ML20209B904
| ML20209B904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/20/1983 |
| From: | Benaroya V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B909 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8302080407 | |
| Download: ML20209B904 (4) | |
Text
__ _ -__ _ _ ..
_ _ . , . _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - . -~~n.- ~ n . -
- / .
k:., . : l ' n c:t. !;
- l
- ? '*
' y , p** **vt,,* ,'
$1 . e, UNITED STATES e( yf.
t
..q g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
- , j- wasmwctow.o.c.2om l' -k . ...
/ JM 2 0 toB3 f
f I
~~~
MEMORANDUM FOR: -
Olvision o ngineering .j l!
j ..THRU: .ky* William V. Johnston, Assistant Director; L Materials & Qualifications Engineering' Division of Engineering i
FROM: Victor Benaroya, Chief I ,
, Chemical Engineering Branch
, Division of Engineering i
l .
- 3
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RESPONSE.FOR.UCS LETTER DATED JANDARY 5, 1983
. .. s
! r .;- '
J, . Enclosed is a proposed response for the second item in the
.~
subject letter as requested in your January 11, 1983 note.
- .4~. <) /
. ., J .- '\..!J'L' d k.Jag %m s.-~
f .Q
~
+- ,
Victor Beuhya, Chief.#
~
' Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering t ,
'l cc: R. Ferguson ~ ".~ . - .'
- F. Molan .
l .
~.
- .e :,
s, .,
~
i t
() /G
?-
' ~
g36105 gjf n
. - . . . . . . . - - . . ~
_ _ . __. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ s 4 . .. ..
Qf,s. ,
. . l,
. . 4 t
i ,
Enclosure A Excerpts from Fire Protection Guidelines I
'! 1. GDC 3, Appendix l A to 10 CFR 50, in .part: " Fire fighting systees 1.
- shalh be designed to issure that rupture or inadvertent operation f does not significantly impair the safety capability of those strucl.ures, systems and components."
, i,
- 2. Section C.I.b of BTP-CME'B 9.5-1: "The fire hazards analysis
,, should ' verify that the NRC fire protection program guidelines '
^
have bhn met."
-l*
' .( q M-
- 3. Section C.5(a)(14) of BTP.-CMEB 9.5-1, in part:
. . . floor i ,
l n drain {;, sized to remove expected fire fighting water flow without
- flooding safety-relate'd equipment should be provided in those
. areas where' fixed water fire suppression systects are installed.
Floor drains,shoul'd also be provided in other areas where hand q 1 hose lines may be used ff'such fire fighting water could cause i
j k unacceptable'dasAge to safety related equipment in this area."
1 , .
' ^.
n, < -
ll ., .h ..
- 4. Section C.6.(e) .of BTP-CMEB 9.5-1: " Carbon dioxide suppression a
systems should comply with the requirements of NFPA 12, Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing systems and particular consideration should
, .be given to:
- a. Possibility of secondary thermal shock (cooling) dantge, and j '
1
- b. Conflicting requirements for venting during CD. I"5'CII"" t
] ,
2 ll pre' vent overpressurization versus sealing to prevent loss of h
h agent."
l!
il 1 5. SectionC.7(a)ofBTPCMEB9.5-1: " Operation of fire protection
) systems should not compromise the integrity of containment or other j __
caratv rotated evet "
s ll
l
,6 '
i :
- 'A* -
! t
~
/
h -
[ l
\
Proposed Response for, Second UCS Ites, Note to V. Benaroya dated January 11,1983 The second ites in your letter is concerned with the actions taken -
.by the staff since January 1982 to ensure the environmental quali-
- fication of safety related equipment that can be subjected to water spray from fire protection systems.
'We' reviewed our regulations'and guidelines for i fire protection activities to determine whether they adequately !
! addressed potential adverse interactions between fires, fire protec-
! tion featurws and safety systems. The effects of water spray vals one i of the conditions considered in this review. Based on this efit rt we
- -; concluded that if the guidelines were implemented properly, advtrse interactions between fire protection features and safety systeet.would be precluded. A. partial listing of excerpts from these guidelines is provided as enclosure A,. ,
I During.our review we determined that in some cases, the safety equipment has been' designed to withstand water spray. In other cases alternative
! not
- j safety
) subjectfunctions to automatic are water provided in a separate suppression. areacases In some where theyshi water are' eld l are installed which prevent the. indiscriminate spraying of safety
? f related components while allowing the automatic suppresNon system to l . spray / flood a specific component if that component: actuates a local J fire detector. In view of these several cases, we do cet deem it i{ necessary to qualify al.1 safety equipment for fire suppression water spray. . . ,
I .
We also reviewed licensee event reports for the past several year period to identify other modes of adverse system interactions. We prepared'a draft information notice relating to the interactisr. Of g fire protection systems with other plants systems. This inforntion h notice which concerns the effects of fire protection system actuations 4 . on safety-related equipment is being draf ted and will be distributed b to all licensees and applicants following completion.
l i
]
1 l .
i
'f 1
q
_ __ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _m_ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ .__ _
.c... ,,, . - . , _ < _ - . - . _ _ _ . _ . . _. . . - , . , - _ _ . . . _ _-_ _ . _ _ _ _
t
= .,' . - '
o/ ' ,
2 l
- 6. , Additional guidelines are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.29,
" Seismic Design Classification" and Regulatory Guide 1.78,
" Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of Nuclear Power
\
Plant Control Room During Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release,"
$ and in Standard Review Plan Section 9.3.3, " Equipment and Floor Drainage System;" Section 9.4.1, " Control Roos Area ventilation .
Systee;" and Sect' ion' 9.4.5, " Engineered Safety Features Ventilation ,
Systes." ,
- 1 , . .
t
% ,b d b I
,,b. %,' "*
, f
.I q =a
. . .:. = ' , .~,.;;
- v.- .
j 2 - -
v e . '*
.. s u er ,,a ,
\~ ,3 '.r.,
- j. *E .
4 f
'E 1 . ',7 '
v_, -
.m , _
,I
, 's - '
,.~ ; .1 -
4 e
t i
.~p z . .
t . ... .-
.s e.
..: . t: -
? -
r e
i.
t 6
h L
e e.
l e oma l
l a
l -_ __ . _ . . _ 9 l----- . . . . _ _ ..
.._ _ , .,_ ._. . . _. _. _ _ _