ML18094B362
| ML18094B362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1990 |
| From: | Crimmins T Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NLR-N90058, NUDOCS 9004040027 | |
| Download: ML18094B362 (4) | |
Text
r -
I Public Service Electric and Gas Company Thomas M. Crimmins, Jr.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4700 Vice President - Nuclear Engineering MAR 2 3 1990 NLR-N90058 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
CLARIFICATION OF THE APPENDIX R EXEMPTION FOR PANEL 335 SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 This letter requests a correction to one of the 10CFR50 Appendix R exemptions approved by the NRC for the Salem Generating Station on June 20, 1989.
During our continuing effort to complete plant modifications necessary to satisfy Appendix R commitments, a discrepancy was identified between one of the Appendix R exemption requests submitted by Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) on July 15, 1988 and the approved exemption granted in a letter from NRR dated July 20, 1989.
This discrepancy involves the suppression system for Panel 335 located within the units' containments.
The attachment to this submittal contains technical details relative to this issue.
This discrepancy was reviewed via telephone conference with Mr.
D. Kubicki of NRR on February 14, 1990.
Mr. Kubicki recommended that a discussion of this issue be included with the PSE&G submittal for proposed Technical Specifications for the emergency control air compressors.
However, a delay of even a limited duration will adversely impact meeting the installation commitments associated with the suppression system for Panel 335.
Also discussed with Mr. Kubicki, as detailed in the attachment, is the operator response that will be provided for water suppression system actuation.
Mr. Kubicki found these provisions satisfactory.
Currently a date of March 30, 1990, has been identified for contract award for development of the design change packages to support the installation in Unit 1 during the upcoming Fall outage.
~----=.-~,~~,(=---1*=--=***-:**-=* -~
,,------ 9004-04-0027 :: 1-F**[1Q ADOCK 05000272 I
F.....
\\.
Document Control Desk NLR-N90G58 2
PSE&G requests that this exemption clarification be reviewed on an expedited schedule.
PSE&G believes that a "Notice of Correction" or "Errata" can be provided to clarify that 1) a water suppression system involving remote manual action to open the containment fire suppression header isolation valve in lieu of a totally automatic system is to be installed for Panel 335 and 2) the choice of a dry pipe sprinkler system has eliminated the need for fire detectors to be used for system actuation as identified in our July 15, 1988 submittal.
MAR 2 3 1990 Should you have any questions or comments on this transmittal, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachment C
Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. w. T. Russell, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
ATTACHMENT CORRECTION TO APPENDIX R EXEMPTION REQUEST FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-70 AND DPR-75 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 NLR-N90058 License Exemption 12 for Fire Area 1 (2) FA-RC-78 (Containment),
submitted to the NRC in a letter from Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) on July 20, 1988, states, "To enhance the protection of Panel 355 on Elevation 100 1, a localized suppression system will be installed.
The system will be actuated by fire detectors.
If a water based suppression system is installed, provisions will be made to ensure rapid opening of the Containment fire suppression header isolation valve by the Control Room Operators."
(Enclosure 1, Page 33)
The exemption granted in the letter from NRR dated July 20, 1989, states, "At Panel 335, the licensee will install an automatic fire suppression system *.. "
(Section 8.3, Page 21)
The NRC staff misinterpreted our exemption request.
The staff assumed that we intended' to have an automatically actuated system regardless of whether the system was gaseous or water based.
Our intent was to provide an automatic system if a gaseous type suppression system were chosen; however, if a water based system were chosen, our intent was to have a system requiring operator action to open the containment fire suppression header isolation valve.
As noted in the exemption request, if a water based system were installed, provisions would be required to ensure rapid opening of the fire suppression header isolation valve by the control room operator.* This condition was included recognizing the normally closed position of the header isolation valve and the potential delay associated with personnel response to containment while at power.
The header isolation valve can be opened and closed using pushbuttons located in the control room.
The intent of our exemption request was therefore to include automatic controls to open the suppression system valve along with remote manual action to open the header isolation valve.
A conceptual design for the suppression system is now complete.
After reviewing the suppression agents available, we have determined that a water based system is the best choice.
A dry pipe sprinkler system has been chosen.
This type of system employs pressurized air to hold the suppression system valve closed.
Releasing the air by opening a thermally actuated fusible link sprinkler head causes the suppression system valve to open.
This therefore eliminates the need for fire detectors to be used for system actuation as identified in our July 15, 1988 submittal.
Page 1 of 2
~ttachment
- Appendix R Exemption Correction NLR-N90058 To supplement the system, early warning smoke detection will also be provided in the area around Panel 335.
Receipt of both an early warning smoke detector alarm and the dry pipe sprinkler system alarm.will require the control room operator to open the header isolation valve regardless of whether the fire brigade has entered containment to investigate the condition.
The approach of using two independent alarms has been taken to provide a level of confidence that equipment will not be inadvertently wetted.
It should be noted, however, that this does not prevent the header isolation valve from being opened in advance of receipt of both alarms.
If the fire brigade identifies the need to commence with fire fighting activities prior to the control room receiving the second alarm, the header isolation valve could be opened based on communication between the fire brigade leader and the control room operator.
Finally, it is clearly the goal to provide a system that meets the intent of the applicable National Fire Protection Association standards.
Recognizing that this system is a 11backfit 11, the potential exists for minor deviations from the standards.
The identification of such deviations is only accomplished coincident with development of the detailed system design. It is therefore not practical to provide a detailed "code" review at this time.
This review will be conducted as part of the actual design change package that will be utilized for system installation.
Page 2 of 2