ML20137T128
| ML20137T128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1985 |
| From: | Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | ALABAMA POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137T134 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-60030, TAC-60031, NUDOCS 8512060395 | |
| Download: ML20137T128 (5) | |
Text
J 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 ALABAMA POWER COMPAE" (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear "lant Units Nos. I and 2)
EXEMPTION I.
The Alabama Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NFF-8 which authorized operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. I and 2.
These licenses provide, among other things, that they are subject to all rules, regulations and Orders of the Comission now or hereafter in effect.
The facility comprises two pressurized water reactors at the licensee's j
site located near the City of Dothan, Alabama.
II.
On November 19, 1980, the Comission published a revised Section 10 CFR 50.48 and a new Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 regarding the fire protection features l
of nuclear power plants (45 FR 76502). The revised Section 50.48 and Appendix R became effective on February 17, 1981. Section50.48(c) l established the schedules for satisfying the provisions of Appendix R.
Section III of Appendix R contains fifteen subsections, lettered A through 0, each of which specifies requirements for a particular aspect of the fire protection features at a nuclear power plant. Only one of the fifteen subsections, III.G, is the subject of this exemption request.
e 851*dO60395 051119 i
PDR ADOCK 05000348 F
' o l
By letter dated March 13, 1985, the licensee submitted the results of their Appendix R fire hazards analysis reevaluation, dated February 1985 for review. The licensee contends that the reevaluation was prompted by the interpretations to Appendix R promulgated in IE Notice 64-09 and Generic Letter 83-33. Therefore, based on the results of this reevaluation the licensee requested forty nine additional exemptions from the specific provisions of Section III.G of Appendix R for certain fire areas in Unit 2 and for certain areas shared by Units 1 and 2.
By letters dated June 26, and July 19, 1985, the licensee provided additional infonnation clarifying and revising their justifications with regard to their technical exemption requests. The Comission previously granted an exemption on D'acember 30, 1983 for certain system cables or components located within the containment buildings of Units 1 and 2.
Sectiort III.G.2 of Appendix R requires that one train of cables and equipment necessary to achieve and maintain safe shutdown be maintained free of fire damage by one of the following means:
(1) Separation of cables and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of redundant trains by a fi7 barrier having a 3-hour rating. Structural j
steel forming a part of or supporting such fire barriers shall be l
protected to provide fire resistance equivalent to that required of the I
barrier; (2) Separation of cables and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of redundant trains by a horizontal distance of more than 20 feet with no intervening combustibles or fire hazards.
In addition, fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system shall be installed in the fire area; or
1 (3) Enclosure of cable and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of one redundant train in a fire barrier having a I-hour rating.
In addition,' fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system shall be installed ir. the fire area.
If these conditions are not met,Section III.G.3 requires an alternative shutdown capability independent of the fire area of concern.
It also requires a fixed fire suppression system to be installed in the fire area of concern if it contains a large concentration of cables or other combustibles. These alternative requirements are not deemed to be equivalent; however, they provide equivalent protection for those configurations in which they are accepted.
Because it is not possible to predict the specific conditions under which fires may occur and propagate, the design basis protective features are specified in the rule rather than the~ design basis fire.
Plant specific features may require protection different from the measures specified in Section III.G.
In such a case, the licensee must demonstrate, by means of a detailed fire hazards analysis, that existing protection in conjunction with proposed modifications will provide a level of safety equivalent to the technical requirements of Section III.G of Appendix R.
In sumary,Section III.G is related to fire protection features for ensuring that systems and associated circuits used to achieve and maintain.
safe shutdown are free of fire damage. Fire protection configurations must either meet the specific requirements of Section III.G or an alternative fire protection configuration must be justified by a fire hazard analysis.
Our general criteria for accepting an alternative fire protection configuration are the following:
)
The alternative assures that one train of equipnent necessary to achieve hot shutdown from either the control room or emergency control stations is free of fire damage.
The alternative assures that fire damage to at least one train of equipment necessary to achieve cold shutdown is limited such that it can be repaired within a reasonable time (minor repairs with components stored on-site.
Modifications required to meet Section III.G would not enhance fire protection safety above that provided by either existing or proposed alternatives.
Modifications required to meet Section III.G would be detrimental to overall facility safety.
III.
The licensee identified forty-nine specific fire areas which would require exe'mptions based on their reevaluation of Unit 2 fire areas and
' shared' fire areas with Unit 1.
Based on our review of the licensee's submittals as well as site visits by the Region 2 assigned fire protection
engineer and the assigned NRR Project Manager, we issued a safety evaluation
~~
finding that the licensee's alternate fire protection configuration in thirty-three of the forty-nine fire areas where exemptions or modifications were requested represent an equivalent level of safety to that achieved by compliance with Section III.G of Appendix R 10 CFR 50. The remaining sixteen exemptions requested will be subject to our further review pending submittal of additional justifications by the licensee.
i
e IV.
Accordingly, the Comission has detennined pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.12, that these technical exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the comon defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. The Commission hereby approves the requested exemptions from Appendix R of 10 CFR 50 Section III.G. as specifically identified in the Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 1985, which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Local Public Document Room, located at the George S. Houston Memorial Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Dothan, Alabama.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the issuance of the Exemption will have no significant impact on the environment (50FR46847, November 13,1985).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULAT C0W.lSSION
~
W/ei, I
u h L. Th pson r.
rector D
sion of Lic si Of ice of Nuclear ea or Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of November 1985 1
y-
_