ML20113C222
| ML20113C222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1985 |
| From: | Boyer V PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113C226 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501220259 | |
| Download: ML20113C222 (5) | |
Text
.
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 23O1 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA PA.19101
" 8d"45
!!r. Darrell G.
Eisenhut Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 SUDJECT:
Peach Dottom Atomic Power Station Fire Protection t!odifications Progress Report
REFERENCES:
(1)
Letter from J.
U. Gallagher to D.
G.
Eisenhut, dated February 25, 1983 (2)
Letter from V.
S. Doyer to D.
G. Eisenhut dated Flay 27, 1983 (3)
Letter from V. S. Doyer to D.
G. Eisenhut dated September 16, 1983 (4)
Letter from V. S. Doyer to D.
G. Eisenhut dated December 2, 1983 (5)
Letter from V. S. Doyer to D. G. Eisenhut dated ttay 16, 1984 (6)
Letter from V. S. Doyer to D.
G.
Eisenhut dated September 17, 1984 501gg9g Dear fir. Eisenhut PDR Philadelphia Electric Company, in the reference (1) letter, proposed to submit Peach Dottom's Fire Protection
!!odifications Progreca Report every four months starting in !!ay, 1983.
This letter includes: (I) the sixth !!odifications 0p(p Progreca Report (Attachment 1); (II) an update of the penetration coaling program; (III) an update of the fire damper program; and N
J
e
$r. Darrell G. Eisenhut January 16, 1985 Page 2 (IV) a progress report addressing structural steel fire protection.
I.-
Modification Progress Report A comparison of the attached Modification Status Report and the previous Modification Status Report, dated September 1984, reveals that 13 modifications have been completed and that two modifications have been added to the report.
Added are Mod $1029B, a cable reroute, and Mod #1029E, which provides control Room indication for 6 process variables and 4 system diagnostics for each fire area.
These two modifications had been placed on-hold since most of the equipment was being analyzed in conjunction with the Alternative Shutdown Modifications as discussed in a letter from V. S. Boyer to D. G. Eisenhut dated August 16, 1984.
The design for both the Alternative Shutdown portion and the Safe Shutdown portion of the equipment has now been defined.
The expected completion dates for non-outage modifications (Mod Nos.1351C & 1353I) have been delayed to af ter the Unit 3 outage in order to better support the outage modifications.
II.
Penetration Seal Program III.M A.
A total of 6230 penetrations through 342 fire barriers have been or are in the process of being installed.
Approximately 60 seals remain to be installed.
The penetration seal. subcontractor is no longer being utilized.
Seal completion activities are being performed by Philadelphia Electric Company construction personnel.
B.
The following information is proulded to respond to an informal NRC staff request to provide clarifying information regarding the use of a combustible material as part of the penetration seal assemblies.
l Copies of the test reports described in the following sections are included as Attachment #2.
The references indicate where previous-correspondence has addressed these details.
1.
The following configurations were used throughout the plant but mostly in secondary containment i
1
Mr. Darroll G. Eisenhut January 16, 1985 Page 3 barriers where polyurethane foam was used extensively during plant construction to provide an air barrier:
a.
Test detail II, wall test WP694, was a 10" sleeve containing 6 electrical cables.
The detail was scaled on the fire side with 3" of mineral wool and on the cold side (side of test assembly away from fire) with 9" of polyurethane foam.
The detail satisfied the fire endurance, cold side temperature and hose stream requirements of ASTM E-119 but had one high cold side thermocouple temperature (410 degrees F) and therefore achieved a 2-hour T-rating in accordance with ASTM E-814.
(See references (2), (4))
b.
Test detail C, wall test WP713 was a 6" s1covo containing 18 electrical cables.
The penetration was scaled with 3" of mineral wool on the fire side and 9" of polyurethane foam on the cold side.
This detail satisfied the requirements of both E-119 and E-814.
(Soc references (2), (4).
c.
Test detail D, wall test WP713 was the reverse of detail C.
This detail passed the fire test but failed the hose stream test.
As discussed in the reference (4) letter, this configuration will only be used when the combustible loading is less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.
(See references (2), (4))
d.
Test detail F of wall test WP713 simulates a steel conduit (2") through a 6" pipe sleeve scaled with 3" of mineral wool on the fire side and 9" of polyurethane foam on the cold side.
This detail passed the fire, temperature and hose stream requirements of ASTM E-119 but had one cold side thermocouple temperature (410 degrees F) above the acceptance criteria of ASTM E-814 and therefore the detail roccived a 2-hour T-rating.
(See references (2), (4))
,s-r 2.
The following tested penetration seals failed the E-814 fire test.
Each passed the fire test, but failed the hoso stream test.
Similar to item c above, these coals are only being used when the combustible loading on either side of the barrier
Mr. DErroll G. Eisenhut January 16, 1985 Page 4 is less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.
a.
Test detail L of wall test WP713 is the reverse of detail F (Item d. above), a 6" sleeve with a 2" steel conduit penetration sealed with 3" of mineral wool on the cold side with 9" of polyurethane foam on the fire side.
(See reference 4).
b.
Test detail E of wall test WP713 is the l
reverse of detail H of test WPG94 (item la.
above) a 6" sleeve with 6 electrical cables sealed with 3" of mineral wool on the cold side and 9" of polyurethane foam on the fire side.
(See reference 4) 3.
Test detail G of wall test WP713 is an aluminum cable tray sealed with 12" of polyurethane foam and Quelpyre coated Marinite board on both sides of the wall.
The seal detail passed both the fire and l
hose stream tests of ASTM E-119 and E-814 with no ignition of cables on the cold side.
However, it did fail the specific cold side temperature criteria of ASTM E-119 and E-814.
This detail was used at 33 plant locations.
(See reference 4) l III. HVAC Damper Program III.G.2 The installation of three-hour qualified dampers in ventilation ducts penetrating safe shutdown barriers is continuing.
The following tabulation provides a status of the fire damper program:
Unit 3 Unit 2 Common Total Total 44 49 57 150 Qualified 11 8
15 34 i
Complete 7
8 13 28 l
Exemption 17 20 22 59 I
To Do 9
13 7
29 The tabulation reflects that six additional dampers have been identified which require upgrading.
Ten dampers have been completed since the last report (See reference 6).
Three additional dampers have been installed but remain to be sealed externally.
The inacallation schedule is to t
- Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut January 16, 1985 Page 5 complete damper installation by the end of the current Unit 2 outage.
IV.
Structural Steel Fireproofing III.G.2 A structural steel survivability evaluation is being performed to evaluate the integrity of exposed structural steel which supports fire barriers located between redundant safe shutdown equipment.
The methodology being used to perform the evaluation is the same that was used to analyze the steel at our Limerick Generating Station.
The analysis techniques were approved by the NRC in the accond supplement to.the Limerick Safety Evaluation Report.
The Unit 3 Reactor Building analysis is complete.
We are currently evaluating Unit 3 areas where problems were identified.
We are also proceeding with the Unit 2 Reactor Building and Common areas analyses.
The current schedule is to submit a first draft of the analysis to the NRC on April 1, 1985.
The draft should include the Units.2 and 3 and common area results as well as alternatives being considered to remedy problem areas.
HIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, o
Attachments cca J. H. Williams, Resident Inspector NRC Document Control Desk