ML18139B097
| ML18139B097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1981 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ferguson J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102260758 | |
| Download: ML18139B097 (8) | |
Text
..
f'
- 1~e 1 3 19 a1 Docket Nos. ~
and 1
~
Mr. J. H
- Ferguson Executive Vice President - Power Virginia Electri~ and Power Company
'Post Office Box 26666 Rf chmond, Virgfhi a ) 23261
--~.
DISTRIBUTION:
Dicket File 50-280/281 NRC PDR L PDR TERA NSIC ORB/fl Rdg DEiseM\\.ut RPurple TNovak RTedesco Glainas JHeltemes OELD I&E (3)
SVarga
- D!2ar,Mr. Fergu~on:
DNei ghbors Gray FI1e ACRS(16)
CParrish
_ We have reviewed the:informatfon:-you provided.to*:da:'{ie regarding t~bi{Surry Fire Protection Program. This includes your.last *submittal dated'/-c,
- January 30, 1981.
Enc*losure-l-presents, Sup.pl elllent 2-of [!5ur evaluation of' several open items indicated in our Fire Prot-ectfon-Safety Evaluation Report-issued September 19, 1979..
Items 3.1.16(2);,.,3.l..18{1L. 3.1.18(3), 3.1.18(fl), 3.1.18(8),
3.1.26(1) and 3.. 1.26(2)"~ave been reviewtld_,~_nJl are acceptable.
- Enclosure 2 lists \\the*:remaining unresolved issues, of the Surry Fire Pro-tection Program *.. ;-
Enc 1 osures :
As Stated cc: w/enclosures See next page Sincerely, i,,,.ned. t>1 ;_
- o iginal s t:>
~.
'* ~
A va.rsa
)?,*
Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Licensing OFFICE~ * ***O_P** **ORB#l*:DI:.****** **:.;;********_***:........................................................................................
suRNAME* *DNe~ars;* ts**S*\\farga*******.V...Y..'11/.'...................................................................... _....................
DATE~
,--,;, *** :.-;-: *** **, *...,;":." ****,*.~~.;* *** *.?:/t.~!~.l.... ** ***, ****........., ***...................................... _.................... **
- NRC FORM 318110/801 NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
-, USGPO: 1980-329-824
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. J. H. Ferguson e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASH_INGTON, 0. C. 20555 February 1 3, 1981 Executive Vice President - Power Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
We have reviewed the infonnation you provided to date regarding the Surry Fire Protection Program.
This includes your last submittal dated January 30, 1981. presents Supplement 2 of our evaluation of several open items indicated in our Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report issued September 19, 1979.
Items 3.1.16(2), 3.1.18(1), 3.1.18(3), 3.1.18(7), 3.1.18(8),
3.1.26(1) and 3.1.26(2) have been reviewed and are acceptable. lists the remaining unresolved issues of the Surry Fire Pro-tection Program.
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: w/enclosures*
See next page s :rrely(.V~*'.
teven A. Varga,~ief Operating Reactor~Branch #1 Division of Licensing.
=-;-------------------------------~ -----
Mr. J. H. Ferguson Virginia Electric and Power Company cc:
Mr. Michael w. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23213 Mr. J. L. Wilson, Manager P.O. Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Swem Library College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 Donald J. Burke, Resident Inspector Surry Power Station U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 166 Route l Surry, Virginia 23883
e ENCLOSURE 1 SUPPL.EMENT 2 TO FIRE PROTECTION SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 1979 SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 ANO 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280/281
- GAS SUPPRESSION SYSTEM, SECTION 3.1.16(2)
In the SER, it was our concern that the high pressure carbon dioxide systems
- failure could be undetected because alarms are not provided in the control room to* alert the*operators to a low pressur.e condition in the pilot bottle for the system.
- sy letter dated October 29, 1980, the licensee provided additional informa-t1on regardin~ modifications for the high pressure carbon dioxide systems.
The* licensee has proposed to rep.lace the. pneumatic controls with appropriate
- _electric controls. Tbe system no longer utilizes a pilot bottle and, therefore, the supervision of the pilot bottle no longer is a con*cern.
Based on the licensee's modification, we conclude that the gas suppression system is now acceptable.
HOSE STATIONS, SECTION 3.1.18(1) and 3.1.18(8)
In the SER, it was our concern that. the. number and. location of the manua 1 hose
- stations may not b.e adequate to provide.ah effective ho.se str~am to all safety-related areas of the plant.
