ML19261B269
| ML19261B269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1979 |
| From: | Gallo J, Nelson G ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902150167 | |
| Download: ML19261B269 (27) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:9 1/24/79 NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM
.j '
THIS DOCUMENT C0!ITAlllS I POOR QUAUTY PAGES 1 (h e,4q N N 'r k3 7 l3_M %q,ste]r q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g4 / A N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of the Application of ) Public Service Company of Oklahoma, ) Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-556 and ) STN 50-557
)
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative )
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ) APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING RELATING TO THE INITIATING CAUSES FOR THE DESIGN BASIS FIRES Applicants respectfully respond to the Staff Motion of January 8, 1979, for a Preliminary Ruling (hereinafter, "the Motion") by stating that the Motion is untimely, prejudicial and procedurally improper, and that to the very limited extent to which the Motion can be responded to on the present record, the requested relief is highly mmbiguous and also unsupportable. For 7902.150/67
A-these reasons we submit that the Motion cannot be granted in the present circumstances but must either be denied (perhaps without prejudice to be resubmitted following completion of the evidentiary record herein), or alternatively must be held in abeyance for decision in connection with the entering of findings of fact and conclusions of law on the Construction Permit applica-tion. 1[ Two points of clarification are necessary be-fore proceeding to the detailed response. First Appli-cants intend to submit further testimony in rebuttal to
-1/ We urge the Board to act now on the Motion by denying it without prejudice. This position is advocated because (i) we believe Applicants' rebuttal testimony will moot the Motion, and (ii) if the Motion is not mooted, further re-sponses from both parties would be necessary once the record is completed. Consequently, it makes good sense to start, if at all, on a clean slate after all the evidence is received on Contentions 8 and 9.
~2-the testimony of Messrs. Giardina and Behn on Conten-tions 8 and 9. At appropriate points in the following discussion, we point out how this rebuttal testimony will relate to the substance of the Motion such that any decision on the Motion prior to receipt of such testimony would be highly improper. Second, while the Motion is very unclear as to the specific " Preliminary Ruling" that is sought, it is Applicants' understand-ing that Staff seeks a ruling that Applicants must con-mit to an exposure fire as the design basis fire for the whole plant; wherein " exposure fire" is defined as non-electrically initiated.
I. THE MOTION IS UNTIMELY AND PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER, AND SHOULD BE DENIED OM THESE BASES ALONE. The Staff is here asking the Board for a very broad substantive ruling, subsuming both factual find-ings and legal conclusions as well as procedural in-structions to the Applicant for compliance, at a time when the record is incomplete and before Applicants have had an opportunity to finish their evidentiary presentation. This novel suggestion would be high1" extraordinary in any circumstances, but the circumstances of this case certainly do not present a basis for grant-ing the request. First, we note that Staff has cited no authority
or precedent for issuance of substantive preliminary rulings on the basis of an incomplete evidentiary record and prior to the close of Applicants' case in chief. In the absence of such authority or precedent, we would suggest that the Staff would at least have to demonstrate some compelling need to obtain a ruling at this time, combined with a showing of prejudice or irreparable injury to the Staff's interests if such ruling were delayed until close of the evidentiary presentation. This much, as a bare minimum, should be required in order to justify the disruption of the orderly administrative proceeding which the Staff is here requesting. However, the Motion is entirely silent on these points. Furthermore, if entry of a substantive pre-liminary ruling on the basis of an incomplete record could ever be justified, we submit that it would at least require that the moving party would have laid a very clear and strong foundation for such ruling in its evidentiary presentation. However, as detailed below, that is certainly not the case here. The Staff's testimony on the subject of exposure fires has several very confusing ambiguities and even appears contra-dictory at some points.
The Motion would also seriously infringe upon Applicants' procedural rights and prerogatives as to the presentation of its evidence under the NRC's pro-cedural rules, and is therefore prejudicial. The rules grant Applicants considerable latitude both as to the form in which information can be submitted as a basis for a decision on the CP application, as well as to the timing of such presentation, particularly in the case of rebuttal testimony. The Motion would seriously limit Applicants' prerogatives in these areas, if not overtly cut them off. Applicants neither need nor desire a prelimin-ary ruling. We request that the evidentiary hearing be allowed to proceed to completion in an orderly fashion, following which the parties will present pro-posed findings of fact and conclusions of law and briefing thereon. We see no need to divert from this customary procedure. And perhaps most importantly, to invoke the Board's decision-making process at this time is not only disruptive of the administrative process but would very likely be a sheer waste of time. It would at best result in a decision that the current record was in-complete and that Applicants must present more evidence.
