ML20246E798

Advises That Violation Re Testing of CO2 Sys Noted in Insp Rept 50-271/89-04 Still Valid Due to No Alternate to Testing Established,Per Util Requesting Withdrawal of Violation

ML20246E798
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	08/21/1989
From:	Boger B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8908300020
Download: ML20246E798 (2)

See also: IR 05000271/1989004

Text

gn .

,; - = - 3;

-

-- - - -- - - - ----- - - -

,1 y,b.q: l

-}

y .

,

J

., ,

, .

. . < , ~

k5

g g,,y

"

., ,

g

,

,

.

~ . .

a

,

.l4

e

g , ,

a

~

M'w ,

! ';h[

,' -s

.

,

b ,fs

'

AUG 21 1989

^

,

m

/' .

Docket No'. 50-271~

'

'iVermont Yankee Nuclear Power ~ Corporation -

fATTNi Mr. Warren P.. Murphy.

Vice President and Manager-

4 1

.. .

of'Operattans

.

T .

RD 5,LBox.-169L

Ferry Road ,

,

j

Brattleboro.. Vermont 05301-

. 9

Gent 1e' men:

, Subject: Inspection 50-271/89-04 I

h

1

2This refers to your letter dated June 16, 1989, in response to our: letter .

dated May 18,.1989.

,

Your. letter requests withdrawal of the' violation pertaining to testing of CO2..

systems. .No new.information was'provided to the NRC'in your'respons~e letter- j

.

beyond that previously provided in support.of Inspection 89-04. Section 1-7.3-

,

1

of (1977).NFPA standard'12 specifies that tests be conducte'd to determine that

~

' the.CO2 system vill function as- intended. Your staff had not performed tests

that' demonstrated that the CO2-systems would achieve a 50 percent concentration

and maintain the concentration for ten minutes in'the specified areas. Accord- .j

ingly, we,have concluded that'the violation is. valid.

-

>

,

.a

We note your statement that NFPA Standard 12 does not'specifically-require a

full discharge test. We agree-that it;does not specifically require a full

discharge test; however,. it does require that you demonstrate through a test'

that the system will function as intended. This means maintain the design

-

concentration,for the specified duration. To our present knowledge, no other

, test will demonstrate'this fact. We will entertain an alternate to this

established test if a conclusive test method can be designed.

,

1

--It is our.. understanding, that pending your performing tests to establish that

the CO2 systems will function as intended, a continuous fire watch is posted in :j

the subject area in accordance with the requirements of the technical specifi- i

. cation ~. Further, we understand that you plan to perform a full discharge test i

of.the cable vault CO2 system as soon.cs practicable but no later than the end -)

.of the next scheduled outage. (

3- i

,

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY RL 50-271/89-04 - 0001.0.0 i

08/18/89

8908300020 890821 -

I1

gDR ADOCK 05000271 If

- _ _ _ loc - - - - .

gm  :

,

ly y, ?.g i ' H

t

',

'

g" ' . . ;. . ' AUG k id989

~' .<-

sVermontiYadee' Nucle'ar '. 2

Power Corporation -

..

3Your cooper'ation withIu's is appreciated.

, Sincerely,

, Origiuol Signed BYi

Bruce A. Boger,LActing Director.

Division of Reactor Safety-

cc: 'w/ enc 1:

J. Weigand, President and Chief Executive Officer

J. Pelletier, Plant Manager

J. DeVincentis,'Vice President, Yankee Atomic Electric Company

R. Capstick; Licensing Engineer, Yankee Atomic _ Electric Company

'

'J. Gilroy, Director,. Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

G. Sterzinger,- Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service'

~

lP. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety,; Commonwealth.of

.

Massachusetts

Public Document Room'(PDR)

Local Public Document ~ Room'(LPDR)'

Nuclear. Safety Information. Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of New Hampshire-

State of Vermont

Commonwealth of Massachusetts;

. bec: w/ enc 1:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)

n. .m.sino, un<m s o, u enu )

'D. Haverkamp, DRP.

.

L. Doerflein, DRP.

.

