-02.

For those activities related to NRC evaluation and acceptance of fireand probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) models for use with NFPA 805,the regulatory guide can be revised and reissued as the information becomes available.Such revisions would not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as the versionof the regulatory guide being issued does not address those matters. Therefore, the NRC staff's issuance of guidance on those matters does not constitutea change representing a backfit.