We admit that the record is incomplete; we intend to present more evidence. Why make an unnecessary and meaningless ruling now, which the further evidence will very likely obviate? For all of these reasons we submit that the Staff has wholly failed to justify the extraordinary procedure underlying its Motion, and we ask that the Motion be denied. Notwithstanding these objections, however, and solely in the interest of resolving this controversy so that the licensing process can proceed expeditiously, we will respond to as much of the Motion as possible on the basis of the present record. We will respond to the remainder of the Motion, if neces-sary, in connection with our filing of proposed find-ings of fact and conclusions of law. We adopt this procedure on the understanding that the Staff has com-pleted or essentially completed its evidentiary pre-sentation on Contentions 8 and 9. See Tr. 7096. II. THE EVIDENCE NOW OF RECORD, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT ALLOWS RESPON,E TO THE MOTION, SHOWS THAT THE REQUESTED RULING IS UNSUPPORTED AND WOULD BE FATALLY AMBIGUOUS. The Motion raises three issues:
- 1. What is the regulatory guidance applicable to Black Fox Station for implementation of General Design Criterion 3?
- 2. What is the proper interpretation of such regulatory guidance with respect to de-sign basis fires?
- 3. Does the fire hazards analysis for Black Fox Station meet this interpretation?
The extent to which these issues can be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence now on the record, or evidence of which the Board may take official notice, varies. So far as we are aware, all of the evidence pertinent to the first issue either is on the record or can be officially noticed. Thus, we respond to it below. While considerable evidence has been pre-sented on the second issue, we submit that the reason-able assumption is that this evidence is not complete. 2/ Consequently, we respond in the following sections to as much of this issue as the evidence now of record permits. With respect to the third issue, since Ap-plicants will be changing the fire hazards analysis for Black Fox Station, all evidence that has been pre-sented with respect thereto must be considered incomplete. Therefore, the issue cannot be answered on the present record, but must await the closing of the record. With these ground rules, we proceed to answer the first two issues. -2/ One reason which necessitates this assumption is that Applicants do not foreshadow their rebuttal testimony by filing this memorandum.
A. WHAT IS THE REGULATORY GUIDANCE APPLICABLE TO BLACK FOX STATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL DESIGN CRITERION 3? The relevant evidence on this point uniformly demonstrated that the applicable regulatory guidance is contained in the Branch Technical Position 9.5-1, Rev. O, dated May 1, 1976 (hereinafter, "BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O") and Appendix A thereto. The applicability clause of Appendix A clearly indicates that it is the applicable guidance.3/ The relevant testimony also supports this concludion.$/ The decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Petition for Emergency and Remedial Action, CLI-78-6, 7 NRC 400(1978) (hereinafter, "the Petition") endorses this version of the Branch Technical 3/ Appendix A of BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O is applicable to plants for which applications for construction permits were docketed prior to July 1, 1976, if such permits had not been issued as of August 23, 1976, the date of issuance of the Appendir. The Black Fox application was docketed December 23, 1975. Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0190,
- p. 1-1.
4/ Mr. Giardina testified that the BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O and Appendix A thereto are applicable to Black Fox Station, although the Applicant could choose between this version and the later version. Tr. 7016. Dr. Cox testified that the Applicants had been specifically instructed by the Staff to use BTP 9.5-1, Rev O. Tr. 6965. Mr. Engmann testified that this version was in fact the de-sign basis for Black Fox Station. Tr. 6849. Indeed, a lengthy series of correspondence be-tween Applicants and the Staff, which are appended to this Response, establishes very clearly the understanding and intent that BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O would be applied to the Black Fox Station. See Attachment A.
Position and contains no suggestion that it may be incom-plete or obsolete. See 7 NRC at 422,424. While the motion itself is not explicit on this point, it appears to acknowledge that the Rev. O version of the Branch Technical Position is the applicable guidance. See Motion at 5-6. The opposite side of the coin is that the only other candidate, Regulatory Guide 1.120, Revision 1 5/ is clearly not applicable, except in certain specifics. 6/ Until recently, it was out for an extended period of com-ment and has not yet been adopted in final. 1/ In the light of this, we are deeply troubled by the apparent attempt by the Staff to force the Applicants, by means of this Motion, to comply with Reg. Guide 1.120, Rev. 1. See particularly footnote 18, p. 8. The Staff is apparently attempting to use the procedure of a Pre-liminary Ruling in a licensing docket as a means of alter-ing the applicability of regulatory guidance which is clearly inapplicable. We find this highly improper and objectionable.
