ML20045G234

Forwards Safety Evaluation Re Alternative Compensatory Measures for Continuous Fire Watches.Util Request to Utilize Remote Camera Monitoring Sys in Lieu of Continuous Fire Watches Not Acceptable

ML20045G234
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	07/06/1993
From:	Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Opeka J CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
Shared Package
ML20045G235	List: ML20045G234 ML20045G258
References
IEB-92-001, IEB-92-1, TAC-M85304, NUDOCS 9307130078
Download: ML20045G234 (4)

Text

-__

kk

~

/parc A 5 i'*i E

UNITED STATES l'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%v f W A S M N G T O R D C 20Z5@C1 July 6, 1993 i

Docket No. 50-245 Mr. John F. Opeka Executive Vice President, Nuclear Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270

SUBJECT:

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 - VIDEO CAMERA REQUEST IN AREAS WITH THERM 0-LAG 330 (TAC NO. M85304)

On August 28, 1992, the NRC staff issued Bulletin 92-01, Supplement 1,

" Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System to Perform its Specified Fire Endurance Function," which requested licensees to identify the locations where Thermo-Lag 330 is used in the plant, and to take appropriate compensatory measures consistent with the action that would be taken per Technical Specifications for an inoperable fire barrier.

In a letter dated October 1, 1992, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) identified that Thermo-Lag 330 is utilized in four areas in Millstone Unit I and that continuous fire watches have been stationed per the bulletin guidance.

In our letter dated December 10, 1992, the NRC staff found NNECO's response to Bulletin 92-01, Supplement 1 acceptable for Millstone Unit 1, and requested that NNECO inform the NRC when all corrective actions have been completed.

The staff also stated that the alternative compensatory measures (video cameras) established in the Millstone Unit 3 containment and the Haddam Neck Plant residual heat removal (RHR) pump cubicles were acceptable.

In these areas the cameras were permitted due to the limited access to the Millstone Unit 3 containment during power operations and high radiation areas in the Haddam Neck RHR pump cubicles.

In your letter of December 23, 1992, NNECO proposed to install cameras in the four areas with Thermo-Lag 330 in Millstone Unit 1, directed in such a way as to detect the presence of fire in the vicinity of Thermo-Lag 330 fire barrier installations. The video displays would be monitored remotely by a continuous watch. NNEC0 stated that this will reduce the number of fire watch personnel required while still meeting the requirements to maintain a continuous fire watch presence for these areas.

In a letter dated February 23, 1993, NNEC0 stated that the fire watches at Unit I and 2 cost approximately $62,000/ month and $34,000/ month respectively, and requested that NNEC0's video camera request for Millstone Unit I be acted on in a timely manner.

In addition, NNEC0 stated that the use of camera systems are more than adequate to ensure continued protection of public health and safety.

0 I

070015 m

5 9307130078 930706 PDR ADOCK 05000245 F

PDR

Mr. John F. Opeka,

i The NRC staff has reviewed NNECO's request and has determined that the use of video cameras will not provide the same level of fire hazard recognition capabilities or the fire detection and suppression capabilities as a fire 1

watch (except for Fire Zone T-6 which was discussed during a telephone call on June 9, 1993). The enclosed safety evaluation provides the bases for the NRC staff decision.

1 The use of video cameras is generally permitted in areas to mitigate overriding high radiation and ALARA concerns for the fire watches and in some i

cases, to alleviate significant access problems. These conditions do not i

l apply at Millstone Unit 1.

Therefore, the proposed use of video cameras to monitor the areas with Thermo-Lag 330 at Millstone Unit 1 is not acceptable.

However, during the telephone call between the NRC staff and NNECO on June 9, 1993, the staff discussed a possible alternative NNEC0 could explore to l

replace the continuous fire watch currently used at Millstone Unit I with temporary detection systems in the areas of Thermo-Lag and an hourly roving fire watch. A copy of the conference call summary is enclosed for your j

information. As agreed during the conference call, NNECO will contact the staff regarding its decisions on alternatives.

j l

j Sincerely, 1

Original signed by Jose A. Calvo, Assistant Director for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

l 1.

