ML20213E310
| ML20213E310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1982 |
| From: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0560, CON-WNP-560 NUDOCS 8301030339 | |
| Download: ML20213E310 (8) | |
Text
.
/-
p L., dQ M
DEC 2 7 $32 flEMORANDU'1 FOR: Thomas Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FRO't:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials & Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
FIRE PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPOPT -
WPPSS N'ICLEAR PROJECT NO. 2 Plant Name: WPPSS fluclear Project No. 2 Docket Number:
50-397 Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch: LB #2 Project 'fanager, R. Auluck Chemical Engineering Branch Reviewer:
D. J. Kubicki Requested Completion Date: ASAP Review Status: Complete The Cha11 cal Engineering Branch fire protection SER was transnitted to you on February 22, 1982. The following two open itens were identified:
1.
Verification of unlabeled fire doors (Paragraph V.A).
2.
Deletion for a fire suppression system in five fire areas (Section VI.C).
By letters dated April 22, June 30. September 20, October 4, and Octohcr 5, 1982, we received additional information.
Enclosed are the revisions of Section 9.5.1.5(1), " Building Design,"
9.5.1.6(3), " Sprinkler and Standptpc Systems," 9.5.1.8, " Summary of Deviations from CMEB 9.5-1," and 9.5.1.9, " Conclusions of the SER which incorporat*:s the results of our evaluation of this information. This revision conpletes the remaining two open itens identified in our SER.
Based on our evaluation we conclude that the fire protection progran meets the guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1 and GOC 3, and is therefore acceptable.
YA P
301030339 821227 h 3, ApocKos_oogg o
.es OIEaCIf a
I o m q.....................i..
. l'...,,..
l O F F i r' I A 1, R r.' C O P p c O p y nna rnnse un m am nu u - n
ee.
Thomas t'ovak
-?-
The staff plans to visit the site in February,1983.
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director flaterials t. Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated
Contact:
D. Kubickt, X-24564 cc:
R. Vollmer D. Eisenhut A. Schwencer
- 0. Parr M. Srinivasan V. Benaroya R. Ferguson R. Auluck T. Sullivan J. Taylor J. O'Reilly S. Pawlicki D. Kubicki S. Ebneter, Reg. I T. Con &on, Reg. II C. florelius, Reg. III G. fiadsen, Reg. IV P. Sternberg, Reg. V AE0D e
t J
DE:Ci1EB DE:CMEB DE:AD:M
/
I
'RFefgUsch"lVBona(
Johnsti
I DE:CMEB cmcep 'DLUbickr suawa >
.12,........[,,...,
12/t 8
.......,[.
12/p
/82
[
or.n >..I 2h..".'.l8 2.,
82 g,v-
~
Chemical Engineering Branch / Fire Protection Section Supplementary Safety Evaluation Report i
WPPSS Nuclear Project flo. 2 Docket No. 50-397 Introduction In the SER the following two open items concerning fire protection were I
identified:
j 1.
Verification of unlabeled fire doors.
2.
Deletion of a fire suppression system in fire areas.
i j
By letter dated April 22, June 30, September 20, October 4 and October 5,
}
1982, we received additional information concerning these open items.
SER Sections 9.5.1.5(1), 3.5.1.6(3), 9.5.1.8 and 9.5.1.9 have been revised to reflect the results of our evaluation of this information.
We have not yet made a fire protection review site visit because the construction of the plant has not progressed to the level when such a visit would be meaningful. We expect to have our site visit in February,1983.
9.5.1 Fire Protection Program 9.5.1.5 General Plant Guidelines I
(1) Building Design Fire areas are defined by walls and floor / ceiling assemblies. Walls that i
separate buildings and walls between rooms containing safe shutdown systems are 3-hour-fire rated.
Floor / ceiling assemblies are 1-1/2, 2, or 3-hour-fire rated assemblies.
In cases where the fire rating is less than 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />, the staff has evaluated the fuel loading and fire protection provided and found the fire rating to be acceptable.
By letter dated December 9,1981, j
the applicant has committed that all fire-rated walls and floors / ceilings will be qualified in accordance with ASTM E-119.
Based on its review, the 1
t staff concludes that the fire-rated walls and floor / ceiling assemblies are provided in accordance with the guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1, Section C.5.a, and are, therefore, acceptable.
By letter dated December 9, 1981, the applicant has also committed to provide 3-hour-fire-rated penetration seals.
The penetration seals are verified by a 3-hour-fire test in accordance with the ASTM E-119 fire test 1
procedure.
Cased on this, the staff concludes that the fire seal ratings i
meet the guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1, Section C.S.a. and, therefore, are
[
acceptable.
Door openings in rated fire barriers are provided with labeled fire doors, except for several doors that are nonrated airtight doors.
By letter dated 1
April 22, 1982, the applicant provided additional information to verify that the airtight doors are similar in construction to labeled fire doors.
f The door,s and frames are constructed of heavy gauge welded steel, with 2-1/4 in, of internal insulating material. The doors, when closed, will be able to withstand the anticipated fire exposure, represented by burning f
in situ and transient combustibles, and prevent the passage of smoke as well as convective and radiant heat as effectively as a labeled fire door, i
The applicant, in Amendment 19, has committed that the fire doors will f
satisfy the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50, Section N, which per-tains to self closing or administrative closing procedures. With the commit-ment, we find the fire doors meet the guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1, and are, therefore, acceptable.
The applicant has provided 3-hour-and 1-1/2-hour-fire door dampers in ducts penetrating fire rated walls. Where duct penetrations have less than 3-hour-fire rating, we have evaluated the fuel loading and fire protection previded and found the fire rating to be acceptable.
