ML19253A334
| ML19253A334 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1979 |
| From: | Moody D Maine Yankee |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253A335 | List: |
| References | |
| WMY-79-81, NUDOCS 7908210356 | |
| Download: ML19253A334 (2) | |
Text
5
- r I
4
~..~. 2."J
/
I i
y LN
\\
a
$. J L2
. liiAlllE U!illiiEE WM?E5Gm:D TURNPIKE ROAD (RT. 9)
WESTBoR O, M ASSACHUSETTS 01581 j
ENGINEERING OF FtC5 617-366-9011
\\
Q[
- /
%t:.-3:.0 August 16, 1979 WMY-79 81 1
f United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Robert W. Reid, Chief Operatinr; Reactors Branch #4 l
Division of Operating Reactors (a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)
References:
(b) USNRC letter to R. H. Grcce from R. W. Reid dated April 21, 1978, Subjcet:
Acendr.ent No. 37 to Facility Operating License (c) MYAPC letter to H. W. Reid, FMY 79-6, dated January 29, 1979, subject:
Fire Protection System Information Submittal
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Fire Barrier Penetration Seals The Fire Protection Safety Evaluation report included in Reference (b) above contained a Table 3 2, which listed informatica that Maine Yankee On would submit to you to be addressed in a supplement to the SE?..
we submitted c'est of the outstanding information January 29, 1979, Included in that information was a Table prepared (Reference (c) above).
by our fire protection consultant which indicated his conclusions on the Since that time rating for cable penetration seals through plant walls.
we have finished our testing of our Cable Penetration Sealing system.
The testing was done at Construction Technology Lateratories, a division of the Portland Cement Associaticn on March 13, 1979 The test report has been received and a copy is included for your review.
The results of the tests for Conduits 5, 6, and 9 are the enes of Conduits 5 and 6 contained a representative fill of it.tcrest to us.
cable, one control and the other power, and were sealed with asbestos rope and Flanastic 71A on both fire side and nor.-fire side of the penetration.
7908210 Y 1 2090 288
P P
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page two These conduits and their seals both held for the full three hours against the passage of fire.
The temperature on the unexposed face of both seals remained within acceptable limits. We do not feel that the emission of smoke from Conduit 5 is of any significance.
These tests were floor tests, more severe than what would be expected in the plant. As is indicated in the Table in Reference (c), the actual fuel loading in u'st of the areas where the seal will be used is less than one hour.
In addition, the second seal of the same type did not fail in that manner.
We also feel that the failure of the seal in Conduit 6 during the hose stream test is of no significance. No one will be using a straight stream from a hose in the areas which have these seals.
If water is used at all, it will be with fog nozzles or with sprinkler systems.
Therefore, there will be no chance of a straight stream from a hose punching a hole through a penetraticn seal.
Conduit 9, the silicon foam seal, passed the fire test with no failures of any kind and needs no further explanation.
Maine Yankee intends to use the sealing systems from Ccnduits 5, 6, and 9 in the plant. We will upgrade all penetration seals which currently consist of asbestos rope and Flamastic 71A on one side of the penetraticn by adding the same material on the other side. We will then seal the rest of the cable penetrations which we agreed to using either the double asbestos rope /Flamastic 71A seal or the silicon foam seal, depending upon the case of application in a particular area.
We will use the Table and the information contained in Reference (c) as the basis for seal rating.
We trust this is acceptable to you.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
.b Y
~I D. E. 5 ody Manager of Operations EAS/sec 2090 289