ML20209E506

Forwards Safety Evaluation of Licensee 850222 & 0409 Ltrs Providing Info Re Allegations 1513-1518.Design, Installation & Acceptance Tests of Protection Water Supply Sys Adequate.Allegations Unsubstantiated

ML20209E506
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/17/1985
From:	Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17083B484	List: ML20209C687 ML20209C692 ML20209C725 ML20209C729 ML20209C734 ML20209C742 ML20209C774 ML20209C779 ML20209C786 ML20209C810 ML20209C853 ML20209C869 ML20209D170 ML20209D204 ML20209D416 ML20209D421 ML20209D450 ML20209D560 ML20209D649 ML20209D703 ML20209D864 ML20209D903 ML20209E021 ML20209E030 ML20209E037 ML20209E052 ML20209E145 ML20209E211 ML20209E268 ML20209E506 ML20209F952 ML20209G177 ML20210E664 ML20210E745 ML20210E799 ML20210E811 ML20210E916
References
FOIA-86-197 TAC-54434, NUDOCS 8506240153
Download: ML20209E506 (5)

Text

se on, v UNITED STATES gg )

)_ , j NUCLE AR REGULATORY CCM'.1lSSIGN

.C ~ a m aTcy,c.c : m s g A .. ::j' !

JLH 171985 Docket Nos. 50-275/323 MEMORANDUM FOR:

for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM: William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION OF ALLEGATIONS 1513 THRU 1518 (TAC

1. 54434) DIABLO CANYON (DCP), UNITS 1 AND 2 Plant Name: Diablo Canyon Power Flant, Units 1 and 2 Suppliers: Westinghouse Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Licensing State: OR/0L Docket Nos. 50-275/323 Responsible Branch & Project Manager: LB #3; H. Schierling CMEB Reviewer: D. J. Kubicki Status: Safety Evaluation Complete By letters dated February 22 and April 9, 1985, the licensee provided information concerning the subject allegations. Enclosed is our evaluation of the allegations. Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the design, installation and acceptance tests of the protection water supply system is in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the applicable National Fire Protection Association Standards and Sections C.2 and C.3 of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1. Therefore none of the allegations 1513 through 1518 have been substantiated.

W)$w Y fLE" William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

As stated l

l cc: J. Knight H. Thompson l T. Sullivan V. Benaroya R. Ferguson l H. Schierling G. Knighton y

I M. ter aggwne

DIABLO CANYON ALLEGATIONS 1513 THRU 1518 TASK: Allegation 1513 Characterization:

Water flow tests have not been conducted on the fire protection water distribution system.

Implied Significance to Plant Design, Construction, or Operation If water flow tests were not conducted on the fire protection water distribution system there would not be reasonable assurance that the underground mains were free of obstruction or that the distribution system was capable of supplying the required quantity of water at sufficient pressure to supply sprinkler systems and fire hose stations.

Assessment of Safety Significance By letter dated February 22, 1985, the licensee confirmed that fire protection water flow tests are conducted at Diablo Canyon in conjuncticn with system acceptance testing and as part of plant Technical Specification surveillance testing. In addition, fire flow tests of a type referred to in the allegation are conducted as part of DCP Surveillance Test Procedure (STP)M-71. These tests conform to the guidance presented in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Hardbook, 14th edition and NFPA Standard No. 13.

Staff Position Sections C.2 and C.3 of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5.1, establish that NFPA Standards Nos. 13, 14, 20 and 24 should be used in the design, installation and testing of fire protection water supply systems, sprinkler systems, and standpipe and' hose systems. In Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to the Diablo Canycn Safety Evaluation Report (SER), we concluded that these systems j

confirmed to our fire protection guidelines and were, therefore acceptable. We also have approved the plant Technical Specifications concerning testing of fire protection systems. We, therefore, conclude that on the bases of'our original safety evaluation and the approved technical specifications, the fire protection water distribution systems have been and are being tested in a satisfactory manner.

Action Required No further action required on the allegation.

TASK: Allegations 1516, 1517, and 1518 Characterization:

The fire water distribution system piping is not designed and installed in accordance with NFPA Standard No. 13 with regard to pipe supports and clearances between piping and concrete penetrations.

Implied Significance to Plant Design, Construction, and Operation If the water piping was not designed in accordance with this standard, the piping may be rendered inoperable due to support failure or stresses produced by building movement.

Assessment of Safety Significance By letter dated April 9, 1985, the licensee confirmed that certain fire protection piping is supported in accordance with ANSI Standard 8.31.1 and the "Hosgni Seismic Criteria". The licensee has concluded that, on the basis of a comparative analysis, these criteria meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA Standards Nos. 13 and 14. The remaining fire protection piping supports have been designed in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 13. The licensee has conducted a walkdown of the piping to confirm that these requirements have been met.

With regard to the clearances between piping and concrete penetrations, the licensee has conducted a pipe stress analysis to assure the integrity of the piping. This is in accordance with Section 1-2 of NFPA Standard No.

13. .On the basis of this analysis, th'e licensee has concluded that the recommended clearances are not necessary.

Staff Position Sections C.2 and C.3 of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1 establish that NFPA Standards Nos. 13, 14, 20, and 24 should be used in the design and installation of fire protection water supply systems, sprinkler systems, and standpipe and hose systems.

We have reviewed the fire protection program and fire hazards analysis i submitted by the licensee. As part of the review, we visited the plant site to examine the relationship of safety-related components, systems, and structures in specific plant areas to both combustible materials and to associated fire detection and suppression systems. The overall' objective l of our review of the fire protection program was to ensure that, in the i event of a fire at the facility, the units would be able to safely shut' down and remain in a safe shutdown condition. Our review included an j evaluation of the automatic and manually operated water fire suppression systems'. Based on our evaluation, we concluded in Supplements Nos. 8 and 9 to the SER that the sprinkler and standpipe systems conformed with our protection guidelines and were, therefore, acceptable.

Action Required No further action required on the allegation.

TASK: Allegations 1514 and 1515 Characterization:

The water storage capacity for fire protection is inadequate and the water

. . . +

distribution piping for standpipe outlets is not large enough to accommodate the quantity of water required for fire fighting.

Implied Significance to Plant Design, Construction, and Operation

-If the water storage capacity or pipe sizes were inadequate, a sufficient quantity of water may not be available to suppress a fire, if one should occur.

Assessment of Safety Significance By letter dated February 22, 1985, the licensee confirmed that the water supply for fire fighting includes a 4.5 million gallon reservoir and a 300,000 gallon fire water tank. This supply exceeds the guidelines contained in Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1. With regard to the size of fire protection piping, the licensee confirmed that the size of water supply pipes to standpipe and hose stations meets or exceeds the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 14.

Staff Position (See response to Allegation 1516,1517,1518)

Action Required No further action required on this allegation.

N