ML20009D314
| ML20009D314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1980 |
| From: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009D310 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-204 NUDOCS 8107230366 | |
| Download: ML20009D314 (9) | |
Text
FT
.c
- ~
,p s
UNITED STATES j*'p Ka rgio NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON i
g g
WASWNGTON, D. C. 70555 r.
- l SEP 11 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford THRU:
Executive Director for Operations"oricir.a1 sicned by w 3 wh FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
.SLIBJECT:
BIMONTHLY REPORT ON CONFIRMATORY TESTS FOR El ECTRICAL CONNECTORS AND REPLICATION TESTS FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
References:
1.
CLI-80-21, dated May 27, 1980.
2.
Memorandum from Robert J. Budnitz to Commission, dated July 15, 1980.
3.
Memorandum from Samuel J. Chilk to William J. C ircks, dated August-5,1980.
This bimonthly report is being sent to the Commission concerning the following two areas of our current research work:
1.
LOCA confirmation tests for electrical connectors, and 2.
Replication tests for fire protection systems.
LOCA Qua'lification of Electrical Connectors As stated in our last report (Ref. 2), IE is attempting to obtain spare connectors from operating plants in accordance with the guidelines establishe<* by the Commission (Ref.1).
This has been, and continues to be, the pacing i_ tem for conducting the connector tests. At this time IE is in the process of obtaining a finn commitment from Duke Power.
Once the connectors are made available, a test can be run within 1 month after agreement on a test plan is reached.
The writing of a test plan i
will take about 1 month.
Assuming that a finn comitment can be obtained for the use of plant connectors by January 1,1981, and the connectors l
delivered by Febru'ry 1981, the test cdn be conducted in March 1981.
(
RES will try to accelerate this schedule, but we cannot control the delivery of the connectors.
810723o366 810707 PDR FOIA WATKINSei-204 PDR
i 1
Commissioners 2
Replication Testing of Fire Protection Systems As stated in our last report, fiRR has selected the Browns Ferry Reactor Building and the Brunswick Intake Structure Basement as candidates for replication testing of fire protection systems. This represents the second major change in plans since it was decided to undertake full-scale replication tests.
We have now completed the plant inspections for both plants, and we believe that the tests proposed by NRR can be carried out with some modifications.
For the Browns Ferry tests, it has been decided to conduct a partial (phase I) test first, to be followed by a complete (phase II) test if necessary. The test configuration consists of four vertical cable trays and conduits leading to an extensive array of horizontal trays that start at at least 20 feet off the ground.
The most expensive part of the test will be to reproduce the horizontal trays. Accordingly, we intend to conduct a phase I test of the vertical cable tv iys and conduits with barriers to simulate the horizontal trays.
If propagation occurs up the vertical tray's or conduits, or if temperatures at the location of the lowest horizor.'.. ~ trays approach cable ignition temperature, then the second test (phase II) will be conducted with the full acck-up.
It is our feeling that the second test will not be needed, i
allowing us to save both time and money.
Nevertheless, the revised schedule enclosed with this report shows the worse case situation requiring an additional test which would add about 4 months to the overall schedule.
In Ref. 3 the Commission requested that the schedule be reviewed and accelerated to the maximum practical extent. We have reviewed the schedule and will take the following actions to improve the schedule:
l.
Accelerate procurement of test hardware, 2.
Reduce the test construction time, 3.
Reduce the time between completion of constru~ction and start of replication testing, and 4.
Reduce the replication testing period.
110 wever, since the procurement of test hardware is the pacing item and since we still do not know the items that have to be procured, by manufacturer and model number, a revised shorter schedule cannot be
(
substantiated at this time. We believe that the September 1981 date for l
completion of phase I testirig can~ be improved, perhaps by as much as several months, but until we receive the test hardware details from the i
~
Y i
Comissioners 3
utility ind contact the suppliers we do not have a basis for changing the schedule.
We expect to have finner infonnation on the test schedule in the ibyenber report.
/5/
Thomas E. Murley, Acting Director Office of fluclear Regulatory Research -
Enclosures:
1.
Schedule for Replication Testing of Browns Ferry Reactor Bldg.
2.
Schedule for Replication Testing of Brunswick Intake Structure DISTRIBUTION
'S ubj Chron Circ RSB r/f REcit r/f RFeit RDisalvo Tong / Johnson LCShao TEMurley, RSR TEMurley, RES JLarkins llRDenton VStello '
-~
OEN m tt EKCornell TRehm WJDircks ED0-9430(Bridgers)
~
-S RES liRDenton*
VStello*
OE sett Larkins 9/ /80 9/3/80 9/ /8 9/9/80
- SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR LONCURRENCES.