Based on our review, we con-clude that the fire doors and dampers will be provided in accordance with the guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1, Section C.S.1, and are, therefore, acceptable.
l The use of plastic materials, in porticular halogenated plastics, nas been minimized. fio flammable liquids (with the exception of the diesel generator oil day tanks covered in Section 9.5.4.2 of this report) as defined by NFPA 30 are stored in the plant. We find that this conforms to the guidelines of BTP Ct'EB 9.5-1 Section C 5, and is, therefore, acceptable.
Interior walls and structural compcnents, thermal insulation materials and components, and radiation shielding materials are noncombustible.
Decon-taminable coatings and finish painting materials have a flame spread of less than 25.
We fin,d this to be within the guidelinks cf BTP CMES 9.5-1r Section C.5.a. and is, therefore, acceptable.
All high-voltage transformer.s located inside safety-related building areas are insulated or cooled with noncomoustible liquid.
There are no oil -
filled transformers located within 50 feet of the exterior wall of a build-ing containin0 safety-related equipment, Thjs meets the guidelines of BTP CitEB 9.5-1. Section C.S.a. and is, therefore, acceptable.
9.5.1.6 Fire Detection and Suppression t
(3) Sprinkler and Standpipe Systers, The wot pipe sprinkler system and standpipe hose system are connected to common risers from the underground water supply loop. Lcoped interior headers are provided. This design is in compliance with STP CMEB 9.5-1 Section C.5.c. and is, therefore, acceptable.
The automatic sprinkler systems (wet pipe sprinkler systers, pre-action sprinkler system, and deluge water spray systems) are designed to the provisians of NFPA Standards 13. " Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems," and 15. " Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems."
The,, areas that are being equipped with automatic water suppression systems are listed in Amendment 24.
9
-4 By letter dated January 21, 1982, the applicant stated that 15 fire areas contain cables associated with redundant shutdown systems. To ensure post-fire shutdown capability, these cables need to be protected.
In amendment 24, and in a letter dated October 4,1982, the applicant revised this number from fifteen to ten. The reduced number reflects the establishment of redundant shutdown capabilities in separate fire areas from those plant locations originally identified as containing redundant safety divisions.
The following three areas will be completely protected by an automatic 4
sprinkler system:
1.
Cable Spreading Room (RC-ll) 2.
Cable Chase (RC-lll) 3.
Corridor (TG-1)
In the following seven areas, the applicant proposes to deviate from our guidelines, to the extent that they require automatic fire suppression systems:
1.
Remote Shutdown Room (RC-IX) 2.
Switchgear Room #2 (RC-XIV) 3.
General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 471'-0" 4
General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 501'-0" 5.
General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 522'-0" 6.
General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 548'-0" 7.
General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 572'-0"
j I
b I
l [
e h
In lieu of an automatic sprinkler system, the applicant proposes to 4
l completely protect one safety division with a subliming and insulating l
coating that is capable of withstanding a 3-hour-fire exposure as defined
[
j in ASTM E-119. The material has been demonstrated to protect the cable l
from visible fire damage and to maintain circuit integrity during fire f
]
exposure. The material is not adversely affected by a water hose stream t
and is capable of limiting temperature rise on the unexposed side to not i
more than 250'F above ambient, which is well below the temperature at
{
l which similar IEEE qualified cabling began to fail in tests conducted l
independently for NRC at. Underwriter's, Laboratories. _We conc.ludelhat --
i
~
~~
this protection, coupled sith the smoke detection systems in these areas, provide an equivalent level of fire safety to that achieved by the installa-l l
tion of a sprinkler system.
l We find the deletion of ~ automatic sprinkler systems in the proposed areas l
to be an acceptable deviation from Section C.6.c. of BTP CMEB 9.5-1.
(
Therefore, the fire protection provided for these rooms is acceptable.
l l
Originally, manual hose stations were provided in ;tairwell enclosures j
}
throughout the plant except in containment.
Each hose station was provided j
j with 150 feet of 1-1/2 in. hose. At our request, the applicant agreed
[
i by letter dated January 28, 1982 to modifying the standpipe hose system to provide sufficient hose stations so that effective hose streams can reach I
l any area of the plant with a maximum of 75 feet o'f 1-1/2 in hose at each
[
j hose station. With this modification, we find that hose stations meet its l
l guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1 Section C.6.c. and are, therefore, acceptable.
l i
l The applicant has not identified the seismic design of standpipe systems,
[
which is recommended in BTP CMEB 9.5-1, Section C.6.c.(1).
For plants 1
l for which construction permits issued prior to July 30, 1976, the guidelines j
in Appendix A to BTP ASB 9.5-1 have no requirement for seismic design for
.l 1
1 standpipe systems. Therefore, this is an acceptable deviation from the f
I guidelines of BTP CMEB 9.5-1, Section C.6.c.(1).
}
f i
I i
i
. 9.5.1.8 Summary of Deviations from CMEB 4.5-1 Four deviations from the gu'!'i'nes of BTP CMEB 9.5-1 have been identified.
i Those items have been approved, and they are 1.
Control room vent closure 2.
Seismic design of standpipe systems 3.
Floor drains in day tank room._ ____ _
4 The deletion of a fire suppression system in the following seven plant areas:
- - ~ - -
Remote Shutdown Room (RC-1X)
Switchgear Room #1 (RC-XIV) i General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 471'-0" General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 501'-0" General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 522'-0" General Floor Area (4-1) - Elevation 548'-0" General Floor Area (R-1) - Elevation 572'-0*
9.5.1.9 Conclusion 21 sed on our evaluation, we conclude that the rire Protection Program witn the a:cepted deviations listed in Section 9.5.1.8, meets the guide-lines of BTP CMEB 9.5 1 and GDC 3 and is, therefore, acceptable, t
The site visit is scheduled for February 1982.
O o
. -.. _. _.. _,,. ~...
_ _, _ _