ML20040A001

Urges Reconsideration of Util 810306 Request for Exemption from Procedural & Substantive Requirements of 10CFR50.48 & 10CFR50 App R Re Fire Protection.Nrc 811110 Denial Indicates Misunderstanding of Util Arguments for Exemption

ML20040A001
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	01/11/1982
From:	Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NO-82-068, NO-82-68, NUDOCS 8201200150
Download: ML20040A001 (2)

Text

.

- ~

~

(v p UK '

l Carolina Power & Light C ny s-g ul, o e P C January 11, 19 yg gog -

9 g.,y v JL 13 P4 :19 ca , Tc. ,, - ,t File: BC/A-4 1 Serial ,Np's NO-82--068

'v rgNf' id. #

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman .

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 REQUEST OF CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT FOR RECONSIDERATION

Dear Chairman Palladino:

By petition dated March 6, 1981, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) requested exemptions for its Brunswick Plant from certain procedural and substantive requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission's fire protection rule, 10CFR 550.48 and Appendix R to 10CFR Part 50.

In its petition, CP&L set forth the primary relief it sought and also requested alternative relief.

By letter dated November 10, 1981, from Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director of the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, CP&L was advised that its request for alternative relief had been denied.

Mr. Denton stated in that letter that the Commission was separately considering CP&L's exemption requests which constitute the primary relief from the fire protection rule which CP&L is seeking.

CP&L hereby urges that its request for alternative relief be reconsidered. CP&L respectfully submits that the reasons for the denial of such alternative relief set forth in Mr. Denton's letter evidence a misunderstanding of CP&L's argument in support of its request. Prior to the promulgation of the fire protection rule, the Commission staff had issued a completed Safety Evaluation Report with respect to all aspects of CP&L's fire protection program at the Brunswick plant. The Commission could not, therefore, require CP&L to backfit any feature of the fire protection rule without making an express finding that such action would

" provide substantial, additional protection which is required for the public health and safety or the common defense and security," as required I

by 10CFR 550.109(a). The Commission has made no such finding. It is the Commission's burden to establish that the backfitting of a particular feature will satisfy the standard set forth in 550.109(a). It is inappro- /

priate, therefore, to impose upon CP&L, as does Mr. Denton's letter, the p 00(

burden of establishing that CP&L should be exempted from the provisions S of the fire protection rule.

1 i Street

• P. O. Box 1551 e Raleigh, N. C. 27602 8201200150 820111 l PDR ADOCK 05000324 l F PDR l 1

l

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino January 11, 1982 For the reasons set forth above, CP&L believec that it is entitled to the alternative relief it sought in its March 6,1981 petition and urges that its requests for such relief be reconsidered and granted.

Yours very truly,

\'

/

'g/W%U '1 r E. E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering & Construction DLB/lr (0698) cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly d