ML20147B455
| ML20147B455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1978 |
| From: | Birkel R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810110019 | |
| Download: ML20147B455 (5) | |
Text
-
Plh PD@
[
UNITED STATES yy
/$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5.(-)
.j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OCT 3192 DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 APPLICANT: DUKE POWER COMPANY TACILITY:
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 & 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 28, 1978 A meeting was held with the applicant on September 27 and 28,1978 in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the results of the staff review of the McGuire fire protection review as reflected in the September 6,1978 staff letter to the applicant. Enclosure No. 1 presents a list of attendees.
The agenda of the meeting and the items discussed utilized the enclosure to the September 6,1978 staff letter to the applicant.
For convenience, a copy of this letter appears as Enclosure No. 2.
Each item of the September 6 letter enclosure was discussed in detail with the applicant.
Resolution of each item is summarized in Enclosure No. 3.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the following review schedule milestones were agreed upon:
November 1, 1978 Applicant to file information and commitments reflecting results of September 27, 28 meeting with the staff.
Note (a) Certain test results and procedural descriptions may not be available at this time.
s (b) Applicant will include a detailed list of fire protection equipment (or design changes) required
(
for implementation of the McGuire fire protection program and a schedule for installation / operation.
/
-] $lh!kb 0 L
4 4
. OCT 3193 November 17, 1978 Staff fire protection review complete.
January 15, 1979 Applicant files revised McGuire Fire Protection Report.
LL/ L[,
(
Ralph A. Birkel Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
1.
Attendance List 2.
September 6,1978 Staff Letter to Duke Power Company 3.
Status Summary - McGuire Fire Protection Unresolved Issues, 9/28/78 ces w/ enclosures:
See page 4 k'
d l..
Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
Vice President, Steam Production Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 cc:
Mr. W. L. Porter Duke Power Company P. O. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina-28242 Mr. R. S. Howard Power Systems Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. E. J. Keith EDS Nuclear Incorporated 220 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94104
- 4 Mr. J. E. Houghtaling NUS Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President The Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Debevoise & Liberman 700 Shoreham Building 806 15th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20005 Shelley Blum, Esq.
418 Law Building 730 East Trade Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 4
Mr. William 0. Parker, Jr.
cc: Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin~gton, D. C.
20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Bodega Marine Lab of California P. O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California M 23
~
OCT - 31975
. ENCLOSURE NO. 1 ATTENDANCE LIST MCGUIRE FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW MEETING-SEPT' ~:BER 27, 28, 1978 DUKE POWER COMPANY D. L. Canup~
E. D. Brockman, Jr.
J. R. Hendricks R. J. Moore T.-P. Harrall G. A. Copp J. N. Broome, Consultant W. J. Foley, Jr.*-
i NRC - STAFF-R. A. Birkel V. Leung H. C. Li P. R. Matthews V. Benaroya**
J. Behn, Consultant
- Part Time September 27, 1978 Only
- Part Time September 28,1978 Only i
l l
1 j
l
'l
ENCLOSURE NO. 2-
,j....g,,g' u.sTED SI -TES p
.w
+r NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
$.kAd! j wAseswoTON. O c. 20555 '
W #_//
,..... ~
and 50-370 o
Duke Power Ccecany ATTN:
W. William O. Parker, Jr.
1 Vice President, Steam Production P. O. Box 2178 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 282 2 Gentlemen:
SUSJL *T: FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2)
In cur letter to you cated Augus: 9,1978 we s:a:ed that we v;uld cake every effort to c::clete cur preli=inary evaluation and incicate cur positions resulting from our review of your August 1,1973 respcnse to our June 14, 1978 request for adcitional infer =ation regarding the
^
McGuire Nuclear Station fire protection review by =id-Seprec:er. Tne Enclosure describes ne results of cur review icentifying unrescived issues and states final staff positions.
Tne items are nuadered to correspond with your August 1,1973 le::er attacncent.
In cr:er for us to cencluce our review of :nis ra::er,.e reques; a
=eeting with you to cc:ain satisfactory resolutien to all unresclved I
issues. We reques: Ona a qualified fire Or :ection engineer knowiec;eatle of the McGaire Station fire ha:ards analysis partici;a:e in :ne meeting.
We suggest ina: :nis meeting ce cele no later : nan :ne week beginning Septecter 25, 1973.
Should you nave any cuestiens regar:ing this catter, please c:n ac: us.
t Sincerely, f.
