ML20133F981
| ML20133F981 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1985 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510150078 | |
| Download: ML20133F981 (4) | |
Text
.
OCT 0 81985 Docket Nos.: STN 50-454, STN 50-455 and STN 50-456, STN 50-457 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
Subject:
Acceptance of Criteria for Firecode CT Gypsum Fire Stops -
Byron /Braidwood By letter dated July 30, 1985, you requested the staff's concurrence on use of certain revised acceptance criteria for Firecode CT gypsum fire stops for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2.
As you pointed out, we have already approved these criteria for la Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, in our July 16, 1985, letter from Walter R. Butler to Dennis-L. Farrar (Enclosed). Since the gypsum and thermafiber fire penetration seals 'at Byron /
Braidwood are similar in configuration to those at La Salle, we conclude that use of these revised criteria are acceptable on Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2.
Sincerely, CO B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page Distribution:
4 Doctet F11e:
NRC'PDR ~~'
Local POR PRC System NSIC LB#1 R/F MRushbrook L01shan JStevens go150078 abloou OELD F
ADocM 0500o454 ACRS(16)
PDR JPartlow EJordan BGrimes
/
LB#1/DL LB#1/DL CH /
LB#1/DL L01shan/mac JSteven DKu ki 9 JYoungblood 10/ 7 /85
/0/ 7 /85 to/ g /85 l
}
&cus\\; gred
<>s gaf4lG s,,fq) _
.1 am uq
/
jo UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
p W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
%,..... /
OCT 0 8 L9tL Docket Nos.:
STN 50-454, STN 50-455 and STN 50-456, STN 50-457 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing Comonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
Subject:
Acceptance of Criteria for Firecode CT Gypsum Fire Stops -
Byron /Braidwood By letter dated July 30, 1985, you requested the staff's concurrence on use of certain revised acceptance criteria for Firecode CT gypsum fire stops for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2.
As you pointed out, we have already approved these criteria for la Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, in our July 16, 1985, letter from Walter R. Butler to Dennis L. Farrar (Enclosed). Since the gypsum and thermafiber fire penetration seals at Byron /
Braidwood are similar in configuration to those at La Salle, we conclude that use of these revised criteria are acceptable on Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2.
Since
' L for B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. I Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
1 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood cc:
Mr. William Kortier Dr. Bruce von Zellen Atomic Power Distribution Department of Biological Sciences Westinghouse Electric Corporation Northern Illinois University Post Office Box 355 DeKalb, Illinois 61107 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Byron / Resident Inspectors Office 1120 Connecticut Ave., N. W.
4448 German Church Road Suite 840 Byron, Illinois 61010 Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Diane Chavez C. Allen Bock, Esquire 528 Gregory Street Post Office Box 342 Rockford, Illinois 61108 Urbana, Illinois 61801 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Thomas J. Gordon, Esquire 1907 Stratford Lane Waaler, Evans & Gordon Rockford, Illinois 61107 2503 S. Neil Champaign, Illinois 61820 Douglass Cassel, Esq.
109 N. Dearborn Street Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Suite 1300 Appleseed Coordinator Chicago, Illinois 60602 117 North Linden Street Essex Illinois 60935 Ms. Pat Morrison 5568 Thunderidge Drive Mr. Edward R. Crass Rockford, Illinois 61107 Nuclear Safeguards and Licensing Division David C. Thomas, Esq.
Sargent & Lundy Engineers 77 S. Wacker Drive 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Resident Inspectors Office Three First National Plaza RR#1, Box 79 Suite 5200 Braceville, Illinois 60407 Chicago, Illinois 60602
~
(1.
- Byron /Braidwood cc:
Regional Administrator U. S. NRC, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Erie Jones, Director Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency 110 East Adams Springfield, Illinois 62705 Ms. Lorraine Creek i
Rt. 1, Box 182 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Mr. Michael C. Parker, Chief Division of Engineering Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 Michael Miller Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Jane M. Whicher, Esq.
109 N. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 e
f i
i i,_
b
Enclosure
[
'**c*
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
j i
W ASmHG TON, D. C. 20555
=
e
\\,,,./
JUL 161985 Docket Nos: 50-373/374 Hr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Licensing P.O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Farrar:
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE OF CRITERIA F0P. FIPECODE CT GYMPSUM FIRE STOPS-LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, uhll5 1 & 2 By letter dated May 28, 1985, you requested the staff's concurrence on use cf certain revised acceptance criteria and separations based on newly obtained test J
data for Firecede CT Gympsum Fire Stops for La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2.
