ML20151B756

Restates Commitments Made During 880315 Fire Protection Enforcement Conference & Transmits Set of Overheads Utilized During Conference.Proprietary Info Removed from Overheads

ML20151B756
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	03/18/1988
From:	Andrews R OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
LIC-88-191, NUDOCS 8804110208
Download: ML20151B756 (27)

Text

- . .

-Vs Y d -

Cmaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 2247 402/536-4000 y._ ...a  ;

March 18, 1988 J' j LIC-88-191 t% 4 b M [ih uj 1 !R Mr. Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Tx. 76011

Reference:

1. Docket No. 50-285

2. Enforcement Conference held March 15, 1988, Arlington, Texas

SUBJECT:

Fire Protection Enforcement Conference of March 15, 1988 0maha Public Power District (0 PPD) appreciates the time and attention given by you and your staff to the OPPD Fire Protection conference of March 15, 1988.

Thi:: letter is a restatement of commitments made by 0 PPD to you during the course of the conference.

OPPD will continue hourly fire watch patrols at Fort Calhoun Station until identified openings inside conduit are sealed in accordance with the draft criteria presented at the conference. This effort is currently in progress and completion is expected by the end of March 1988. Any openings inside conduit which are not sealed will be evaluated for adequacy by a fire protection engineer. This analysis will be maintained on file by 0 PPD and will be completed by the end of May 1988.

In addition, OPPD will update and clarify its commitment on this issue, including an association with the utility group currently addressing this issue. OPPD will submit this clarification to the NRC by the end of April 1988.

This letter also transmits to you a set of the overheads utilized by 0 PPD during the conference. Proprietary information from Professional loss Control (PLC) has been removed from this set.

8804110200 000310 PDR ADOCK 05000205 q DCD \ \

8%Y 6, v :

,,sc.

~ .- = g. ~,

.. o R."D. Martin iTC-88-191 Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, R. L. Andrews Division Manager Nuclear Production RLA/me cc: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 R. 3. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator A. Bournia, NRC Project Manager P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector 4

i d

i 4

J

, - ~.<.-pe, m.-- e.,m,n--- _--,----mm---,--,,,n-,.n-,-n..mmme.,,g_

e , .

NRC FIRE PROTECTION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 15, 1988 OPENING REMARKS / INTRODUCTION: R.L. ANDREWS OVERVIEW OF MEETING: J.J. FISICARO IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TAKEN/RESULTS ACHIEVED: J.E. LECHNER

- FIRE WATCH PATROL

- DETERMINATION OF IMMEDIATE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE

- WALKDOWN

! - SEALING OF CONDUITS

- COMPLIANCE WITH TECH. SPEC. COMMITMENTS REVIEW OF OPPD' S FIRE PROTECTION COMMITMENTS: S.K. GAMBHIR

- BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION 9.5.1, APP.A l

l

- OCTOBER 1978 SUBMITTAL

- FIRE PROTECTION SER DATED NOVEMBER 1980 l - RE-CONSTITUTION OF CONDUIT SEALING CRITERIA

- COMPLIANCE WITH SER COMMITMENTS

- RE-EVALUATION OF SEALING CRITERIA (PER GENERIC LETTER 86-10)

TOPICAL REPORT ON TESTING OF CONDUIT SEALS MIKE MOWRER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS / FUTURE UPGRADES: J.E. LECHNER

- EXCELLENCE IN OPERATION REVIEW l - REVISED FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS 1

l SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE T.L. PATTERSON l

CLOSING STATEMENT AND CONCLUSIONS P.L. ANDREWS t l . . _ _ __ .____ _ __

N .

N N .

: REQUIRED  :

= l 3 HR "

!  ! BARRIER \!

SWITCHGEAR j i SWITCHGEAR i i ROOM i.

ROOM i.

i A  : B  :

4.. 4..  : 4.. 4..  :

l CONDUIT CONDUIT l CONDUIT CONDUIT i BATTERY  !

BATTERY  !

i ROOM  :

ROOM  :

, i A  : B  :

p E

a m a n u m m e s m o s a m m e n e n e et e e a e e a s o m w a s e a m a n u s e.