=v.L2;-/8.f. kW "
~
Re:er: L. Baer, Chief i
Lign: 'aater Reacters Branca No. 2 i
Divisi:n cf Pr; ject Fanageren
Enclosure:
As stated c: w/ encl:
l See age.2 i
7 i
Duke Power Company SEP C' G8 cc: Mr.
- 4. L. Porter.
Duke Power Company l
P. O. Box 2178 422 Soutn Church Street Chdrlotte, i4 orth Carolina 28242 Mr. R. S. Howard i
. Power Systems Division Westinghouse: Electric Corporation f
P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. d. J. Keitn EDS Nuclear Incorporated
yU Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94104 Mr. J. E. Hougntaling l1US Corporation 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida-33515 4
Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President The Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place Charlotte, Nortn Carolina 28207 J. Micnael McGarry, III, Esq.
Decevoise & Liberman 700 Shorenam Building
')
806 15tn Street, k. W.
Washington, D.
t..
20005 l
Shelley Blum, Esq.
418 Law Building 730 East Trace Street Charlotte, Nortn Carolina 28202 i
l I'
Duke Power Company 3-SEP G G73 cc: Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ur. Emmeth A. Lucoke atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasnington, U. C.
20555 Ur. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Bodega Marine Lao of California P. O. dox 247 Bodega day, California 94923 D
ENCLOSURE MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW
(
Reference:
Duke Power Company letter, August 1, 1978) 4.
Tour response does not outline the interim procedure to ' achieve cold shutdown in the event of a damaging fire in the cable spreading room or the control room prior-to installation of the standbv shut-
'down system.
We vill require this information to complete our evaluation.
5.
Since an exposure fire can damage both redundant power cables for the RER pumps, it is our position that the redundant cable trains be enclosed in a 1/2-hr. fire rated barrier.
Also, the same situa-tion exists for the nuclear service water pumps and the component cooling water pumps, therefore, the redundant cable trains of these pumps should be enclosed in a 1/2-hr. fire rated barrier.
In addi-tien, verify that there is ample accessibility for =anual operation of the residual heat removal letdown valves.
7.
Your proposed emergency lighting system is unacceptable since you
'm c uct demonstrated that a fire in one area vill not also result
'n : ss of lighting in other plant areas.
It is our position that
~
fixed self-contained lighting systems consisting of fluorescent or seal beam units with an individual 8 hr. mird=um battery power i
supply be provided in areas that =ust be =anned for safe cold shutdown and for access and egress routes to all these areas.
Confirm that you will meet this position.
f i
-2_
9.
Your response is incomplete. You have not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the 1" bypass line of the deluge valve would be sufficient to supply the required water flow to the auxiliary reactor building fire suppression system.
- Further, you have not provided assurance that a fire at the batteries. will not affect the fire protection system water supply.
'Je vill need this inf or=ation to complete our review.
10.
There are no fire doors on t!.e stated 3-hr. fire barriers of each RER pump room.. As stated in the original question, access is very limited by two open spiral stairways f rom the level above. The fire postulated for this area is an exposure fire in the corridor.
Autccatic detection, although provided, is of limited value if the fire brigade cannot reach the area.
It is our position that area sprinkler syste=s be provided in the corridor 'rea.
Confirm that a
you will meet this position.
11.
It is our position that you provide a fire barrier of at least 1/2-hr. fire rating to protect the instru=entation and control cables for the turbine-driven auxiliary f eedwater pu=p, which are located in the motor-driven auxiliary f eedwater pump CMDAF?) rocm.
Or, alternately relocate these cables to another area such that they will not be affected in the event an exposure fire occurs in the XOAFP area.
4 Your response to our question about use of detectors for the turbine drive auxiliary f eed pump area only considered ioniza-tion smoke detectors.
No consideration was given to photo-electric smoke detectors.
It is our position that smoke detectors be provided for this area to provide early fire detection.
13.
Verify that fire damage to the auxiliary shutdown panel will not compremise the cold shutdown capability of the control room.
14.
Provide drawings to show the detail arrange =ent and cross-sections of the barrier to be provided for the cable tray stacks at the east and west end of the battery room, fire area 13, auxiliary building, i
elevatica 733'.
The inf ormation should include the barrier material, method of supporting the barrier, and how the supports are protected.
1 Since this plant area is critical to both Unit 1 & 2, it is, there-1 i
fore, our position that the existing 1-1/2 hr. dampers be upgraded to 3 hr. rating.
I l
16.
Deecribe the type of barrier or provide a sketch of the barrier used to separate the cceponent co"oling pumps from each other.
In addition, demonstrace that the proposed barrier can preclude an exposure fire from damaging redundant component cooling pu=ps.
