ML20002A680
| ML20002A680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002A677 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011210245 | |
| Download: ML20002A680 (7) | |
Text
.
~k, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
a WASHIMITON D.C.20005 o
?
November 5,1980
%, *...../
Docket Nos. 50-254 50-265 Mr. J. S. Abel Director of Nuclear Licensing Consonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Abel:
In the Quad Cities Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report dated July 27, 1979, we identified a number of items which could not be evaluated until additional infonnation was provided. Enclosure 1 to this letter is our evaluation'of the following iterr:-
3.1.1 1)
Fire Detection Systems 3.1.5 d)
Water Suppression Systems 3.1.5 Water Suppression Systems 3.1.5 Water Suppression Systems 3.1.5 Water Suppression Systems 3.1.6 Foam Suppression System 3.2.1 Smoke Detection System Based on our review, we find the proposed fire protection :nodifications regarding 3.1.1(1), 3.1.5(f) and 3.1.5(j) are acceotable. We find the modifications regarding 3.1.5(d). 3.1.5(k), 3.1.6(b) and 3.2.1 are unacceptable and that additional acdifications are necessary as stated in our review. The review of Safe Shutdown Analysis is ongoing.
The status of the Quad Citic; Fire Protection Review is listed in.
Sincerely.
wN/ &
Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/encls:
See next page 8011210 24f
SUPPLEMENT TO SAFETY E'/ALUATION REPORT ON FIRE PROTECTION QUAD CITIES STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Fire Detection System, Section 3.1.1(1)
In the Quad Cities Fire Protection SER the concern was tnat a fire in the control room could damage redundant divisions of safe shutdown systems. We required that the licensee install an early warning fire detection system in the control room.
By letter dated November 5,1979, the licensee cocinitted to install a fire detection system in the control room.
We find that the licensee's proposal to install a fire detection system in the control rocm satisfies our requirement and is, therefore, acceptable.
Water Suceression Systems, Section 3.1.S(d)
In the SER, the concern was that a fire in the Unit I cable tunnel could progress uncetected until substantial damage is done, and that a fire in the Unit 2 cable tunnel could damage redundant safe-shutdcwn systems. We required the licensee to modify the sprinkler systems in the cable tunnels to prevent fire propagation between trays.
By letter dated November 5,1979, the licensee provided additional infomation and design drawings. We agree with the licensee that the Unit I cable tunnel sprinkler system is designed to prevent fire propagation between the cable trays; and that the Unit 2 cable tunnel sprinkler system is designed such tnat the loss of a single sorinkler system i.e. from the outside stem and riser valve to the sprinkler heads out of service, will not affect the protection
l
-2.
for the redundant division of cable trays. The water supply for all the sprinkler systems protecting the Unit 2 tunnel are fed from a single 6-inch connection to an existing 10-inch main.
The protection for the Unit 1 tunnel is adequate. We find that the protec-tion for the Unit 2 cable tunnel is not adequate because a break in the 5-inch main or the 10-inch main will cause the loss of all automatic suppression in :ne tunnel.
The licensee should provide adequate separation of the sprinkler system feeds for the Unit 2 cable tunnel sucn that no single impainnent will cause the loss of water to the systems protecting both divisions of cable trays.
Water Suceression Systems, Section 3.1.5(f)
In the SER, the c:ncern was that a single fire in a number of areas in the turbine building, including the turbine trackway areas in each unit, could cau:e the loss of redundant safe shutdown systems. We required that the itcensee provide a water suppression system in the Unit 1 and Unit 2 trackway areas.
By letter dated November 5,1979, the licensee c:nnitted to protect the trackway areas by a pre-action sprinkler system si:ed for extra hazard duty.
The detection system will ecmoly with NFPA 13 and 7:D requirements, and heat shielcs will be provided in accordance with paragraph A3-13.6 of NFPA 13-1978.
We find that the licensee's proposed pre-action systems satisfy our require-ment and are, therefore, acceptable.
3-Water Suppression Systems, Item 3.1.5(j)
In the SER the concern was that a fire in the cable spreading room could damage redundant safe shutdown systems. We required that an automatic water suppression system be provided in the cable spreading room.
By letter dated November 5,1979, the licensee cannitted to install two wet pipe sprinkler systems in the cable spreading room.
