ML050670275
| ML050670275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/2004 |
| From: | Ogle C NRC/RGN-II |
| To: | O'Donohue K NRC/RGN-II |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2004-0277 | |
| Download: ML050670275 (5) | |
Text
Go@-.
'- -IS'- 4@}t!U~
~
IY!
Y Y
'Y_-Yw I
I
=
-1!Vl 1
I rI
--
- i From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Charles R. Ogle, r O'Donohue, Kathleen,
P.
3/22/04 10:46AM my proposed revision to the allegation
,niormation in this racoro ias deleLed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions 2 S FOIA V/
S->)-
,1,
- % I =1V1r-V.;1VV1UUUV I. I Mr-rage i J
- ------V1U UU.
Mr rac e Mail Envelope Properties (405F0A4E.A5F: 20: 51263)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
my proposed revision to the allegation 3/22/04 10:46AM Charles R. Ogle CRO@nrc.g~ov Recipients nrc.gov ATI,_PO.ATL-DO KFO (Kathleen O'Donohue)
Action Delivered Opened Date & Time 03/22/04 10:46AM 03/22/04 11:48AM Post Office AThPO.ATIh_,DO Delivered 03/22/04 10:46AM Date & Time 03/22/04 10:45AM 03/22/04 10:46AM Route nrc.gov Files closletter final_~cro.wpd MESSAGE Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Size 98360 447 No None Yes Standard.
No None Concealed
Subject:
No Security:
Standard To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Immediate Delivered & Opened
ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT ALLEGATION RII-2004A-0013 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Concern (1)
This concern refers to your conversation with Mr. Necota Staples of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on'%January 28, 2004, Blthe Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (TP). You expressed concern to Ifi*. Staples regarding the licensee's disposition of a fire protection issue, which was identified at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant in Condition Report (CR)
Discussion:
In response to your concern, the inspectors performed a review of 0-ADM-51 8, Condition Reports and NAP-400 Revision 1, Condition Re ort for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, to assess whether or not the licensee's closure of CR 1was in accordance with plant procedures.
The inspectors also reviewed the circumstances associated with the licensee's investigation and disposition of the issue. In addition, the inspectors reviewed CR1)4-0580, CR 02-1268-1 and 2, CR 04-0292, CR 04-0124, CR 03-4126, CR 04-0033 bnfywhat?
The ins ectors determined that CR ppropriately classified the issue whicQ
-7 I
IA0os Ij Furthe lcensee's investigation, conclusions, and corrective actions ap peare7o in the CR process. The inspectors verified that an independent review of the CR took place, the response was timely, and consistent with the disposition of other CRs reviewed by the inspectors.
==
Conclusion:==
Based on the information provided by the licensee and reviewed by the inspectors, the allegation was not substantiated. Specifically, the CR was dispositioned, reviewed and closed per the condition report program procedures. No violation of NRC requirements or license commitments was identified.
While the licensee's actions were consistent with their corrective action process, the inspectors did identify that enhancements to certain fire protection procedures warranted further evaluation.
--- This is discussed in the writeup for Concern 2 on-he-next-p age.--
ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT ALLEGATION Ril-2004A-0013 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Concern (2)
This concern refers to your conversation with Mr. Necota Staples of the NRC on January 28, 2004, atTP. During this conversation you expressed concern regarding procedural enhancements which you felt were necessary for time critical manual actions used in a safe
(
shutdown in the event of a fire. Your concern centered on th a
=
1 '.
ccomplishing designated manual actions.
Discussion:
During our initial and follow-up interview on
- you did not identify any specific manual actions or fire zones containing manual actions of concern. Similarly, Condition Report CRi
'1t Q
~did not provide this information either. Therefore, the inspectors limited their sample of manual actions independently inspected to those in Fire Zones 067, 063, 106, and 1 06R.
These were the fire zones reviewed in conjunction with our triennial fire protection inspection.
To address your concern, the inspectors reviewed TPNP Fire Protection Functional Inspection, Framatome ANP Manual Action Timelines and Feasibility Evaluation Rev. 0, and PTN-ENG-SEMS-03-045, Appendix R. Safe Shutdown Tirmelines for Manual Actions. Further, the' manual actions reviewed by the inspectors were evaluated for feasibility using the criteria contained in 4.
our Inspection Procedure Number 71111.05T, Fire Protection.
j, For the fire zones selected, the inspectors determined that an operator could accomplish the manual actions reviewed as currently written, that is, without the individual operator being assigned specific manual actions. However, there were several manual actions identified by
-- the-inspectors that could be-enhanced if assigned to a specific operator asopposed to-being delegated to the first available operator. This was identified to the licensee during the course of the inspection. The licensee initiate'd,_R 04-070~tosreview their fire protection procedures for possible enhancement in this regard.
==
Conclusion:==
Based on a sample of manual actions reviewed by the inspectors, the allegation was not substantiated, in that the procedures can be performed as written h
i No violation of NRC requirements or license commitments was idtiididentify that some time critical manual actions could be enhanced
,1
UNITED STATES
, a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II J
SAM NUNN ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER ar e
61 FORSYTH STREET SW SUITE 23T85 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8931 4',)A
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION NO. RII-2004-A-0013 Del I C.
This is in reference to our letter of February 27, 2004, which indicated that we would initiate action to review your concerns related to time critical manual actions in the fire protection procedures at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant and the licensee's failure to follow the problem identification program process. We have completed our inspection in response to the concerns you brought to our attention on January 28, 2004. The enclosed Allegation Evaluation Report lists your concerns and describes how the NRC resolved them.
The inspectors determined that these issues do not represent noncompliances nor present
_immediate safety concerns. One of the identified concerns was re-entered intoithe licensee's corrective action program to afford further licensee review. These issues will not be documented in an inspection report, and no regulatory action is planned.
Thank you for informing us of your concerns. We feel that our actions in this matter have been responsive to those concerns. We take our safety responsibilities to the public very seriously and will continue to do so within the bounds of our lawful authority. Should you have any additional questions, or if l-can be--of further -assistance in-this-matter; you-may-contact me-at--
800-577-8510 or 404-562-4605 or by mail at P. 0. Box 845, Atlanta, Georgia 30301.
Sincerely, Charles R. Ogle Enclosure(s): As stated