(See item 5 for our position of redundant trains of CCa' pe=p cables.)
17.
Provide the basis to justify tha: an exposure fire in roo=s 722 or 724 vill not affect the ability to achieve cold shutdown.
22.
You state that the construction of the vall separating the cable roo= along colu=n line 56 will be tested to verify the three hour rating.
It is our position that the test results be =ade available for the staf f review prior to ini:ial fuel loading.
23.
Provide the results of the fire tes:s of the cable roo= floor opening and confir= that the size of the opening tested is si=ilar to the actual installation.
25.
It is our position that you provide a =ini=u= of 1-1/2 hr. fire rating for the valls, including penetrations, f or roo=s 807 and 820 on elevation 750 6f the auxiliary building or provide water sprinkler syste=s in these roo=s and the corridor to protec:
safety related equip =ent in adjacent areas.
26.b.
Our position re=ains tha: :he peripheral rec = wi:hin :he cen:rel 1 cs= plex should be ex: ended to the ceiling, and Class C deers shen!d replace the existing doors.
27.
It is our position : hat the control valve for the reactor cecling pu=p sprinkler sys te= should be aute=atic or re=ote =anual opera:ed fro = the centrol rec =. Also state the criteria and procedure :o be followed by an operator to open the cen:rel valve te supply wa:er
b P :
t r
to the sprinklers and. hose stations inside contain=ent.
28.
Response.to this question missing.
b 29.
Question and response missing.
30.
Question and part 'of response missing.
'A 31.
Your response does not address item (b-) of our question no. 31.
i Provide the. requested information. Also provide the test resul:s l
for the vall asse=blies. '
'a'e will require this infor=ation to complete our review.
i 32.
Outline the action to be taken by the control room operator upon indication of loss of battery roo= supply or exhaus: ventilation.
34 Confir: tha: your fire protectica ad=ints:rative con:rols and pro-l cedures vill be revised to =ee: the staff supple = ental guidelines and be in eff ect by initial f uel loading of Uni: 1.
Also confirn that ycu will have a five man fire brigade es:ablished by :ha:
j
- t=e.
OCT 3 193 ENCLOSURE NO. 3 STATUS SUfNARY MCGUIRE FIRE PROTECTION REVIEW UNRESOLVED ISSUES SEPTEMBER 28, 1978 4.
OpEN:
applicant will provide additional information regarding emergency procedures to assure safe shutdown in the event of a fire in the cable room or control room prior to installation of the standby shutdown system 5.
CLOSED:
staff accepts applicant's analysis regarding power cables associated with RHR, nuclear service water and component cooling water pumps 7.
CLOSED:
applicant will comply with staff position 9.
CLOSED:
applicant will submit calculations to verify capability to provide 75 gpm flow through two hose stations with 30' throw via the 1" bypass line
- 10. CLOSED:
applicant will extend the RHR pump room sprinkler systems to the corridor area connecting each RHp.
pump room
- 11. CLOSED:
applicant will comply with staff position
- 13. CLOSED:
applicant will protect auxiliary shutdown panel from exposure fire with suitable (1/2 hour) fire barrier recognizing requirement for necessary panel ventilation
- 14. CLOSED:
applicant propos'ed installing sprinkler heads in the east and west end of the battery room, and will notify the staff regarding the number of sprinkler heads and their location. The system will be implemented prior to commercial operation. Also the 1 1/2 hour damper will be upgraded to 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
- 16. CLOSED:
applicant will provide 1 1/2 hour barrier from floor to ceiling and extend 3' beyond the pumps
- 17. CLOSED:
applicant will provide confirmatory information
- 22. CLOSED:
applicant will allow NRC to witness test and provide test results, probably in November 1978 23.
CLOSED:
applicant confirmed that the tested opening size is larger than the actual installation and will provide test results, probably in November 1978 25.
CLOSED:
applicant will comply with staff position
OCT 3 158,
26b. CLOSED:
applicant will provide 1 1/2 hour ceiling, Class C doors and additional smoke detectors for peripheral rooms 27.
CLOSED:
applicant will provide remote manual operated sprinkler system valve 28.
CLOSED:
applicant filed response is satisfactory 29.
CLOSED:
applicant filed response is satisfactory 30.
CLOSED:
applicant filed response is satisfactory 31 b.
OPEN:
applicant will provide additional information to.
demonstrate that the damper installation is acceptable to meet 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire rating.
32.
C10 SED:
applicant will implement operating procedure to verify operation of battery room ventilation system once per shift 34.
- CLOSED:
applicant filed response is satisfactory 1
i
- _