~5/ Reg. Guide 1.120, Rev. 1 is essentially identical to BTP 9.5, Rev. 1 ~6/ Mr. Giardina testified that Rev. 1 of Reg. Guide 1.120 contained certain requirements which were less strin-gent and more realistic than corresponding require-ments of BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O, and that the former would be used in reviewing the BFS fire hazards analysis. Tr. 7019-20. Applicants have no quarrel with that approach, but it certainly would not justify application of other broad provisions and definitions in Reg. Guide 1,120, Rev. 1 to the Black Fox Station analysis. ~7/
Giardina, Tr. 7020. On November 7, 1977, Reg. Guide 1.120, Rev. 1 was distributed for an extended period of comment of one year.
needs to be altered, there are appropriate procedures to do so. But this Motion is not a proper vehicle. The simple truth is that BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O is the applicable regulatory guidance for implementation of GDC-3 and it is unnecessary and inappropriate to look any further. B. WHAT IS THF PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SUCH REGULATORY GUIDANCE WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN BASIS FIRES? The problem therefore becomes one of interpret-ing the design basis fire provision of BTP 9.5-1, Rev. 0 8/ together with General Design Criterion 3. A starting point in doing so is to identify the elements that the parties have already agreed to, and then to see whether, on the basis of competent evidence, any further ele-ments are needed, and specifically whether the concept of exposure fire would add any meaningful element to the interpretation. One of the consensus elements is the defense 8/ The BTP defines design basis fires as: Those that are considered to cause most damage, and are fires that may develop in local arens assuming no manual, automatic or other fire fighting action has been initiated and the fire has passed flash over (i.e., the tempera-ture at which auto-ignition of other combus-tions in the area will occur) and has reached its peak burning rate. This definition was characterized as the " worst case fire." Engmann, Tr. 6854.
in depth philosophy. Staff has cited S/ this require-ment and Applicants have committed bS! to it. While a final decision on whether this principle has been faithfully carried out cannot be made on the present record, Mr. Giardina expressed confidence bb[ that any necessary alterations in the plant could be made during construction and at the OL review stage. Another consensus element is that all com-bustible material postulated to be present in a given fire zone should be assumed to be burned. The Staff cited 12/ this as a requirement, and Dr. Cox said b2! that it was in fact the principle which had been applied in performing the Black Fox fire hazards analysis. Thus, there is no dispute as to the applicability of this principle, the only question is whether it has been faithfully carried out. On the latter question we sub-mit that Applicants are entitled to have that decision 9/ Motion, p. 2, citing Petition; see Giardina, TR. 7088. 10/ Cox, Tr. 6971-72; Johnson, Tr. 6794. 11/ Tr. 7064. --12/ Tr. 6880; Tr. 7034. --13/ Tr. 6871; Tr. 695.^
delayed until after they have completed their evidentiary presentation. Beyond these two elements, it becomes a question of whether anything further is needed to meet the BTP definition, and specifically whether recitation of an exposure fire as the design basis would add any meaningful element. And here the record becomes very 14/ ambiguous and confusing. Mr. Behn testified at one point -- that the difference between postulating an exposure fire as opposed to an electric fire depended upon the assump-tions made as to presence of transient combustible materials. Later he said 15/ the amount of transient combustibles was not important, but that it was the con-figuration of the room, the cable tray arrangement, and the location of the fire that mattered. As a further confusion of the question, he later stated b5/ that it does not really matter whether one postulates an ex-posure fire or an electrical fire, so long as all com-bustibles in the area are assumed to be burned. In the light of this very confused and ambiguous 11/ Tr. 7042. 15/ Tr. 7082. ~-16/ Tr. 7084. The Motion, on che other hand, makes no mention of transient combustibles, and appears merely to request a preliminary ruling that the design basis fire must be non-electrically initiated. See Motion, footnote 1, page 1.
record, we submit that the Board simply cannot make a finding that BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O requires postulating an exposure fire as the design basis, so the instant Motion should be denied. The Staff's evidence is so ambiguous that one cannot determine what the significance of such an action would be. What would be gained by changing the recitation of the design basis fire to an exposure fire? The controversy raised by the Staff appears to be purely one of semantics. One additional factor bears on the question of design basis fire and demonstrates that even the position of the Staff witnesses, if logically carried to a conclusion, does not support the necessity of posit-ing an exposure fire in all instances. Following Mr. 17/ Behn's identification -- of four unacceptable areas in the Black Fox fire hazards analysis, both he bS[ and Mr. Giardina 12/ testified as to what changes would be necessary to make those areas acceptable. Mr. Behn testified that the insertion of a 3 hour fire barrier would satisfy his concerns, while Mr. Giardina added 17/ Tr. 7057-61. In all four cases the problem was the presence of redundant cable trains in a single area, separated by the IEEE 384 criteria. Mr. Behn con-cluded that this separation was not sufficient to pro-tect against the design basis fire set forth in BTP 9.5-1, Rev O. Tr. 7060. 18/ Tr. 7061-62. 19/ Tr. 7088.
that fire suppression systems and detection would also be necessary to achieve the defense in depth philosophy. Conceding this point for the sake of argument (and again without foreshadowing Applicants' rebuttal testimony), one is left with the conclusion that to also require Applicants to posit an exposure fire in these areas would not add anything. Applicants agree that the design basis fire of BTP 9.5-1, Rev. O embodies the defense in depth philosophy, and they intend to com-ply with this concept. But that does not necessitate positing an exposure fire in these areas, and certainly not throughout the whole plant. Again, the Staff's requested ruling would be purely semantical rather than substantive, and it is not supported by their own testimony. III. STAFF'S PURPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL OF THE BLACK FOX FIRE HAZARDS ANALYSIS AND DEMAND FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PSAR ON THE RECORD PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ARE PROCEDURALLY IMPROPER AND ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. Finally, some comment is required on part III cf the Motion, in which the Staff takes several curious and unexplained procedural steps. We are at a complete loss to understand how these steps can be considered appropriate or necessary in the present circumstances.
