[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5726-5733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03055]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-263; NRC-2019-0059]


Northern States Power Company; Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Exemption; issuance.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an 
exemption in response to a April 6, 2017, request from Norther States 
Power Company to allow the use of structural steel columns and beams 
supporting the floor of the Cable Spreading Room that are not coated 
with fireproofing material to provide a fire resistance equivalent to 
that of the fire barrier.

DATES: The exemption was issued on February 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0059 when contacting the 
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You 
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0059. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Krupskaya Castellon; 
telephone: 301-287-9221; email: [email protected]. For 
technical questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document. For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession 
numbers are provided in a table in the ``Availability of Documents'' 
section of this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kuntz, Office or Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3733, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the exemption is attached.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of February, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert F. Kuntz,
 Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III, Division of 
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Attachment--Exemption

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket No. 50-263;

Northern States Power Company

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

Exemption

I. Background

    Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy (the 
licensee), is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Number 
50-263 which authorizes operation of the

[[Page 5727]]

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP). The license provides, among 
other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, 
and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the 
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
    The facility consists of a boiling water reactor located in Wright 
County, Minnesota.

II. Request/Action

    Section III.G.2. of Appendix R to Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 states in part:
    Except as provided for in paragraph G.3 of this section, where 
cables or equipment, including associated non-safety circuits that 
could prevent operation or cause maloperation due to hot shorts, open 
circuits, or shorts to ground, of redundant trains of systems necessary 
to achieve and maintain hot shutdown conditions are located within the 
same fire area outside of primary containment, one of the following 
means of ensuring that one of the redundant trains is free of fire 
damage shall be provided:
    a. Separation of cables and equipment and associated non-safety 
circuits of redundant trains by a fire barrier having a 3-hour rating. 
Structural steel forming a part of or supporting such fire barriers 
shall be protected to provide fire resistance equivalent to that 
required of the barrier[.]
    The licensee determined that certain structural steel columns and 
beams supporting the floor of the Cable Spreading Room are not coated 
with fireproofing material that provides a fire resistance equivalent 
to that of the fire barrier. To address this finding, by letter dated 
March 21, 2018 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML18080A161), as supplemented by letter dated 
July 20, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18201A558), the licensee requested 
an exemption from the portion of paragraph III.G.2.a. of Appendix R 
that requires structural steel to be protected by an equivalent 3-hour 
fire barrier. The licensee indicated that the scope of its exemption 
request is limited to the unprotected structural steel in the floor of 
Fire Zone 8 (Cable Spreading Room) forming the barrier with all or 
parts of Fire Zones 7A, 7B, and 10 (125V Division I Battery Room, 250V 
Division I Battery Room, and Plant Administration Building (PAB), 
respectively).

III. Discussion

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), the Commission may, upon 
application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant 
exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 which are authorized 
by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and 
are consistent with the common defense and security. However, 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2) states that the Commission will not consider granting an 
exemption unless special circumstances are present. Further, per 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2), special circumstances are present whenever:
    (i) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances 
conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or
    (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances 
would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary 
to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or
    (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that 
are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation 
was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by 
others similarly situated; or
    (iv) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and 
safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from 
the grant of the exemption; or
    (v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the 
applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith 
efforts to comply with the regulation; or
    (vi) There is present any other material circumstance not 
considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the 
public interest to grant an exemption. If such condition is relied on 
exclusively for satisfying paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the 
exemption may not be granted until the Executive Director for 
Operations has consulted with the Commission.
    The licensee stated that special circumstances as described in 10 
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present in that the application of the 
regulation in this particular circumstance is not necessary to achieve 
the underlying purpose of the rule (i.e., the underlying purpose of 
paragraph III.G.2.a. of Appendix R (stating in part that structural 
steel forming a part of, or supporting, a fire barrier shall be 
protected to provide fire resistance equivalent to a 3-hour fire 
barrier)).

