ML19208B343
| ML19208B343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1979 |
| From: | Randy Hall BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-3107 NUDOCS 7909200052 | |
| Download: ML19208B343 (4) | |
Text
, IrlTERIM REPORT Accession !!o.
Contract Program or Project
Title:
Fire Protection in Operating Nuclear Power Stations Subject of this Document: Monticello Safety Evaluation Report Review Type of Document: Letter Report Author (s): R.E. Hall and E.A. MacDougall Date of Document: June 20, 1979 Mr. R.L. Ferguson Responsible 11RC Individual Plant Systems Branch and f1RC Office or Division- ,,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 This document was prepared primarily for preliminary or internal use. It has not received full review and approval. Since there may be substantive changes, this document should not be considered final.
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 Associated Universities, Inc.
for the U.S. Department of Energy Prepared for U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Under Interagency Agreement EY-76-C-02-0016 NRC FIH No. A-3107 INTERIM REPORT
~
}4b
,,,v6-NRC Researc, anc ec'1nica A Assistance Report **oo m w.
.. - ~Q-
/
5.1 &Tl
~
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
Coten, New Ycrk 11973 Depcrtment of Nuclear Energy (516) 345- 2362 June 20, 1979 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch
Dear Bob:
Subject:
Fire Protection in Ooerating Nuclear Power Stations Monticello Safety Evaluation Reoort 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. Throughout the reevaluation of Monticello there has been general agreement between the NRC staff and the BNL consultants.
Based on present data, the proposed fire orotection, as set forth in the SER, will give reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public is not endangered. The following exception represents a differing engineering point of view that should be evaluated by the NRC staff. -
Valve Supervi: ion Electrical valve supervision should be provided on all valves controlling fire water systems and sectionalizing valves. The present proposal of adminis-trative controls or locks is unacceptable. See letter dated July 13, 1977 to Mr. R.L. Ferguson from Mr. R.E. Hall.
The preceding statements are based on a detailed reevaluation of the fire protection program as implemented by the Northern States Power Company at the Monticello Nuclear Power Station. The analysis covered a review of the fire prevention, detection and suppression capabilities of tne. plant as interfaced with the nuclear systems requirements. This was accomplished by utilizing a review team concept with members from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission Division of Operating Reactors staff.
The fire protection evaluation for the Monticello Plant is based on an analysis of documents submitted by the Northern States Power Company to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a site visit. The site visit was conducted by Mr. E. Sylvester, V. Panciera, and C. Heit of the NRC; Mr. Ingemar Asp of Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. under contract to Brookhaven National Laboratory; NRC Researc1 anc eclnical 4"9 3[
Assistance Report
R.L. Ferguson June 20, 1979 and Mr. J. Townley, consultant to BNL. Mr. Townley waa under contract to BNL to review the manual fire fighting capabilities of the station along with administrative controls.
The Monticello review has been conducted under the direction of Mr. E.A.
MacDougall and myself of Reactor Engineering Analysis Group at BNL.
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 public from the standpoint of radio-logical health and safety. We have not considered aspects of fire protection 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.
Sincerely yours, obert E. Hall, Group Leader Reactor Engineering Analysis REH:EAM:sd
%(b s,64
,J'
DISTRISUTION M. Antonetti 1 I. Asp 1 V. Benaroya 1 E. Blackwood 1 W. Butler 1 R. Cerbone 1
- 0. Eisenhut 1 R. Feit 1 R. Ferguson 5 R. Hall 1 S. Hanauer 1 E. Imbro 1 W. Kato 1 J. Klevan 1 G. Lainas 1 C. Long 1 E. MacDougall 1 J. Riopelle 1 V. Stello 1 T. Telford 1 H. Todosow 2 J. Townley 1 NRC - Division of Technical Information and Control 2 c.; .*u) '()
L.