Certainly some further explanation by the Staff is in order before these steps can be recognized. The question here is not approval or disapproval of the fire hazards analysis. Applicants do not want the program approved as it now stands. Consequently, for the Staff to disapprove it is premature and inap-propriate. Also, as should be apparent from the Motion itself, the purported disapproval is overly broad and therefore arbitrary. If 90-95 per cent of the fire hazards analysis is acceptable SS/, why disapprove the entire analysis? This broad-brush approach raises questions of whether the Staff is properly performing its responsibilities of reviewing the analysis on an item-by-item basis and supplying a critique of any inadequacies found. The demand for amendment of the PSAR prior to issuance of the CP is also deeply troublesome. Mr. Giardina testified that "the plant has sufficient flexibility such that any design changes that are made in the essence of putting in fire barriers or extra 20/ Motion, p. 9.
sprinkler systems, this can be done during the post-construction period and during the OL review stage." Tr. 7064. Are we to assume that the Staff is now with-drawing or changing Mr. Giardina's testimony? If so, we need something to take its place -- an explanation of why immediate PSAR amendment is necessary, with opportunity for cross-examination thereon. Lacking that, Applicants submit that the purported procedural steps taken in Part III of the Motion are so overly broad and so devoid af explana-tion that the only proper course is for the Licensing Board to place its reliance on the Staff's testimony on these points already in the record, rather than on the Motion. IV. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the Motion should be denied without prejudice. Respectfully submitted: Dated: January 24, 1979 GJh p6eph/Gallo ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE 1050 17th Street, N.W. [. Suite 701 lenn E. Nelson U Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 833-9730 Two of the Attorneys for the Applicants. One First National Plaza Forty-Second Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 786-7500
- A their mest A -
g 4 UNITED STATES g- t NUC,LCAR, REGULATORY COMMISSION E o WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%A j %...../ Recy,:d i.iAYl 0 1975 h .. .. . .. -
c a. .. r Public Service Company of Oklahoma ATTri: Mr. B. H. Morphis Assistant Vice President - fluclear P. O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Gentlemen: The fluclear Regulatory Conmission has been evaluating the generic
~ implications of the fire of March 22, 1975 at the Browns Ferry fluclear Plant to identify appropriate improvements in tiRC policies, procedures, and requirements in~ regard to fire protection. In February 1976, fiRC published the report of a special review group, "Recomendations Related to Browns Ferry Fire," flVREG-0050. As part of the continuing NRC eval-uation, the Office of tiuclear Reactor Regulation is issuing a revision (dated May 1,1976) to Section 9.5.1 " Fire Protection" of the Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for fluclear Power
( Plants (flVREG-75/987). This revised plan will be used by the NRC staff in evaluating the acceptability of designs and procedures for fire pro-tection for construction permit applications docketed after July 1, 1976. A copy is enclosed for your infomation and guidance. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the guidelines provided in the revised SRP-9.5.1 also will be used by the staff in evaluating the fire protection provisions of operating plants, applications currently under review for construction I fennits and operating licenses, and future appli-cations for operating licenses for plants now under construction. As we continue to develop more definitive criteria for the application of the SRP-9.5.1 guidelines, or acceptable alternatives, to the review of these plants you will be kept informed of our progress. Sincerely, l l Roger S. B Director - Division of Project Management ' Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation i Enclosure i
- p. A -/ l
.. M- d C .
UNITED ST AT ES / ^ \', }/ /* C
/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisSIO.'J
' sO p. * /)* .t_.6A_.-
/~n n r
* . , . 4
...( c' Q,..Q. Q.
WA$mNGTON, D. C. 20555 g , . j s+4
\ . , ,', . *"'; SEP 3 01973 r't
?.
Docket Nos.STN 50-556 6 STN 50-557 .
. a , ,. ..
Public Service Company of Oklahoma i
~~ ;
- ATTft: Mr. B. H. Morphis ! ..",.s Assistant Vice President - !
' 22' E
I U.""Y. . ' fluclear . P. O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Gentlemen: FIRE PEE 6CTION EVALUATIOg - BLACK FOX STATI0?l, UtlITS 1 Af'D 2 By my letter cated May 3,1976, you were sent a copy of revised Standard Review Plan Section 9.5.1, " Fire Protection," dated May 1, 1976. This revised SRP 9.5.1 containea new guidelines for the NRC statf evaluations of fire protection in car review of nuclear power plant construction permit applications docketed after July 1,1976.