J. Wiggins, DRP

G. Grant, SRI - Vermont Yankee

J. Macdonald, SRI -. Yankee

M. Fairtile, NRR

'K. Abraham, PA0 (21) (SALP Reports Only)

J. Dyer, EDO

--

RI: jDRS S

Anderson /rw r Boger

8//f/89 8/ ///89 8/;4/89

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY RL 50-271/89-04 - 0002.0.0

08/15/89 {

a

{

_ -_ - - - _a

- ..- _ .

.$ j. ; . *:.-

. .  !

!

!

~

..

VERMONT YANKEE  !

,

. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION  ;!

i

1

- ~

Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301-7002

k ENGINE I

580 MAIN STREET

OFFICE

• .

• BOLTON. M A 01740

t 508) 779-6711

June 16, 1989 1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555 ]

1

. Attention: Document Control Desk

References: a) License No. OPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) }

b) Letter, USNRC to VYNPC, NVY 89-108, dated 5/18/89 '

c) Letter, VYNPC to USNRC, BVY 89-48, dated 6/2/89

Dear Sir:

Subject: Response to Inspection Report 89-04, Notice of Violation

During a routine safety inspection of Vermont Yankee's fire protection

program conducted on March 20-23, 1989, a violation of NRC requirements was

identified. Our response to this violation is provided below.

VIOLATION Technical Specification 3 13.D re aires that the carbon dioxide

fire suppression (CO2 ) systems sucated in the cable vault and

diesel fire pump day tank room shall be operable whenever equip-

ment in the area protected by the systerns is required to be

operable. The technical specifications require a continuous fire

watch if the CO2 system in the cable vault is inoperable and an i

hourly fire watch if the CO2 system in the fire pump day tank room

is inoperable.

In a letter to the NRC dated January 31, 1977, the licensee

stated that the carbon dioxide systems at Vermont Yankee were

designed to meet the requirements of the 1977 National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 12. NFPA Standard 12 -

Section 1-7.3 specifies that the installed carbon dioxide systems

shall be tested and the tests performed shall be adequate to

determine that the system has been properly installed and will

function as intended. The CO2 systems are designed to achieve a

50 percent concentration. In the cable vault, this concentration

must be maintained for ten minutes.

Contrary to the above, as of April 21, 1989, the CO2 systems in

the cable vault and in the diesel fire pump day tank room had not l

been demonstrated to be operable, in that no tests had been per-

formed of their capability to reach arJ maintain design con-

centrations of CO2 , and the approprir.te fire watches had not been

implemented.

This is a Severity Level IV Vio1r, tion (Supplement 1)

'

c2-/

._ - __ ___ - _ . - -

l*1 .  :

? , . .

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

. .; ." ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

June 16, 1989

..

Page 2.

RESPONSE.

Following a careful review of the 1977 National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) Standard 12,-we have found.nothing to indicate that a Full Discharge Test

'is required. Based on that review, we disagree with the conclusion reached in

the Inspection Report and,' based on theLfollowing information, respectfully

. request that this Notice of Violation be withdrawn.

'_ The Inspection Report specifies Section 1-7.3 of (1977) NFPA Standard 12 as'

the applicable section. It reads as follows:

"1-7.3-Approval of Installations. The completed system shall be tested by

qualified personnel to meet the approval of the authority having jurisdic-

tion. These tests shall be adequate to determine that the system has been

properly installed and will function as intended. Only listed or approved

equipment and devices shall be used in the systems."

We believe the initial testing, periodic inspection and maintenance

described-in Section 1-11.1 of NFPA Standard 12 is applicable since initial

testing of the CO2 system is at issue. Section 1-11.1 reads as follows:

"1-11.1 A manufacturer's test and maintenance procedure shall be provided

to the owner for testing and maintenance of the system. .The procedure

shall provide for the initial testing of the equipment as well as for

periodic inspection and maintenance."

Both of these sections are further explained in the Appendix A Explanatory.

