ML19305C393
| ML19305C393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1980 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003280483 | |
| Download: ML19305C393 (4) | |
Text
,f 'f 1
l z/ d ancoq'o UNITED STATES P
,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
i wassmorou. o. c.20sss Sp..O K. /
February 22, 1980 Dock:t No. 50-213 Mr. W. G. Counsil, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Post Offiu Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Dear Mr. Counsil:
By letter dated January 24, 1980, you requested relief from your connit-ment to provide flame retardant coatings for areas (a) the cable vault, and (b) the containment penetration area. These modifications concern-ing flame retardant coatings were documented in our SER dated April 4, 1978. We have reviewed your alternate approach to Item 3.1.16, Flame Retardant Coatings for the two areas noted above, and find it acceptable.
The results of cor review are enclosed.
< ncerely, Dennis L. Ziemann hief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Evaluation cc w/ enclosure See next page l
l 7
3 0 o ne so g_3
Mr. W. G. Counsil February 22, 1980 cc Day, Berry & Howard U. S. Environmental Protection Counselors at Law Agency One Constitution Plaza Region I Office Hartford, Connecticut 06103 ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR JFK Federal Building Superintendent Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Mr. James R. Himmelwright Northeast Utilities Service Company
~P. O. Lox 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street Middletown, Connecticut 06457 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Haddam, Connecticut 06103 Connecticut Energy Agency ATIN: Assistant Director Research and Policy Development Department of Planning and Energy Policy 20 Grand Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs I
( AW-459) i U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 i
ENCLOSURE HADDAM NECK - FIRE PROTECTION EVALUATION OF ITEMS FOR WHICH LICENSEE HAD PREVIOUS CONilTMENT AND PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH 3.1.16 Flame Retardant Coatings Our SER dated April 4,1978, noted that (a) a flame retardant coating udll be applied to cables in the cable vault, and (b) a flame retardant coating will be applied to cables routed in trays in the containment.
By letter dated January 24, 1980, the licensee requested relief from his commitment to provide flame retardant coatings for cable trays' in the cable vault and containment. The basis for this request is the licensee's evaluation and decision to replace all the existing penetration assemblies.
The new design will incorporate three design features as follows:
(a) All safety related cabling will be in conduit as it enters or leaves the penetration area, and is qualified to IEEE 383-1974, (b) All safety related cable will be routed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.75, and (c) Safety related penetrations will physically be located at the lowest level of penetration stacking to reduce exposure to fi re.
Based upon the above design features of the penetration replace-ment project the licensee requests relief from the requirement to apply flane retardant coatings to the cables in the cable vault and the containment.
We have evaluated the licensee's proposed alternative for the cable vault and the containment, and have talked via telecon on 2/13/80 with the licensee and the results cf our evaluation are as follows.
The licensee has stated in clarification of our concerns the following facts:
Cable Vault (a) All safety related conduit which enters the cable vault, from the point of entry at the pull box stations to the point of penetration at the containment boundary is loca:ec such that cable exposure fires will not affect the conduit.
_ _. ~ _
(b) Lube oil change out operations utilize a route of travel away from the penetration area and are only performed during plant shutdown periods.
Based upon the above clarifications we find that the licensee's proposed alternative to flame retardant coatings for the cable vault and containment penetration areas is acceptable.
l 1
I
, -. -.