ML19296B179
| ML19296B179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296B176 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002200215 | |
| Download: ML19296B179 (3) | |
Text
'
3.0 EVALUATION The foilowing provides our evaluation of the incomplete items.
Numbers in parenthesis following each heading refer to the Sections of our previously issued SER which address these incomplete items.
3.1 Alternate Shutdown Capability (3.2.1)
Our SER noted that an alternate means to safely shut down would be provided which is independent of areas where redundant systems could be damaged by fire. The alternate shutdown system review has been deferred to the SEP program and will be addressed in a supplement to this report.
3.2 Smoke Detection System Tests (3.2.2)
Our SER noted that in-situ tests would be conducteu sith a suitable smoke generation device to verify that a fire would be promptly detected by installed smoke detectors and that ventilation air flow patterns in the area do not sign 1ficantly reduce or prevent detection response. Bench tests would be conducted to verify that smoke detectors would provide prompt response and have adequate sensitivity to the products of combustion for the combustibles in the area where smoke detectors are installed.
If any fire detection systems are found tcr,be inadequate, appropriate modifications will be made to provide adequate performance.
By letter dated July 31, 1979, the licensee indicated that various concepts had been reviewed and that use of a technique developed by NUTECH Corporation for siting of fire detectors showed some merit. The licensee evaluated NUTECH's technique in a demonstration test held at the Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant on August 23 and 24, 1979. The licensee concluded that although NUTECH's concepts have advanced the state-of-the-art, more testing or qualification would be necessary to provide assurance of acceptability.
The staff has also evaluated the NUTECH tests and has concluded that the method does not satisfy the staff requirement; the test requirement is beyond present state-of-the-art technology.
In addition, the NUTECH test report contains major deficiencies which detract from the credibility of the test method, sucn as inconsistencies in the interpretation and presentation of data, the use of unexplained rationale which require additional in-plant testing to improve the derived test results.
O'
' The licensee should therefore be relieved of any schedule or commitment with this requirement until acceptance criteria can be developed that can be applied with the present day technology.
Hewever, the licensee has not provided any information on the requirement to conduct bench tests of smoke detectors for verification of prompt response and sensitivity to products of combustion in the area where installed. Therefore, we will require that this be done to comply with the requirements of our previously issued SER.
3.3 Cable Fire Barrier Penetration Test Data (3.2.3)
We noted in our SER that test data would be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of electrical cable fire barrier penetrations.
The licensee provided information on the cable fire barrier penetrations by let%rs dated July 31 and October 9,1979.
The data contained
.1 the letter of July 31, 1979 indicates that the penetrations are sealed with Dow Corning Q3-6548 medium density Silicone RTV Foam. The installer certifies the materials used to the ASTM-E-119 Fire Endurance Test and indicates that they have been installed as three hour fire seals.
We have reviewed the test data, the certifications and any exceptions. The exceptions documented in the licensee's letter of October 9,1979, meets our requirements as indicated in our previously issued SER, Section 3.1.14 item 4, which indicates a one hour rating for the switchgear room zone S-8.
We have reviewed the combustible loading for this room contained in the licensee's fire hazards analysis. The loading is not sufficiat to breach a one hour rated barrier seal.
We find that the certifications provided demonstrate the adequacy of the cable fire barrier penetrations except that they do not show that a pressure differential across the seal (with the higher pressure on the exposed side) that is equivalent to the maximum pressure differential a fire barrier is expected to experience has no effect on the performance of the penetration seal. Subject to such a demonstration we find these seals,
acceptable.