ML19290E877
| ML19290E877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1979 |
| From: | Macdougall E BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | Ferguson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003170247 | |
| Download: ML19290E877 (3) | |
Text
2.0
~
]
] _,
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
[J'~l?
ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
s
'La
.J Upton, New York 11973 Department of Nuclear Energy (516) 3.:5-2362 November 20, 1979 Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch Division of Operating Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wa shington, D. C.
20555
Dear Bob:
Attached are BNL reports on Design Review items 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 for Maine Yankee.
In this report and the report of Three Mile Island I sent to you yesterday are open items that we have not been able to close because of. incomplete infor-mation from the Licensee.
We understand that you want phone calls between the fire protection engi-neers and the team leaders to expedite this material. However, despite our ef forts to date we still are receiving information that is not complete and where we are also not in a position tt close out with some recommended position.
Bob Hall and I ha7e reviewed this problem and we feel that two efforts are appropriate. First, that we continue to advise the team leaders on incomplete submittals with phone calls and follow-up letters. Second, that the NRC send letters to the licensee requesting complete submittals.
Very truly yours,
Edward A. MacDougall Reactor Engineering Analysis EAM :rb Attachment cc:
R. Cerbone wo/att.
L. Derderian h( g R. Hall W. Kato
\\
V. Panciera 8003170 2-y
Maine Yankee s
Fire Protection Review 3.1.1 Fire Detection Sys tems Section 3.1.1 of the Maine Yankee SER identifies fif teen areas of the plant where ionization type fire detection systems were considered necessary.
The need for detection systems in these areas were based on observations made during the site visit which identified areas containing safety related equipment which could be damaged by a potential fire not immediately detected and extinguished.
The utility has agreed to provide detection systems in all of these areas and has listed the areas in his letter dated October 16, 1979. The utility has also listed eight additional areas which will be provided with ionization type fire detectors. Also indicated in this letter is the intention to provide duct type ionization detectors at four locations, heat detectors at two locations and a photo-electric type fire detector above the steam driven emergency feed water pump.
The utilities indication of the various areas where detectors will be pro-vided is in accordance with the areas requiring detectors as listed in the SER.
The areas where additional detectors will be provided is acceptable subject to review of drawings showing the locations of the new detectors. Where the rmal detectors are proposed, the utility should also indicate the type of detector and temperature rating subject only to the following.
as
Maine Yankee s
Fire Protection Review 3.1.2 Hose Stations On October 12, 1978 and October 16, 1979 the utility submitted letters out-lining their commitment to SER item 3.1.2 which covers the provision of addi-tional hose stations.
The Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant presently has hose stations only in the turbine building. Item 3.1.2 of the SER lists ten areas of the plant which coverage from the hose stations is required.
The SER indicates that this cover-age can be provided by additional hose added to existing hose stations where possible, and where not, new hose stations be provided.
The utility's response only indicates that all areas of the turbine building will be covered by hose stations. This response does not meet the requirement of providing hose cover-age protection for all of the ten areas listed. The utility's response to this item is therefore unacceptable.
SER item 3.1.2 also requires that when additional hose stations are pro-vided or existing nozzles are replaced, the utility will provide nozzles that do not require going through the straight stream mode prior to the fog mode.
In areas containing only high voltage or sensitive electrical equipment, replace-ment nozzles will be of the all-fog type.
The utility has stated it will comply with these requirements and therefore, this portion of the utility's commitment to this portion of item 3.1.2 is acceptable.
Part B of this item of the SER required that a hose stat' ion connected to the primary water system shall be provided in containment with sufficient hose to reach all cable locations and areas where combustible liquids could accumu-late. The utility's description of his provision of this item is acceptable.
In summary, the utility's response to SER iten 3.1.2 is acceptable for the portions involving replacement of nozzles and providing hose coverage within containment. The portion which requires hose coverage throughout ten specific areas of the plant has not been addressed by the utility and remains an unre-solved item.
y