Safety Evaluation 2.

NRC Memo to File of June 16, 1993 l

l cc w/ enclosures:

See next page i

Distribution

• Docket File CMcCracken SNorris NRC & Local PDRs AThadani JAndersen i

PD I-4 Plant WRussell 0GC SVarga JCalvo ACRS (10)

LTDoerflein, RI JHolmes AMasciantonio

• See previous concurrence orricE LA:PDI-4 PM:PDI-4 BC:SPLB*

D:DSSA*

AD:ADT*

e-NAME SNorris JAndersen CMcCracken AThadani WRussell DATE 4 /9 /93 1 / 1/93 6/14/93

/

6/24/93 6/25/93 DhEI-4 AD:DRPE /m/

D:D.fl[

OFFICE JStoY JCalvo hka NAME DATE

/fL/93 7 / 2/93

/

//93

/ /

/ /

OFFICIALtRECORD COPY W

Document Name: G:\\ANDERSEN\\85304

- -......, ~. -,,, ~. - -,..

i L

Mr. John F. Opeka July 6, 1993 l

l l

4 The NRC staff has reviewed NNECO's request and has determined that the use of video cameras will not provide the same level of fire hazard recognition capabilities or the fire detection and suppression capabilities as a fire watch (except for Fire Zone T-6 which was discussed during a telephone call on June 9, 1993). The enclosed safety evaluation provides the bases for the NRC i'

staff decision.

The use of video cameras is generally permitted in areas to mitigate overriding high radiation and ALARA concerns for the fire watches and in some i

cases, to alleviate significant access problems. These conditions do not apply at Millstone Unit 1.

Therefore, the proposed use of video cameras to monitor the areas with Thermo-Lag 330 at Millstone Unit 1 is not acceptable.

However, during the telephone call between the NRC staff and NNECO on June 9, i

1993, the staff discussed a possible alternative NNECO could explore to replace the continuous fire watch currently used at Millstone Unit I with temporary detection systems in the areas of Thermo-Lag and an hourly roving fire watch. A copy of the conference call summary is enclosed for your i

information. As agreed during the conference call, NNECO will contact.the i

staff regarding its decisions on alternatives.

Sincerely, df.

0 I

l t

l Jose A. Calvo, Assistant Director i

for Region I Reactors Division of Reactor Projects - I/II l

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j

i Enclosures 1.

Safety Evaluation 2.

NRC Memo to File of June 16, 1993 cc w/ enclosures:

See next page

- ~.... -..

L l

Mr. John F. Opeka Millstone Nuclear Power Station L

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Unit I cc:

Gerald Garfield, Esquire R. M. Kacich, Director Day, Berry and Howard Nuclear Licensing Counselors at Law Northeast Utilities Service Company City Place Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 W. D. Romberg, Vice President J. P. Stetz, Vice President Nuclear Operations Services Haddam Neck Plant Northeast Utilities Service Company Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Post Office Box 270 362 Injun Hollow Road Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 East Hampton, Connecticut 06424-3099 Kevin McCarthy, Director Regional Administrator Radiation Control Unit Region I Department of Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

State Office Building 475 Allendale Road Hartford, Connecticut 06106 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Allan Johanson, Assistant Director First Selectmen Office of Policy and Management Town of Waterford Policy Development & Planning Division Hall of Records 80 Washington Street 200 Boston Post Road Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 S. E. Scace, Vice President P. D. Swetland, Resident Inspector Millstone Nuclear Power St& tion Millstone Nuclear Power Station Northeast Nuclear Energy Company c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 128 Post Office Box 513 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Niantic, Connecticut 06357 H. F. Haynes, Nuclear Unit Director G. H. Bouchard, Director Millstone Unit No. 1 Nuclear Quality Services Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Northeast Utilities Service Company Post Office Box 128 Post Office Box 270 Waterford, Connecticut 06385 Hartferd, Connecticut 06141-0270 1

Nicholas S. Reynolds Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502

.