ML19341D097

Forwards Info Re Status of Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Supplementary Items.Three Items Remain Incomplete

ML19341D097
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	02/13/1981
From:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Berry G POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
References
NUDOCS 8103040892
Download: ML19341D097 (5)

Text

_ _ _

$l0

.~

~

,[,paasegk UNITED STATES

+

y g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

l wAsumcToN, D. C. 20556 Februa ry 13, 1981 Docket No. 50-333

,[

' h h+i re Mr. George T. Berry Presi ent and Chief Operating y,4 By

{

8/

l g

Power Authority of the State of New York 9

/

10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 p

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F FIRE PROTECTION SAFETY EVALUATION SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS Since mid-1979, there has been an on-going review of the supplementary items to the James A. FitzPatrick Fire Protection Safety Evaluation (Amendment No. 47). Our review of 2 of the 5 remaining items ias been completed while 3 items are incomplete. is a listing of these 18 items.

The status of each item is provided.. Enclosure 2 provides the evaluations for the 2 completed items.

If we can be of further assistance, please advise.

Sincerely,q e'/

A

/

,7 Thomas A. Ippolito Chi f Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

1.

FitzPatrick Fire Protection Review Status 2.

FitzPatrick Additional Fire Protection Information Review cc w/ enclosures:

See next page

-8103040 N f

Mr. George T. Berry cc:

Mr. Charles M. Pratt Assistant General Counsel Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. J. Phillip Bayne Senior Vice President -

Nuclear Generation Power Authority of the State of New York 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. Ra,wced J. Pasternak Resident Manager James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, New York 13093 Director, Technical Development Programs State of fiew York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 George M. Wilverding Manager-Nuclear Licensing 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 State University College at Oswego Penfield Library - Documents Oswego, New York 13126 Resident Inspector c/o U. S. NRC P. O. Box 136 Lycoming, New York 13093

. o.

ENCLOSURE 1 FITZPATRICK NUCLEAT. POWER PLANT '

FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW STATUS 00CKET NO. 50-333 Item Descriotion Status

• 3.1.8 Ventilation Systems C

3.1.17 Total Flooding CO2 Suppression Systems C

,3.1.18 Fire Detection and Signaling Systems

.C

~

3.1.19 Exposed Structural Steel C

3.1.20 Electrical' Cable Penetration Qualification C

3.2.2-Pipe Penetrations C

Fire Water Piping System C

3.2.3

3.2.4 Diesel Fire Pump Rocm Sprinkler Head Spacing C

3.2.5.

Fire Door Supervision C

3.2.6 Signaling Circuits Supervisi:n C

3.2.7 Fire Pump Performance C

3.2.S Fire Pumo Capacity C

3.2.9 Testing C02 Fire Su pression System C

3.2.10 Cres:ent Area Fire Protectier.

C 3.2.11 Cable Flame Tests C'

3.1.9 Alternate Shutdewn Cacability :.elay Room UR 3.1.15 Alterna:s shutde..n Capabili y-CS:.

UR

3. 2.1 Fire Hazard Analysis UR

• ^ - :~.csed

.R

'.r:er review S

e e

l I

i e

+.

ENCLOSURE 2 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING ERANCH/ FIRE PROTECTION SECTION FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW FITZ?ATRICK NUCLEAR PCWER PLANT DOCKET NO E0-333 ELECTRICAL CABLE PENETRATION OUALIFICATION, SECTION 3.1.20 In the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report, it.tas our cencern that cable and cable tray penetration of fire. barriers (both vertical and hori-zental) were not sealed adequately to give protection at least equivalent to.that required-of the fire barrier.

We recommended that the design or fire barrier penetration seals for horizontal and vertical cable trays should be qualified b'y tests using the time-temperature ex;csure curve specified by ASTM E-119.

By' letter dated Novemb'er 20, 1950, the licensee crovided a test report of

-en y penetration seal configurations. The ::nfi;.raticns re;resentec si.tner existing seal designs or ;r::csed methocs to u: grading the existing c:::ustible urethane fcam/ fiberglass penetration selis <.ith a silic:ne elastomer. The test censisted of four separate fire tests.