SRSR:RSB WRSR:RSB WRSR GRSR
--RS R : D D:RES or rict >
feit:sh*
Jo-basn6/InnB*
LCShao*
TEMurle
- RDiSa TEMurle *
l v o *
y----- ---------y,---
sunNauc >
l
.9/2/.80
..- --.../8 0 9/4/80 9/9/80 9/9/80 9/3
- /9/80 9
DATE >
i rarxqnprwJ mn BMB CMO, R @@VE RNM3NT PHIN TING OF F STE 1377-2TJ7-7FX3
Distribution:
09430 Subj RFeit HRCenton Commissioners 2
Chron RDiSalvo VStello Circ Tong / Johnson OEBassett RSB r/f LCShao EKrornell RFeit r/f TEMurley, RSR TRehm Replication Testing of Fire Pmtection Systems RES HJDircks TEMurley, /
JLa r_ kins i.~ D0-09430 As stated in our last report, NRR has selected the Browns Ferrpeactor Building and the Brunswick Intake Structure Basement as cand d6es for replication testing of fire protection systems. This repr ents the se w nd major change in plans since it was decided to und r ke full-scale replication tests.
~
We have now completed the plant inspections for both plants, and we believe that the tests proposed by HRR can be carried out with some modifications.
For the Browns Ferry tests, it ha's been decided to conduct a partial (phase I) test first, to be.fbilowed by a complete (phase II) test if necessary.
It is our fee]ing that the second test will not be needed, allowing us to save both' time and money. Nevertheless, the revised schedule enclosed with this report shows the worse case situation requiring an additional test ich would add about 4 months to the overall schedule.
In Ref. 3 th'e Comission requested [ hat the schedule be reviewed and accelerated to the maximum pract ical extent. We have reviewed the a
schedule and will take the folltr:fng actions to improve the schedule:
1.
Accelerate procureme of test hardware, 2.
Reduce the test covstruction time, 3.
Reduce the time bdtween completion of construction and start of replication testing, and
- 7. educe the repl'ication testing period.
However, since the p$urement of test hardware is the pacing item and since we still do no't know the items that have to be procured, by anufacturer 2 and model number,/ revised shorter schedule cannot be substantiated at this time. We believe that the September 1981 date for completion of phase I testi
/can be improved, perhaps by as much as several mnths, but until we ceive the test hardware details from the utility and contact the y ppliers we do not have a basis for changing the schedule.
We expect td have firmer infonnation en the test schedule in the Novenber report.
Thomas E. Murley, Acting Dybr Office of Nuclear F e f(o}y Research
Enclosures:
NRRb
'RES RES/fp 1.
Schedule-for Replication TestingHRDenton Stello 0F assett p fkins o f Bro'wns Fer,ry Reactor B1dg. - 9/ /8 9/3 /80
/ /80 9 C[/80' 2.
Schedule for Replication Testing of Brunswick Intake Structure I
Basement g
4
.HRSE J
.}l85R;tBSB..f J2SRdSB7
.GRSR...
Or r ict >
Oh**
SURNAME >
. 9./.22 8,0..........,91.jl#0.........9/..fl80........
. 9/li./80......... 9t/.../A0......... '3/.. /s0....
04n >
73RC F ORM 318 (6-77) 4 U. S. GOVE RNMENT PRINTING OF F tCE 19 l7-237-025
s.
\\
Record flote:
Before concurring, H. D. Thornt,urg requested that pg.1, LOCA Qualification...
the sentence, "As of this date, they do not have a firm conunitment to ob'.ain test connectors, although they have reached agreenent with personnel from ona utility. " be changed to read, "At this time IE is in the process of obtaining a firm conunitment from Duke Power." The following sentence.
"A letter has been sent from IE to the utility.," was deleted.
Before cone sering, fiRR asked that the following statements be included on pg. 2, Replication Testing of Fire Protection Systems.:
"The test configuration consists of four vertical cable trays and conduits leading to an extensive array of horizontal trays that start at at least 20 feet off the ground.
The most expensive part of the test will be to reproduce the horizontal trays.
Accordingly, we intend to conduct a phase I test of the vertical cable trays and conduits with barriers to simulate the horizontal trays.
If propagation occurs up the vertical trays e,r conduits, or if temaeratures at the location of the lowest hor'zontal trays approach ca)le ignition temperature, then the second test (phase II) will be conducted with the full mock-up."
s
~
~..
or rico >
l l
sunn'ut >
onse>._.._.-...--.....---......-.---.--.--------.----------..-..--------------------
une ro,m sia um a acu o2om o u
- s. u m ~- m r m.n~c oro ce m - m m e
lll'l I.
