ML20059D964
| ML20059D964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/16/1993 |
| From: | Wilkins J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1547, FACA, NUDOCS 9401100162 | |
| Download: ML20059D964 (2) | |
Text
9 f%q'o
/
UNITED STATES
'g f '
,.g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACRSR-1547 E
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NR D
g WASHINGTON, D. C,20555
'tg
,6 December 16, 1993 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Selin:
SUBJECT:
THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIERS
~
During the 404th meeting of the Advisory Committee cu Reactor Safeguards, December 9-11, 1993, in response to the %eferenced Staf f Requirements Memorandum, we discussed with representatives of the NRC staff, NUMARC, and industry the technical differences between NUMARC and the NRC staff on the NUMARC test program related to Thermo-Lag fire barriers.
Our Subcommittee on Auxiliary and Secondary Systems discussed this matter during a meeting on November 19, 1993.
We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
At the beginning of our review of the Thermo-Lag fire barrier issue, there were several differences between the staff and NUMARC on how the tests should be instrumented and configured to demonstrate compliance with Appendix R.
The differences were in the placement of the thermocouples, whether or not cables should be used in the cable trays during testing, and in post-test evaluation of the cable condition.
NUMARC has now agreed to use the thermocouple placement suggested by the staff, and the staff appears to have agreed to some testing with cables in the cable tray.
How the test results will be used remains open.
The principal concern of the staff is that the limited number of tests will not yield enough data for extrapolation to the large number of specific configurations needing evaluation.
The difficulty is compounded by incomplete characterization of the thermophysical properties of Thermo-Lag. The data from the planned tests can be made much more broadly applicable by additional temperature measurements and engineering analysis.
In particular, we recommend that the Thermo-Lag cold side surface temperature be measured and that several identical Thermo-Lag configurations be tested with different cable loadings, including no cable.
The resulting data and analysis should allow plant-specific cabling and ampacity factors to be dealt with.
It should also be possible :o resolve NUMARC concerns about excessive conservatism.
'O 9401100162 931216 PDR ACRS n
[ ()
R-1547 PDR 2
(
/.
r
~
The Honorable Ivan Selin 2
December 16, 1993 Thermo-Lag provides protection from a fire, in part, by material 4
ablation.
This suggests to us that aged material may not perform as well as new material.
We recommend that at least one test be duplicated with in-service aged Thermo-Lag.
Our interest in fire protection goes beyond the Thermo-Lag issue.
We are concerned about the use of standards and practices that are based on fire protection standards developed _for other industries.
Their utilization for nuclear power plant application should be l
specifically evaluated.
The move towards risk-based regulation leads us to question present fire risk methodologies, and the adequacy of fire science talent within the agency.
We look forward to being kept informed by the staff and NUMARC when they reconsider current fire protection regulations.
t Sincerely, ErnestWilkins,[.
J.
Chairman Referencesl 1.
Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated November 15, 1993, to-J. M. Taylor, EDO, and J. T. Larkins, ACRS, from S. J. Chilk, Secretary, regarding the October 29, 1993 Commission Briefing on Thermo-Lag 2.
Memorandum, dated November 10, 1993, to J.
T.
Larkins, ACRS, from A. Thadani, NRR, regarding ACRS Subcommittee Meeting on Thermo-Lag j
3.
Memorandum, dated October 8, 1993, for the Commissioners from i
J. M. Taylor, EDO,
Subject:
Quarterly Updates of the Thermo-Lag and Fire Protection Task Action Plans
)
)
. - -.