'me letter stated (1) that to the extent reasonable and practicable the guidelines in the revised SRP 9.5.1 will be used by the staf f in evaluating fire protection provisions of operating plants, appli-cations currently under review for construction permits and operating licenses and future applications for operating licenses for plants now under construction; and (2) that you woula be kept informed of our orogress as we developed more definitive criteria or acceptable alternatives for the application of the SRP 9.5.1 guidelines to the review of these plants.
Enclosure 1 is Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1,
" Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Prior to July 1,1976," which gives alternative guidance and criteria -
/ acceptable to the staff to be utilized in a reevaluation of the fire h-protr . ion provisions of the Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2. 1: I ile request that you concuct a reevaluation of the fire protection program of your nuclear power plant and compare, in detail, tne fire ' protection provisions currently propoced for your facility (ies) with~ the Juidelines in Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCS 8 9.5-1. In cruer to rmin such a reevaluation, it is necessary that you per- a i. forr a fire hazaros analysis of your facility with the assistance f. 4 -2
SEP 3 01976
~
and the technical direction from a qualified fire protection engineer. In order for us to evaluate your fire hazards analysis, we require [i that you submit the results of your fire hazards analysis in the for.a I-described in Enclosure 2, " Supplementary Guidance on Information a~ Needed for Fire Protection Program Evaluation." your reevaluation should: f[
- 1. Identify the guidelines in Appendix A which are presently met and discuss how this is done;
- 2. Identify the guidelines for which modifications, procedural changes, or enhanced training of personnel are underway or planned, such that the guidelines will be met, and the date you intend to meet Section B of Appendix A, "Adminic trative Procedures, Control and Fire Brigade;" and
- 3. Indicate which of the guidelines you do not now meet or do not intend to meet in the future. For such items, you should pro-viae a basis for your position.
Please respond within 20 days of receipt of tnis letter to inform us when you will subnit the requested information, forty (40) copies of which will be required for staff review. This request for generic information was approved by GAO under a blanket clearance number B-180225 (R0072) . Tnis clearance expires July 31, 1977.
. cerely, b
/
Roger S. coyd, Direc or i Division of Project Managen nt p Of fice of tiuclear Reactor Regulation i: b F Cuciocures: E
- 1. Apoendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.S-1 f I
- 2. " Supplementary Guidance on inf ormation Needed for Fire {
i>rotection Pro 3ra, Evaluation" ; cc: See next page I
- p. A-3 ,
6212 DIN 8,005,040 hUBUC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA ; , A CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST COMPANY $ i d. P.O. BOX 201/ TULSA. OKLAHOMA 74102 / (918) 583-3611 @
.is 7 >
Public Service Company of Oklahoma October 28, 1976 Black Fox Station ,. .t . . , . . . . . . u. am . . . .. File 6212.125.3500d2 . . - - Fire Protection Analyses Docket flos. STil 50-556 and STil 50-557 Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation Division of Project Management ; U. S. iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Roger S. Boyd, Director , Gentlemen: Your letter of September 30, 1976, received in this office October 8,1976, requested a response within 20 days of receipt informing you as to when we would submit the information requested in Appendix A to Branch Technical Posi-tion APCSB 9.5-1, " Guidelines for Fire Protection for fluclear Power Plants Docketed Prior to July 1,1976" (Enclosure 1), and Supplementary Guidance on Information fleeded for Fire Protection Program Evaluation (Enclosure 2). You stated in your letter dated May 3,1976 that it is your intent that the implementation of Standard Review Plan 9.5-1 and the Branch Technical Position will be done to the extent reasonable and practicable. In view of your stated intent, and in recognition of the limited availability of " qualified fire protec-tion engineers", the participation of which you seek to impose upon us, it appears that the minimum time required for us to conduct a fire hazard analysis will be 6 months. To meet this schedule will cntail our engaging in an accel-erated program since we are presently in the preliminary design phase of Black Fox Station, and there will of. necessity be a period of familiarization required for any consultant who may be engaged. Hence, responding to your request and in light of the above, we feel that we should be able to submit the requested information on or before June 15, 1977. Additionally, in.that we feel the above schedule is the minimum reasonable and practicable for the Black Fox Station, Public Service Company of Oklahoma asserts that the scheduled issuance date for the Black Fox Station Evaluation Report and the subsequent licensing process should go forward independent. of the schedule ~'~ CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST SYSTEM E??$YS?TUas u4s$ o a$m*a N$$v$a9a " h e' $ ?n, M
~ u
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission October 28, 1976
. Fire Protection Analyses Page 2 for our submittal of the above information. We do not believe that it is in the best interest of nuclear reactor safety or the stability of the licensing process for this applicant to engage in a highly accelerated information sub-mittal progranr. "Nortfo'we-believ'e-that-this issue should cause the delay of --
our Safety Evaluation Report and the succeeding licensing process until the information is submitted as scheduled above. We do believe that it is reasonable to resolve any differences during the early post-CP stage. Yours very truly, M B. H. Morphis Assistant Vice President - Nuclear BHM:VLC:bp . xc: See list attached . 6 O e
- p. A-C
VL 6212DIfl3,007,461 j PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA A CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST COMPANY P'Q*'??
