ML19225A317
| ML19225A317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1979 |
| From: | Lanias G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907180846 | |
| Download: ML19225A317 (4) | |
Text
5 ea atco f.
.o UNITED STATES y
3er'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
gg {
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%, v,/
....+
- JN 4 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. Ziemann, Chief, Oparating Reactors Branch #2, Division of Operating Reactors FROM:
G. Lainas, Chief, Plant Systems Branch, Division of Operating Reactors
SUBJECT:
CONSULTANTS' REPORT ON FIRE PROTECTION Facility:
lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWP)
Licensee:
Dairyland Power Cooperative Docket No.: 50-409 Responsible Branch: ORB #2 Project Manager:
J. Wetnore Reviewing Branch: Plant Systems Branch Status: DSER issued; Evaluation is on-going Brookhaven National Laboratory under the contract to the NRC has provided the consultants' report on the subject evaluation.
A copy of the report is attached herein.
Those consultants' recommendations that are not included in the SER are discussed in Appendix B to the SER which is also attached.
Both documents snould be included in the fire protection SER which is to be issued.
O J.
G. Lainas, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Operating Reactors
Contact:
T. Lee, X27173
Enclosure:
1.
BNL Consul tants ' Pse., ort 2.
Appendix B to SER cc w/cnclosure:
See page 2
[c C rj9 7902180 W ' F
\\1 C _2-cc w/ enclosure: E. Case V. Stello D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer B. Grimes G. Lainas R. Ferguson T. Lee J. Wetmore T. Wambach V. Benaroya P. Matthews S. Hanauer J. Klevan (Consultant) R. Hall (BNL) E. MacDougall (BNL) J. Riopelle (Consultant) [, g rj }'LQ
APPENDIX B DISCUSSION OF CONSULTANTS' REPORT Under contract to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Brookhaven National Laboratory has provided the services of fire protection consultants who participated in the evaluation of the licensee's fire protection program ar.d the preparation of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER). Their report, " Fire Protection in Operating Nuclear Power Stations - Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactors Safety Evaluation Report Review," presents certain recommend-ations and comnents. The consultants' recommendations and conments which are not included in the SER, and our resolution of these matters is given below. Valve Supervision It is recommended that the electrical supervision (of certain fire protec-tion system v.lves) be extended to (include) all sectional valves and valves controlling the supply of water for fire protection. Staff Response Bee NRC guidelines on f,re water system control valve supervision are given in Appendix A to Branc. Technical Position (BTP) 9.c-of the Standard Review Plan. These guidelines pernit, as an alternative to electrical supervision, an administrative program to assure that valves are maintained in the proper position. Such a program includes locking valves with strict Fey control or sealing valves with tamper proof seals. Periodic inspections are to be performed to verify that the method of securing the valve is intect. These measures are consistent with the requirements imposed for supervising valves in safety-related systems, and provide adequate assurance that valves are maintained in the appropriate position. The licensee's program for valve supervision is consistent with NRC guidelines. In addi tion, the olant's Technical Specifications require a monthly check of all valves in the flow path to fire suppression systems, to ensure that each valve is in the correct position. Ventilation SER Item 4.4.1 indicates that portable smoke ejectors and flexible ducting will be provided to aid in manual smoke removal activities in the plant in addition to the installed ventilating systems which serve many plant areas, and that these measures consistute acceptable provisions for smoke removal during fires. P2 evaluation of this aspect of nuclear power plant fire protection has produced additional concerns on my part. Effective smoke removal is essentially the transporting of smoke from the fire area at a rate which wi., limit its effects on property and personnel to tolerable levels. Estinating the rate of generation of the smoke, and its character, are necessary first steps in evaluating the ef fectiveness of a smoke removal plan. The rate of generation of smoke depends on the /, n r} 7n1 v aai
.' rate of burning, which has not been estimated by the licensee. lhe character of the smoke depends on the material being burned and the nature of the burning, neither of which have been adequately quantified by the licensee. Installed systems may have to be significantly altered to provide ef fective smoke removal in all plant areas. I would recommend that a complete evaluation of smoke generation potential and smoke removal methods be made by the licensee so that conclusions drawn by the NRC staff will have a fina technical basis. _S_t_a f f Response Modification of the plants' ventilation system in those areas without adequate fixed smoke removal systems, is unwarranted because portable smoke removal equipment can be used and because self-contained breathing apparatus are available for the fire fighters and plant operators. The portable smoke exhaust systems are recommended by the manual fire fighting ' onsultant's based on their evaluation of the fire fighting capabilities at this plant. Hose Testing SER Item 3.1.1 calls for testing of exterior hoses, but no pressure for testing is stipulated. Our consultant reconnends that the exterior hoses be tested at 200 psi. Staff Response The requirements of the hose test are included in the technical specifications for fire protection. The test pressure of 200 psi will be specified therein. -. <, 9 [,0') )uL}}