ML19343C720

Requests Extension of Schedule Requirements for Submitting Plans & Schedules Per 10CFR50.48(c)(5) for Items Iii.G & Iii.J Re Fire Protection.Also Requests Exemption for Safe Shutdown Capabilities & Toll Implementation Schedule

ML19343C720
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	03/18/1981
From:	Pilant J NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LQA8100127, NUDOCS 8103250120
Download: ML19343C720 (5)

Text

_. _ _ . .

a

• GENERAL OFFICE 1 P. o. Box 499, COLUMBUS, NEBR ASKA 68601 Nebraska Publ. ic Power District rELE~o~E o0n s.... 1 LQA8100127 March 18, 1981 01 CO D

\li e

/ '/ :5 6 f3Lrgj} p[:h2h 20 Harold R. Denton, Director ~h

,.3 jg Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  : 9 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D f# (( 2EE{f ZJ Washington, DC 20555 "k f $@ Dr e y j2 2

i j

Subject:

Request for Exemption from 10CFR50.48 and \\:-x

/j, 3Y z N

Appendix R " Fire Protection" N 4 Cooper Nuclear Station -

NRC Docket No. 50-298, DPR-46

Dear Mr. Denton:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued on November 19, 1980 (45FR76602) the final rule regarding fire protection programs for operating nuclear power plants. The revisions to 10CFR50.48 and Appendix R to 10CFR50 required Nebraska Public Power District to backfit requirements as set forth in Sections III.G (Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability) and III.J (Emergency Lighting), or request an exemption from the Appendix R requirements. This letter is written to request such an exemption.

The Dist :ct realizes at this time that an extension of the 10CFR50.48(c)(5)

March 15, 1981 deadline for submitting plans and schedules for modifications must be obtained; however,10CFR50.48(c)(6) does not specifically state that a simple request for extension of the March 19, 1981 deadline for filing exemptions to obtain the benefit of tolling the implementatien schedule is 6

' acceptable. It is already realized that the District will need to benefit l

from this colling provision; therefore, the District is constrained to request at this time per 10CFR50.48(c)(6) an exemption from the requirements of Appendix R Section III.G.2 for the safe shutdown capabilities in existence as defined in the CNS Fire Hazards Analysis and as recently reviewed and approved by the NRC. Although a reexamination of these capabilities will proceed as discussed below, the initial reexamination already conducted has indicated that additional modifications at this time may be detrimental to overall facility safety.

10CFR50.48(c)(5) requires the District to submit plans and schedules for installing the Safe Shutdown Capability and Zmergency Lighting. modifications.

The status of these modifications is as follows:

-Section III.G - Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability The original Fire Hazards Analysis for Cooper Nuclear Station evaluated postulated fires in the various fire zones within the plant and with conservative' assumptions =ade for fire loading, it was shown that in

- such an event the plant.could be placed in a safe shutdown mode. The 2501@

Harold R. Denton March 18, 1981 Page 2 Staff's Safety Evaluation Report, issued as Amendment 56 to the facility license, also determined that redundant safe shutdown systems and components are "either separated from each other or protected by sup-pression systems such that a fire will not affect redundant equipment, and therefore a sufficient number of sy;tems and components will be available to perform the shutdown function following a fire."

Based upon Appendix R Section III.G.2 and the supplementary information provided in 45FR76602, the District has initiated a reexamination of the previously approved fire hazards analysis addressing separation of safe shutdown systems to ensure that the alternative features at CNS provide equivalent protection to the requirements of Section III.G.2.

Additionally, this reexamination will also include associated non-safety circuits that could prevent necessary operation of safety circuits or components important to safe shutdown. . This reexamination is presently scheduled for completion June 30, 1981. At that time the District will provide additional information to support this request for exemption from the substantive requirements of Appendix R. This information will discuss the associated ncn-safety circuits in each fire zone defined in the CNS Fire Hazards Analysis and provide additional justification for areas where separation is less than that specified in III.G.2.b.

Section III.J - Emergency Lighting The requirement for an 8-hour battery capacity is being reviewed and the plans and schedules for meeting the Appendix R provisions will be completed June 30, 1981. At that time they will be provided co the NRC.

At present the District intends to meet the Novesser 17, 1981 date for installation of modifications; however, availability of hardware and necessary engineering personnel may result in a request for extension in our June 30, 1981 submittal.

This request for extension and exemption is considered. justified for the following reasons:

1. Per 10CFR50.12(a) the Commission.may grant an exemption from the requirements of Appendix R since this request is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property, and is in the public interest.

