ML060690155
| ML060690155 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1983 |
| From: | Johnston W Division of Engineering |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2006-0095 NUDOCS 8307190488 | |
| Download: ML060690155 (7) | |
Text
- Fj '.,,At ej 3m .
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas H. Novak, 'Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing FROM: William V. Johnston, Assistant Director for Materlals & Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAl. SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT ON FIRE PROTECTION
- WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 Plant Name: Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1 Docket Number: 50-482 Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch: LB fl Project Manager: J. Holonich' Chemical Engineering Reviewer: R. Eberly Requested Coupletion Date: ASAP Review Status: 5 unresolved itess In our SER, dated October 27, 15981, we stated that there were six unresolved items. Two of these were concerned with our on-going review of the fire protcction for safe shutdown capability and of the alternate shutdown system for the control room.
The enclosed Fire Protection Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report, prepared by ASB, provides ourie'valuat1on of these items. Based on our evaluation, we find that the applicant's fire protection for safe shutdown and the alternate shutdlown capabilities are acceptable. We, therefore, consider these items closed.
In our SER, we identified four other unresolved items
- The applicant has not provilded adequate information on the penetration seals to complete our review.
- We will require that certalin cable trays and/or conduit supports to protected for one hour fire rating.
- We will require all controll and sectionalizing valves to be either electrically supervised or be locked in the open position.
- The applicant is evaluating the system to collect and contain lubricat-ing oil for each reactoric~olant pump for conformance to Appendix R rrquiroments and will provilde an engineered RCP Oil Collection System that will meet the requirements of para. C.2 or Reg. Guide 1.29. The results of this evaluation will be documented in future amendment. t /
0
-orrett83071904C8 o830708 **110 ~ .. *.,*.~.*.......* ....... . ..... ......
SURNAME)
- CF *~e *....g.eg.e, .,*****s,*,..,...* ..........
DuA~TE
- ..*.>****** ,......,**CF .****jn********fl****fl ****§*@e@@************* el***l*§*@************ *§l*§**f*ll**@*S*.*
.... S,.....
K h4OIW ytOFFICIAL RECORD COPY, .NI-34 M 1T 1
I.,A :
4 i v t Thomas H. Novak JUtL863 To date, we have not received additional infonmation required on these Items.
We will report on these unresolved items in a subsequent SER.
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director for Mhterials A Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering Enclosure cc: R. Vollmer D. Eisenhut W. Johnston R. Ferguson T. Wambach R. Eberly S. Pawlicki F. Rosa J. )lolonich B. Youngblood T. Sullivan Mi. Srinivasan
- 0. Parr V. Panciera J. Taylor S. Ebneter, Region I T. Conlon, Region 1I C. tiorellus, Region III G. Madsen, Region IV P. Sternberg, Region V DE/CMEB PR DE/ DE/CMEBkh DE/MCET n... ..............
a r......... C o
A. .e s .***t*
SnAC REBerly ... fckson VBenaro Mohn; t
~g>7/
L.,/83 7?/.. /83....
.... 183 I iuur rnc ronM 311 (W" UNCHC 0240 1 0OFFICIAL RECORD C OPY uu¶
&RUMUwowl I.
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH/FIRE PROTECTION SECTION SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET 1iO. 50-482 VI. Fire Protection For Safe Shutdown Caoability VI.A Safe Shutdown Capability Our review of the SNUPPS fire protection of safe shutdown capability included the list of equipment and components identified in Section 3.11(B) of the SNUPPS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) as being necessary for hot and/or cold shutdown, the safe cold shutdown analysis in FSAR Section 5.4A, the remote shutdown capability described in FSAR Section 7.4, the cable separation discussed in FSAR Section 8.3 and the fire hazards analysis and design comparison with Appendix R in FSAR Section 9.5. We also reviewed the control room fire hazards analysis submitted by letter dated November 15, 1982.
The applicant's safe shutdown analysis and fire hazards analysis demon-strated that redundancy exists for systems needed for hot and cold shut-down. The safe shutdown analysis ,Included components, cabling and support equipment needed to achieve hot and cold shutdown. Thus, in the event of a fire anywhere in the plant, at least one train of systems would be available to achieve and maintain hot shutdown and proceed to cold shutdown.
For hot shutdown at least one train of the following safe shutdown systems would be available: Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system, steam generator atmospheric dump valves, reactor coolant system, and the chemical and volume control system. For cold shutdown at least one train of the residual heat removal (RHR) system would be available. The RHR system would be used for long-term decay heat removal and provides the capability I..*i
to achieve cold shutdown within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> after a fire. The availability of these systems includes the components, cabling and support equipment necessary to achieve cold shutdown. The support equipment includes the diesel generators, emergency service water system, component cooling water system, and the necessary ventilation systems.
The applicant's fire hazards analysis demonstrated that except for inside containment and inside the control room, redundant systems and cabling needed for safe shutdown are separated in accordance with III.G.2.a, b, or c of Appendix R. For the control room, the applicant has provided alternate shutdown capability outside the control room in accordance with III.G.3 of Appendix R. Inside the containment there is at least 20 feet between redundant safe shutdown divisions or between diverse systens such as the letdown isolation valves and the power operated relief and block-valves. Thus, the requirements of III.G.2.d are met for separation inside containment.