A. Underlying Purpose of Protecting Structural Steel with 3-Hour 
Barrier

    The Commission proposed its fire protection rules in 1980 via 
Proposed Rule, Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Plants 
Operating Prior to January 1, 1979, 45 Fed. Reg. 36082 (May 29, 1980) 
(proposing, among other things, a new Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50). 
Proposed section III.M ``Fire Barriers'' of Appendix R (45 Fed. Reg. at 
36089) stated in part:
    M. Fire Barriers. Fire barriers (floors, walls, ceilings, or other 
enclosures) separating fire areas, or equipment or components of 
redundant systems important to safe shutdown within an area shall have 
a fire rating of 3 hours unless a lower rating is justified by the fire 
hazard analysis.
    Structural steel forming a part of or supporting such fire barriers 
shall have fire resistance equivalent to that required of the barrier. 
Such fire resistance shall be provided by protection equivalent to 
metal lath and plaster covering.
    Penetrations in these fire barriers, including conduits, cable 
trays, and piping shall be sealed or closed to provide fire resistance 
rating equivalent to that required of the barrier. Door openings shall 
be protected with doors, frames, and hardware that have been tested and 
approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory to have a fire 
resistance rating equivalent to that required of the barrier. 
Penetrations for ventilation systems shall be protected by a standard 
``fire door damper.''
    The Commission subsequently finalized its fire protection rule in 
1980 (Final Rule, Fire Protection Program for Operating Nuclear Power 
Plants, 45 Fed. Reg. 76602 (Nov. 19, 1980)). The Commission explained 
(45 Fed. Reg. at 76608) that it ``has selected 3 hours as an acceptable 
minimum fire resistance rating for fire barriers separating redundant 
trains for safe shutdown systems. This will give ample time for 
automatic and manual fire suppression activities to control any 
potential fire and for safe shutdown activities to properly control the 
reactor.'' The Commission addressed several comments related to the 
proposed (45 Fed. Reg. at 36089) fire barrier and structural steel 
requirements, writing (45 Fed. Reg. at 76608):
    Several commenters made a number of suggestions of an editorial 
nature. One suggestion was to add ``or unless other fire protection 
features have been provided to ensure equivalent protection'' in the 
first paragraph, where three-hour rated fire barriers were stipulated 
unless a lower rating was justified by the fire hazards analysis. The 
Commission feels that this adds nothing in the way of clarification and 
the suggestion was not adopted. The second paragraph requires that 
structural steel forming a part of or supporting any fire barrier have 
a fire resistance equivalent to that required of

[[Page 5728]]

