ML19210A357: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:*:.BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
{{#Wiki_filter:*:             .
',-{} ] {ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
                                                    ,    BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
'Upton. Nc.* Ycrk 1*773
{} ] {
.-Depcrtment of Nuctect Energy (516) 345-23t 2 e;-Septenter 1,1978
ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
.Division of Operating Reactors I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ConTaissien g~Washington, D.C.
                                                        .                      Upton. Nc.* Ycrk 1*773 Depcrtment of Nuctect Energy                                         (516) 345-23t 2 e                                                               ;
20555-Attention: Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch
Septenter 1,1978 Division of Operating Reactors I
.-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ConTaissien                                           ~
g Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch                               -


==Dear Bob:==
==Dear Bob:==
Line 31: Line 32:
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.
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.
Valve Sucervision SER Item 4.3.1.3 indicates that the licensee intends to control the po-sition of sectional valves on the loop main by installing tamper-proof seals on these valves, and inspecting them periodically. A recent Factory Mutual study found that most shut valves were closed for legitimate reasons, then forgotten.
Valve Sucervision SER Item 4.3.1.3 indicates that the licensee intends to control the po-sition of sectional valves on the loop main by installing tamper-proof seals on these valves, and inspecting them periodically. A recent Factory Mutual study found that most shut valves were closed for legitimate reasons, then forgotten.
SER Item 3.3.9 requires that valves controlling the supply of water to sprinkler systems protecting the diesel generator rocms and the Control Building be " properly supervised", but does not specify electrical super-vision. It is especially important that valves such as tMse be kept open at all times, and such assurance cannot be provided by valve sealing pro-grams alone. The success of valve sealing programs depends upon ongoing administrative controls that are subject to human failure.
SER Item 3.3.9 requires that valves controlling the supply of water to sprinkler systems protecting the diesel generator rocms and the Control Building be " properly supervised", but does not specify electrical super-vision. It is especially important that valves such as tMse be kept open at all times, and such assurance cannot be provided by valve sealing pro-grams alone. The success of valve sealing programs depends upon ongoing administrative controls that are subject to human failure. In a recent study, Factory Mutual found that most shut valves were closed for legiti-mate reasons, about 80% of all shut valves directly centrolled water to automatic sprinklers, and that only 5% of all shut valves were electrically supervised. In addition, management personnel at 79% of the plants where shut valves were found were concerned over this serious breac.         pl Nex om 5?7 f.-
In a recent study, Factory Mutual found that most shut valves were closed for legiti-mate reasons, about 80% of all shut valves directly centrolled water to automatic sprinklers, and that only 5% of all shut valves were electrically supervised.
 