SWITCHGEAR/ BATTERY ROOM PHYSICAL LAYOUT

BTP APCSB 9.51 APPESDLX A AUGUST 23, 1976 PAGES 15 A:SD 16 APPLICATI0ft DOCKETED BUT C0tlSTRUCTI0fl PLAtlTS UtlDER C0tlSTRUCTI0ft At10 PER!ilT tt0T RECE1VED AS OF 7/1/76 OPERATIllG PLAttlS (j) Floors, wall and ceilings enclos- (j) SAliE. The fire hazard in each ing separate fire areas should area should be evaluated to have minimum fire rating of three determine barrier requirements.

hours. Penetrations in these fire If barrier fire resistance can-barriers, including conduits and not be made adequate, fire piping, should be sealed or closed detection and suppression to provide a fit esistance rat- should be provided, such as:

ing at least eva to that of the fire barrier itself. Door open- (i) water curtain in case of ings should be protected with fire, equivalent rated doors, frames and hardware that have been tested and (ii) flame retardant 7 approved by a nationally recog- coatings, nized laboratory. Such doors should be normally closed and (iii) additional fire locked or alarmed with alarm and barriera, annunciation in the control room.

Penetrations for ventitation sys-tem should be protected by a stan-dard "fire door damper" where required. (Refer to NFPA 80, "Fire Doors and Windows.")

l

O, .

REVIEW

~

STANDARD

~

PLAN 9.5.1

SUREG 75 / 087 REV 1 A:S D 2 (3) Cable and cable tray penetration of fire barriers (vertical and horizontal) should be sealed to give protection at least equivalent to that required for the fire barrier. The design of fire barrier pene horizontal and vertical cable trays should be qualified by tests.grations for The pene-tration qualification tests should use the time-temperature exposure curve specified by ASTM E-119, "Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials."

Openings inside conduit larger than four inches in diameter should be sealed at the fire barrier penetration; these seals should be qualified by tests as descrioed above. Openings inside conduit four inches or less in diameter should be sealed at the fire barrier and should be qualified by tests as described above unless the conduit extends at least five feet on each side of the fire barrier and is sealed either at both ends or at the fire barrier with noncombustible material to prevent the passage of smoke and hot gases. Fire barrier penetrations that must maintain environmental isolation or pressure differentials should be qualified by test to maintain the barrier integrity under the conditions specified above.

3. Plants for which (a) CP applications were docketed prior to, but were not issued a CP, by July 1, 1976; or (b) construction permits or operating licenses were issued prior to July 1,1976, should follow the guidelines of either (a)

Appendix A (dated August 23, 1976 to BTP APCSB 9.5-1; dated May 1, 1976; or (c) this position.

PAGES 29 AND 46

CHEMTROL PROGRAM -

OPPD SUBMITTAL DATED OCTOBER 18, 1978 6.0 Other Small Openinas Certain openings in small conduits, small gaps, and small repairs are to be accomplished by utilizing U.L. listed and fire-rated silicone caulk sealants. (See CHEMTROL Specification Hos. 3440 and 3450).

7.0 Larce Openinos 7.1 Where larger penetration openings do not economically permit the entire volume of the opening to be sealed with expanded silicone elastomeric foam (refer to Item 2.0, Work Scope, as contained herein), Applicator is to provide FIREWALL sprayed on, fast-cure fiberglass reinforced cementitious matrix to thickness as specified.

Densities e cum

.80 gm/cm 3 (50 lbs./ft.groduct

) to 2.0shah bg (125 gm/cm as selecW lbs./ft. ig) ranges fmm (Refer to CHEMTROL Specification No. 4000.)

PAGE 2.02

SER DATED -

=

NOVEMBER 17, 1980 Item 3.1.20 - Cable Penetration Seals SER Section 3.1.20 indicates that the licensee will upgrade the electrical cable penetration scals to a design demonstrated by test to have a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire resistance rating.

By letter dated October 18, 1978, the licensee described the proposed modifica-tions to achieve the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire resistance rating. The licensee also indi-cated that penetration seals being installed have passed tests conducted generally in agreement with the methods and criteria described in the flRC August 30, 1977 letter to the Omaha Public Power District, except that no pressure differential was applied across the seals during the test.

