ML20244E585
Text
-
buc
/
m[o,,
UNITED STATES
['
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 JAN 161987 Docket Nos.:
60-443/444 MEMORANDilM F00:
Victor Nerses, Senior Pro,iect Manager PWR Proiect Directorate No.5 i
Division of PWR Licensing - A I
FROM:
Conrad E. McCracken, Acting Branch Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of PWR Licensing - A
SUBJECT:
INPUT FOR SUPPLEMENT TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION D.EPORT F0P SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2. FIRE PROTECTION SRP SECTION 9.5.1, (TAC 633981 Licensee: Public Service Company of New Hampshire Plant Name: Seabrook Station, Units 1 and ?
Docket Numbers: 50-443/444 Licensino Stage: OL Responsible Directorate: PWR PD #5 Pro.iect Manager: V. Nerses Review Branch: Plant Systems Branch PSB Reviewer: A. Singh/ T. Storey (FRC)
Review Status: Complete Enclosed (Enclosure li is the Plant Systems Branch (PSB) supplemental input for Section 9.5.1 of the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-08961 for the Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.
in Supplement No. 6 to the safety evaluation report (SSEp6), the staff stated that, with the exception of the protection of the charcoal filter units the applicant's fire protection program for Seabrook Station, with approved deviations, meets the staff fire protection cuidelines of BTP CMER 9.5-1 and satisfies General Design Criterion (GDC) 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50. By letter dated October 9,1986, the applicant provided a charcoal filter fire harard analysis, including a markup of the fire protection report, and a schedule for completion of fire protection modifications. This supple-mental input to the SER is based on the applicant's submittal of October 4,1986.
The PSB obtained the services of the Franklin Research Center (FPC1 to review the Seabrook charcoal filter fire hazard analysis. The attached Technical Evaluation Report (TER) was prepared by the FRC. As noted in the SSER input, I
I,h
~
~
em
V. Nerses the staff concurs with the findings of the FRC evaluation, including accepted deviations from the staff fire protection guidelines. Therefore, the staff has concluded that the applicant has satisfied the commitments stated in SSER6 and the license condition should be removed.
The SALP input is enclosed as Enclosure 2.
Original signed byi Conrad E. McCracken, Acting Branch Chief Plant Systems Franch Division of PWR Licensing - A l
Enclosures:
3
+
As stated l
cc:
T. Novak C. Rossi R. Bosnak r,. Hulman
)
l J. Calvo 1
l V. Noonan l
Contact:
Amarjit Singh x27462 l
1 Distribution:
Docket File PSB Read File PSB Sb.4 File AD Read File CMcCracken J5hapaker ASingh R-A
- AC:
.A:
0FC
- PSB PWR-A....KP
- y NAME :
- art iJ aker
- cmc r n :
___...:....j......:............:____........:................._..................
DATE.1/ /Y
/87 :1/ /b
/87:1///c
/87 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY J
9 Auxiliarv Systems 9.5' Other Auxiliary Systems 9.5.1 Fire Protection 9.5.1.4 General Plant Guidelines Ventilation In Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER1 No.6, the staff stated that the applicant plans to develop individual charcoal fire models for charcoal filters EAH-F-9 and 69, FAH-F-41 and 74, CAH-F-8; PAH-F-16, and CAP-F-40. The applicant committed to provide the charcoal filter fire analysis along with markups of associated fire protection reports and a schedule of any plant modifications needed to support the analysis. The applicant further stated that plant modifications would be operational before exceedina 5% of rated power. The I
staff conditioned the Seabrook operating license to codify the applicant's commitment and-to ensure that the associated fire protection reports were appropriately updated.
By letter dated October 9,1986, the licensee provided the charcoal filter fire I
analysis, markups of the fire protection reports and a schedule for the completion of fire protection redifications. With the completion of the installation of fire detectors in the charcoal filter units (the only modifi-cations needed), the licensee has met the two provisos of the-license condition.
Therefort, the license condition is no lonoer required.
The staff and its contractor, the Franklin Research Center (FRC), have reviewed the submittal. The results of the FRC review are presented in the attached TechnicalEvaluationReport(TER). The staff has reviewed the FRC evaluation and concurs with its findings, and the approved deviations from staff fire protection guidelines. Accordingly, the staff concludes that the licensee has reintained a conservative approach throughout the charcoal. filter analysis and l
l
has demonstrated that a fire within the charcoal filters would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown. The staff finds the requested deviation in the charcoal filter units suppression capability meets BTP CMEB 9.5-1 and satisfies General Desian Criterion 3 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50, and is, therefore, acceptable.
m i
1 O
ENCLOSUD.E 2 SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Input to the SALP Process
}
A.
Functional Area:
Fire Protection
)
1.
Management involvement in assuring quality: Throughout the review process the licensee's activities exhibited evidence or prior planning and assignment of priorities.
Decisions were usually made at a level that ensured adequate maragement review. Management was aware of the importance of fire protection and took steps to see that the staff was provided the necessary infomation and assistance to complete its review.
Rating Category ?
2.
Approach to resolution of technical issues: During the various meetings, telecons, and in the documents submitted, the licensee's representatives displayed understanding of the staff's concerns with the level of fire protection. Commitments generally revealed a conservative approach toward providing an adequate level of fire safety. Justifications provided in support of the applicant's fire protection program were usually based on sound fire protection engineering principles.
Rating Category 2 3.
. Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives: With few exceptions, the Itcensee provided timely written and oral responses to the staff's requests for information.
Rating Category 2 l
i 4
)