Each system will protect approximately half of the area, and will provide both area and cable tray protection. The area. sprinklers will be located at the ceiling while the cable tray sprinklers will be located between the cable trays. Both systems are fed from a single water main.
Since an alternate shutdown system is being required for this area, we #ind tnat the proposed sprinkler system meets the guidelines of Section F.3 of Appendix A to BTP 9.5-1 regarding the provision of a sprinkler system to protect cable spreading rooms and is, therefore, acceptable.
Water Suppression Systems, Section 3.1.5(k)
In the SER, the concern was that a fire in the oil storage area of the turbine building could damage redundant safe shutdown systems and that a fire in the crib house could damage both diesel fire pumps. We required that the l
licensee provide sprinkler protection in the oil storage locations in the turoine builcing and in the crib hcuse.
l Sy letter dated September 25, 1979, the licensee confirmed tnat areas P and I of the turoine building, which are used for the storage of drums of oil, j
l are protected by automatic deluge systems designed.to provice a density of
.~
9
, 0.3 gpm/sq.. ft. over the entire area.
The licensee also cannitted by adninistrative procedures to eliminate oil storage in the crib house. Any oil stored in this area will be limited to a total of 25 gallons. The oil will be stored in 5 gallon safety cans and then inside a flannable liquid cabinet.
We find that the licensee's commit =ent to provide automatic sprinklers over the c al storage area of the turbine building now provides adequate fire protection for that area. However, adninistrative controls are not sufficient by themselves to control combustibles, and therefore the protection provided in the crib house is unacceptable. To provide an acceptable level of protection the licensee should install an automatic sprinkler system for the oil storage area in the crib house in addition to the system in the turbine building.
cam Suoeression System. Section 3.1.6(b)
In the Fire Protection SER the concern was that a fire in the area of tne MG set fluid couplings could damage redundant safe shutdown systems. We required that an automatic foam suppression system be provided for eacn MG set fluid coupling and its curbed area. The foam systems shculd be activated by fisne or infrared detection. The supply feed for the foam systems should be independent of the feed for the automatic sprinkler system wnien presently protects the MG set fluid couplings.
l l
. By letter dated Noveneer 5,1979, the licensee submitted design drawings, hydraulic calculations and engineering data sheet on a proposed foam suppression system for the MG set area.
According to calculations, the acunt of. foam wnich wculd be supplied in storage does not meet the recomendations of NFPA 16. Also, the drawings indicated that tno system control equipnent would be located so that they would be exposed oy a fire in the area protected.
In addition, the drawings did not indicate if the feed for the foam suppression system wculd be independent of the area sprinkler system. Based on ne above, we find that the foam suppressicn system is unacceptable.
The licensee should modify the design of the foam suppression system to provide 72 gallons of foam in storage for each system and to relocate the 1
system centrol equipment so that it wculd not be exposed by a fire in the area protected.
In add' tion, the feed for the foam system should be independent of the feed for the sprinkler system protecting the same area.
Smoke Detection Systa Tests Item 3.2.1 In the SER, we indicated our concern taat the smoke detect:rs might not respond to the products of cantustien fcr the types of expected ccmbustibles in the area. '4e were also concerned that ventilation air flow patterns in the area signt recuce or prevent detector response. As a r2sult, we recxur. ended that the licensee perfann an in-situ smoke detector test.' The licensee has not responded to our concern.
j
4 6-The required methodology for an in-situ smoke detector test is beycnd the current s tate-of-the-art and, therefore, an in-situ test cannot be performed at this time.
To adequately address our concerns and assure that tne detection system will provide timely detection of any fires, the licensee snould condtet benen tests of the detectors to verify that they will be responsive to the products of combustion of ccmbustibles, including transient combustibles, in each area where the detectors are installed.
I 1
?
Enclosuro 2, FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW STATUS QUAD CITIES, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-254 AND 50-255 Item Descriotion Status
- 3.1.(1)
Fire Detection Systems C
3.1.5(f)
' Water Suppression System C
3.1.5(j)
Water Suppression Systen C
3.1.5(d)
Water Suppression System R
3.1.5(k)
Water Suppression System R
3.1.6(b)
Foam Suppression System R
3.2.1 Smoke Detection System R
3.2.2 RCIC Analysis UR
- C - Closed R - Requirement UR - Under Review l
T y