ML19290E816
| ML19290E816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1980 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290E817 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003170072 | |
| Download: ML19290E816 (3) | |
Text
.
f k
UNITED STATES y ',
.cy g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g{ /
2y W ASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 gs;v February 25, 1980
..o.
Docket No. 50-313 Mr. William Cavanaugh, III Vice President, Generation and Construction Arkansas Power & Light Company P. 0. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Dear Mr. Cavanaugh:
By letters dated January 18 and 31,1979, you provided certain details on the modifications (AND-1 Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report, dated August 22,1978, Items 3.3 and 3.7) being made to protect safe shutdown cabling in the cable spread'ng room and corridor at elevation 372 feet for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1.
Our Fire Protection SER Supplement No.1 of May 23,1979, noted that we were continuing to review these items.
By letters dated March 19 and 20,1979, you provided a design descrip-tion of the protection for the corridor which would include an automatic
. directed water spray system as well as Kao-wool insulation on all cables from the " red" safety division. We have concluded our review and find that this modification will provide the protection we intended in the ANO-1 Fire Protection SER of August 22, 1978, and, the)efore, is accep-table.
Our lette of March 5,1979, identified specific items that should be satisfied in order for us to find the protection for the cable spreading room acceptable. We have reviewed your response datec March 19 and 20, 1979, and find that the basis for two of these items, (1) a demonstration of response time of the detector system and (2) an improvement in tha suppression system logic, have not been satisfied.
We agree with you that an acceptable in-situ test for response times of detectors is impractical.
Based on our evaluation of several licensees' attempts to develop methods for such tests, we find this beyond present state-of-the-art technology.
Without such testing and the evaluation of the test results, an adequate basis has not been provided to demonstrate the response time and demonstrate that the response time for the detection system is adequate to actuate the suppression system in the cable spreading room in time to protect redundant cables important to achieving and main-taining safe shutdown conditions.
(Such cables are contained in conduit and are in close proximity to rach other.) Also, an adequate basis has not been provided to demonstrl:e that the response time is adequate to notify the fire brigade in tir e t: allow them to extinguish a fire in time to protect such cables i: the w.amatic spray system fails to activate.
goo d
Mr. William Cavanaugh, III February 25, 1980 We also find that your basis for not improving the suppression system actua-tion logic to any one line detector or smoke detector zone with any other line detector or smoke detector zone does not resolve our concerns over sensitivity and reliability of the actuation circuit. The additional flexi-bility in the actuation circuit that would be provided by satisfying our position would assure prompt actuation of the system due to fires in transient combustibles or if portions of the detector system are out of service.
Because of the above deficiencies, we find that the fire protection system as proposed for the cable spreading room does not provide the protection we intended in our SER and is, therefore, not acceptable. Therefore, we request that you either enclose one division of redundant cables needed for safe shut-down in the cable spreading room with 3-hour (or lower rati ; if it can be justified) fire barriers, or alternate shutdown capabilig 4.. dependent of the cable spreading room.
You may also provide adequate justliication to resolve our concerns discussed above.
If alterna'.e shutdown capability is to be pro-vided, it should satisfy the enclosed position.
We request a response within 20 days of receipt of this letter that indicates which alternative will be implemented for the cable spreading room. However, if you cannot resolve this issue as indicated above, we request within the same 20 days a meeting with your staff and appropriate management individuals to resolve this action.
Sincerely,
,m s
./
Y Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Staff Position - Safe Shutdown Capability cc w/ enclosure: See next page
Arkansas Power & Light Company cc:
Mr. David C. Trimble Manager, Licensing Arkansas Power & Light Company P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Mr. James P. O'Hanlon General Manager Arkansas Nuclear One P. O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Mr. William Johnson U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2090 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Troy B. Conner, o.., Esq.
Conner, bbore & Cortar 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Arkansas Polytechnic College Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Director, Bureau of Environmental Health Services 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
.__