the barrier. An example was given of metal lath and plaster covering as 
being one means of providing equivalent protection. Several commenters 
stated that they thought this was too narrow and would be interpreted 
by some people as the only acceptable method permitted. Since the 
example seemed to be confusing, a decision has been made to eliminate 
it. Other comments to the effect that the requirement was excessively 
restrictive with regard to fire barrier penetrations, including fire 
doors and their associated frames and hardware, and ventilation systems 
have been acted upon by the staff and the requirement, as it had 
affected these items, was deleted.
    The final rule moved the structural steel fire barrier requirement 
to paragraph III.G.2.a. of Appendix R (45 Fed. Reg. 76613) (saying 
``Separation of cables and equipment and associated non-safety circuits 
of redundant trains by a fire barrier having a 3-hour rating. 
Structural steel forming a part of or supporting such fire barriers 
shall be protected to provide fire resistance equivalent to that 
required of the barrier.'').
    Therefore, the underlying purpose of paragraph III.G.2.a. is to 
ensure that the protection of structural steel provides (i.e., does not 
undermine) the 3-hour minimum fire resistance rating for fire barriers 
separating redundant trains for safe shutdown systems. Three hours will 
give ample time for automatic and manual fire suppression activities to 
control any potential fire and for safe shutdown activities to properly 
control the reactor.
Licensee's application for exemption
    The licensee stated that for Fire Zones 7A, 7B, 8, and 10, MNGP is 
required to comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, and that the 
deterministic requirements of section III.G.2 mandate that, using one 
of the options given, the redundant trains should be adequately 
separated and protected, such that in the event of a fire in that fire 
area, at least one train will remain free of fire damage. The licensee 
further stated that contrary to the requirement, the structural steel 
in a portion of the floor of the Cable Spreading Room is not protected 
with fireproofing material to provide fire resistance equivalent to 
that of the barrier.
    The licensee stated that the intent of section III.G.2 has been met 
by means other than the deterministic physical separation requirements, 
and that instead, based on a detailed fire modeling analysis, it has 
determined that the structural steel will not fail in the event of a 
fire. The licensee stated that the approach used in the detailed fire 
modeling analysis was similar in nature to a previously approved 
structural steel survivability analysis known as the ``Limerick 
Methodology'' and described in NUREG-0991, Supplement 2, ``Safety 
Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Limerick Generating 
Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated October 1984 (Legacy ADAMS Accession 
No. 8411090445).
    The licensee stated that this conclusion is further supported by 
instructions provided in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers/
American Nuclear Society (ASME/ANS) Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) 
Standard (ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009, ``Addenda to ASME/ANS RA-S-2008 Standard 
for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
for Nuclear Power Plant Application,'' dated February 2, 2009), which 
recommends the screening of such structural steel when high hazard fire 
sources are not present.
    The licensee stated that because the structural steel will not 
fail, a fire that originates in Fire Zones 7A, 7B, or 10 will not 
propagate into Fire Zone 8 and that the existing barriers between Fire 
Zones 8 and 7A, 7B, and 10 provide protection commensurate with the 
fire hazards therein and ensure the safe shutdown strategy will be 
preserved. The licensee concluded that MNGP retains the ability to 
reach and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire in any plant 
area and protecting the exposed steel members would have no 
demonstrable safety benefit over current conditions.
    The licensee further stated that the underlying purpose of the 
rule, which is to provide reasonable assurance that safe shutdown of 
the reactor can be achieved and maintained in the event of a single 
postulated fire in any plant area, is satisfied and the application of 
the deterministic requirements of section III.G.2 in these particular 
circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the 
rule.
    The licensee stated that a fire area approach is employed at MNGP 
to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, and that fire 
zones are combined into fire areas based on the redundant trains of 
safe shutdown equipment therein and the feasibility of providing 
adequate fire boundary barriers to separate them from other fire areas. 
The licensee further stated that the Cable Spreading Room (Fire Zone 8) 
is a part of Fire Area VI with the remainder of the fire area being 
comprised of Fire Zones 7A, 7B, 10, and 11, and that the alternate 
shutdown system is the credited safe shutdown strategy for Fire Zone 8 
and that Division II equipment is the credited safe shutdown strategy 
for Fire Zones 7A, 7B, 10, and 11. The licensee further stated that 
because the shutdown strategy is different for the Cable Spreading Room 
than the rest of Fire Area VI, it is not appropriate for the Cable 
Spreading Room to be a part of Fire Area VI and, therefore, the 
barriers between the Cable Spreading Room and adjacent fire zones must 
meet the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R.
    The licensee stated that the MNGP Fire Protection Program (FPP), 
which is consistent with Branch Technical Position (BTP) APCSB 9.5-1, 
10 CFR 50.48, Appendix R of 10 CFR 50, and supporting generic 
communications, is designed and implemented based on a foundation of 
defense-in-depth that consists of:
    Fire Prevention--Preventing fires from starting through control of 
fuel and ignition sources and conditions.
    Fire Detection and Suppression--Providing the capability to 
promptly detect any fires that may occur and the capability to promptly 
and effectively control and extinguish any such fire.
    Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability--Providing protection for 
systems, structures, and components important to safety such that any 
fire that is not promptly detected and extinguished will not prevent 
the safe shutdown of the plant.
    The licensee stated that the Cable Spreading Room is located on the 
939-foot elevation of the PAB and is bordered by the Turbine Building 
to the north, other PAB areas to the east and south, and the Reactor 
Building to the west. The licensee further stated that the Cable 
Spreading Room is directly above the 125V Division I and II Battery 
Rooms, 250V Division I Battery Room, and other portions of the basement 
of the PAB and that the Cable Spreading Room is directly below the 
Control Room.
    The licensee stated that because the Cable Spreading Room north and 
west walls, the entirety of the ceiling, and the portion of the floor 
over the 125V Division II Battery Room were previously classified as 
fire barriers between adjacent fire areas, they have already been 
demonstrated to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R. The 
licensee further stated that the east and south walls separating the 
Cable Spreading Room from other rooms on the 939-foot elevation of the 
PAB are comprised of poured concrete and provide a 3-hour fire barrier. 
Therefore, the only boundary of the Cable

[[Page 5729]]

