ML17192A573
| ML17192A573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Zion  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1979 |
| From: | Macdougall E BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Sylvester E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003170488 | |
| Download: ML17192A573 (6) | |
Text
jJ.~*~~~ 21 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
- ~[J :1~ *i _____________
A_S_S_O_C_IA-TE_D_U_N_IV_E_R_S_IT-IE_S_, 1-N-C.
Department of Nuclear Energy Mr. Ernest Sylvester Plant Systems Branch October 8, 1979 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Ernie:
Upton, New York 11973.
';)... 0 (516) 345-2362 Attached are comments of Supplementary items for Dresden 1, Dresden 2-3, Quad Cities 1 and 2, Zion 1 and 2 and Maine Yankee that we have received from Ingemar Asp and Mario Antonetti of Gage Babcock and Associates, Inc.
In each case, we have attempted to make it clear as to whether we find that the item is adequate or not; and if not, what the fire protection en-gineer would recommend to make it adequate.
If you have any questions regarding these items, please advise.
EAM:sd attachments cc.:
R. Cerbone
. R. Ferguson R *. Hall
- w. Kato G. Lainas wo/att.
II II II II Very truly yours, Gt Edward A. MacDougall Reactor Engineering Analysis 8 0 03 J 7 Ofl.<6f6
FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW Quad Cities 1 and 2 SER 3.2.x (4.9)
As part of the fire protection review for Quad Cities 1 and 2, certain items contained in Section 3.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report required addi-tional information from the utility.
One of the items listed in this section required the utility to submit test data demonstrating the qualifications of the existing fire barrier penetrations seal to have a fire rating of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or commensurate with the existing fire loading.
In response to this, the Licensee submitted a test report with a cover letter dated September 29, 1978 in which the results of typical penetrations were evaluated.
Based on a review of the do.cuments by Mario Antonetti, of Gage Babcock
~nd Associates~ Inc., the existing penetration seals ~revented ighition bf th~
cables on the unexposed side of the seal for a period of three hours while the exposed side was subjected to a fire in accordance with the standard time tem-perature curve.
The existing fire barrier seals are adeq~ate for their in-tended purpose.
.. - *--.. ~
FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW Zion 1 and 2 SER 3.2.3 As part of the fire protection review for Zion 1 and 2, certain items contained in Section 3.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report required additional infonnation from the utility.
One of the items listed in this section (3.2.3) required the utility to submit test data demonstrating the qualifications of th~ existing fire barrier penetrations seal to have a fire rating of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or commensurate with the existing fire loading.
In response to this, the Licensee submitted a test report with a cover letter dated September 29, 1978 in which the results of typical penetrations were evaluated.
Based on a review of the documents by Mr. Mario Antonetti," of Gage Babcock and Associates, Inc., the existing penetration seals prevented igni-tion of the cables on the unexposed side of the seal for a period of three hours while the exposed side was subjected to a fire in accordance with* the standard time temperature curve.
The existing fire barrier seals are adequate for their intended purpose~
. ~.. e FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW Dresden 1 SER 3.2.3 As part of the fire protection review for Dresden 1, certain items con-tained in Section 3.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report required additional information from the utility. One of the items (3.2.3) listed in this section required the utility to review the fire water system feeds to automatic and manual extinguishing systems.
In response to this, the Licensee submitted information with a cover let-ter dated August 2, 1979.
An explanation of existing and new automatic ex-tinguishing feed arrangements with hose station coverage was supplied.
Based on a review of the document by Mr. Mario Antonetti, of Gage Babcock and Associates, Inc., it appears that an impairment in the feed to the auto-matic ex ti ngui shi ng systems will not affect the pl ant 1 s ability to adequa_tely protect thes~ areas with hosi stations.
The arrangements as presented in this letter are satisfactory.
FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW Dresden 2 and 3 SER 3.2.3 As part of the fire protection review for Dresden 2 and 3, certain items contained in Section 3.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report required additional infonnation from the utility.
One of the items listed in this section (3.2.2) required the utility to submit test data demonstrating the qualifications of the existing fire barrier penetrations seal to have a fire rating of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or commensurate with the existing fire loading.
In response to this, the Licensee submitted a test report with a cover letter dated September 29, 1978 in which the results of typical penetrations were evaluated.
Based on a review of the documents by Mr. Mario Antonetti, of Gage Babcock and Associates, Inc., the existing penetration seals prevented igni-tion of the cables on the unexposed side of the seal for a period of three hours while the exposed side was subjected to a fire in accordance with the standard time temperature curve.
The existing fire barrier seals are adequate for their intended purpose.
FiRE PROTECTION REVIEW Maine Yankee SER 3.2.3 As part of the fire protection review for Maine Yankee, certain items contained in Section 3.2 of the Safety Evaluation Report required additional infonnation from the utility.
One of the items listed in this section re-quired the utility to submit test data demonstrating the qualification of the existing fire barrier penetration seals to have a fire rating of 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or commensurate with the fire loading.
In response to this, the Licensee submitted a test report with a cover letter dated August 16, 1979 in which the results of tests of typical existing penetrations were evaluated.
The test specimens were limited to 5-inch con-duit penetrations through a 12-inch thick concrete slab with typical fire bar-rier seals consisting of asbestos rope packing with a covering of Flamemastic 71A approximately 2-inches thick.
Other configurations included conduits which.were sealed with Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone foam or a combinatto~ of silicone foam and Flamemastic.
The silicone foam/Flamemastic combination seal met all of the test criteria. The seals employing only silicone foam passed the fire resistance and hose stream tests but allowed temperatures on the non fire exposed side to exceed test criteria. Seals consisting of asbestos rope and Flamemastic on both ends of the penetration passed the fire resistance requirements but al-l owed smoke in one case to pass through the seal and also failed the hose stream te?t* Seals employing Flamemastic and asbestos rope at only one side of the penetration generally failed the tests.
Based on the test results, the Licensee has requested approval to upgrade
.existing penetration seals employing asbestos rope and Flamemastic on one side of the penetration by adding the same material to the other side.
The Licen-see also seeks approval of upgrading the remaining penetrations by using either the double asbestos rope/Flamemastic seal or the Dow Corning silicone foam seal
- The data has been reviewed by our consultant, Mr. Ingemar Asp of Gage Babcock and Associate, Inc., and he has cone 1 uded that the inability of the double, asbestos rope/Flamemastic seals to completely block water from breach-ing the seals during the straight stream hose stream test is not considered an important factor.
Also, the elevated temperatures produced during the fire testing of the silicone foam seals at the non fire side of the penetration were not of a magnitude great enough to be considered significant.
Based on a review of the test data and evaluation of the above deviations from the test criteria by Mr. Asp, the proposed methods of upgrading the fire barrier seals of steel conduit containing electric cabling is considered ac-ceptable. This acceptance only pertains to conduit penetrations and not to cable tray or duct penetrations.