By letter dat~d January 30, 1981, the.licensee verified that all areas of the plant containing safety-related equipment can be reached by hose stations.
The licensee ilso verified that the existing hose stations in the turbine building have sufficient hose reach to'.cover all areas of the switchgear rooms and are equipped with nozzles suitable for extinguishing electrical fires.
Based on the licensee's verification, we conclude that there are sufficient
. hose stations so that at least one effective hose stream will be able to reach any safety-related area which meetsSection III(D) of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 and,.therefore, the number of hose stations are acceptable.
HOSE STATIONS, SECTION 3.1.18(3)
In the SER, it was our concern that the manua 1 fire suppress-ion capabi 1 ity for the cable tray rooms and rrechanical equipment rooms may not be adequate.
We recommended that a 1~-inch hose station.be provided at the entrance of the Unit 2 cable tray room with sufficient hose to reach all areas of both cable tray rooms and mechanical equipment rooms 1 and 2.
By letters dated June 30, 1980 and January 30, 1981, the licensee provided the design details for the hose station at the entrance of the cable tray
- rooms.
In addition, the licensee verified that the hose station has sufficient
e hose to reach all areas of both cable tray rooms and mechani.cal equipment rooms land 2.
The hose rack outside the cable tray room is equipped with a fog-type spray nozzle. This type nozzle is suitable for electrical fires ~nd there-fore adequate for this area~
Based on the licensee's verification that the hose rack outside the~cable tray room has sufficient hose to reach all areas of both cable tray rooms and mechanical equipment rooms land 2, we conclude that the manual fire suppression capability for.these areas is adequate. Further the licensee's proposed modi-fication meets Section C.S(c)(4) of BTP Asa 9.5-1 and, therefore, is acceptable.
HOSE STATIONS, SECTION 3. l. 18(7)
In the SER, it was our concern that all locations on the 29-feet, 6-inch ele-vation of the turbine building may not be reached by a maximum of 100 feet of 1~-inch hose attached to an interior hose station or attached to 2~-inch
- hose from a yard hose cabinet. Therefore, the manual fire suppression would not be adequate.
By letter dated January 30,.1981, the licensee verified that all locations on the 29-feet,,6-inch, elevation of the turbine building can be reached by a maximum of 100..:feet of l~-:inch hose attached to an interior hose station or attached to 2~-inch hose from a yard hose cabinet~.
Based o~ the licensee~s ~erification, ~e conclude the manual fire-suppression capability for the 29-feet, 6-inch elevation of the turbine building meets Section C.S.c(4) of BTP ASB 9.5-1 and, therefore, is acceptable.
W..;TER SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, SECTION 3.1.26{1)
In the SER, it was our concern that tbe fire protection for each new filter unit added to the auxiliary building ventilation system may not be adequate.
By letter dated J_anuary 30, 1980, the 1 icensee verified that the new filter bank is provided with sprinkler system protection.
- This is one of the acceptable methods listed in Reg. Guide 1.52, "Design~
Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Post Accident Engineered-Safety-Feature At~osphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Ligh-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants". Therefore, we conclude that the use of the sprinkier system to mitigate the radioactive material releases from fires of charcoal filters is acceptable.
WATER SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS, SECTION 3. 1.26(2)
In the* SER, it was our concern that the sprinkler heads in the turbin~ *building installed under grating walkways may-not be actuated i.n the event of a fire.
We recommended that these sprinkler heads be equipped with heat collectors.
e e -
By letter.dated January 30, 1981, the licensee verified that heat collector plates have been installed over the. sprinkler heads per NFPA* requirements.
Based on the licensee's verification, we conclude that the heat collector plates meet the recolTITlendations of Section A-3~15-8 of NFPA 13 and, therefore, the sprinkler system in the turbine building is acceptable.
."L 3.1.4 3.1.10,
- 3. l..30 3.2.5 3.1.5 3.1.23"
- 3. 1.25 3.2.3 e
e ENCLOSURE 2 UNRESOLVED FIRE PROTECTION ISSUES SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
. DOCKET NOS: so~2ao;2a1 Cable Tray Covers Fire Barriers Technical Specification In-Situ Testing Safe Shutdown Cir-cuitry Monitoring Panels Safe Shutdown Safe Shutdown Analysis