Spreading Room which will not meet 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R, is the 
portion of floor that is not directly above the Division II Battery 
Room. The licensee indicated that the scope of its exemption request is 
limited to the unprotected structural steel in the floor of Fire Zone 8 
(Cable Spreading Room) forming the barrier with all or parts of Fire 
Zones 7A, 7B, and 10 (125V Division I Battery Room, 250V Division I 
Battery Room, and PAB, respectively).
    The licensee provided the details of combustible loading/fire 
severity and active fire protection features for the specific fire 
zones of concern in Table 1 of its request. The licensee stated that 
the localization of the hazards and combustibles by fire zone, combined 
with the separation between fire zones by spatial and barrier 
separation, provide reasonable assurance that fires that occur within a 
given zone will be confined to the fire zone of origination.
    The licensee provided summary descriptions of each of the fire 
zones that included the types of combustibles, available detection and 
suppression, and smoke/hot gas ejection methods.
    Fire Zone 7A--928 foot elevation, PAB (125V Division I Battery 
Room). The combustible loading in this zone primarily consists of 
battery cases and cable insulation. Combustible loading is 
administratively controlled by procedures. Ignition sources within the 
fire zone include batteries, battery chargers, and electrical cabinets. 
There is no fixed fire suppression system installed in this zone, but 
hose stations and portable extinguishers are available in an adjacent 
fire zone. The ionization detection system alarms in the control room 
thereby providing an early warning of a fire and, subsequently, an 
early response of the fire brigade to extinguish the fire. Smoke and 
hot gases can be evacuated using normal air handling systems or opening 
the access door. Portable smoke ejectors can be used as a backup. The 
zone contains Division I safe shutdown equipment. In the event of a 
fire in this zone, Division II safe shutdown equipment would be 
available for shutdown.
    Fire Zone 7B--928 foot elevation, PAB (250V Division I Battery 
Room). The combustible loading in this zone primarily consists of 
battery cases and cable insulation. Combustible loading is 
administratively controlled by procedures. Ignition sources within the 
zone include batteries, battery chargers, and electrical cabinets. 
There is no fixed fire suppression system installed in this zone, but 
hose stations and portable extinguishers are available in an adjacent 
fire zone. The ionization detection system alarms in the control room 
thereby providing an early warning of a fire and, subsequently, an 
early response of the fire brigade to extinguish the fire. Smoke and 
hot gases can be evacuated using normal air handling systems or opening 
the access door. Portable smoke ejectors can be used as a backup. The 
zone contains Division I safe shutdown equipment. In the event of a 
fire in this zone, Division II safe shutdown equipment would be 
available for shutdown.
    Fire Zone 8--939 foot elevation, PAB (Cable Spreading Room). The 
combustible loading in this zone primarily consists of cable 
insulation. Combustible loading is administratively controlled by NSPM 
[Northern States Power Company - Minnesota) procedures. Ignition 
sources within the zone include electrical cabinets. The fire zone is 
equipped with an automatic halon suppression system as well as portable 
extinguishers. Hose stations are located in adjacent fire zones. The 
ionization and thermal detection systems alarm in the control room 
thereby providing an early warning of a fire and, subsequently, an 
early response of the fire brigade to extinguish the fire. Smoke and 
hot gases can be evacuated using normal air handling systems with 
portable smoke ejectors available as a backup, if necessary. The zone 
