ML20198B240

Summary of 971113 Meeting W/Omaha Public Power District in Rockville,Md Re Proposed TS Submittals,Status of USAR Verification Effort & Results of Recent Fire Protection Program self-assessments.List of Attendees & Handouts Encl

ML20198B240
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	12/22/1997
From:	Wharton L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9801060237
Download: ML20198B240 (36)

Text

fo neo%1 e* UNITED STATES 4-

• J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N -

_ WASHINGTON, D.C. 30486 4 001

%*****)' -

December 22, 1997 LICENSEE: Omaha Public Power District FACILITY: Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

- DISCUSSION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. USAR VERIFICATION AND FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM On November 13, 1997. a meeting was held between the NRC staff and Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) personnel at the NRC offices in Rockville.

Maryland: OPPD requested the meeting to discuss proposed technical specification submittals, status of USAR verification effort, and results of recent fire protection program self-assessments. Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants. The presentation materials used for discussion of these issues are included as Attachment 2.

After introductions and a brief overview of the meeting, the licensee -

presented some background on the technical specification interpretations (TSis) program at Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) based on recent NRC interest.

The licensee explained that TSis have been used to clarify TSs and provide input to TS bases changes. The current program requirements limit the lifetime of TSIs to two years. The licensee proposed " bundling" TSIs and submitting TS changes to receive treatment similar to conversion packages of the Improved Technical Specification. The staff explained the TS processing priority: (priority 2) inadequate or broken TSs: (priority 3) clarifications, line item improvements. cost benefit licensing action (CBLA), and clarifications. It was further explained that TS applications should be submitted based on of inadequate TSs.The priority staffand alsothat bundling discussed theTSIstypescould slow TS of custom thedetails processing that are in the bases section of the ITS such as, system details, operability details, and equipment nomenclature. There was also some discussion of converting to the ITS. previous licensee assessments, economic impact, expected processing schedule. The licensee stated that the " door is not closed"_on converting to ITS.

The licensee provided the status of their Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) verification process. The USAR verification is a commitment the licensee made in their 10 CFR 50.54(f) response. The licensee has already seen improvements in knowledge and understanding of the plant design bases.

design margin, and safety margin.

9901060237 971222 N[ g

, [ hb ! j g Ih!,5,$,E,$$

.,1

• i~,,e,.

_ ( !ys 'p ; k #.[ $' i **

.4 ,

.g

• d.s *-

s +

a Y_ f;

,' e, > :p$* 3 Qn, f l nSif . ,

h ]t M ,? f %

n . T L,N'+y

1. ,. e ,

• A

. m

.:^

v W

gr. '

j

'* _n y ,x -

. } J .L #5 W, : . , y i.

, _ 1 #

, y ne .. . .

WThe' licensee also'provided the resultsiof two self-assessments!on Appendix R and' fire protection.-:The efforts were in response to fire protection 1 m Lviolations identified.during an engineering and test inspection conducted p

• earlier this year., <

~

_: Original Signed By - -

-g  : .q.

T L. Raynard Wharton Project Manager

- < Project D_irectorate IV .

Division'of Reactor l Projects III/IV- -

-0_ffice of Nuclear Reactor- Regulation

, ' Docket'No.iS0-285'-

)lSTRIBUT: 0N: (w/atts.~1 and 2) +

Jocket l1:Le e' LAttachments: 1. Attendance List .. PUBLIC .

L2. tLicensee's Handout' -PDIV-2 Reading -

'RWharton .

cc w/atts: - See next page >TPGwynn, RIV.

ACRS-OGC

' DISTRIBUTION: (w/att. 1)

S. Coll 1ns (SJC1)

F. Miraglia-(FJM)-

.R..Zimmerman (RPZ)-

E. Adensam (EGA1) c -W. Bateman (WHB)-

E. Peyton (ESP)

T. Tjadar W.-Beckner (WDB)

T. Hiltz (TGH) y ,

, d W

~

O y

,m.,  :

.y,

, .9. g h" -j ... J [ v p .;' ,y,

.. P #

VE.