The licensee stated that Chemtron Corporation, to whose installation procedures fort Calhoun cable penetration seals have been installed, acknowledged that a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire test was successfully conducted with a positive pressure of 9.0 inches of water maintained on a 5,885 square inch penetration.

Because the largest penetration in the plant is 1,924 square inches, and because the maximum expected nonfire differential pressure is approximately 0.5 inches of water, we find the proposed modifications fer cable penetration seals satisfactory and consider this item to be closed.

PAGE 5

RE CONSTITUTION OF CONDUIT SEALING CRITERIA BACKGROUND

- NO PROBLEM WITH EXTERNAL SEALING

- NO PROBLEM WITH SEALING OF " SLEEVES"

- NRC CRITERIA FOR SEALING INSIDE OF CONDUITS WAS NOT CLEAR - (1978 TIME FRAME)

- NO INDUSTRY GUIDANCE WAS AVAILABLE CRITERIA USED IN 1978 SEALED PER CHEMTROL PROCEDURE (OCT, 1978 SUBMITTAL) waw h &

'# SEAL IF e < 10'

- e =l SLEEVES f SEALED AT PENETRATION g l

SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS

- THE CRITERIA WAS REVISED TO REQUIRE SEALING FOR CONDUITS > 2" IF e < 5' -0" ( MP-FP-2) l

\

1 l

1

COMPLIANCE WITH SER COMMITMENTS (PARAGRAPH 6.0 OF 1978 SUBMITTAL) -

- NO SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS WERE INTENDED TO SEAL INSIDE OF ALL CONDUITS

- PARAGRAPH 6.0 ( PAGE 2.02) WAS INTENDED AS MATERIAL SPECIFICATION - NOT AN INSTALLATION SPECIFICATION.

(REFERENCE - PROMATEC LETTER)

- CRITERIA WAS DISCUSSED WITH AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS (ANI) (REFERENCE - TELECON WITH ANI AND JOE ALDERI)

- CONSISTENT WITH INDUSTRY PRACTICE (1978-1980)

- GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS ASAP

ORIGIN AL DOCUMENT ILLEGlBLE RETYPED FOR CLARITY 3-14-88 ORIGINAL INCLUDED FOR INFORMATION NEXT PAGE 4

i To whom it may concern:

This information is provided regarding penetration seals for Fort Calhoun Power Station.

I was the cognizant engineer responsible for the sealing of. penetration seals.

During the course of the effort a question arose concerning sealing of opened ended conduits. Note: As a matter of course all conduits which acted as a sleeve (e.g. penetration wall then went in tray) were sealed.

Since all of our seals / seal designs were/had to be approved by ANI (the authority having jurisdiction), the question was asked when would an opened ended conduit not require a seal. The response was >10'. There was no other issues regarding the sealing of conduits (i.e., conduit systems were not traced to 'a n elbow or condulet, opened and scaled, only ooened ended conduits were sealed.

Respectfully, 1-i Joseph M. Aldieri 3/11/88 l

l I

l l

( .

RECORD OF TFlf PH0flE COMMUNICATI0ft M . R . 110. FC-77 15 FILE NO. GSE.FCl-79-782 DATE: 10/24/79 TIME: 1ELEPH0tlE NO. 87-36 PARTY CALLING: JOSEPH M. ALDIERI OPPD-GSE (fW1E) (COMPAf4Y)

PARTY ANSWERING: WAYflE HOLMES AMERICAf1 NUCLEAR INSURERS (fWlE) (COMPAtlY)

SUBJECT:

FIRE SEALS IN CONDUIT TELEC0ft

SUMMARY

(Including Decisions and Commitments)

I asked Wayne, if he was aware of any requirements relative to acceptance critaria for conduit runs, which did not terminate at the fire barrier. (i.e.,

extended a certain distance beyond the fire barrier).

Wayne stated that there wasn't any.

I noted that various "rules of thumb" have been established ind considered them only as "nice to do item" since they are not based on any test data.

He agreed.