contains both Division I and Division II safe shutdown equipment. In 
the event of a fire in this zone, the alternate shutdown system would 
be available for safe shutdown.
    Fire Zone 10--multiple elevations, PAB (Plant Administration 
Building excluding the Battery, Cable Spreading, Control, and heating, 
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) Rooms). The scope of this 
exemption request is limited to a portion of this fire zone on the 928 
foot elevation, however, the discussion below includes features of the 
fire zone in its entirety. The combustible loading in this zone 
primarily consists of those combustibles typical of office occupancy. 
As Fire Zone 10 is comprised mostly of office space, the introduction 
of combustible material is not controlled in the same manner as fire 
zones in the power block. Ignition sources include an electric motor, a 
power transformer, ventilation systems, and electrical cabinets. 
However, electrical cabinets and one dry power transformer are the only 
ignition sources present in the portion of the fire zone below the 
Cable Spreading Room. Portions of the fire zone (Records Storage Vault 
and Computer Room) are equipped with automatic halon suppression 
systems. There is no fixed fire suppression system installed in the 
remainder of the fire zone, but hose stations and portable 
extinguishers are available throughout. Ionization detectors are 
available in portions of the fire zone and will alarm in the control 
room thereby providing an early warning of a fire and, subsequently, an 
early response of the fire brigade to extinguish the fire. However, 
none of the ionization detectors are installed in the portions of Fire 
Zone 10 pertinent to this request. Smoke and hot gases can be evacuated 
using normal air handling systems with portable smoke ejectors 
available as a backup, if necessary. The zone contains Division I safe 
shutdown equipment. In the event of a fire in this zone, Division II 
safe shutdown equipment would be available for shutdown.
    The licensee provided a discussion of its detailed fire modeling 
analysis regarding the survivability of the structural steel for the 
postulated fire hazards present in the fire zones in question. Similar 
to the referenced Limerick Methodology, the licensee used a 
mathematical model to calculate the time-temperature profile for 
potential fires in each fire area and that if any of the calculations 
show that the time-temperature profile in an area will exceed 1100 
degree Fahrenheit ([deg]F) within 3 hours, an evaluation is performed 
to calculate the corresponding temperature response of the supporting 
structural steel and that if the steel temperature does not exceed 1100 
[deg]F within 3 hours, the steel need not be protected.
    The licensee stated that the Limerick Methodology is based on the 
availability and quantity of two specific types of fixed combustibles 
found in a nuclear power plant: cable insulation and lubricating oil. 
The licensee further stated that lube oil is not present and there are 
no significant concentrations of exposed cable insulation in the 
applicable fire zones and, therefore, the areas beneath the Cable 
Spreading Room would screen out of the Limerick Methodology and the 
structural steel would not need to be protected with no further 
analysis required. The licensee further stated that while the results 
of this analysis appropriately reflect the low significance of the 
exposed structural steel, it determined it was prudent to perform 
additional analysis to demonstrate the acceptability of the exposed 
structural steel.
    The licensee stated that it performed fire modeling using the Fire 
Dynamics Simulator (FDS) code which is a computational fluid dynamics 
model of fire-driven fluid flow that numerically solves the governing 
equations of fluid dynamics with a particular emphasis on fire and 
smoke transport. The licensee