'j g *_ g:yDOCUMENT=NAME: FC111397.MTS - * <  ;

t x: ,. .. . c OFC ' l,  ?P0lV-2/PM PDIV-2/LA -

6 *i? .

.m f; Qr. *i . 1,

a. NAMET y3>Wharton:ye~

L EFeyt67F ,

~t .. : .+.

F$j 4 DATE! '12/l1/97L L1214974  ; s V* -- e OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY- -

c,

,y  ?

' [j', 1

. ;  ; ' +

- i 4

r3- .

-, + y ,, - - , . . , .

,y y ]

- 3. :

^

cc w/ericls: ,

Winston & Strawn-

ATTN

Ferry D. Robinson. Esq..

1400 L Street. N.W. I Washington. DC 20005-3502:

Mr.--Jackd'ensen, Chairman.

Washington County Board of Su mrvisors .

Blair. febraska 69008 Mr. Wayne Walker, Resident Inspector o

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Post Office Box 309.

1 Fort Calhoun. Webrask'a 68023 Regional:AJmiristrator, Region IV

'U.S. Nuclear Ri*.gulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Ms. Cheryl Rodaers. LLRW Program Manager I Environmental Protection Section Nebraska Department of Health 301 Centennial Mall South P.0, Box 95007 Lincoln. Nebraska 68509-5007

'Mr. James W. Chase. Manager Fort Calhoun Station-Post Office Box 399

. Fort'Calhoun : Nebraska .68023 Mr. James'W. Tills Manager - Nuclear-Licensing <

Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun Station-FC-2-4 Adm. '

Post-Office Box 399 Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun, Nebraska- 68023-0399-Mr. S. K..Gambhir-Division Manager - Engineering & Operations Support Omaha'Public Power District Fort'Calhoun Station FC-2-4 Adm.

' Post Offic Box 399

-Hwy. 75 - North of Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun.~ Nebraska 68023-0399-er e-m- - > --

y_ . _ . . . , _ .. . ._ _ _ . . - . _ . . _ _ _..

i i4 - a '

Attachment 1-t MEETING WITH OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT NOVEMBER 13. 1997-

-TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. USAR VERIFICATION AND FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM .

' ATTENDANCE LIST

)

y QEED -

Sudesh Gambhir James Tills

-Joseph Gasper Joseph McManus-Thomas Matthews

. E William Bateman

. Raynard Wharton William Beckner Theodore Tjader J

k 4

-wwe , y -y- p

. . . . . - . - - . = _ = _ .. - _ . . . . _

't. s Attachment 2 k

MEETING WITH OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, USAR VERIFICATION AND FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM FORT CALHOUN STATION NOVEMBER I3,1997 SLIDES USED AT THE MEETING

: i l  :  :

i Omaha Pub ic Power District i i

Fort Calhoun Station  !

: l

: i

• . l

! Presentation to NRC/NRR l l Technica Specifications j i

USAR Verification j i Fire Protection Proc ram  :

i

i November 13,1997 i

i 1

00 PM i 9

1

~-

i. . . . .......................................... .............

i Agenda i ,

+ Opening Remarks - Sudesh Gambhir  :

j + Technical Specifications - Jim Tills  !

j + USAR Verification - Joe Gasper i

! + Fire Protection - Joe McManis i

+ Discussion  :

j + Closing Remarks - Sudesh Gambhir  !

The materials in this presentation are for information only. Only those actions which .

. have been included in previously docketed correspondence are considered to be regulatory commitments by Omaha Public Power District.

2 I

i Technical Specifications j

+ Objective j - Discuss an Initiative by OPPD to eliminate j Technical Specification Interpretations  :

! - Request support from the NRC to process the j resulting Facility License Change requests  :

j - Provide a proposal to minimize the impact on j

NRC resources  :

l

. e i  :  :

4

• 3 ,

i,eeeleeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.eeee eee e.e eo ee.e i Technical S 3ecifications i

e Status of conversion to Standard Technical

+  :

i Specifications j i - Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) has custom  :

j Technical Specifications. NRC management  !

j has encouraged OPPD to convert the FCS  !