-..g P O. BOX 201/ TULS A. OXLAHOM A 74102 / (918) 583C511 c A) ' h v N'M Public Service Company of Oklahoma May 26,1977 Black Fox Station File 6212.125.3500.21 SER Open Items.
Docket STfl 50-556 and STN 50-557 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Project Management Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Gentlemen: As discussed in our meeting of May 20, 1977 regarding SER open items, Public Servica Company makes the following commitments, which will be incorporated into the Black Fox Station design and licensing documents as soon as practicable. A. Fuel Handling Accident - As requested in your letter of March 16, 1977, PS0 commits to a design which enables BFS to meet the acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan 15.7.4 for fuel handling accidents inside the containment. B. Qualification of Drywell Penetrations - Qualifications of the electrical drydell penetrations for BFS are the same as in Appendix 3C to GESSAR Nuclear Island dockec STN 50-447. This Appendix will be placed on the Black Fox docket in PSAR Amendment 9 as Appendix 3D requested by NRC letter of May 13, 1977. C. Pool Dynamic Loads - On March 25, 1977 P50 filed Amendment 8 to the BFS PSAR. This Amendment added an Appendix 3C to the BFS PSAR as documentation of the pool dynamic loads which are being designed for Black Fox. The above loads are greater than or equal to the t'RC requirements for: LOCA loads described in NRC letter of March 25, 1977 to GE and the time history shown in Figure 6.2-4 of the GESSAR Nuclear Island SER docket STN 50-447; SRV quencher loads in Table 6-1 of SER Supplement 1 to GESSAR HI docket STN 50-447. Additionally in response to your letter of May 3,1977 PS0 commits to the revised transition zone impact load criteria for beams and pipes as shown in Attachment A to that letter. D. Class lE Sensors - PS0 commits to remove the Class lE turbine island sen-sors not required by GESSAR flSSS docket STN 50-550; additionally the Condensate Storage Tank liquid level sensors will be located on a Cate-gory 1 structure. CENTnAL AND SOUTH WEST SYSTEM h,$[$h.'7t$.Y h,h o$. [,; Omm g,gg7, ,g7;jcPowe g pg,q,pn p.A-G
/
U. S. fluclear Regulatory Commission liay 26,1977 Docket STtt 50-556 and STil 50-557 Page 2 f' E. Containment Elevator - PS0 commits to design the BFS containment building elevator shaft such that neither the elevator nor any of its parts will fall into the suppression pool. F. GESSAR fluclear Island STfl 50-447 P,eferencing - P50 commits, as requested in fiRC letter of liay 13, 1977, that in all cases where the BFS PSAP. has a shaded strip on the left margin of the page we will adopt the corres-ponding GESSAR-238 fluclear Island docket STl! 50-447 material through Amendment 45 without exception unless otherwise noted. The agreed method of referencing under the Standardization Program is further delineated in the Foreword to the BFS PSAR and in flRC letter dated flovember 18, 1975 (Rusche to llorphis).
- G. Spent Fuel Storage - PS0 commits to size the heat removal capacity of the onsite spent fuel storage for one core plus one reload.
- H. Induced Seismicity - In response to flRC letter of February 19,1977 PS0 has previously submitted to the Staff information regarding this issue.
We understand that our draft material is acceptable and hence are fomally submitting it as an attachment to this letter.
- I. flearby Rock Quarry - flRC letter of liarch 4,1977 requested information about an inactive rock quarry. The rock quarry located in SEk-il9N-R16E was active January 1973 through December 1974. There are no plans to reactivate it. It was used only by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for channel rip-rap.