All fcur tests were conducted utilizing the standard ASTM E-il9 time-temperature curve f 0r 3-n urs. At the c nclusion of each fire test, the slabs were transferre~c f : the fire test furnance tc a se:arate area for twe different typ.as of h:ss stream tests. The first hess-stream tes: utili:ed a 75 psi s; ray de-livered through a 1-1/2" n ::le set 3: a 10-300 angle from a distance of 10 feet. Tne sec:nd h se-stream tes: utili:ed a 3C :si sclid stream delivere:

througn a 2-1/2" diameter Naticnal Standard :las:i:s no::le fr = a distan:s

f 2~ feet.

In each case, the hose-strsam was ': ire:tec :nt the tes; speci-ar f r 12 sfconcs. The se:Ond hess-stream tes; mests -he requirements Of

ni -57M Standard Methed cf Fire Tests of Throu:n-Fenetra:icn Fire 5tces

.(?s:ruary 9, 1979). The first hcse stream test'is not required by tnis stan ard.

The # ll wing c:serva:i:ns ;ere made during and a':Er t..e test.

Sm ke

s era-icn frcm the unex

: sic surface cf each tss: #ixture was light f:r ali four tests. T5rcugnou each test, fire did net penetrate any of the seal specimens, nor did fire occur en any unexposed seal surfaces because cf heat conduction. None of the cables on the unexposed side ignited.

Water did not penetrate through any of the seals as a result of the hose-stream tests.

The licensee has.utili. zed the ASTM E-il9 time-temperature curve which is the standard curve usec in fire endurance tests.

Additionally, the licensee su:jected the penetra icn seals to a hose stream test which exceeded the rc:uirements of the ASTM standard. Further, since acne of the cables on the unexpcsed side ignited and based on our review of the temperatures recorded en the unexposed side, we conclude that the maximum temperature recorded on the unexposed' side is beicw the cable, ignition temperature.

g-e

.s Base on the test method and test results, we conclude that the tested

erstration seal designs are cualified.as 3-hour fire rated seals.

Based en our review, we conclude that the licensee has qualified the ~

penetration seal designs in accordance with an acceptable test method.

The acceptance criteria, for the seals was in accordance with the criteria of Section III, Paragraph M, " Fire Barrier Cable penetration Seal Quali-fication", of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50.43, and, therefore, we find the

.-penetration seals acceptable.

FIRE PUMP CAPACITY, SECTION 3.2.8 In the SER, it was our concern that a single fire pume may not be capable of meeting the fire water-ficw demand (flow and pressure) for all plant areas.

3y 'etter dated September 5,1979, the licensee identified the plant areas

~

.. hare a single fire pum: was not capable of meeting M.he :cmbined cemanc f:r the fixed water sucoressions systems and 1000 g;: fcr manual hose streams in all plant areas. The licensee stated that the pump capacity

..as 200 to 600 gpm less than the estimated total demand in the areas under,

tne turbine operating floor. We informed the licensee that their fire 0.r:s we-e unacceptable.

By letter dated November 20, 1930, the licensee revided new hydraulic calculations and the resul'. ant cum: curve for the water su;pressien systems i- : ese areas.

T e se hydraulic calcuistions.snich the licensee has :revided were b'ased r ar average density design basis methed and a'.lcwee 1000 gpm for hese Acccrding to tne average density design tasis method the water

,s: reams.

s ::iy should be ca;able cf :reviding the average density at the design

~

area, nc necessari'y aintaining this density a-the nest remote heac.

The a era;e design densi y ethcc is adepuate t: ce: ermine the sprinkler

a and.

Based on.our review, we conclude that a single fire pump has the capacity to supply any fixed fire water suppression system plus an adequate reserve for fire hose streams. Further,.we find that the fire pump capacity meets Se: tion C.S.b(5) of ST? APC53 9.5-1 and, therefore, is acceptable.

9 e

o

>Q,