ML19296C802
| ML19296C802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1980 |
| From: | Randy Hall BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002280540 | |
| Download: ML19296C802 (4) | |
Text
.
~..
- - - ~
' M CC 132.
3^ ' 2:
C 2144 7...~.--
February 20, 1930
r. Ecbert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch U.3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
Calvert Cliff, Fire Protection Review, Items 3.1.9, 3.1.13, 3.1.14, 3.1.15, 3.1.19, 3.1.20, and 3.1.21.
Dear Sob:
Enclosed are the Brookhaven National Laboratory inputs to all the Design Review items for Calvert Cliffs.
We intend to review the lengthy 3.2.1 item, Fire Hazard Analysis, in Bethesda on February 26, 1980 and complete the 3.2 item on schedule.
Resoectfully yours,
-- L c }
w Robert E. Hall, Group Leader Reactor Engineering Analysis REH:EAM:sd enclosure cc.:
R. Cerbone wo/ enc.
W. Kato T. Lee E. MacDougall V. Panciera wo/ enc.
<>t \\
8002n0 0 SVG
CALVERT CLIFFS - UNITS 1 and 2 Fire Protection Review Item 3.1.9 - Low Water Tank Level Interlocks The SER states that the fire pump controller will be modified to remove the fire water storage tank low level interlock from the control logic and that low water level storage tank alarms will be provided to annunciate in both the control room and the fire pump hcuse.
The licensee responded November 13, 1979 by stating that they will remove the control relays, that provided Icw storage water interlock, from each fire pump controller. They further stated that they would provide the required low level alarms incorporating the low water level switches in the storage tanks.
This is entirely acceptable to us and we recomend that the staff accept item 3.1.9.
Item 3.1.13 - Emercency Communication The SER states that communication equipment will be provided which is capable of maintaining communication between the control room and all areas of the plant, including the interior of containment, considering possible damage due to a single fire.
The licensee responded on November 13, 1979 stating an additional communication system will be provided which will be capable of maintaining comunications be-tween the control room and all areas of the plant including the containment.
They further stated that adequate separation between the new system and the existing systems will be provided so that a single fire at any location cannot disable both systems. On a later submittal (January 11,1980) the licensee described the proposed new system and enclosed sketches that showed the proposed layout.
The new system provides an adequate extension of the existing sound powered sys-tem so that the containment, containment stairways and turbine building are better covered for communications. The containment penetration route shown on the sketch is satisfactory.
however, the rest of the routing is not shown; we rec-ommend that the separation of the sound powered wiring and the plant paging sys-tem be documented by the licensee and reviewed by the staff.
Subject to approval of the separation of the routing of the new sound powered wiring, we find this item satisfactory. We recommend that the staff accept this item subject to the routing approval.
Item 3.1.14 - Hydrogen Piping SER Stection 3.1.14 indicates that an excess flow stop valve will be installed in the hydrogen supply line to the auxiliary building to automatically stop the flow of hydrogen in the event of a piping system ruoture.
By letter dated January 11, 1980, the licensee indicated that design drawings and details will be furnished for NRC staff review orior to implementing the above-described modification.
The implementation date for tnis modification is October,1980. We have not yet received the licensee's design drawings and details and recommend that this item remain open.
Item 3.1.15 - Addition of Curbs SER Section 3.1.15 indicates that the licensee will provide means to curb or contain potential oil / solvent spills in the hot machine shop and in the hot instrument shop.
By letter dated November 13, 1979, the licensee indicated that 2 inch high curbs had been installed at the entrances to the hot machine shoo and hot in-strument shoo, and provided calculations showing the capacities of the respective floor areas with the curbs installed.
We find the licensee's submittal satisfactory ar.J recommend that the staff accept this item.
Item 3.1.19 - Fire Detection in Safety-Related Areas Section 3.1.19 indicates that the licensee has proposed to install appropriate fire detection devices in some additional safety-related areas.
By letter dated December 21, 1979, as part of the response to SER Section 3.2.1, the licensee proposed to install smoke detectors or automatic sprinkler systems in various safety-related plant areas (except for the containment) previously described in the SER as lacking fire detection devices. The licensee's response to SER Section 3.2.2 also indicated that the successful bidder on the proposed new fire and smoke detection system will be required to test and verify that the new detectars will respond to the anticipated fires from fixed as well as postulated transient combustibles. The test for response characteristics will consider the physical parameters of the installation such as detector spacing, type of ceiling, ventilation characteristics and mounting details. The success-ful bidder will be required to furnish written certific= tion that the new system is adequate for the intended purpose.
By letter dated December 27, 1979, the licensee indicated that the evaluation of the containment area would be provided by January 11, 1980. This has not as yet been received by us.
The licensee's December 21, 1979 submittal did not provide sufficient detail for the staff to determine the acceptability of the method proposed for testing the effectiveness of the detectors to be installed.
Recent studies have indicated that the type of test requested by NRC is probably beyond the present state-of-the-art. NRC is in the process of develooing alternative acceptance criteria for fire detector installations. We will address this issue when such criteria become available. Our evaluation of the acceptability of sprinkler systems as detection devices in lieu of smoke detectors is discussed in our evaluation of the licensee's response to SER Section 3.2.1.
3.1.20 - Uncrotected Doonvavs SER Section 3.1.20 indicates that UL or FM listed fire doors of appropriate ratings will be installed or acceptable alternatives will be provided to protect the un-protected doorways in fire barriers separating various safety-related plant areas, including five doonvays in the computer rooms currently provided with non-fire-rated bulletproof doors.
By letter dated December 21, 1979, the licensee oroposed to uograde two cairs of existing nonrated doors, and to install automatic sprinkler systems in various other areas in lieu of installing rated fire doors.
The licensee also proposed to retain the bulletproof doors in the control room comolex on the basis that fires in this area would be detected promptly because the area is continuously occupied.
Our evaluation of the acceptability of the licensee's proposals regarding pre-sently unprotected doorways is contained in our evaluation of the licensee's response to SER Section 3.2.1.
3.1.21 - Manual Hose Coverage SER Section 3.1.21 indicates that the licensee has performed hose reach tests and proposed to provide several additional hose stations, and that the staff will further evaluate these modifications when the design details are available.
By letter dated November 13, 1979, the licensee provided drawings indicating the locations of existing and proposed interior hose stations and also those areas which would not be within effective range of a hose stream following the modifications.
There are seven plant areas which will be beyond the effective range of pre-connected hose streams.
In all of these, the combustible loading is estimated by the licensee to be 2,500 Btu per square foot or less. The evaluation of the acceptability of the licensee's proposal is included in our evaluation of the licensee's response to SER Section 3.2.1.