ML13326A530

Suggests Mods to Fire Protection Plan,Re Electrical Valve Supervision & Portable Smoke Venting Equipment

ML13326A530
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	01/31/1979
From:	Randy Hall BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC-48143, NUDOCS 7902270329
Download: ML13326A530 (2)

Text

BROOKHAVEN NATICNAL LABORATC Y ucron New corx K Department of Nuclear Energy (516) 345-2144 January 31, 1979 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Robert L. Ferquson Plant Systems Branch

Subject:

Fire Protection in Operating Nuclear Power Stations - San Onofre Unit 1 Safety Evaluation Report Review The Safety Evaluation Report, as developed jointly by the NRC staff and Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), adequately reflects the concerns and recommendations of the consultants. Throuqhout the reevaluation of San Onofre Unit 1, there has been general agreement between the NRC staff and the BNL consultants. Based on present data, the proposed fire protection, as set forth in the SER, will provide significant enhancement of the fire protection pro gram at the San Onofre Unit 1 plant, and thus, represents significant progress towards a comprehensive fire protection program. The following exceptions rep resent a differing engineering ooint of view that should be evaluated by the NRC staff:

1. Section 4.3.1.3 - Electrical valve.supervision should be provided on all valves controllinq fire water systems and sectionalizing valves.

The present proposal of administrative controls or locks is un acceptable. See letter dated July 13, 1977 to Mr. R.L. Ferguson from Mr. R.E. Hall.

2. Section 4.4.1 - The portable smoke venting equipment is a single large industrial blower and not portable smoke ejectors aporoved for fire fighting activity. We have recommended two 5000 CFM fire fighting smoke ejectors of the explosion proof type.

The preceding statements are based on a detailed reevaluation of the fire protection orogram as implemented by the Southern California Edison Comoany (SCEC) at the San Onofre Unit 1 Nuclear Power Station. The analysis covered a review of the fire prevention, detection and suppression capabilities of this unit as interfaced with the nuclear systems requirements. This was accomplished by utilizing a review team concept with members from BNL and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Operating Reactors staff.

790???

R Ferguson 2-January 31, 1979 The fire protection evaluation for San Onofre Unit 1 is based on an analy sis of documents submitted by SCEC to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a site visit. The site visit was conducted by Mr. Thomas Dunning and Mr. Leo Derderian of the NRC; Mr. Mario Antonetti of Gage-Babcock and Associates, Inc.

under contract to BNL; and Mr. J. Townley consultant to BNL. Mr. Townley was under contract to BNL to review the manual fire fighting capabilities of the station along with administrative controls.

The San Onofre Unit 1 review has been conducted under the direction of Mr. E. MacDougall and myself of the Reactor Engineering Analysis Grouo at BNL, and has had the following major milestone dates.

1. The SCEC "Fire Protection Program Evaluation" was transmitted to NRC on March 16, 1977.

2. On March 16, 1978, NRC transmitted Staff Positions and Requests for Additional Information based on an initial review of the SCEC sub mittal.

3. The site visit was conducted on July 10 -

13, 1978. Mr..Dunning served as team leader and spokesman.

We have reviewed the analyses submitted by the licensee and have visited the facility to examine the relationship of safety-related components, systems and structures with both combustibles and the associated fire detection and suppression systems.

Our review has been limited to the aspects of fire pro tection related to the protection of the oublic from the standpoint of radio logical health and safety. We have not considered aspects of fire orotection associated with life safety of onsite personnel and with property protection, unless they impact the health and safety of the public due to the release of radioactive material. The proposed modifications represent a significant in crease in the level of protection against serious fire associated hazards.

Respectfully yours, obert E. Hall, Group Leader Reactor Engineering Analysis REH:EAM:sd