[[Page 5730]]

further stated that FDS is known to provide better predictions for heat 
flux and surface temperatures than comparable tools (e.g., CFAST and 
MAGIC) and that it has been shown to predict heat flux and wall 
temperature within 20 percent with a bias towards over-prediction. The 
licensee further stated that two distinct analyses were performed using 
FDS, the first examined the plant access control area, while the second 
examined the battery rooms.
    The licensee stated that an acceptance criterion of 1100 [deg]F was 
established to determine the acceptability of the exposed structural 
steel and that Generic Letter (GL) 83-33, ``NRC Positions on Certain 
Requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50,'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML031080522) states that this temperature is typically considered the 
critical temperature of steel because at this temperature the yield 
stress in the steel has decreased to about 60 percent of the value at 
room temperature. The licensee further stated that it reviewed the 
structural design for the as-built configuration of the PAB and 
determined that the acceptance criterion in GL 83-33 is applicable to 
the exposed structural steel supporting the MNGP Cable Spreading Room 
floor.
    The licensee stated that for the plant access control area, a 
transient fire was assumed to occur directly below a structural beam 
and immediately adjacent to a structural steel column and that the 
assumed fire was the 98th percentile transient fire with a heat release 
rate (HRR) of 317 kW, consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-6850, 
``EPRI/RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities,'' Table 
G-1 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15167A401, and ML15167A411). The licensee 
further stated that this fire was determined to be the most limiting 
postulated fire based on a walkdown of the applicable plant areas and 
review of all potential ignition sources and that the duration of the 
fire was assumed to be 1 hour. The licensee further stated that 
sensitivity studies were performed to verify the adequacy of the 
results of the final FDS model and that these studies were performed to 
verify the numerical grid size, the use of a simplified small-scale 
model, and the effects on structural steel temperature based on the 
location of the fire.
    The licensee stated that the ignition sources in the area consist 
of batteries, battery chargers, a dry transformer, or electrical 
cabinets so it is unclear to the NRC staff why the licensee stated that 
a 317 kW transient fire was assumed to represent the most limiting 
postulated fire because the identified ignition sources all represent 
larger fires. The NRC staff requested that the licensee provide 
technical justification for why the smaller transient fire was selected 
as more limiting than a battery, battery charger, dry transformer, or 
electrical cabinet fire. In its letter dated July 20, 2018 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML18201A558), the licensee responded to the NRC staff's 
request and stated that the licensee used information contained in 
NUREG-2178, ``Refining and Characterizing Heat Release Rates from 
Electrical Enclosures During Fire (RACHELLE-FIRE),'' Volume 1 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML16110A140), to support its assumption that electrical 
cabinets in the areas containing low fuel loading would exhibit a 
shorter fire duration and smaller peak HRR than the 317 kW transient 
fire selected for their analysis. The licensee stated that the heat 
rates and shorter durations demonstrated by other potential ignition 
sources (i.e. batteries, battery chargers, a dry transformer, or 
electrical cabinets ) are subsumed by the transient fire that continues 
for 60 minutes which is used in the analysis. The licensee also stated 
that they performed a sensitivity study using the default HRR value for 
the cabinets and determined that the transient fire resulted in higher 
calculated peak steel temperatures, thereby representing a conservative 
approach. The staff found the licensee's response acceptable because it 
represents a conservative analysis that was based on plant walk down 
information and accepted methods or guidance.
    The licensee provided a figure that displayed the manner in which 
the structural steel columns and beams were modeled in the plant access 
control area which showed a 2 foot by 2 foot fire located immediately 
adjacent to a structural steel column as it was found to be the most 
limiting configuration (i.e., highest resultant temperatures). The 
licensee also provided a figure that showed the temperature response of 
an exposed structural steel beam located directly above the transient 
fire in the plant access control area. This figure identified that the 
temperature of the structural steel beam is beginning to level off at 
approximately 350 [deg]F after 1 hour and the licensee concluded that 
the critical temperature of 1100 [deg]F will not be reached and the 
structural steel will continue to support the Cable Spreading Room 
floor despite the lack of fireproofing material.
    The licensee stated that for the battery rooms, FDS runs were 
completed only for the Division I 125 V Battery Room (Fire Zone 7A). 
The licensee stated that citing the significantly smaller air volume in 
Fire Zone 7A, it determined the air temperature and resulting 
structural steel temperature would bound that of a similar analysis for 
Fire Zone 7B. The licensee further stated that a 98th percentile 
transient fire with a HRR of 317 kW was assumed to occur directly below 
the structural steel, immediately adjacent to a concrete wall and that 
the duration was assumed to be 1 hour. The licensee further stated that 
sensitivity studies were performed to verify the adequacy of the 
results of the final FDS model and that these studies were performed to 
verify the numerical grid size, the effects of different fire soot 
yields, and the effects on structural steel temperature based on the 
location and size of the fire.
    The licensee provided a figure that displayed the manner in which 
the structural steel beams were modeled in the Division I 125 V Battery 
Room. The figure showed a 1ft by 1ft fire located adjacent to a wall 
and directly below a structural steel beam as it was found to be the 
most limiting configuration (i.e., highest resultant temperatures). The 
licensee provided a figure that showed the temperature response of the 
exposed structural steel beam for a variety of modeled conditions 
(e.g., different fire position, mesh size, soot yields, room door open 
and closed) that showed the temperature of the structural steel beam in 
the most limiting case levels off at approximately 800 [deg]F during 
the 1-hour duration of the fire. The licensee concluded that the 
critical temperature of 1100 [deg]F will not be reached and the 
structural steel will continue to support the Cable Spreading Room 
floor despite the lack of fireproofing material.
    The licensee stated that physical fire dimensions of the assumed 
317 kW fire were 2 foot by 2 foot for the plant access control area and 
1 foot by 1 foot for the battery rooms but did not provide any 
technical justification for the use of different fire dimensions. The 
NRC staff requested that the licensee provide technical justification 
for using different fire sizes. In its letter dated July 20, 2018, the 
licensee responded to the NRC staff's request and stated that the 
physical dimensions, i.e., 1 foot by 1 foot and 2 foot by 2 foot, of 
the transient fires used in their analysis were based on scenarios that 
represented bounding cases for the steel beams and columns, 
respectively. The staff found the licensee's response acceptable 
because it represents a conservative analysis that was based on plant 
walk down information that reflects the physical design of the plant 
and sound engineering judgement.

[[Page 5731]]

