ML19340D156
| ML19340D156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000017 |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1977 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012290208 | |
| Download: ML19340D156 (1) | |
Text
_ _.
h
'o, UNITED STATES 8
'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASM NGTON, D. C. 20566 December 8,1980 Docket No. 50-261 Mr. J. A. Jones Senior Executive Vice President Carolina Power and Light Company 336 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Jones:
We have reviewed all the information you have provided to date regarding the H. B. Robinson fire protection program. presents our evaluation o f ite7s 3.1.2(a), 3.1.2(b), 3.1.11, 3.1.17, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8 and 3.2.9, which we find acceptable. is a tabulation showing the status of the Robinson fire protection program.
S $ncerely, f
J hwR $9 ven A. Varga, Chi
't IOperating Reactors nch #1 Division of Licensi Enclosures :
As Stated cc: w/ enclosures See next page i
m b
EL f
Ci
~
S e
j El2 i
fd!
9 me a
5'f U
F s.
6032290 Yb {
o 5
fir. J. A. Jones Carolina Power and Light Company December 8,1980 cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Hartsville Memorial Library Hone and Fifth Avenues Hartsville, South Carolina 29550 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Route 5, Box 266-lA Hartsville, South Carolina 29550 Michael C. Farrar, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard S. Salzman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 l
l
cIRE PROTECTION REVIEW 0F ACCEPTABLE ITEMS 1
H. B. ROBINSON 2 50-261 Fire Detection, Section 3.1.2 (a)
In the Fire Brotection safety Evaluation Report, it was our concern that the plant does not have. complete fire detection coverage. Some areas containing or exposing safety related systems do not have fire detection systems. Also, we were concerned that portions of the existing fire detection system are not supplied from an emergency power source.
By letter dated January 28, 1980 the licensee comitted to provide additional detectors and detection systems to 18 fire areas. The licensee replaced the existing high voltage system with a new low voltage fire detection system.
The licensee also prpposed to connect the fire alarm system to an emergency power scurce.
Based on our review, we conclude that the additional fire detectors and detection systems meet the guidelines in Section E.1 of Appendix A to STP APCSB 9.5-1 and theref ore are acceptable.
Fire Detectors 3.1.2(b)
In the SER, it was our concern that the smoke detectors might not respond to the products of combusticn for the combustibles in the. area where smoke detectors are installed. We were also concerned that ventilation air flow patterns in the area might reduce or prevent detector response and we recomended that the licensee perform an in-situ smoke detector test.
By letters dated April 28, 1978 and April 2, 1979,.the licensee provided an evaluation of the fire detector locations. This evaluation, which was pre-pared by experienced personnel, demonstrates that adequate investigation of ventilation factors preceeded detector placement.
The required methodology for the in-situ smoke detector test is beyond the current state-of-the-art and, therefore, an in-situ test cannot be performed at this time.
We find that with acceptable bench testing of smoke detectors, and consider-l ing that the smoke detection systems meet appropriate NFPA codes and are designed by experienced personnel, the smoke detectors are acceptable.
t l
t
4
. Portable Fire Extincuishers. Section 3.1.11 In the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report, we were. concerned that portable water type fire extinguishers were not provided in the control room area and the containment cable penetration area.
By letter dated March 18,1980 the licensee provided a water type fire By letter dated June 12, 1980 extinguisher for the control room.
the licensee proposed to install four standpipes inside containment with each stanopipe supplying.two hose stations with 75 feet of hose.
The system is designed to provide hose coverage to all parts of the floors.
Based on our review, we conclude that the fire extinguisher and standpipe system meet the guidelines in Section E.6, E.3 and F.1 of Appendix A to BTP-APCS 89.5-1, and are therefore, acceptable.
Insulation of Pices. Section 3.1.17 In the SER, it was our concern that the "A" diesel generator fuel supply line was routed through the "B" diesel generator room, and a section of the "B" diesel service water line was routed through the "A" diesel gen-erator room.
By letter dated January 28, 1980, the licensee indicated that the section of the "A* diesel generator fuel supply line which had been routed through the "B" dissel generator room was rerouted outside that room and is no longer recuired to be insulated. By letter dated June 12, 1980, the licensee pro-viced information on the thermal properties of the insulation chosen for the service water line, and heat transfer calculations which demonstrate that the temperature of the water in the pipe would not exceed IC00F during a fire in The licensee has proposed to install three inches of this hydrous the room.
calcium silicate insulation on the exposed portion of the service water line.
Based on our review, we find the licensee's proposed modifications to install three inches of hydrous calcium silicate insulation on the exposed portion of the service water line mid. rerouting of the "A" diesel generator fuel supply line are adequate to resolve our concerns and, therefore, is acceptable.
Fire Coor Supervision. Section 3.2'.2 In the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report, it was our concern that the nonsupervised fire doors protecting. safety relateo areaswere not adequately identified and a methods were not available to insure that these doors will renain closed.
By letter dated March 18, 1980 the licensee proposed that fire doors be kept closed and inspected daily to verify that they are in the closed position'.