I asked if we were to pack mineral wool around the ends of such conduit runs, would it be considered as a fire barrier.

Wayne said no.

ORIGir4 AL DOCUMEt4T ILLEGIDLE RETYPED FOR CLARITY 3-14-88 ORIGIN AL litCLUDED FOR ltJFORMAT10tl t1 EXT PAGE bThbbhEbbihEb Forward information to J. Connolley DISTRIBUTION CGK, JMA, SKG, JEC, (FC)

GSE- A-1-4 for a Rev. 8/85

PRC Minutes February 2, 1980 Page Two I_T_D_4, AC"r10'i Procedure Changes PRC Reviewed the following Proced.ar-CIDGED 5229 (ST-Co.Yf-7) 5228 (ST-CO.';T-~'

5218 (SP-ICI-1) 5227 (S.O. T-1M 5230 (MP-RC-6-6-1A) 5194 (DCR 78-50/SRDC0 79-80) 5139 (MR-FC-78-56/SRDC0 79-73) e Final Review of:

5219 (MP-RC-6-1) 5186 (MP-VA-3) 5189 (SRDC0 79-80) 5162 (SRDC0 79-80)

Telecon between J. Alderi and PRC Reviewed and concurs with telecon.

Wayne Holmes of American Nuclear Insurers concerning Fire Seals in Conduit dated 10-24-79 CLOGG Letter to PRC concerning PRC Reviewed and approved per letter Cancellation of SP-RCS-6 FC-131-80.

concerning RCP Motor 011 Collection System Fabrication Control CIASE PRC Subcommittee concerning PRC Reviewed and approved per letter Repiscenent of Main Steam Line PC-126-SO.

Penetration Bellows MR-FC-78-2.

CIASED Letter from Chen Nuclear concern- PRC Reviewed per letter dated 1-25 80.

ing Barnwell Disposal Site Burial Space Allocation Revisions.

CIDSED

'IMI-2 Task Force Meeting Minutes PRC Reviewed and any open items placed 1-29-80. on Open Item Checklist.

CtD3D Inster from CSE concerning PRC Reviewed per letter TC-80-59.

Inspection of Safety Related Piping Inside Containment in /

reference NRC I.E. Bulletin 79-1k. S /

CIAS E ,

\

b4 41toGLI55M MATIAJALS AND itOiNOLOGIES. INC.

March 11, 1988 Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102 Attention: Mr. Stanley R. Crites Nuclear Engineering

• Generating Station Engineering

Subject:

Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Crites:

This in to confirm our telephone conversation this dato regarding work which I was involved in as the Project Manager for Chomtrol corporation for Omaha Pub-lic Power District at the Fort calhoun Nucioar Power Station. This work took place during the period of September through Decc=bor of 1978.

To the best of my recollection, Paragraph 6.0 of chemtrol's Guido Specifica-tion for Design FC225 is a natorial spocification, and should not be con-sidered as an installation specification. The cephasis of this ite:n is placed on the natorial being UL listed, and has nothing to do with the type of opening that the asterial is utili:cd to seal. J Regarding the original contract scopo (portaining to open ended conduit termi-nations), Mr. Joe Aldori, Project Engineer at that poricxi of timo for OPPD.

and (as Project Manager for Cheatrol corporation), did discuss the issue of conduits, that were cemented in place in firo walls, which terminated within ten feet of the fire barrier vall. I recall that Mr. Alderi directed us to provide a nilicone foam seal in such conduits which ter=inated within tea feet of the fire barrior vall. The seal design utilised vould have been the Same design for a three hour firo rated coal; however, it would have been installed at the point of termination, and only on the side of the wall, where the con-duit terminated within ten feet of the fire barrior. It was censidered that any before conduits that ran a distance greator than ten foot from the fire t>strier terminating were rogarded as continuous run conduit and, ao such, were not scaled. As regards blockout openings in the control Room floor, thesc openings were sealed as per tested design as a fire seal, and cable and/or conduit, which penetrated the opening, vore considered merely to bo penetra-ting of theclements.

blockout, However, if the conduit terminated within the slab, at the top an appropriate fire coal design was installed, at that point of conduit the blockout.