    The licensee stated that the following conservatisms were built 
into the FDS runs:
    FDS only simulates one-dimensional heat conduction; therefore, 
conduction of heat away from the fire plume is not included in the 
calculations.
    Transient fires were assumed to burn continuously for 1 hour at the 
98th percentile HRR. This is especially conservative when reviewing the 
HRR over time for the various fires studied in Table G-7 of NUREG/CR-
6850 that show transient fires have a growth and decay period on either 
side of the peak HRR and do not last longer than 15 minutes. These fire 
studies also show that the higher HRR fires (such as the 98th 
percentile fire) have durations much shorter than 15 minutes since they 
quickly burn away the available fuel.
    Ventilation was assumed to be failed for all fire simulations. This 
conservatively overpredicts the air temperatures in the room since the 
HVAC would likely run for at least some portion of a real fire.
    No manual or automatic suppression of the fire was assumed to occur 
for 1 hour. There is no automatic suppression in the areas, but there 
is a continuously staffed room (Secondary Alarm Station (SAS)) in the 
vicinity with open ventilation paths between the SAS and the plant 
access control area. The personnel in the SAS are likely to identify a 
fire in any of the areas quickly and alert the fire brigade. 
Furthermore, the plant access control area is the main entrance and 
exit for all personnel into and out of the Turbine and Reactor 
Buildings. If there is a fire in the area, there is a high likelihood 
of it being discovered and suppressed rapidly.
    For the battery room analysis, the door to the room is assumed to 
be open for all scenarios to ensure the fire does not become oxygen-
limited. This is conservative as these doors are typically kept closed 
and a postulated fire was determined to burn out within 3 minutes of 
ignition.
    The licensee stated that for the battery room analysis, the door to 
the room was assumed to be open, but does not state whether the same 
assumption was made for the plant access control area. The NRC staff 
requested that the licensee discuss whether the same assumption was 
made for the plant access control area or provide the technical 
justification for not doing so. In its letter dated July 20, 2018, the 
licensee responded to the NRC staff's request and stated that the 
ventilation and enclosure characteristics used in their analysis were 
based on conditions present in the plant, i.e., open to adjacent spaces 
where walls or doors are not present and enclosed where walls or doors 
are present. The licensee stated that the approach taken yielded 
conservative results because the enclosed scenarios provided less air 
entrainment and higher room and steel temperatures. The staff found the 
licensee's response acceptable because it represents a conservative 
analysis that was based on plant walk down information that reflects 
the physical design of the plant and sound engineering judgement.
    The licensee stated that it has determined that, based on fire 
modeling, the critical temperature of 1100 [deg]F for the structural 
steel will not be reached during a postulated fire, and therefore, the 
exposed structural steel will not fail despite the lack of fireproofing 
and need not be protected.

B. Authorized by Law

    This exemption would allow MNGP to rely on the results of a 
structural steel survivability analysis and fire modeling that 
demonstrated that unprotected steel columns and beams supporting the 
floor of the Cable Spreading Room will not fail in the event of a fire, 
to ensure that at least one means of achieving and maintaining hot 
shutdown remains available during and following a postulated fire event 
as part of its fire protection program, in lieu of meeting the 
requirements specified in 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section 
III.G.2.a, for a fire in the analyzed fire areas. As stated above, 10 
CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 
10 CFR part 50. The NRC staff has determined that granting of this 
exemption will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended, or the Commission's regulations. Therefore, the 
exemption is authorized by law.

C. No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety

    The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section 
III.G, is to ensure that at least one means of achieving and 
maintaining hot shutdown remains available during and following a 
postulated fire event. Based on the licensee's analysis, the staff has 
determined that lack of fire proofing in the subject locations does not 
represent any additional risk to public health and safety because the 
licensee demonstrated that for the postulated, credible fire scenarios, 
the structural steel would not be exposed to conditions that would 
result in a structural failure.

D. Consistent With the Common Defense and Security

    This exemption would allow MNGP to rely on the results of a 
structural steel survivability analysis and fire modeling to 
demonstrated that unprotected steel columns and beams supporting the 
floor of the Cable Spreading Room will not fail in the event of a fire, 
in lieu of meeting the requirements specified in 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix R, section III.G.2.a. Because the lack of protection on the 
structural steel does not lead to a failure of the associated 3-hour 
fire barriers, there is no change to any site security matters. 
Therefore, the exemption is consistent with common defense and 
security.

E. Special Circumstances

    One of the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(ii) is that the application of the regulation is not 
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The underlying 
purpose of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section III.G, is to ensure that 
at least one means of achieving and maintaining hot shutdown remains 
available during and following a postulated fire event. While the 
licensee does not comply with the explicit requirements of 10 CFR part 
50, appendix R, section III.G.2.a, specifically, it does meet the 
underlying purpose of section III.G as a whole by ensuring that safe 
shutdown capability remains available. Therefore, special circumstances 
exist that warrant the issuance of this exemption as required by 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(ii).

IV. Environmental Considerations

    The NRC staff determined that the issuance of the requested 
exemption meets the provisions of categorical exclusion 10 CFR 
51.22(c)(9) because the exemption is from a requirement, with respect 
to the installation or use of a facility component located within the 
restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and the issuance of the 
exemption involves: (i) No significant hazards consideration; (ii) no 
significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts 
of any effluents that may be released offsite; and (iii) no significant 
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact 
statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection 
with the NRC's issuance of this exemption. The basis for the NRC 
staff's determination is provided in the following evaluation of the 
requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).