Blasting was contracted to a private firm. During activity the blasting firm never had more than 3 or 4 cases of 40% ammonium nitrate DuPont powder (non-sensitive type) on site. Generally, the firm only brought out enough to do blasting that particular day. Any overnight storage was limited to a case or two in a magazine. A guard was on duty 24 hours a day during activity at the quarry. J. Containment Vacuum Breaker Sizing Analysis - As requested in our meeting of f4 arch 4,1977 (based on concerns received from Containment Systems Branch February 18,1977), PS0 co :mits to operational limits on the relative humidity inside the containment. These limits are: A0 relative humidity 1 20% when the containment ambient temperature is 5 90 F, and with the relative humidity increasing linearly with temperature to a value of 1 30% at 1050F. This commitment is consistent with Subsection 6.2.1.5 of Supplement 2 to the GESSAR !!uclear Island docket !!o. 50-447 SEP. K. Fire Hazards Analysis - As requested by the Staff in our r.eeting of I4ay 20, 1977, PS0 has reexamined the status of information development and determined that, consistent with the schedule slippages in our safety review and hearings, on ?!ovember 1,1977 we will be able to supply the fire hazard analysis requested by your letters of September 30, 1976 and December 2,1976. All other information in our letter of October 28, 1976 remains valid. f.A-7
U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Co nission fiay 26, 1977 Page 3
/
[ Docket STil 50-556 and STfl 50-557 L. GESSAR 238-flSSS Interfaces - As requested by fiRC letter of liay 13, 1977, PSO commits to revise the BFS PSAR Section 1.9 by incorporating Table 1.10.0 from GESSAR flSSS docket 50-550. BFS PSAR sections will be cross-referenced to the GESSAR section listing. Additionally PS0 commits to ensuring that the appropriate lines of communication between General Electric Company and Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers remain open to assure that all interfaces are net. 14 . Leak Detection System - Based on the information exchanged at our meeting iff liay 20, 1977 no PS0 action is required. fl. Bypass Leakage - PS0 commits that lines which are not considered bypass leak paths in PSAR Table 6.2.21 will be designed such that they are either totally enclosed in secondary containment or if they are route'd outside of secondary containment will be designed such that bypass leakage is not possible. O. Division 3 Power to RPS - PS0 will disconnect the alternate supply to the Division 3 Static Transfer Switch and the battery charger to the Division 3 battery when the HPCS v' ;r is accelerating with the HPCS diesel genera-tor as its source. P. Component Cooling Water System - PS0 will adopt the General Electric Design to incorporate a safety grade recirculation pump trip feature to trip the recirculation pumps upon sensing a loss of pump seal cooling water. This commitment is subject to reconsideration should an analysis or alternate design be acceptable to the flRC. Q. Containment Isolation - P50 will require operator action to close the remote manual isolation valve on feedwater lines within 10 minutes follow-ing a LOCA and rupture of the feedwater lines'. R. Regulatory Guide Compliance - PS0 comnits to update BFS PSAR Section 1.9 for Regulatory Guides issued through September 1976 for structures system and components not covered by GESSAR ttSSS docket STri 50-550 and GESSAR iluclear Island docket STfl 50-447. PS0 understands that the above commitments will allow the publication of the Black Fox Station Safety Evaluation Report. We further understand that we can anticipate going to our ACRS meeting in July with no open items. Yours very truly, g }' B. H. tiorphis Assistant Vice President - ilucl ear BHM:VLC:bp Attachments
- f. AO
..--.u - - .m ,, .. e ,== -.- .. .2-e ..'
,, p -. ,,.. . ,,,. ; -. -.r .g_
G /cug b': 1 . d o m d NUREG 0190 JM N OM )b Regulatory Cor m s o i<'uf related to construction of Office of Nuclear i ;-
"**'"""'"*'" e Black Fox Station, Docket Nos. STN 50-556 Units 1 and 2 STN 50-557 L
s., 4 Public Service Company of Oklahoma Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. June 1977 g gg . . , Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc. y. 9
- t_
[ Ap4 _
.4 x,
a =.' MW$ ap n v y _[vh_ - L
. m a L" M l
h.a - e. k.lhk a w ,..
!.1I
. ; ;. ;M V:1S Jk;. -
- ,jp.,f
' r'd , T. n . ci,, ? , %. .
, M'*C =
' fi% '
' %"'J3'5. w ; \ 4?, '
, ,ql, .
._~ .' . t .: -p: M
~ -. y w J.E
. . M,,
. j j'id 4 f. *3 TM o
'@em@ E gM '5t h~ d l %.%%,E,;; ,;'O s% . &Q nfjXy -- ,, ,,, ]2,;
# k.W?Q'R$
~q q c .g' ., g.:
- ..- 3..o;q3,h rs .,
s .w, '~6
~
re" g. -r~. 5 .% s . 'j ',
! ' U;,'C T K,y J t '
,* j. .
~ '
MW4 Q&- e .... '. ~7.s
. = -;.
~.
, i
/: n
/ N 3l5, y m@l v h- m% 7,+5"l:p y.