The applicant performed an electrical train separation study in order to ensure that at least one train of' the above equipment is avAilahle in the event of a fire in areas which might affect these components. Safe shutdown equipment and cablina was identified and traced through each fire area from the components to the power source. :Additional equipment and cabling considered as associated either because of a shared common power source or common enclosure or whose fire induced spurious operation could affect shutdown were also identified. Extensive use of computer program checks were used to ensure separation. Each circuit and raceway is identified in the computer program, and the identification includes the applicable separation group. The program is usedito check'that cables of a particular separation group are routed through the appropriate raceways.
We have reviewed the applicant's method of determining that the separation criteria of Appendix R are met and have reviewed the associated circuits identified by the applicant and the actions necessary or modifications made to prevent spurious operation that would affect safe plant shutdown.
Based on our review we conclude that the applicant has adequately addressed q.
i,.1'1 I I . i I.1ll I1
the effects of associated circuit- interaction and that the necessary iso-lation devices and procedures are! adequate to ensure that such circuit interactions will not prevent safe shutdown. lie further conclude that the applicant's methodology for verifying that separation is in accordance with Appendix R, Item III.G.2 is,, therefore, acceptable.
The applicant's analysis indicatced that the only area outside containment where redundant divisions are not: separated by barriers in accordance with III.G.2 is the control room.. Alternate shutdown measures were required for the control room in order to assure the availability of the safe shutdown systems. In the event that a fire disables the control room the remote shutdown panel associated with train B equipment located in a separate fire area of the auxiliary building provides an alternative to fire protection separation wit:hin the control room. The control functions and indications provided at the remote shutdown panel are electrically isolated or otherwise separate and independent from the control room. Refer to Section '11.6 of this SER for further discussion of alternative shutdown camability.
Based on the above, the systems Identified for achieving and maintaining safe shutdown in the event of a fire are acceptable and the methodolony used to assure adequate protection of safe shutdown svstems is in accordance with Section III.G of Appendix R and therefore is acceotable.
VI.B Alternative Shutdown Canabilitv Section 7.4 of the SNUPPS FSAR describes the remote shutdown panel's capability. Section 5A of the FSAR and the control room fire hazard analysis dated November 15, 1982, describe remote shutdown capability for equipment not on the remote shutdown panel. The design objective of the remote shutdown system for the purposes of thisievaluation is to achieve and maintain cold shutdown in the event of a fire in the control room. The train B remote shutdown panel will be the primary alternative shutdown panel since the necessary instruments and control on this panel are isolated or isolable from the control room.
Iloilo' 111 Ii pi. lo
f__
The turbine driven AFW pump, train B motor driven AFW pump, associated AFW controls, the atmospheric dump valves for steam Generators B and D, the group B pressurizer backup heaters, and the-train B letdown isolation valve can be controlled at the train B alternate shutdown panel for maintaining hot standby. Separate isolation switches provided at local stations for control of support systems and cold shutdown systems will be used in conjunction with a procedural approach usinn pre-planned operator actions to maintain hot standby and to achieve and maintain cold shutdown within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
The design of the remote shutdown system complies with the performance goals outlined in Section IIL.L of Apnendix R. Reactivity control is accomplished by manual scram before the operator leaves the control room and boron addition via the chemical and volume control system using the refueling water storage tank (RWST) and the charqina pumps. The reactor coolant makeup function is also performed bv the charqinn Pumps and RWST.
Reactor coolant inventory is assured by maintaininq reactor coolant pumo seal coolinq and seal injection, and by isolating all possible paths of inventory loss such as PORYs, RHR suction lines, normal and excess letdown lines and the reactor vessel head vent. All these operations includino reactor scram can be accomplished from outside the control room. Reactor decay heat removal to hot shutdown is accomplished by the AFr system through the steam generators and atmospheric dumn valves. Decay heat removal to cold shutdown is achieved-by the residual heat removal system.
The following instruments on the alternate shutdown panel will be used to monitor process variables:
Pressurizer level Reactor coolant system pressure (wide range)
Steam generator level (wide ronoe)
AfW flow Reactor. coolant cold lep temoerature I(TC)
Reactor coolant hot. leg temperature (TH)
Source range nuclear instrument
5 -
The above instrumentation will all be isolated from the control room on the train B alternate shutdown panel. Isolated valve position indication for the AFW system, letdown Isolation valve, and the atmospheric dump valves are also located on the train B panel.
We have reviewed actions required by the procedures for achieving and maintaining safe plant shutdown following a fire. For hot standby the immediate actions are mainly precautionary measures to assure no spurious operations occur due to the control room fire. Some operations require cutting a control power cable at the equipment to ensure that a fault in the control room does not prevent certain equipment operation. Such actions may be required for the fuel oil transfer pumps, fuel pool coolinq system and some ventilation dampers that are not immediately necessary for or detrimental to maintaining hot standby conditions. These actions will be described in the procedures. For achieving and maintaininq cold shutdown local operation of RHR Isolation valves, letdown valves and certain CCW system valves may be required and will be in the cold shut-down procedures. We have reviewed the oroposed actions and manpower require-ments and conclude they are In accordance with III.L.4 and III.L.5 to Appendix R since they can be accomplished exclusive of fire brigade members and are straightforward and uncomplicated such that cold shutdown can be achieved within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
Based on our review, we conclude that the alternative shutdown caoability for the control room meets the requirements of Apoendix R, Section 111.L, and is therefore acceptable.
II 1111 low"