[[Page 5732]]

Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)
    The NRC staff evaluated whether the exemption involves no 
significant hazards consideration by using the standards in 10 CFR 
50.92(c), as presented below:
    1. Does the requested exemption involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. This exemption would allow MNGP to rely on the results of a 
structural steel survivability analysis and fire modeling that 
demonstrated that unprotected steel columns and beams supporting the 
floor of the Cable Spreading Room will not fail in the event of a fire, 
to ensure that at least one means of achieving and maintaining hot 
shutdown remains available during and following a postulated fire event 
as part of its fire protection program, in lieu of meeting the 
requirements specified in 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, section 
III.G.2.a, for a fire in the analyzed fire areas. Coating of the 
structural steel is to maintain the integrity of the fire barrier 
during a postulated fire and therefore, no new accident precursors are 
created by the use of the unprotected steel. Therefore, the probability 
of postulated accidents is not increased. Also, the critical 
temperature of 1100[deg]F for the structural steel will not be reached 
during a postulated fire, and therefore, the exposed structural steel 
will not fail despite the lack of fireproofing and need not be 
protected. Therefore, granting of the exemption does not increase the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the exemption does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the requested exemption create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The underlying purposes of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, III.G.2 
is to provide reasonable assurance of fire protection safe shutdown 
capability. No new accident precursors are created by the use of the 
unprotected steel in response to a fire in the analyzed fire areas.
    Therefore, the exemption does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the requested exemption involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    No. The use of unprotected steel in response to a fire in the 
analyzed fire areas does not alter plant operation and does not impact 
any safety margins because codes and standards or their alternatives 
approved by the NRC are met, and the safety analysis acceptance 
criteria described in the licensing basis are met.
    Therefore, the exemption does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Based on the evaluation above, the NRC staff has determined that 
the proposed exemption involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i) are met.
Requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(ii) and (iii)
    The proposed exemption would for structural steel columns and beams 
supporting the floor of the Cable Spreading Room that are not coated 
with fireproofing material to provide a fire resistance equivalent to 
that of the fire barrier as required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, 
Section III.G.2.a for MNGP. The exemption does not modify plant 
operation because fire protection for structures, systems, and 
components important to safe shutdown continue to be provided. Thus, 
the exemption does not result in a significant change in the types or 
amount of effluents that may be released and does not result in any 
additional occupational exposure. Therefore, the requirements of 10 
CFR51.22(c)(9)(ii) and (iii) are met.

V. Conclusions

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue 
risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common 
defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present in that 
application of the regulation is not necessary to achieve the 
underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants 
Northern States Power Company, doing business as Xcel Energy, an 
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section 
III.G.2.a, for MNGP, for structural steel columns and beams supporting 
the floor of the Cable Spreading Room that are not coated with 
fireproofing material to provide a fire resistance equivalent to that 
of the fire barrier.

VI. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available in 
ADAMS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document                       ADAMS accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Permanent          ML18080A161.
 Exemption from 10 CFR 50
 Appendix R III.G.2.a
 Requirements for Exposed
 Structural Steel.
Response to Request for        ML18201A558.
 Additional Information
 regarding Request for
 Permanent Exemption from 10
 CFR 50 Appendix R III.G.2.a
 Requirements for Exposed
 Structural Steel (EPID L-
 2018-LLE-0001).
NUREG-0991, Supplement 2,      Legacy Library: 8411090445.
 ``Safety Evaluation Report
 Related to the Operation of
 Limerick Generating Station,
 Units 1 and 2,'' dated
 October 1984.
Generic Letter (GL) 83-33,     ML031080522.
 ``NRC Positions on Certain
 Requirements of Appendix R
 to 10 CFR 50''.
NUREG/CR-6850, ``EPRI/RES      ML15167A401.
 Fire PRA Methodology for
 Nuclear Power Facilities''
 Volume 1: Summary and
 Overview.
NUREG/CR-6850, ``EPRI/RES      ML15167A411.
 Fire PRA Methodology for
 Nuclear Power Facilities''
 Volume 2: Detailed
 Methodology.
NUREG-2178, ``Refining and     ML16110A140.
 Characterizing Heat Release
 Rates from Electrical
 Enclosures During Fire
 (RACHELLE-FIRE),'' Volume 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5733]]

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 14th day of February, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

/RA/

Craig G. Erlanger,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2019-03055 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P