ML20002B534
| ML20002B534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002B532 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012110817 | |
| Download: ML20002B534 (3) | |
Text
'a l
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FIRE PROTECTION SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLST0:.E UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-245 e
6
- *=11 0617
I a # tog \\
ga UNITED STATE:;
$ Y,
.f i NUCLEAR REGULATORY Cs MMISSION E
WASHING TO N, D. C. 20555 i
y.y g.',*,.M j
- c. % % H ' f W
g%
1 SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FIRE PROTECTION SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AND SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 70 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-21 i
NORTHEAST NUCLEAP, ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-245
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated Septenber 26, 1978 (License Amendment No. 53) we issued our Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report (FPSER) to NNECo (the licensee) for i
the Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 1.
In Section 3.2.1 (Smoke Detection Systems Tests) of the FPSER we state that the licen.:ee is evaluating a method to conduct in-situ tests of the fire detector installation and that if any fire detection systems were found to be inadequate,' appropriate modifications would be made to provide adequate performance.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In the FPSER we documented our concern that the smoke detectors might not responc to the products of combustion.for the combustibles in the areas where smoke cetectors are installed. We were also co::erned that ventilation air flow patterns in the area might reduce or prevent detector response. We, therefore, recomended that the licensee perform an in-situ smok; detector j
test.
l By letter dated May 29, 1980, the licensee committed to contet bench testing i
to veri #y. that the smoke detection installed in an area will provide prompt response and ha,e adequate sensitivity to the products of. combustion for types of combustibles in the areas where smoke detectors are installed.
In addition, the smoke detector systems are designed and installed by qualifiec personnel and meet the appropriate NFPA codes.
l The required methodology for the in-situ smoke detector test is beyond the current state-of-the-art and, therefore, an in-situ tt st cannot be performed j
at this time.
We find that with acceptable bench testing of smoke detectors, and consider-ing that the smoke detection systemt meet appropriate NFPA codes and are designed by experienced personnel, the smoke detectors are acceptable.
9 L
For completeness of records we are issuing with this FFSER Supplerent an Amendment to License No. DPR-21 to revise License Cordition 3.F.
This revision adds "and supplements thereto" to the fourth lire of the first paragraph of that License Conditden.
We have discussed this action with the licensc?'s representative ano we have mutually agreed upon it.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not auths -ize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amencment involves an action which is insignificant fqta the standpoint of the environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental im;act appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUS70N We have concluded, based on the consideration discussec above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant ir. crease in the pro-bability or consequences of accidents previously consicerec and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will.not be inimical to the common defense ar.d security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: November 19, 1980
---