2. Per revised 10CFR50.48(c)(6) the District asserts that hurried modifications to the safe shutdown systems per the mandated schedule in Appendix R without caraful evaluation would not necessarily enhance fire protection at CNS, and that such modifications may be detrimental to overall facility safety. . Safety would be degraded by introducing unnecessary excessive design change; .by introducing excessive complexity in the present fire safe: shutdown procedures; and by increasing the potential for installation damage and design.

error.

c - -

Harold R. Denton March 18, 1981 Page 3

3. 10CFR50.109 allows the Commission to " require backfitting of a facility if it finds that such action will provide substantial additional protection which is required for the public health and safety or the common defense and security." It has not been determined that the arbitrary backfits for safe shutdown capability will provide substantial additional protection.

4. Since the benefit to safety is questionable, it is not in the public interest to have the ratepayers of Nebraska incur the excessively high costs for modifying CNS to meet the provisions of III.G.2 verbatim.

5. These issues of Safe Shutdown Capability and Emergency Lighting were recently finalized by Amendment 66 (November 21, 1980) to the facility license and were considered adequate by the NRC staff.

The November 24, 1980 letter from D. G. Eisenhut to All Licensees stated that CNS did not have anv "open" items concerning fire protection features. Appendix R should be implemented as to resolve these open items as a first priority.

6. The Supplementary Information in 45FR76602 indicated that the Commission does not expect to be able to approve exemptions for fire-retardant coatings used as firc barriers to achieve substantial

-physical separation. The fire-retardant coatings at issue were not utilized at CNS to achieve adequate separation.

7. In addition to adequate separation of safe shutdown capability, the following apecific areas of fire protection were recently extensively augmented at CNS to the NRC's satisfaction:

- Fire hazards elimination: numerous plant modifications and studies were' performed.

- Fire detection systems: numerous plant modifications were per-formed.

- Fire suppression systems: plant' modifications were performed such as installation of' fire barriers and water, gas'and portable suppression systems.

- Fire fighting capabilities: the fire brigade was augmented, lighting and communications were reviewed,_and ventilation studies were performed.

- Administrative controls: surveillance procedures and instructions were written and technical specifications were approved.

8. A review of the NRC documentation ' leading- to the issuance of Appendix R leads the District to believe that the NRC does not-have an adequately defensible technical basis for the 20 foot separation criteria of III.G.2.b. Therefore, in light of the unique exemption and rolling provisions of Appendix R, the District feels that adequate provisions do presently exist which are equivalent to just an arbitrary 20 foot separation criterion, and that these provisions are adequate as a basis for an exemption.

e Harold R. Denton

} March 18, 1981 i Page 4 In summary, Nebraska Public Power District respectfully requests that the

NRC grant an extension of the schedule requirements for submitting plans and schedules per 10CFR50.48(c)(5) for items III.G and III.J; grant an j exemption for the safe shutdown capabilities (III.G) already in existence

, per 10CFR30.48(c)(6); and toll the implementation schedule for item III.G.

j The District will sutq21y additional information by June 30, 1981 to further support this request.

As regards the February 20, 1981 letter from D. G. Eisenhut to All Licensees 1 which specified information to be submitted for the staff to complete the reviews of alternative safe shutdown capability; the District is not l

required to submit this information since no modifications were required at CNS to provide alternative safe shutdown capability and the initial reassessment concludes that alternative safe shutdown capability in accordance with the provisions of Sect'an III.G.3 is not necessary. .

Based upon 10CFR170.21, and a recent extension request made of the staff, this request has been determined to be a Class II Amendment. Payment in j the amount of $1200 is enclosed.

i If additional clarification is required regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, M

Ja ... P11 ant Director of Licensing and Quality Assurance JMP:JDW:cmk I

Enclosure- p l cc: - Mr. Themas A. Ippolito i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i

l l'

I E

w y - "qw 7 w y- 4 g-y - - -

--eyy ,p -e g f M w -try , g eg em , "- g yg-iri-iwi-wr r$y w y- c'y 9% apay yy(49g-app 7tm ve

• --mq+t--yv+--my+ gy--Wq eq y me ese su*--

• c'+e4 i

l an

.4E3RASKA )

) ss

,0UNTY )

. Pilant, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an arized representative of the Nebraska Public Power District, a

.ic corporation and political subdivision of the State of Nebraska;

.t he is duly authorized to submit this infor=ation on behalf of braska Public Power District; and that the statements in said pplication are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

1A4 V y h. Pilant Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before =e this / day of March, 1981.

DAY I

/ NOTARY PUBLIC /

My Co= mission expires [h N[ .

y k

%c  %

NOTARY

$i COMMISSION jW DMRES N

Harold R. Denton March 18, 1981 Page 5 STATE OF NEBRASKA )

) ss PLATTE COUNTY )

Jay M. Pilant, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an authorized representative of the Nebraska Public Power District, a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Nebraska; that he is duly authorized to submit this information on behalf of Nebraska Public Power District; and that the statements in said application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

tM W y M. Pilant Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this / day of March, 1981, l

dd Y _

/ NOTARY PUBLIC //

My Co= mission expires h. N .

k

/

9! '

NOTARY COMMISSG i*

EXPlRES