termination, just as if it were part of the continu:us opening of l

M nmr P.O. BOX 472

• HOUSTON. TEXA5 m13 o aim m on i WN'i

9I Oiaaha Public Power District March 11, 1988 Page 2 Aside from these cases, I do not recall any other situations ir. which internal conduit mentation. seals were specifically identified in the work scope or quality docu-In the case of open ended conduits, which terminated less than ten feet from the fire barrier (that were sealed),

installed it is probable that the seals far the purposes of invoicing.were recorded as a penetration seal, from a quality st I hope this information assists your efforts. If I can provide any further information or clarification, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, PROMATEC E. L. Brault Vice President ELasbe v

t I

4 0

RE EVALUATION OF SEALING CRITERIA

\

( GENERIC LETTER 86 10 )

l

./ " . ,

component under consideration is capable of performing its intended function y during and after the postulated fire, as needed. Licensees seeking exemptions 4 from Section III.G.2 must show that the alternative proposed provides -

reasonable assurance that this criterion is met. (Note also that Section III.G.2 applies only to equipment needed for hot shutdown. Therefore, an exemption from III.G.2 for cold shutdown equipment is not needed. The tem "damage by fire" also includes damage to equipment from the nomal or J.

inadvertent operation of fire suppression systems.

4. Fire Area Boundaries The tem "fire area" as used in Appendix R means an area sufficiently bounded a to withstand the hazards associated with the area and, as necessary, to '

l orntact im.nortant eonioment within the area from a fire outside the area. In order te meet the rag;.htSn, fire area bcun:icrius need ran be completely ~

sealed floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall boundaries. However, all unsealed openings should be identified and considered the evaluatino the effectiveness.

of the overall barrier. I Where fire area boundaries are not wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling boundaries with all penetrations scaled to the fire rating ,

required of the boundaries, licensees must perfom an evaluation to assess the adequacy of fire boundaries in their plants to determine if the boundaries will withstand the hazards associated with the area. This analysis must be performed by at least a fire protection engineer and, if required, a systems engineer. Althouoh not rewired, licensees may submit their evaluations for staff review and concurrence. However, if certain cable penetrations were

identified as open SER items at the time Appendix R became effective,Section III.M of the rule applies (see 10 CFR 50.48(b)), and any variation from *he

! requirements of Section III.M requires an exemption. In any event, the analyses must be retained by the licensees for subsequent NRC audits.

5. Automatic Detection and Suppression Sections III.G.2.b and III.G.2.c of Appendix R state that "In addition, fire detectors and automatic fire suppression system shall be installed in the fire area..." Other provisions of Appendix R also use the phrase "fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system in the fire area..." (see e.g.,

SectionIII.G.2.e).

i l In order to comply with these provisions, suppression and detection sufficient to protect against the hazards of the area must be installed. In this regard, detection and suppression providing less than full area coverage may be adecuate to comoly with the regulation. Where full area suppression and detection is not installed, licensees must perfom an evaluation to assess the adequacy of partial suppression and detection to protect against the hazards in the area. The evaluation must be performed by a fire protection engineer and, if required, a systems engineer. Although not required, licensees may submit their evaluations to the staff for review and concurrence. In any event, the evaluations must be retained for subsequent NRC audits. Where a licensee is providing no suppression or detection, and exemption must be requested.

l

c' sat . . . .

!YR 03 '8315:31 FFE. LCGS CCmFa. esB ass r ...... c. g.m.mmys 4 , .[ '.S ((* t\ H M

ii,

' ' c.mj .u N ' l, .. J1O%m,, h l'";2 L(&./ Qm:.

t.

1.0 PtRPOSE The purpose of this document is to establish a technically based policy ,

regarding internal fire sealings of electrical conduits penetrating fire barriers at the Fort Calhoun Station.

2.0 BACKGROUND

The Fort Calhoun Station committed to APCSB 9.5-1, Appendix A, 'Overall Requirements of Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Program." The guidance established in 9.5-1 Appendix A in paragraph D.1.(j) states: ,

(j) "Floors, valls, and ceilings enclosing separate fire areas should have a minimum fire rating of thrco hours.