In addition, management personnel at 79% of the plants where shut valves were found were concerned over this serious breac.
.5 t                                                             -
pl Nex om 5?7 f.-..-.
I s
.5-*:.-t-2--I*s., j fire protect'on. In spite of this concern, the valves were shut, indi-
j                     fire protect'on. In spite of this concern, the valves were shut, indi-cating that concern alone is not sufficient. It is recommended that i                     electrical supervision be required on all control valves in the fire pro-e                    tection systems protecting areas containing or exposing safety-related j                     equipment.
-cating that concern alone is not sufficient. It is recommended that i electrical supervision be required on all control valves in the fire pro-tection systems protecting areas containing or exposing safety-related e j equipment.
3                     The preceding statements are based on a detailed reevaluation of the fire i             protection program as implenented by the Metropolitan Edison Company at the
3 The preceding statements are based on a detailed reevaluation of the fire i protection program as implenented by the Metropolitan Edison Company at the
  -           TMI-1 Nuclear Power Station. The analysis covered a review of the fire pre-i           vention, detection and suppression capabilities of the TMI-1 unit as interfaced t-         with the nuclear systems requirements. This was accomplished by utilizing a review team concept with. members from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and
-TMI-1 Nuclear Power Station. The analysis covered a review of the fire pre-i vention, detection and suppression capabilities of the TMI-1 unit as interfaced t-with the nuclear systems requirements. This was accomplished by utilizing a
@            the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Division of Operating Reactors staff.
@review team concept with. members from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission Division of Operating Reactors staff.
3                                                                                           l The fire protection evaluation for the TMI-1 plant is based on an analysis t         of documents submitted by the Metropolitan Edison Company to the Nuclear Regu-f         latory Comission and a site visit. The site visit was conducted by Mr. T. Lee and Mr. M. Virgillio of the NRC; Mr. E. MacDougall of BNL; Mr. J. Kelvan of Rolf Jensen and Associates, Inc., under contract to Brookhaven National Laboratory;           -
3 l The fire protection evaluation for the TMI-1 plant is based on an analysis t of documents submitted by the Metropolitan Edison Company to the Nuclear Regu-f latory Comission and a site visit. The site visit was conducted by Mr. T. Lee and Mr. M. Virgillio of the NRC; Mr. E. MacDougall of BNL; Mr. J. Kelvan of Rolf
and Mr. J. Riopelle, consultant to BNL. Mr. Riopelle was under contract to BNL i         to review the manual fire fighting capabilities of the station along with ad-ministrative controls.
-Jensen and Associates, Inc., under contract to Brookhaven National Laboratory; and Mr. J. Riopelle, consultant to BNL. Mr. Riopelle was under contract to BNL i to review the manual fire fighting capabilities of the station along with ad-
    !                   The TMI-1 review has been conducted under the direction of Mr. E. MacDougall and myself of the Reactor Engineering Analysis Group at BNL, and has had the following major milestone dates.
.ministrative controls.
k                   1. On May 15, 1977, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany submitted a Fire Hazards
,!The TMI-1 review has been conducted under the direction of Mr. E. MacDougall and myself of the Reactor Engineering Analysis Group at BNL, and has had the
    .                      Analysis Report in response to NRC request of May 11 and September 30, 1976. This was received at NRC on May 16, 1977, and by the consultant on January 13, 1978.
-following major milestone dates.
      .-                2. By letter of April 17, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company was provided with NRC requests for additional infonnation and staff positions per-taining to fire protection at the Three Mile Island, Unit i facility.
k 1.On May 15, 1977, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany submitted a Fire Hazards Analysis Report in response to NRC request of May 11 and September 30,.1976. This was received at NRC on May 16, 1977, and by the consultant on January 13, 1978.
    #                   3. On May 22-26, 1978, the fire protection Review Team visited the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 facility.
2.By letter of April 17, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company was provided
: 4. On May 26, 1978, a meeting was held at the plant facility at which the Review Team identified additional staff positions and requested.
.-with NRC requests for additional infonnation and staff positions per-taining to fire protection at the Three Mile Island, Unit i facility.
#3.On May 22-26, 1978, the fire protection Review Team visited the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 facility.
4.On May 26, 1978, a meeting was held at the plant facility at which
'the Review Team identified additional staff positions and requested.
the Metropolitan Edison Company's commitment to confona to these positions.
the Metropolitan Edison Company's commitment to confona to these positions.
6.On June 12, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided a submittal responding to NRC requests of April 17 and May 26, 1978.
: 6. On June 12, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided a submittal responding to NRC requests of April 17 and May 26, 1978.
6.By letter of June 28, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany was requested by NRC to provide additional information and commitment to the staff positions, pertaining to fire protection at the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 facility.
: 6. By letter of June 28, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany was requested by NRC to provide additional information and commitment to the staff positions, pertaining to fire protection at the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 facility.
7.On July 14, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided additional response to the NRC request of April 17, 1978.
: 7. On July 14, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided additional response to the NRC request of April 17, 1978.
.'1488 287_ _,
1488 287
~:: ~. ~ .+-3-.p.:.*;p., .N 8.On July 20, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided a submittal
 
.$responding to the NRC request of June 28, 1978.
~:: ~                                                                   .~.
~5 9.On August 17, 1978, the NRC issoed the draft Safety Evaluation
+
'j[Report on Three Mile Island Power Station, Unit 1.
p.:                                                         .
@We have not as yet received the SER review from Mr. Riopelle and there-3 fore, his cennents are not included. We will amend this report when we hear y from Mr. Ricpelle.
  ;p     . , .
1 This review process has resulted in identifying areas of the plant.in e which a fire could have undesirable effects on safe shutdown cf the reactor
N                   8. On July 20, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided a submittal responding to the NRC request of June 28, 1978.
_a$and on release of radioactivity to the environment. The Utility's proposed modifications are significant steps in reducing the undesirable effects of n i a fire in this plant.
~5                   9. On August 17, 1978, the NRC issoed the draft Safety Evaluation
,,1'?Respectfully yours, ry+w-1 Robert E. Hall, Group Leader
'j[                       Report on Three Mile Island Power Station, Unit 1.
-'T Reactor Engineering Analysis.i EAM:kt. , .4__.,.....,'t 1488 288+t b-.$.B.e-i',*4 e.-}}
  @                   We have not as yet received the SER review from Mr. Riopelle and there-3           fore, his cennents are not included. We will amend this report when we hear y           from Mr. Ricpelle.
1                   This review process has resulted in identifying areas of the plant.in e
_a        which a fire could have undesirable effects on safe shutdown cf the reactor
  $n          and on release of radioactivity to the environment. The Utility's proposed modifications are significant steps in reducing the undesirable effects of a fire in this plant.                                                       ,,1 i
  '?                                                     Respectfully yours, ry
    +
w 1  -                                                 Robert E. Hall, Group Leader
  'T                                                     Reactor Engineering Analysis
  .i EAM:kt 4                __                        .
  't                                                                 1488 288
  +
t b                                                                                           -
B e
i
* 4 e
                .-}}

Latest revision as of 05:59, 2 February 2020

Recommends That Electrical Supervision Be Required on All Control Valves in Fire Protection Systems Protection Areas Containing or Exposing safety-related Equipment
ML19210A357
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/01/1978
From: Randy Hall
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To: Ferguson R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19210A334 List:
References
NUDOCS 7910290587
Download: ML19210A357 (3)
v • d • e


Text

  • .

, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

{} ] {

ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.

. Upton. Nc.* Ycrk 1*773 Depcrtment of Nuctect Energy (516) 345-23t 2 e  ;

Septenter 1,1978 Division of Operating Reactors I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ConTaissien ~

g Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Robert L. Ferguson Plant Systems Branch -

Dear Bob:

SUBJECT:

Fire Protection in Oceratino Nuclear Pcwer Stations - Three Mile Island Unit 1 (TMI-1) Safety Evaluation Recort Review The Safety Evaluation Report, as developed jointly by the NRC staff and Brookhaven National Laboratory, (BNL), adequately reflects the concerns and reconinendations of the consultants. Throughout the reevaluation Of I'11-1, there has been general agreement between the NRC staff and the BNL consultan 3.

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.

Valve Sucervision SER Item 4.3.1.3 indicates that the licensee intends to control the po-sition of sectional valves on the loop main by installing tamper-proof seals on these valves, and inspecting them periodically. A recent Factory Mutual study found that most shut valves were closed for legitimate reasons, then forgotten.

SER Item 3.3.9 requires that valves controlling the supply of water to sprinkler systems protecting the diesel generator rocms and the Control Building be " properly supervised", but does not specify electrical super-vision. It is especially important that valves such as tMse be kept open at all times, and such assurance cannot be provided by valve sealing pro-grams alone. The success of valve sealing programs depends upon ongoing administrative controls that are subject to human failure. In a recent study, Factory Mutual found that most shut valves were closed for legiti-mate reasons, about 80% of all shut valves directly centrolled water to automatic sprinklers, and that only 5% of all shut valves were electrically supervised. In addition, management personnel at 79% of the plants where shut valves were found were concerned over this serious breac. pl Nex om 5?7 f.-

.5 t -

I s

j fire protect'on. In spite of this concern, the valves were shut, indi-cating that concern alone is not sufficient. It is recommended that i electrical supervision be required on all control valves in the fire pro-e tection systems protecting areas containing or exposing safety-related j equipment.

3 The preceding statements are based on a detailed reevaluation of the fire i protection program as implenented by the Metropolitan Edison Company at the

- TMI-1 Nuclear Power Station. The analysis covered a review of the fire pre-i vention, detection and suppression capabilities of the TMI-1 unit as interfaced t- 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 Ccmission Division of Operating Reactors staff.

3 l The fire protection evaluation for the TMI-1 plant is based on an analysis t of documents submitted by the Metropolitan Edison Company to the Nuclear Regu-f latory Comission and a site visit. The site visit was conducted by Mr. T. Lee and Mr. M. Virgillio of the NRC; Mr. E. MacDougall of BNL; Mr. J. Kelvan of Rolf Jensen and Associates, Inc., under contract to Brookhaven National Laboratory; -

and Mr. J. Riopelle, consultant to BNL. Mr. Riopelle was under contract to BNL i to review the manual fire fighting capabilities of the station along with ad-ministrative controls.

! The TMI-1 review has been conducted under the direction of Mr. E. MacDougall and myself of the Reactor Engineering Analysis Group at BNL, and has had the following major milestone dates.

k 1. On May 15, 1977, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany submitted a Fire Hazards

. Analysis Report in response to NRC request of May 11 and September 30, 1976. This was received at NRC on May 16, 1977, and by the consultant on January 13, 1978.

.- 2. By letter of April 17, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company was provided with NRC requests for additional infonnation and staff positions per-taining to fire protection at the Three Mile Island, Unit i facility.

  1. 3. On May 22-26, 1978, the fire protection Review Team visited the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 facility.
4. On May 26, 1978, a meeting was held at the plant facility at which the Review Team identified additional staff positions and requested.

the Metropolitan Edison Company's commitment to confona to these positions.

6. On June 12, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided a submittal responding to NRC requests of April 17 and May 26, 1978.
6. By letter of June 28, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany was requested by NRC to provide additional information and commitment to the staff positions, pertaining to fire protection at the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 facility.
7. On July 14, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided additional response to the NRC request of April 17, 1978.

1488 287

~:: ~ .~.

+

p.: .

p . , .

N 8. On July 20, 1978, Metropolitan Edison Company provided a submittal responding to the NRC request of June 28, 1978.

~5 9. On August 17, 1978, the NRC issoed the draft Safety Evaluation

'j[ Report on Three Mile Island Power Station, Unit 1.

@ We have not as yet received the SER review from Mr. Riopelle and there-3 fore, his cennents are not included. We will amend this report when we hear y from Mr. Ricpelle.

1 This review process has resulted in identifying areas of the plant.in e

_a which a fire could have undesirable effects on safe shutdown cf the reactor

$n and on release of radioactivity to the environment. The Utility's proposed modifications are significant steps in reducing the undesirable effects of a fire in this plant. ,,1 i

'? Respectfully yours, ry

+

w 1 - Robert E. Hall, Group Leader

'T Reactor Engineering Analysis

.i EAM:kt 4 __ .

't 1488 288

+

t b -

B e

i

  • 4 e

.-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19210A357&oldid=2390983"