J M
llif ii A
M jli iji 1 Ii F
2
- l:
!l:
Ifi 8 J 9
1 y
- D Y
i ll 1 l
G F
N N
I
- p ll-
!i*
D L
0 I
U ts S
S i
ll 1
e T
R A
O I
T I
C J
A e
E s
R 0
J a
h Y
8
-]
P R
9 M
r R
1 o
E 1
!ll dI l
+
f F
8 A 9
e S
2 7
l N
1 u
W t
- M d
O s
Y i
l l
e R
u F F c
u I
h B
g S
F A
J O
t G
D N
l iI
' i' li i
I T
S
' N T
y E
0 NO 0
I I
8 S T
9 l
-I I
l
- i Il
i;iji,
.i l'
!ji
.i !
8 !.
A 1 A C
I
}+I i
l l
L Y J P
F E
R f
l g
d i n
n r i
s t
a D n
m a
e s
a e l
t e
t d P
d I
T g
a a e
n e
D g
t v
m n
i n
i s
o i
o s
t o
s r e
r T
i t
s i
t c
e i
e B T
j t,
d p
d c
e T
e-a c
i e s
A e
u f
e v r e
L r
f p
o i t
t E
n s
r F i
n g
s o
n n
P r
a n
i o
o e
t s
W l
L y t P
C t
a t
c a
e a
c t
r r
i r
t i u i
n l
d d
t u
t a
l o
c s
p p
p a
i n n
s o
l t o a
e r
e e
e e
P U C S
T P
T S
R R
,,i ; i. j
- ,Ii 1i j-j
!l; j,!
ll
,l) 1 1l J
i' M
A M
I F
-j1
'e i.
8l
'l 2
8 J 9
1
- O l
T Y
N F
N EM E
0
,s S
A E
l i t
g i !l i
B S
l R
A UTC J
3 U
R T
J S
E M
KA 1
T 0
8 A r
N 8
o I
9 9
f 1
1 '
i K
i e
C Y
l I
F F u
W 9
d S
2 e
N J
h U
t c
R s
S B
u D
i g
F u
O A
N G
s N
0 I
T
.t S
0 i!!
T 9
I I
't i';,
e i! i E
8 S 1 A N
- L O
il I
Y J T
F A
C f
g I
l n
L d i i
P E
n r s
t R
a D n
m s
a e
t e
a e l
I T
g t d P
d n
a a e
e n
i D g t
v m
o s
t n
i s
o, i
o s r e
e T
i t
s i
e B T
p t
c e
d c
e T
p t
d a
u f.
c i e s
A e
r f
e v r e
L t
E n
p o i t
o s
r F i
n g
s i
n n
n P
r a
o o
e t
i s
W l
L y t P
C t
a t
c a
e a
c t
r r
i r
u t
a l
o t
i u i
n l
d d
t c
s p
p p
a i n n
s o
t o
a e
r e
e e
e U C S
T P
T S
R R
i!
,ll:
i!'
\\'
e
{.
i
{
-1 m
?..
1 9
{..
u S.L.- lh 6 n./ m-Q Td._
i
. R u/_. LA c-8cg4ws.s 7 4-u
}h(4cA~ hln
/
j,
};
jsw)(m. AUh NE G&
i --
/vte L u m, a ka;;JLLAut,J -
v 1-wx
&4c~4-MjL]g
]
n94J~. (n +Lt) i L c ~, d i. 4 _.s 4 & % k C _
'l gJ Au M
Vu n
L 4
uk rL wd, A
L Lu%gL 6
e, yam ha wa p g a J G M i X -
- f. -
/
%s.<
,&~,ockA q
W t
l cu uct- (&,
4 9-ACL J.)
%%n l44 u
u 2.s ~
-l (Rua d O fl b ~
5 b
< O J' 5A A4.m J.]
SJ y G J. A, u
o~ c/J X Ln.a s-V y
,_,., s g i;.
Dictated me'ssage given by V. Noonin - Taken by T. Milburn.
RE: BIMONTHLY REPORT ON CONFIRMATORY TESTS FOR ELECTRICAL CONNECTORS AND REPLICATION TESTS FOR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS In reference to page 2 under Replication Testing; Page 1 agreed.
Item 1 Describe the Phase I Test and Phase II Test.
Explain the significance of each, and the relationship to the requirements and the proposed Appendix R.
Explain the potential effect of a failure of the Phase I Test on the proposed rule.
Item 2 Explain why the second test may not be needed.
=
Item 3 Procurement of the test hardware is not pacing item.
~
3 months to prepare test plan, 6 months test construction, 5 months separate effects, and 3 months replication test.
Item 4 Schedule appears to be drawn out accessively. Many sequential items could be done in parallel.
I believe both tests should be perfomed within the next 6 months.
Comments given by Bob Ferguson.
~
Y
~
_