ML050670277

E-mail Final Rev

ML050670277
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/23/2004
From:	O'Donohue K NRC/RGN-II
To:	Ogle C NRC/RGN-II
References
FOIA/PA-2004-0277
Download: ML050670277 (5)

Text

I C

From: Kathleen O'Donohue , C'. i To: Ogle, Charles R. } "I Date: 3/23/04 8:58AM

Subject:

final rev Note: I renumbered the concerns to get them In the better order, the second interface date was added and I deleted the reference to the other CRs, we did not really need to mention them.

information in this recora was deletes.

in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions 25c.

6 EOIA- ? 6 a -

- - I - . . - - - -

Mail Envelope Properties (40604290.5AA: 24: 51615)

Subject:

final rev Creation Date: 3/23/04 8:58AM From: Kathleen OrDonohue Created By: KFO@nrc.gov Recipients nrc.gov AThPO.ATL_DO CRO (Charles R. Ogle)

Post Office Route AThPO.ATL_DO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time closletter final_kfo.wpd 97887 03/23/04 08:57AM MESSAGE

- -- 674 03f-3/0408-58AM Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed

Subject:

No ___

Security: Standard

ALLEGATION EVALUATION REPORT ALLEGATION RIl-2004A-0013 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Concern (2)

This concern refers tb your conversation with Mr. Necota Staples of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRCO) on January 28, 2004, at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (TP). You expressed concern to Mr. Staples regarding the licensee's disposition of a fire prot ction issue, which was identified at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant in Condition Report (CR Discussion: 'nc In response to your concern, the Inspectors performed a review of O-ADM-518, Condition Reports and NAP-400 Revision 1, Condition Re o for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, to assess whether or not the licensee's closure of CFI10was in accordance with plant procedures.

The inspectors also reviewed the circumstances associated with the licensee's investigation and disposition of the issue.

Thb ejoi~sa determined that C ]appropriately classified the issue whichl l 1 1 Further, the licensee's investigation, conclusions, and corrective s appeared to bewi 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-Specificallythe-CR-was-dispositionedreviewed-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 1 on the previous page.

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 NRC on January 28, 2004, at TP. During this conversation you expressed concern regarding procedural enhancements which you felt were necessary for time critical manual actio 2s used in a safe shutdown in the event of a fire. Your concern centered on th ccomplishing designated manual actions. 7 C Discussion:

During our initial conversation and follow-up discussion on February 11, 2004 you did not identify any specific manual actions orfire zones containing manual actions of concern.

Similarly, Condition Report C R" did not provide this information either. Therefore, the inspectors limited their sample rf manual actions independently inspected to those in Fire Zones 067, 063, 106, and 106R. 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-Revw-0,-and-P-TN-ENG SEMS-03-045, Appendix R Safe Shutdown Timelines for Manual Actions. Further, the manual actions reviewed by the inspectors were evaluated for feasibility using the criteria contained in our Inspection Procedure Number 71111 .05T, Fire Protection.

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 as opposed to being delegated to the first available operator. This was identified to the licensee during the course of the inspection. The licensee initiated CR 04-0705'to review their fire protection procedures for possible enhancement in this regard.

==

Conclusion:==

Based on a sample of manual actions reviewed by the inspectorsthae allegation was not , -

s res can be performed as writt e/

6 _No violation of NRC requirements or license commitments was iedntified. The inspectors did ideptify that some time critical manual actions could be enhanced rag,_~

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION II SAM NUNN ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET SW SUITE 23T85

% 4 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8931

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATION NO. R11-2004-A-0013 no ~Deaco 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 proces. We have completed our inspection in response to the concerns you brought to our attentio 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-into-the-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 I 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