Technical Specifications to Standard Technical  :

j Specifications.  !

! - OPPD has not committed to convert to Standard i j Technical Specifications; previous assessmer.ts i j have not shown conversion (approx. $3m) to be j

cost beneficial.  :

o e

j - If chosen, conversion would be a long term j

project with package submittal expected in early  :

i 2001. i

! - Maintenance of current technical specifications i i is needed regardless of conversion decision. i

'........e.... ....e..................e..e .................:

4

l .............................................. ............

l  :  :

l Tec1nica Specifications j

! + History of Technical Specification Interpretations at i i FCS i

! - Over the years, clarifications to FCS technical  !

i specifications have been addressed by i j Technical Specification Interpretations (TSis). i

Also, TSis have been used for TS Basis  :

i changes under 10 CFR 50.59 until formally i

! processed by NRC.  !

! - Current number of TSis is 29, including Bases  !

j changes, i

! - As a result of the current NRC position on TSis i j (Inspection Manual Part 9900), enforcement i j action at Wolf Creek, and a program self- j

assessment, OPPD decided to limit the lifetime  :

i of TSis.  !

! - TSI lifetime now limited to two years. i

- l O O O O O O O O O O O O d . .............................................

5

i Technical S aecifications i i Clarifications  !

(16) j > Facility License j

ohange  :

i Bases Changes -- 11 TSis addressed in  !

(4) submitted FLC3  :

9 TSIs yet to be  :

addressed in FLCs  :

i Operability and _

Incorporate into  !

! Applicability (9) Procedure  !

{ 9 TSis to be incorporated j j Resolution Paths for TS Interpretations j

: i 6 l 1

1

: l l Technical Specifications  !

j + Resolution of current TSis  !

j - TSis which clarify intent or scope, or revise i j Bases are incorporated into Facility License  !

Change packages to be approved by NRC. The  :

j bases for most of these changes reflect i

! Standard TG requirements. i i y TSI 96-11: Containment and Aux. Bldg. i  !

j gaseous monitors power supply must be j Independent 480V buses  :

j v TSI 97-10: Basis change clarifying detector i

well concrete temperature limit is for  :

! average through-wall (bulk) temperature i

! - TSis which aid in determining operability of i i components and related TS applicability are i j incorporated into proceduralized operator i guidance.  :

! v TSI 97-03: Components / subsystems which i

can be taken out of service without affecting  :

i operability of associated DG i 7

i Tec1nical S 3ecifications  !

i + Currently, 9 proposed Technical Specification i j (Facility License) change packages are in NRC  !

hands, with at least 1 more to be submitted thir.  !

month.  :

j + Facility License Change (FLC) packages under j

NRC review (* indicates TS change needed to  :

i disposition TSis):  !

! - Removal of Toxic Gas Monitors: submitted i j January 1995.  !

! - Extend AOT on Si Tanks (CEOG joint i

! submittal): submitted July 1995. i

! - Extend AOT on DG (CEOG Joint submittal): i i submitted August 1995.  !

! - Extend AOT on LPSI Pumps (CEOG joint i

! submittal): submitted June 1995. j i -

• Administrative changes to Tables in Section 3 : i i submitted May 1996 i

• Clarify operability of MSSVs: submitted March i

1997  :

8

7...:.......................................... ............

i Technica Specifications l i

• Add Control Room A/C, revise refueling specs.: j submitted April 1997  :

i - Implement Option B for ILRT: submitted July i j 1997, supplement to be submitted November i

- 1997.  :

j -

• Clarification of normal AFW flow path: i ,

oubmitted October 1997  :

• 48 hour LCO for ESF logic subsystem: to be  :

! submitted November 1997 i i + The FLC for the Control Room A/C system and i i related changes to the refueling Technical i i Specifications contained TSI resolution elements i j consistent with ISTS. It was termed " cherry picking" i

,  ; by the NRC staff and initially assigned low priority.  ;

j + OPPD perceives that other requested changes may i

be treated similarly because Standard Technical  :

i Specification conversion packages have a higher i i priority with the NRC staff. i 9

