ML19329B279
| ML19329B279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1976 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Roe L TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002040671 | |
| Download: ML19329B279 (7) | |
Text
{
stributfor) e, i
Docket FiltF R. H. Vollmer IIRC PDR M. L. Ernst
/
Local PDR W. P. Gammill
'/
NOV 16 g6 LWR 1 File ELD D. B. Vassallo ACRS (16)
<6" F. J. Williams IE (3)
J. Stolz Jocket No. 50-346 L. Engle E. Hylton R. Heineman Toledo Edison Company D. Ross ATTri: Mr. Lowell E. Roe J. Knight, SS Vice President, facilities R. Tedesco Development H. Denton Edison Plaza V. A. Moore 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 bcc:
J. R. Buchanan, NSIC T. B. Abernathy, TIC Gentlemen:
SU;MRY OF t'EETIliG WITH TOLEDO EDISO' COMPArlY REGARDI?iG THE DAVIS SESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATIO 1, UllIT 1 SEPAPATION CRITERIA As you know, a meetir.g was held in Bethesda, %ryland on October 23, 1976, to discuss the separation criteria for wireways and conduits in the general plant areas and the cable spreading room of Davis Besse.
Unit 1 (08-1).
This meeting was a follow-up to our site visit of October 5, 7 and 3, 137 >, addressing the staff's concerns identified at the site (see Item 15 of the sita visit report dated clovember 15, 1976). The Enclosure to this letter identifies the concerns expressed by the staff and tneir resolution.
We request that you amend the DB-1 FSAR to conform with the resolutions as stated in tne Enclosure to this letter.
In order to expedite our review regarding these matters, we request your response be submitted by aovember 30, 1976.
If you cannot teet this date, please inform us wichin 5 days after receipt of this letter.
Please call us if you have any questions concerning these matters.
i Sincerely, origin 1 signed by diIn Y.$olz, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management W
\\
jyn p f i
t
Enclosure:
As stated s0020457(.
m m#:
LWR 1
, LWR l o,. c.
m LEn JStk II/kl76 lil/[v/76 Persa AIC 318 ( Art 9 53) ABCM 0240
- u. s. eovannaerwr pasurine orrects se74.sas.see
~
i
.2 e
Toled6 Edison Company NOV 16 1976 cc: Ifr. Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Gerald.Charnoff Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Fotts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 t.cslie Henry, Esq.
Fuller, Seney, lienry and Ifodge 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 l
orncs >
summa us h nave >
. _. ~.........
Form AEC 318 (b. 9-55) AECM 0240 W u. s. oovanmusNT eni=Teme oppissa se7a.sae. nee
ENCLOSURE MEETING
SUMMARY
, OCT0f5ER 28, 1976
)
DAVIS BESSE, UNIT 1 In a recent Amendment (36) to the FSAR the applicant described their proposed separation criteria for cable routing for general
' plant areas and in the cable spreading room (FSAR Figure 8-20 A, B, and C). The staff expressed concern that the proposed separation criteria as documented in Amendment 36 appeared to be inconsistent with information previously submitted and discussed with NRC Region III Inspection and Enforcement, and NRC Licensing. The applicant was requested and agreed to (1)' supple-ment the FSAR and provide justification for the proposed separation criteria used for cables routed in conduits, (2) clarify the apparent discrepancies in their proposed criteria, and (3) document the following commitments agreed upon during the meeting.
1.
The applicant stated that their separation criteria for totally covered trays, wireways and conduits is the same and committed to document this criteria in the FSAR.
2.
The applicant pointed out that limited amounts of "CCC" cable used for intercommunication between redundant safety logic cabinets are routed in wireways. This cable
'has not been verified by test to have equivalent flame retardant properties as the cables previously reviewed by the staff. To resolve the staff's concerns regarding fire in wireways, the applicant commited to inject flame retardant
" silicone rubber foam" inside the safety related wireways
2 k
wherever this cable is routed, and document this commitment in the FSAR. They will also provide justification supporting the adequacy of the fire characteristics of this material.
3.
The applicant agreed to document in the FSAR the following criteria for redundant safety related wireways when routed over open trays.
g.
g g
g) SAFETY RELATEd w'.RE aAts (c n u uet g y r 4) lb c
A oret4 Top trays a.
If "A" is less than 46 inches, adequate barriers extending hori:ontally no less than 12 inches to each side of the wireway between the open tray and the wireway, will be provided to preclude fire damage of redundant safety related wireways in the event of fire in the open tray.
b.
If "B" is less than 24 inches, an adequate fire barrier will be provided between the redundant wireways.
During the discussion, the applicant was advised that their design requirements for fire protection should be consistent with the requirements stated in Appendix A of Regulatory Position 9.5.1.
[
4 The applicant was requested and agreed to document in the l
FSAR that when thermal barriers are provided in areas where
~
~.
3 minimum horizontal distances between redundant trays and/or wireways is less than one inch, these thermal barriers would extend beyond these raceways with sufficient overlap (i.e., approximately hinch beyond the top of the tray and/or wireway and approximately hinch beyond the bottom of the tray or wireway).
S.
The staff's concern regarding cable routing in metal conduits could not be resolved during the meeting and remains an open item in the SER. The staff requested that the applicant justify their proposed criteria (as stated in Figure 8.20 A, B, and C of the FSAR, Amendment 36) in areas where redundant conduits are routed over open trays or modify their design to be compatible with the criteria established for wireways (see Item 4 and Item 1).
The applicant indicated that they may submit test results of the fire tests that were conducted on these conduits as their justification, or consider other alternatives.
In addition, the applicant identified that in areas throughout the plant the safety related. redundant conduit may be touching each other. Subsequent to the meeting the staff reviewed this design feature and concluded that such a design is unacceptable.
It is the staff's position that redundant j
1 conduits must be separated by at least one inch of free air space or suitable thermal barriers be provided. The applicant is requested to document the implementation of this requirement in the FSAR.
l
n.
4 The applicant stated that thermal blankets (Kawool~ or 6.
equivalent) will be provided on all open cable trays with certain exceptions (e.g., trays inside containment and within the cable spreading area). The applicant was requested to document this commitment in the FSAR, identify all exceptions and justify these exceptions on some other defined basis.
In addition, the staff is pursuing with the applicant the possibility of whether these blankets can be justified for use as barriers in other portions of the plant such as the cable spreading area.
e MEETING ATTENDEES DAVIS BESSE, UNIT 1 L. Engle NRC J. Stolz
.NRC A. Ungaro NRC R. Wright _
ACRS A. Szukiewicz NRC C. Miller NRC
-G. Stashih Bechtel J. Reilly.
Bechtel S. Saba Bechtel S. Cantor Bechtel P. Anas Bechtel F. Cheng Bechtel D. Hayes NRC-Region III F. Jablonski NRC-Region III G. Hurrell TECo.
M. Calcamuggio TECo.
L. Roe TECo.
i.
,