Penetrations in these fire barricrs, including conduits and piping, should be sealed or closed to provide a firo resistance rating at least equal to that of the fire barrict itself . . ."

and in paragraph D.3.(d) states:

"(d) cable and Cable tray penetration of fire barriers l (vertical and horizontal) should be sealed to give pro-tection at least equivalent to that fire barrier. The design of fire barriers for horizontal and vertical cable trays should, as a minimum, meet the require =ents of ASTM E-119, "Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials," including the hos'c strou test."

Neither of these references are specific to internal sealing of :en-I duits.

i The CMEB 9.5-1 (NUitEG 0800) in paragraph 5.a.(3) referenc'es internal sealing of conduits as follows:

I

"(3) openings through fire barriers for pipe, conduit, and cable trays which separate fire areas should be sealed or closed to provide a fire resistance rating at least equal to that required of the barrier itacif.

Openings insido conduit larger than 4 inches in dia=eter should be scaled at the fire barrier penetration. Open-ings inside conduit 4 inches or less in dia:eter should l

I be sealed at the fire barrier unless the conduit extends '

at lea::t 5 feet on each sido of the fire barrier and is

! sealed either at both ends or at the fire barrier vith

' noncombustible caterials to prevent the passage of s=oke and hot gases . . ."

f l 1 1

i l

,l., a The policy applied at Fort Calhoun Station is stated in MP-PP-2, Appen-dix B, paragraph C.3. Type D:

"Inside of conduits with a required minimum depth of RTV foam of 7 inches.

NOTE: Type D seals only applicable to 2" or larger conduits which do not extend 5 feet into the Fire Area on one side."

Subsequent to the establishment of this policy, additional technical information in the form of a fire test was developed by a group of utilities. Based on this test data, Fort Calhoun Station should change its policy regarding internal sealing of conduits as outlined in Sec .

tion 4.0 below.

3.0 RRFERENCES ,

3.1 Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1 "Guidelines for Fire Protection for Nuclear Power Plants Docketed prior to July 1, 1976" Rev. 1, Nover.ber 18, 1976.

g 3.2 Branch Technical Position'CMES 9.5-1 "Guidelines for Fire Protec-tion for Nuclear Power Plants" Rev. 2, July, 1981.

3.3 Omaha Public Pover District, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, Fire Hasards Analysis (updated) Rev. O, October 12, 1987.

3.4 Port Calhoun Station Unit No. 1, Maintenance Procedure HP-PP-2 Fire Barrier Penetration Seals.

3.5 Conduit Fire Protection Research Program, Final Report, . Profes-sional Loss control, Inc., June 1,'1987.

4.0 POLTCT The purpese of'a flee barrier is to prevcat the spread of a fire"from

~

'orie side of the barrier to the other. Openings in the barrier must be prot'ected to the level ..necessary to prevent fire propagation. The design objective for conduit penetrations as with door openings, duct

penetrations and cable tray penetrations is to prevent the spread of fire through the barrier.

open conduits that terminate n the vall should be treated as sleeves and should be sealed with rated scals as described MP FP 2. Cencral

! policy for sealing of other conduits penetrating fire barriers to pre-vent the propagation of fire is outlined belov.

Conduits that terminate in junction boxes or other nonco:nbustible t

1.

closure need no additional sealing. Conduits that run through an area but do not terminate in that area need not La scaled in that area.

2 L: -

2. Open conduits smaller than 2" diameter that terminate I foot or greater from tbc barrier need not be scaled.

3. Open conduits of 2" diameter that terminate 3 feet or greater from the barrier need not be scaled.

4. Open conduits of greater than 2" in diameter that terminate 3 feet or greater from the barrier and have a cable fill of 40% or greater need not be scaled.

These scaling requirements for open conduits can be summarized in the following table.

Ooon Termination Distance (ft)

Conduit Diameter (in) <1' 11' 21'

<2" Y N N 2" Y Y N

>2" Y Y Y(I)

(1) NOTE: only if conduit cable fill density is <40%

When sealing of conduits, other than sleeves, is required, the seal may be a plug of ceramic fiber and need not be applied at the vall but at the open end of the conduit.

