ML19276G314

Fire Protection in Operating Nuclear Power Stations, Indian Point Unit 3 SER Review

ML19276G314
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/21/1979
From:	Randy Hall BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-FIN-A-3107 NUDOCS 7905240320
Download: ML19276G314 (6)

Text

- ..

IllTERIM REPORT HC Research anc ~ec1nica Accession !!o.

Ass i stance Report Contract Program or Project

Title:

Fire Protection in Operating Nuclear Power Stations Subject of this Document: Indian Point 3 Safety Evaluation Report Review Type of Document: Letter Report Author (s): Robert E. Hall fiarch 21, 1979 Date of Document:

Responsible I:RC Individual .

y . of erguson

"{'m slon Operau,ng Reacto s and flRC Offica or Division *- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm{ission 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 flational Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 r Associated Universities, Inc.

'or t"c lgRC Tessarch anc TechniceOJ.S. Department of Energy i

Assistance Renor[ F Prepared for U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Under Interagency Agreement EY-76-C-02-0016 tiRC FIl! ?!o. A-3107 IllTERIM REPORT 7905240 3A9 ,

• e  %

~

'22-- -2.___, - ~_

- 2144 March 21, 1979 Division of Operating Reactors --

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '('((} ((OSearC18DC BLiDIC8 ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 g

Attention: Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch

Dear Bob:

Fubject: Fire Protection in Operating Nuclear Power Stations Indian Point 3 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. Throughout the reevaluation of Indian Point 3 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 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.

Turbine Building SER Item 5-9 concludes that fire protection in the turbine building is acceptable. However, the licensee's fire hazard analysis does not adequately address the consequences of an unsuppressed lube oil fire in the turbine buil-ding (see October 24, 1977 letter from L.P. Herman to R.E. Hall on this sub-ject).

Control Valves SER Item 4.3.1.3 ir.dicates that the position of fire prctection system valves will be controlled by locks or seals with periodic inspection. Locking or sealing programs depend upon ongoing administrative controls that are sub-ject to human failure. Locks can also prevent pranpt water shutoff if piping ruptures. It is recommended that electrical supervision be required on all control valves for fire protection systems protecting areas containing or ex-posing safety-related equipment.

9

~

R.L. Ferguson March 21, 1979 Smoke Removal SER Item 4.4.1 indicates that portable fans and ducts will be accepted as a means for removing smoke from many plant areas. Fires in electrical insula-tion can generate copious amounts of dense smoke which hamper fire control ef-forts by rendering the atmosphere toxic and reducing visibility in the area.

Properly used, self-contained breathing apparatus can minimize the problen or toxic atmosphere, but little can be done to improve visibility except to re-move the smoke from the building.

Massive changes will be required in most areas of this plant if effective permanent smoke removal systems are required, the design of which would also have to include consideration of radioactivity releases. While portable fans and ducts may be effective for smoke control in many instances, there is con-cern that they will not be sufficient for a major fire in some areas of the plant. It is reconmended that this item be held open until better guidelines are developed for the evaluation of smoke generation potential and smoke re-moval system design.

The pr :eding statements are based on a detailed reevaluation of the fire protection program as implemented by the Power Authority State of New York (PASNY) at the Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Station. The analysis covered a review of the fire prevention, detection and suppression capabilities of the plant as interfaced with the nuclear system's requirements. This was accom-plished by utilizing a review team concept with members from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the Nuclear Regulatory Canaission Division of Operating Reactor's staff.

The fire protection evaluation for the Indian Point 3 Plant is based on an analysis of documents submitted by PASNY to the Nuclear Regulatory Coinmission and a site visit. The site visit was conducted by Mr. J.E. Knight and Mr. H.

George, of the NRC; Mr. L.P. Herman of Rolf Jensen and Associates, Inc. .ide r contract to Brookhaven National Laboratory; and Mr. J. Townley, consulta1t to BNL. Mr. Townley was under contract to BNL to review the manual fire fighting capabilities of the station along with administrative controls.

Milestone Dates

1. The PASNY " Review of the Indian Point Station Fire Protection Program" was transmitted to NRC on December 15, 1976; a complete revision of this document was transmitted to NRC on April 15, 1977.

2. On March 3, 1978, NRC transmitted Staff Positions and Requests for Ad-ditional Information based on an initial review of the PASNY submittal.

R.L. Ferguson March 21, 1979

3. The site visit was corducted on June 13-16, 1978. The primary Review Team consisted of James E. Knight and Henry J. George of the NRC staff, John Townley, private consultant, and L. Paul Herman of Rolf Jensen and Associates, Inc. Mr. George served as team leader and spokesman.

2. On June 29, 1978, PASNY transmitted response to a portion of the Staff Positions and Requests for Additional Information.

5. On Septtmber 26, 1978, NRC transmitted further Staff Positions and Re-quests for Additional Information based on the site visit.

6. On October 23, 1978, PASNY transmitted responses to portions of the Staff Positions ard Requests for Additional Info rmation.

7. On November 28, 1978, NRC transmitted a further Request for Additional Info rmation.

8. On February 6,1979, PASNY transmitted responses to portions of the Staff Positions and Requests for Additional Information.

9. The SER draft associated with this report is attached to an NRC memo from G. Lainas to A. Schwencer dated December 20, 1975 with revised pages 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 4-3, 4-5, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-14, 5-15, and 5-16 transmitted to P. Herman by Henry George on February 16, 1979.

Review Documents The following documents were used in the Indiac Point Unit No. 3 fire protection review:

1. NRC Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1, Appendix A, dated August 23, 1976.

2 " Review of the Indian Point Station Fire Protection Program," dated December,1976, and Revision 1 dated April,1977, by Consolidated Edi-son Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of New York.

3. PASNY responses to Staff Positions and Requests for Additional Information dated June 29, 1978; October 23, 1978; and February 6, 1979.

The Indian Point 3 review has been conducted under tLe direction of Mr-E. A. MacDous311 and myself of Reactor Engineering -~ Lysis Group at BNL.

R.L. Ferguson March 21, 1979 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 tha aspects of fire pro-tection related to the protection of the public from the standpoint of radio-logical health and safety. We have not coi:sidered 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 increase in the level of protection against serious fire associated hazards.

Respectfully yours,_ 3 -

,~

7 M '

h ! &['V v . cW Robert E. Hall, Group Leader Reactor Engineering Analysis REH:EAM:sd

.. =

e DISTRIBUTION M. Antonetti 1 I. Asp 1 V. Benaroya 1 E. Blackwood 1 W. Butler 1 R. Cerbone 1 D. Eisenhut 1 R. Feit 1 R. Ferguson 5 R. Hall 1 S. Hanauer 1 P. Herman 1 E. Imbro 1 W. Kato 1 J. Klevan 1 G. Lainas 1 C. Long i E. MacDougall 1 J. Riopelle 1 V. Stello 1 T. Telford 1 H. Todosow 2 J. Townley 1 PDR 2