- . . .t
~ , g.'ta-:c
. /, +,.':4 ., f 1 sq v t
1 et .o . y %._
;- %;. ,.+ -L t.g:9 %
,, , e , ir i-
~
. .- $ '/ ' $5 *
.,_g. s
'$- U.
r Nd,. " h,- ,,( d h I clu g. l: [. b011TG6L . G -/1 I;l.FD '2,b.Y. ff5f[,[p' # WM@jl@ h g.,n*n-;g:_g52ccm -g +- w:
/' A -- 9 . 3NN3NI '
[
a ?: : " J ~TTW ' 'M = ~ hYf{5E&E&h$ sl$W[SI M%'2? - I;;M./7= i; I{
. , f protected. The standby service water systen safety functions can be met with i
l
.k one of the three divisions not operating for any reason, including overheating ,
I y or freezing. We conclude that the system design bases and criteria are in accord with General ' Design Criteria 2 and 4 as they relate to capability of systems to withstand the l Q7 M effects of natural pheno":ena and missiles, and Regulatory Guides 1.26 and 1.29 f g, as they relate to seismic design and quality group classification. We, therefore. q- ; y, conclude the standby service water system punp room heating, ventilating and air I conditioning system design bases and criteria are acceptable. t{! k
; I !. ' 5,
.I ,4 .y 9.6 Fire Protection
- 9. 6.1 Fire Protection System . l f js The applicants have received our new guidelines as stated in Appendix A t.
phlil's f !- Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1, " Guidelines on Fire Protection for fluclear $Nt f: . .'t l.] Power Plants," and have indicated that they will provide a reply by t;ovember ' 1977. We will review the evaluation along wiih revised design features of the q l1 ! . . ,' i' L I
- fire protection system and provide the applicants with the results of our evalua- ,
l 1 tion on a timely basis so that they can be effectively incorporated into the .! t l "' i final jn. .j; . h! l b ei
^
E The design as presently proposed meets General Design Criterion 3, " Fire Protec- ..n tion," and applicable guidelines in effect prior to issuance of Branch Technical lls-{
! e '
h J Position APCSB 9.5-1 and Appendix A thereto, and for the construction permit ll stage of the review, we find it acceptable. Final approval of the system will ! . depend on the review of the applicants' submittal which will be completed af ter f I, a decision on the issuance of construction permits; however, based upon our I , . ~e. -u 5b current review of the facility, sufficient flexibility exists in the design to yjlt ' 3[4 allow implementation of any design changes that may be necessary to assure f, compliance with Appendix A to Branch Technical Position 9.5-1. i, p;,'l' % 9.7 Other Auxiliary Systens }Il/ N- % 9.7.1 Diesel Generator Fuel Oil Storage and Transfer System ' i M
]l .!- t P '%:m The diesel generator fuel oil system will be a complete system for each of the , l l, N E;.- >
three divisions of IJnits 1 and 2. Each system will consist of a storage tank in . a waterproof concrete vault, transfer pumps with associated piping and controls, lf .[.[( day tank, and a diesel engine mounted booster pump.
'l;]
'y %
Storage tank capacity will be a minimum of seven days supply assuming c:aximu i h post-loss-of-coolant accident loads. Day tank capacity will be a minimum of one .
'[.
hour supply at maximum load. All diesel gererator fuel oil systems co.mponents ' '! 'f will be seismic Category I and designed to withstand, or be housed in structures OQ u that provide protection from the effects of internal anJ external nissiles, J. tornados, and flooding. All structures housing diesel generator fuel oil systec , hw components will be seismic Category I. g.g 9-13 93. t M
-~--
- p. A-ic ;M;
- ~.r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of the Application of ) Public Service Company of Oklahoma, ) Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-556 and ) STN 50-557 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative )
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING RELATING TO THE INITIATING CAUSES FOR THE DESIGN BASIS FIRES has been served on each of the following per-sons by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, this 24th day of January, 1979. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary of Board Panel the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 (20 copies) Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Paul W. Purdom, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Studies Group Appeal Board Panel Drexel University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 32nd and Chestnut Streets Commission Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Washington, D.C. 20555
L. Dow Davis, Esquire Mr. Gerald F. Diddle William D. Paton, Esquire General Manager Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Associated Electric Counsel for NRC Staff Cooperative, Inc. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 754 Commission Springfield, Missouri 65801 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Maynard Human Joseph R. Farris, Esquire General Manager John R. Woodard, III, Esquire Western Farmers Electric Green, Feldman, Hall & Woodard Cooperative 816 Enterprise Building P.O. Box 429 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Andarko r Oklahoma 73005 Mr. Clyde Wisner Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad NRC Region 4 Public Service Company Public Affairs Officer of Oklahoma 611 Ryan Plaza Drive P.O. Box 201 Suite 1000 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. T. N. Ewing, Manager Andrew T. Dalton, Esquire Black Fox Station Nuclear Project 1437 South Main Street Public Service Company of-Room 302 Oklahoma Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 P.O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Mrs. Carrie Dickerson Citizens Action for Safe Mr. M. J. Robinson Energy, Inc. Black & Veatch P.O. Box 924 P.O. Box 8405 Claremore, Oklahoma 74107 Kansas City, Missouri 64114 Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein George L. Edgar, Esquire 3900 Cashion Place Kevin P. Gallen, Esquire Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Suite 700 Mr. Lawrence Burrell 1800 M Street, N.W. Route 1, Box 197 Washington, D.C. 20036 Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 Josg h Ga/lo ' OnVof the Attorneys for the Applicants}}