ML19331D333

Forwards Input to Item 3.1.19 of Facility Ser.Licensee Should Demonstrate That All Pipe Penetrations Have Fire Resistance Rating of 3-h.All Tests in 800529 Submittal Were for Electrical Penetrations

ML19331D333
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/19/1980
From:	Randy Hall BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8009020032
Download: ML19331D333 (2)

Text

-

o lN 77 l jj j;j:] BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

'] j ] ] ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.

mm Upton, New York 11973 Departmentof NuclearEnergy (516) 345 2144 August 19, 1980 Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Chemical Engineering U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Pilgrim, Fire Protection Review

Dear Bob:

Attached is B.acokhaven National Laboratory's input of Item 3.1.19 for the Pilgrim facility.

Respectfully yours, l

Robert E. Hall, Group Leader Reactor Engineering Analysis REH.EAM:sd attachment cc.: V. Benaroya wo/att.

G. Harrison W. Kato wo/att.

M. Levine E. MacDougall P. Sears ,

Aact S

/

8 0 0902003g

9 PILGRIM Fire Protection Review Item 3.1.19 Pilgrim SER Section 3.1.19 indicates that pipe and electrical cable penetration seals will be tested to determine their fire resistance ratings, and that lower-rated seals will be upgraded to 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> or the licensee will justify the accept-ability of the lower rating.

By letter dated May 29, 1980, the licensee provided reports of three cable pene-tration seal fire tests. The first test, conducted on May 31, 1979 (report date January,1980), determined the fire resistance of open-sleeve and metal conduit cable penetration seals comparable to existing plant designs. Onepenetratign, Sleeve #5, failed because the temperature on the unexposed side exceeded 700 F.

The second test, (report date March,1980), determined the fire resistance of various modified plant designs for open sleeve and metal conduit cable penetra-tion seals. Two penetration seals, Sleeves #2 and #4, both failed because flame passed throggh to the unexposed side and the temperature on the unexposed side exceeded 700 F. The third test determined the fire resistance of cable tray penetration seals comparable to existing plant designs. Penetration # 2 failed because flames pasged through to the unexposed side, and the temperature on that side exceeded 700 F.

No pressure d!fferential was used and we feel that a conservative test should include a pressure differential. However, the state-of-the-art is such that pressure differential testing is not widely available at this time. Therefore, it is our opinion that the test procedure and criteria are satisfactory as an interior solution until standardized test methods are developed.

In order to meet the requirements of the Appendix R III N, the licensee should verify that each cable penetration seal conforms to one of the tested designs that passed all applicable test criteria. In addition, the licensee should demonstrate that all pipe penetrations have a fire resistance rating of three hours (all of the tests in the May 29, 1980 submittal were for electrical pene-trations).

l

.