Based on our review, we find that the tested seal configuration bounds the La Salle configuration, and that the proposed criteria are acceptable.
A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is enclosed.
~
Sincerely.
Walter R. Butler, Chief
- **sse.
Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated
~
nur Jfv4l};
d
)
o hr. Lennis L. Farrar La Salle County fiuclecr Pm.ti Station Commonwealth Edison Company Units 1 & 2 CC*
Philip P. Steptoe, Esquire John W. hcCaffrey Suite 4200 Chief, Public Utilitier Division One First National Plaza 100 i;crth La Salle St'reet, Roon 9C0 Chittgo, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illir.ois 60601 Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chica[c, Illinois 60601
- Resident Inspector /LaSclie, NPS U.S. ituclear Regulatery Commission hurel Rcute No. 1 Fost 0Ffice Box 224 Marseilles, Illinois 61341 Chairnen La Salle County board of Supervisors La Salle County Ccurthouse
" ' ~
Ottawa. Illinois 01350 Attorney General 500 Sou~th 2nd Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 Chairnian lllinois Commerce Cornissi'on L61and Building 527 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois 62706
/
\\
~~
Mr. Gary N. Wright, Manager
'i Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park brive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Aoniinistrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 709 Ressevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
~
b SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION OF PROPOSED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR FIRECODE Cl GYPSUM FIRE STOPS COMMONWEALTH EDISON LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 00CKETS N05. 50-373 AND 50-374 a.
Introduction By memorandum dated February 10, 1984, the licensee committed to the NRC to revise their Firecode CT Gypsum Fire Stop surveillance and installation procedures to incorporate a 1/32 inch acceptance criteria for cracks and separations. This criteria was established based on a lack of test data supporting less stringent acceptance criteria.
On May 28, 1985 the licensee submitted revised acceptance criteria for cracks and separations based on newly obtained test data and requested NRC concurrence on the new criteria.
j This Safety Evaluation documents the NRC review of the revised acceptance criteria and their impact on the operation and administration of plant activities.
c, Summary of Evaluation The evaluation of the licensee's revised criteria consisted of a comparison of e
the test methodology and results that form the basis for the revised criteria and the specifications contained in 8 ranch Technical Position CHEB 9.5-1 Section C.5a(3) including ASTM E110-81 as endorsed by Standard Review Plan Section 9.5-1.
The staff found the proposed changes acceptabl4$.
Evaluation of Proposed Ch'ange to Crack and Separation Criteria DescriDtion of Change
~
Existing cri,teria require cracks and separations greater than 1/32 inch wide.
to be repaired.
Wi' der cracks would cause the affe::ted seal.to be declared inoperable.
The following revised criteria are proposed:
a.
Following initial seal installation or repair:
Crack Width Corrective Action
< 3/32 inch None
> 3/32 inch Seal unacceptable -
repairs required b.
Periodic surveillance acceptance criteria:
Crack Width Corrective Action
< 5/32 inch None
> 5/32 inch and < 1/4 inch Seal is operable but must be repaired on an orderly schedule
> 1/4 inch Seal inoperable -
~
repairs required 9PP-
Evaluation
-The basis for the revised criteria is a test performed by Transco Products Inc. on November 20, 1984 and documented in Transco Test Report No. TR-161.
Two test configurations were used to demonstrate seal performance with cracks.
Each configuration consisted of an opening 141/2 inches,by 9 inches in a 12 inch thick concrete slab.
Each opening, containing a 2 inch conduit, was filled with 5 inches of CT Thermafiber covered with 5 inches of Firecode CT Gypsum. A 1/4 inch crack 14 1/2 inches long with full thickness penetration was induced in each seal. One seal was exposed to the test fire on the Firecode CT Gypsum side.
The second seal was exposed to the test fire on the CT Thermafiber side.
The test fire was provided by a natural gas-fired furnace measuring 4 feet by 4 feet at its support points.
Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three thermocouples 12 inches below the test seal.
Average pressure during the test was.08 inches of water negative.
Thermocouples were p1 aced on the side of the seal away from the fire as follows:
a.
Seal with CT Thermafiber exposed to the fire:
r-1.
Two thermocouples slightly depressed into the CT Gypsum surface.
2.
One thermocouple suspended in the 1/4 inch crack slightly below the CT Gypsum surface.
