ML042610061

Email from Neil O'Keefe to Jeff Cruz, Etc.... Subject: STP Conference Call

ML042610061
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	02/04/2004
From:	O'Keefe N NRC Region 4
To:	Cruz J, Thomas Farnholtz, Guerra G, Jaffe D, Johnson W, Mullikin R, Nease R, Laura Smith NRC/NRR/DLPM
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0277
Download: ML042610061 (3)

Text

I Neil O'Keefe - STP Conference Call _ _ Page 1 l From: Neil O'Keefe To: Cruz, Jeffrey; Farnholtz, Thomas; Guerra, Gilbert; Jaffe, David; Johnson, William D.;

Mullikin, Ray; Nease, Rebecca; Smith, Linda Date: 214/04 11:52AM

Subject:

STP Conference Call PEB has arranged a conference call to briefly discuss the status of the unresolved items from the 2002 triennial fire protection inspection. The objective of the discussion is to determine if the issues have evolved as the licensee has been working on them, and to assure that there continues to be an interim basis to safely operate the plants until the inspections can be completed. Background material is attached.

The call will be held in the DRMA conference room at 3:30 pm CST (4:30 EST) today. The bridge number for callers is (817) 276-4475. There is no pass code necessary.

CC: Chamberlain, Dwight; Good, Gail; Howell, Art; Mallett, Bruce

I-NeilO'Kief_- STP-Agieinidawp Wage 1

[Nail Page 1fi STP Conference Call Agenda Wednesday, Feb. 4, 3:30 pm Topic: Status of two URls in fire protection

Background:

During the May-June 2002 triennial fire protection inspection, the team identified concerns that the licensee's fire safe shutdown analyses did not appear to directly support their procedures. Also, the manual actions necessary to accomplish a safe shutdown during a fire were mostly not located in approved procedures, and were not understood by operators. The licensee agreed to clarify the documentation to allow completion of the inspection within a few months. Subsequently, a new fire response procedure was issued with all the required manual actions, and a new thermal-hydraulic analyses was created to support the control room evacuation scenario as the bounding case. This analysis identified that the procedural limit for cooldown rate would not allow the plant to meet the performance requirements of Appendix R,Section III.L.

Objective: To understand any changes to the scope of the issues that have evolved since the conclusion of the inspection as a result of the licensee's investigation, analyses, and procedure changes. This is intended to assure there continues to be an interim basis for assuring the safe operation of the plant until the remaining issues can be inspected, as well as supporting the prioritization of scheduling inspection resources.

. ENeil O'Keefe - STP Agenda.wpd Page 21 P21 ENeil O'Keefe STP Agenda.wpd Issue Safety Basis The licensee's procedures for assuring a safe The licensee has provided documentation of shutdown relied upon diagnosing the effects what required instrumentation will remain free of the fire using installed instrumentation. of fire damage for each fire area. This There was no documentation available information was incorporated into the new fire indicating which instrumentation was to response procedure. PEB will review this remain free of fire damage for a fire in any information in-office in the near-term.

specific area.

Manual actions to support fire safe shutdown The licensee conducted training, then were not located in an approved plant conducted a drill in summer 2002. The procedure. Operators were trained to use residents identified that the operators still did the Operator Action List as recommended not perform the required actions, so the guidance, while engineering considered them licensee created a detailed fire response mandatory actions. procedure. The residents observed two successful simulator and fire brigade drills using the new procedure in Fall 2003.

Analytical documentation to support safe The licensee proposed to assemble shutdown in a fire was fragmented, and did documentation to demonstrate that adequate not appear to reflect the actions and documentation existed, but then created a assumptions in the current procedures. For new analysis. It is not clear what triggered example, the principle analysis assumed no this change, but we need to understand if CCPs would be available, and the PDP would new issues or implications were identified.

be used for RCP seal cooling only, whereas Address in teleconference.

the procedures established CCP charging and letdown.