Of particular~ note is Section A-1-11.1 (Testing of Systems) of the (1977) NFPA

Standard 12 which does not specifically require a full discharge test. Item 15

reads as follows:

"15. Test -

A. Puff test, minimum for acceptance. 4

B. Full discharge test as required by owner.

C. Full discharge test recommended when hydrostatic test is

required."

In recent conversations with the NRC staff, we were told that the NRC is

the " authority having jurisdiction" and that the NRC requires a full discharge

test of the CO2 systems in accordance with NFPA Standard 12, thus we are in

violation of Section 1.7-3 of the Standard. We are unable to find a reference

to support the staff position. We agree that had the NRC desired at that time

of installation to fulfill into the role of " authority having jurisdiction,"

then certainly this role would have been fulfilled by NRC. However, 6t the time

of acceptance testing, Vermont Yankee had no indication that the NRC intended to

assume this role, thus we assumed the role of " authority having jurisdiction."

_____________--___:____________ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._ _ _ _ __ __ _-__

_ __ - __ __

)

l% r

,.,

,

,* .

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

~U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-June 16, 1989

Page 3

Section A-1-11.1 of NFPA Standard 12 states that a puff test is-the minimum

for acceptance: which Vermont Yankee has performed. Further, the Standard indi-

cates that a full discharge test is at the discretion of the owner. .Since

Vermont Yankee is the owner and has not required a full discharge test, this

section was clearly met.

We have also reviewed later versions of NFPA Standard 12 and agree that, if

the system were installed today, a full discharge test would be required. The

difference in the 1977 code versus later code revisions, however, clearly

demonstrates a change in requirements which further supports our contentirn that

a full discharge test.was not required to meet the 1977 code. Vermont Yankee

has not been notified by the NRC of any changes to regulatory requirements that

would necessitate our compliance to any version of the NFPA standards other than

the 1977 NFPA Standard.

Although Vermont Yankee disagrees with the staff position regarding the

' interpretation of NFPA Standard 12, we have been responsive to NRC concerns. At

significant cost to Vermont Yankee, we declared the subject CO2 systems in-

operable and established the appropriate fire watches. The Diesel Fire Pump

Room CO2 system full discharge test has been satisfactorily completed and the

system was declared operable. A continuous fire watch is in place in the cable

vault although the system remains functional. Complete compensatory measures  ;

were previously submitted in Vermont Yankee's Special 30-Day Report (Reference

c).

The specific issue involved is whether Vermont Yankee has complied with the l

testing required for the applicable Fire Suppression Systems in accordance with

'

the 1977 NFPA Standard 12. We firmly believe that we have met this standard,

and that the existing. systems installed at Vermont Yankee are fully opersble.

Based on the above discussion, we cannot agree with your conclusions that we are.

not in full compliance with the applicable requirements. Thus, we respectfully

request-that the subject Notice of Violation be withdrawn. Additionally, '

1

pending NRC approval, Vermont Yankee wishes to declare the Cable Vault CO2

system operable. We will, however, continue to be responsive to NRC's concerns

regarding the Cable Vault CO2 system. Therefore, after declaring the subject

CO2 system operable, Vermont Yankee will establish a once per hour fire watch.

Further, Vermont Yankee will conduct a full d)3 charge test of the Cable Vault

CO2 system as soon as practicable but no later than the end of the next sche-

duled outage.

l

We are aware that the issue of operability of CO2 systems with respect to

full discharge testing standards is a recent Region I concern with other licen-

sees as well as vermont Yankee. At your convenience, we would be willing to

l meet with appropriate Region I personnel on this issue to discuss our specific

situation.

_____2_ _______ ____ _________ _ _ _ _ _

.

. ,.--

g. . . j .

_. ,e.- ,.

i.

.i..+L.

.,. ,,.

• VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

June 16, 1989

Page 4

We trust that the above information is sufficient to address the issue;

however, should you have any questions or desire additional.information, please

feel free to contact us.

'

Very tr01y yours,

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION

da.-- w

Warren P. urphy.

Vice President and

Manager of Operations

/dm

cc: USNRC Regional Administrator, Region I

USNRC Resident Inspector, VYNPS

,

m_-_...____._______._.___..u