Based on this commitment we conclude that the proposed inspections will satisfy our concerns and, therefore, are acceptable.
-3 Propane Tank and Piping Section 3.2.3 In the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report, the concern was the fire hazard associated with the propane tank supplying the propane engine driven fire pump and its affect on safety related equipment in the imediate area.
By letter dated March 18, 1980, the licensee preposed to replace the propane engine driven fire pump with a diesel engine and to relocate the propane tank to the Unit No.1 (non-nuclear) in take structure.
Based on the licensee's comitments we conclude that the relocation of the propane tank to a separate detached building which will not have any adverse effect on safety related equipment meets the guidelines of Section D.2(b) of Appendix A to STP-APCSS 9.5-1 and therefore is acceptable.
Containment General Area. Section 3.2.4 In the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report it was our concern that adequate fire protection was not provided inside containment.
By letter dated June 12, 1980, the licensee proposeo to install a system of four standpipes and eight hose stations inside to containment with the water supply to this sytem isolated during nomal plant operation.
Based on our review, we conclude that the proposed modifications provide an acceptable level of fire protection inside containment, and therefore we find them acceptable.
Containment Cable Penetration Area. Section 3.2.5 In the SER, it was our concern that the fire protection provideo for the containment cable penetration area was not adequate to preserve the safe shutdown capability.
By letter dated June 12, 1980, the licensee proposed to install a manually actuated fixed fire suppression system for protection of the containment cable penetration area. The system will be designed to provide at least 0.3 gallonsper minute of water per square foot over the entire electrical penetrati,on area.
Based on our review, we concluce that the proposed fixed fire suporession system meets the guidelines in Section E.3 (C) of Appendix A to 3TP-APCSB 9.5-1 and, therefore is acceptable.
4
-4.
Administrative Controls, Section 3.2.6 In the SER, it was our concern that the licensee's fire brigade training and administrative controls were not adequate.
By letters dated March 30, 1978 February 1,1980, March 18,1980, and March 25,1980, the licensee provided additional information regarding their fire protection administrative controls.
We informed the licensee that they do not comply with our administrative control guidelines for fire brigade training and controls for untreated wood.
By letter dated November 6,1980, the licensee stated that it had prepared an administrative program which meets the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 which will be implemented by December 15, 1980. We conclude that this commitment satisfactorily resolves this item.
Fire Water Piping Rupture, Section 3.2.7 In the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report, we were concerned about the consequences of a rupture of the fire water system.
By letter dated June 12, 1980, the licensee informed us that one pipe ruptu ? would cause immediate damage to MCC No. 5 in the auxiliary building on elevation 226. Water damage due to fire water piping failures will be handled by appropriate operations.
The licensee proposed to initiate an investigation to determine methods of protecting MCC No. 5 from direct water impingement.
To meet the requirements of Section III.G of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, we required that water shields or baffles be provided for protection of safety-related equipment at the MCC No. 5 in the auxiliary building, on elevation 226.
By letter dated November 6,1980, the licensee stated that it had constructed a spray shield to protect MCC No. 5 from a fire water system rupture.
We find this acceptable.
Fire Hose Replacenents. Section 3.2.8 In the SER, it was our concern that the fire hoses may not be adequate.
We had reconsnended that the licensee replace the existing linen hoses,.
when they are due to replacement, with mildew-proot, heat-resistant,100 percent polyester single jacket, synthetic rubber lined hoses rated not less than 300 psi by UL/FM label.
By letter dated March 3, 1980, the licensee connitted to comply with this requirement.
Based on the licensee's connitment, we fina the licensee's fire hoses acceptable.
Fire Hydrant Cold Weather Protection, Section 3.2.9 In the SER, it was our concern that the inspection program needed to protect hydrants against damage cue to freezing temperatures was inadequate.
By letter dated March 19, 1980, the licensee inoicatec that they will perform semiannual inspections of outside hydrants through performance of periodic test PT-9.0.3.
Based on.the licensee's connitment, we find the licensee's fire hydrant cold weather protection is adequate to protect the fire hydrants and, therefore is acceptable.
l l
l l
l l
FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW STATUS H. 8. ROBINSON 50-261 I
Item Description Status 3.1.2(a )
Fire Detectors-Emergency Pcwer C
3.1.2(b)
Fire Detectors--In-Situ Test C
3.1.11 Portable Fire Extinguishers C
3.1.17 Insulation of Pipes C
3.1.21 Lube Oil Shielding System R
3.1.24 Electrical Cable Penetrations R
3.2.1 Auxiliary Shutdown System UR 3.2.2 Fire Door Supervision C
3.2.3 Propane Tank and Piping C
3.2.4 Containment General Area C
3.2.5 Containment Cable Penetration Area C
3.2.6 Administrative Controls C
3.2.7 Fire Water Piping Rupture C
3.2.8 Fire Hose Replacement C
3.2.9 Fire Hydrant Cold Weather Protection C
- C-Cl o sed R-Requirement UR-Under Review f
f l
4 I
L.