5.0 JUSTIFICATION These design guidelines are based on the conduit seal fire test con-ducted on November 13, 1986, at Construction Technology Laboratories (See Reference 3.5). The test slab incorporated 101 conduit penetra-tions of diameters from 1/2" through 2,", projecting from l' through 7' outside the furnace. The test slab vas exposed to the ASTM E.119 atan-dard fire exposure for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. During the test, no flames propagated through the conduits and no cables vere ignited on the unexposed side of the test slab. Only one conduit (a 2" open conduit with 10% cable fill, terminating 1 foot from the slab) exceeded 7000F at its end.

Open conduits larger than 2" diameter vere not tested, but internal temperature measurements vere madeT3", 4", and 6" conduit. Based on these internal temperatures, it can be concluded that conduits larger than 2" diameter which terminate 3' or greater from the barrier and vhich have a cable fill density of 40% or greater need not be scaled.

l 1

l V37-011 l

3 i

i l

l

i i

TOPICAL REPORT ON '

l TESTING OF l CONDUIT SEALS t

_J - - - -

PURPOSE OF CONDUIT SEAL TESTS e CONDUCTED IN RESPONSE TO DIFFERING REGULATORY GUIDANCE (BTP 9.5-1 8 APPENDIX A, APPENDlX R, 8 NUREG 0800) .

e COST EFFECTIVE FIRE PROTECTION CONCERNS FOR INSTALLATION a SURVEILLANCE e ESTABLISH TECHNICAL BASIS FOR TYPE OF SEALS l

NOTE: 26 UTILITIES ORIGINALLY PARTICIPATED IN 11/86 l

I i

f

. 0 f. CO N DU::~ S ~? ES~ EJ TEST PARAMETERS: '

I .

i

• DISTANCE OF CONDUIT TERMINATION l

FROM BARRIER

• CONDUIT DIAMETER l

• CONDUIT CABLE FILL

• TYPE OF CONDUIT TERMINATION

• TYPE OF CONOUIT l

.__.__._.,,,.__._ _ _ _. __,,, , _ _ _ , . _ , _ . _ . ,.___.,__w,m.-,.. _ . - - --

'd

k F4 G'

?

These sealing requirements for open conduits can be summarized in the k following table. y 8

m

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ n Open Termination Distance (ft) @

Cenduit Diameter (in) <1' 11' 23' f

<2" Y N N .

2" .Y Y N $

>2" Y Y Y(I) s 8

(1) NOTE: only if conduit cable. fill density is <40% y When sealing of conduits, other than sleeves, is required, the seal any be a plug of ceramic fiber and need not be applied at the vall but at the open end of the conduit.

.Y T

m

pyn' 71~ ~jr n~

ji .,

n ]p art n

_Jn V J.J J J. V.J _.1 V .. _ J. kn . . V ASS:sSSi:Bf" 0~.

p 77 ygn,rrp arrqn,

_.t_J _ U _J V .V -

LANJARY 22 - M3:1JA1Y 10, .988

" TO ASSESS TiiE ADEQUACY OF TliE FORT CAlliOUN FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM IN LIGliT OF CURRENT REGULATORY PHILOSOPliY WITil TliE INTENTION OF BEING AN INDUSTRY STANDARD BEARER IN TliE FIELD OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FIRE PROTECTION."

TliE ULTIMATE G0AL: TO AClllEVE AND MAINTAIN A SALP RATING 0F "1" IN Tile AREA 0F FIRE PROTECTION

. . . := . .g na. ,. .. . . . .

REVISED FIRE HAZARD ANALYSIS 1

a 1

.,s .

J. . ,

EGEA"01Y 10CI1m"S E"17m  !

APCSB 9.5-1 Appendix A ASB 9.5- 1 -

NUREG 0800 10 CFR 50 Appendix R Generic Letter 81-12 Generic Letter 86-10 1.E. NOTICE 84-09 I SECY 85-306 l

NRC INSPECTION MODULES (various applicable)  !

NRC SALP REPORTS since 1981 NFPA CODES (various applicable)  ;

{-

i

[

l

' i

, t

- - _ - -. -- .