3.
One thermocouple at the coaduit exit - seal interface.
b, Seal with CT Gypsum exposed to the fire:
'4 Y' 1.
One thermocoupli slightly depressed into the CT Thermafiber surface.
2.
One thermocouple on the CT Thermafiber surface directly over the 1/4 inch crack in the CT Gypsum.
~
3.
One thermocouple at the conduit exit - seal interface.
Additional thermocouples were installed to monitor seal performance.inside the conduits.
Seal temperatures were recorded at 5 minute intervals for the first two hours of the test and at 10 minute intervals for the last hour of the test.
At the conclusion of the fire exposure test the seals were subjected to three separate hose stream tests.
The first two tests consisted of a 75 psi hose stream delivered from a distance of 10 feet through a 1 1/2 inch hose equipped with fog nozzles with discharge angles of 30 and 15*.
The third test consisted of a 30 psi solid stream delivered through a 2 1/2 inch hose equipped with a 1 1/8 inch tip set on a playpipe from a distance of 20 feet.
Each test lasted 24 seconds.
The following test results were obtained:
2 e
a.
The maximum temperature attained over the crack in the seal with the CT Gypsum exposed to the fire was 140 at 20 minutes into the test.
The maximum seal surface temperature attained was 129 F at 25 minutes into the test.
The maximum conduit exit-seal interf ace temperature attained in this configuration was 272 F at the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> point.
b.
The maximum temperature attained over the crack in the seal.with CT fiberfill exposed to the fire was 80* F at the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> point.
The maximum seal surface temperature attained was 118* F at the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> point.
The maximum conduit exit - seal interface temperature attained was 205* F at the three hour point.
c.
The seal with the CT Gypsum side exposed to the fire passed all three hose stream tests with no water penetration.
d.
The seal with the CT fiberfill side exposed to the fire passed the first two hose stream tests without water penetration. Water penetration was observed on the. third test.
e.
No flame penetrated.either seal nor did any penetrating cables ignite on the unexposed side of the seal.
Standard Review Plan Section 9.5-1 references Section C.S.a(3) of the Branch Technical Position (BTP) CHEB 9.5.1, " Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants",
which specifies testing requirements for fire seals installed in openings g
i through fire barriers.
The BTP specifies that seals be tested using the time temperature exposure curve of ASTM E-119.
The acceptance criteria specified are:
.g
- a. f. The fire barrier penetration has withstood the fire endurance tests without passage of f. lame or ignition of cab,les on the unexposed side.
b.
The maximum temperature reached on the unexposed side of the seal is 325*F.
c(
The penetration seal remains intact and does not allow penetra, tion of water beyond the unexposed surfaces during one of the fjollowing three tests:
1.
Stream delivered at a distance of 5 feet from the exposed surface through a 1 1/2 inch nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30* With a nozzle pressure of 75 psi and a minimum flow of 75 gpm or 2.
Stream delivered at a distance of 10 feet from the exposed surface through a 1 1/2 inch nozzle set at a discharge angle of 15* with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi and a minimum flow of 75 gpm or 3.
Stream delivered at a distance of 20 feet from the exposed surface through a 2 1/2 inch playpipe equipped with a 1 1/8 inch tip with a nozzle pressure of 30 psi.
3 l
x
r Review of the Transco Products, Inc. test results and methodology against the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan showed the following:
a.
The time temperature curve utilized for the test conformed to ASTM E-119 specifications.
b.
The flame through and cable ignition criteria were satisfie'd.
c.
The maximum unexposed surface temperatures remained below the 325" specified value.
d.
Temperature recording requirements were satisfied.
e.
The tested configuration is representative to the as-installed configurations at LaSalle.
f.
Hose stream tests performed in accordance with Items 1 and 2 above were successfully completed. A single successful test would have been
' sufficient.
Thus, minimum hose stream test requirements were met or exceeded.
Given that the tested seal configuration with a 1/4 inch crack passed all required tests.and bounds the seal configuration at LaSalle and the licensee's e-proposed crack and separation criteria, the staff finds the proposed criteria acceptable.'
Environmental Consideration The proposed changes involve a change in the iistallation or use of a facility congionent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The' staff has determined *that the changes involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be relhased offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual ~
~
or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no e,nvironmental.:. impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the' proposed changes.
~
Conclusion The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health i
and safety of the public.
Dated:
I-Principal Contributor W. G. Guldemond 4
N
?