ML17261A169

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Util Fire Protection Review Items 3.2.6 & 3.2.9. Recommends Accepting Backflow Protection Proposal Pending Submittal of Prints of Drain Sys & Problem Drain Location. Five-man Fire Brigade Size Acceptable
ML17261A169
Person / Time
Site: Ginna Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 01/23/1980
From: Randy Hall
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To: Ferguson R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8001300465
Download: ML17261A169 (2)


Text

Jgpg oP g,ccIim<~

Ua3 '8 BROOKHAVEN NATIONALLABORATORY G K. ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.

Upton, New York 11973 Deportment of Nuclear Energy (514) 5- 2I44 January 23, 1980 Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Fire Protection Review Items 3.2.6 and 3.2.9

Dear Bob:

Item 3.2.6 Backflow Protection The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) stated that the licensee will review the plant's drain systems and provide backflow protection, to prevent the spread of a possible liquid fire via the drain systems, where drains frcm safety-related areas tie into drains from other areas which contain a large quantity of flammable liquid and which could affect the safety-related area.

A report of this review was given by the licensee in a letter dated September 28, 1979. They confirmed that they found potential drain problems in the contairment, the auxiliary building basement, intermediate building basement and the B diesel generator room. The licensee further stated that these drains will be modified to ensure that ccmbustible or flammable liquids will not be allowed to flow via the drain system to a separate safety related area. I In order to fully evaluate the licensee's. proposal we request that the licensee's submit: prints of the drain system, location of the problem drains, method of analysis and method of solution.

We reccmmend that the licensee's proposal on this item be accepted subject

-to review of the documents listed above.

Item 3.2.9 Fire Bri ade Size The SER states that the licensee has proposed a three man fire brigade and further states that the staff is not convinced that three men provide suffi-cient margin 'for adverse conditions that may occur in the event of a signifi-cant fire. This item is, therefore, unresolved at this time.

4

/

To: R. L Ferguson January 18, 1980 On the plant site'visit, June 27-30, 1978 the licensee had stated that their three man fire brigade >cas sufficient.

We took a position stated in our cc 'ultant's report of July 10, 1978 that the brigade size was inadequate and that it should be increased to five men.

The licensee, in their letter of May 25, 1979 agreed to having a five-man fire brigade.

Me recaamend that this position be accepted.

Respectfully yours,

~pP~ p~~

Robert E. Hall, Group Engineering Analysis Leader'eactor REH:EAN:sd cc.: R. Cerbone W. Kato W. Lee E. HacDougall Y. Panciera