: l

: i j Technica Saecifications l i j + Approximately 9 other TS or Bases changes are j

being currently addressed by TGis and will require  :

i processing of FLC packages. i

! + To minimize impact on NRC and OPPD resources,  !

i OPPD proposes to bundle changes to several i j sections of the FCS Technical Specification Limiting i

Conditions for Operation and submit as package.  :

i (Bases changes will be handled separately.) i

+ These changes would incorporate cuncnt TSis and  :

i reflect the ISTS content to the extent practical while i i retaining the general format of the FCS custom i j specifications. No changes (other than correction of j

. specific dicrespancies) wo ild be made to the  :

} Surveillance section of the TS. Candidates are: i

! - 2.4 (Containment Cooling): clarify LCO for i i charcoal filters. i

! - 2.7 (Electrical Systems): add power source and i i redundancy requirements of 2.0.1(2). i

! - 2.15 (Instrumentation and Control Systems): i j explicitly identify instrumentation functional units  !

j and clarify terms; charging pump / Alternate j

Shu own Panel discrepancy.  :

10

. p ............................................

j Technica Specifications .

i + Some changes to Section 2.1 (Reactor Coolant i j System), Section 2.8 (Refueling Operations) and i

Section 2.12 (Control Room Systems) currently  :

i included in the Coriirol Room A/C FLC could be i j decoupled from that package and bundled with the j j changes above. j

. + Change to TS 2.15 adding 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> 1.00 for ESF i

logic subsystem scheduled to be submitted in  :

{ November 1997 could also be. bundled. i i + Bundled package would be submitted in second half i

! of 1998.  !

i + To facilitate review, the bundled package could be i

! handled by the NRC like a standard technical i i specification conversion using contracted resources. j 11

i Technical S 3ecifications i i + Summary i

- Conversion to STS is not currently a viable  :

i~ option at FCS i

~

j v Cost vs. improvements in safety }

v Schedule  :

j - Many TSis require FLCs to meet NRC i j expectations discussed in Inspection Manual i Pad 9900.  :

j - Significant NRC and OPPD resources will be j needed to process these changes.  :

j - Use of" bundling" and NRC contractor personnel j

would allow use of an economy of scale and  :

i reduce the administrative burden on NRC i resources.  :

! + NRC input on OPPD proposal or other options is i

solicited.  :

12

i USARVerification  !

j + Commitment in OPPD 50.54(f) response  !

j "In order to provide additional assurance of  !

j conformance with the design bases. OPPD is j

currently completing assessments of selected  :

i FCS systems using the Nuclear Energy Institute i i (NEI) Guidelines for Assessing Programs for i

Maintaining the Licensing Basis (NEI 96-0S).  :

} Deficiencies found are entered into the i i Condition Report system for resolution. The i

assessment of the Chemical and Volume Control  :

i System is complete, and assessments of the i i Safety Injection and Instrument Air systems i

! are ongoing. OPPD will complete assessments  !

of all rem 6ining FCS safety related and safety  :

i significant systems no later than February 1. i

1999."  :

13 '

i USAR Verification  !

j + Background i

j -

Fort Calhoun design basis wcs reconstituted in j 1988 through 1992  :

j v 33 system level Design Basis Documents j were produced  :

y 14 plant level Design Basis Documents j were produced  :

j v The Design Basis Documents are revised j j based on plant configuration changes j j -

The Fort Calhoun USAR was updated based on j

the reconstituted design basis in 1992 through  :

i 1994. j i y Not include cross reference development i

[ v Not consistent with " literal" interpretation l l  :

m :

14

: l i

USAR Veri'ication  !  ;

f + Puroose I i -

Identify and cross reference calculations, i i analyses, drawings, procedures, surveillance i j tests, and/or operating practices that are either i j v the source documents for USAR i j statements, data and drawings j j or i j v the procedures, tests, or practices that i j implement USAR statements. j i - Verify if USAR statements, data and drawings i j for systems are consistent with the Chapter 14 j

anaiysis results and the source documents in  :

i the DBDs, calculations, analyses and drawings.  !

Verify that USAR statements are implemented i i in appropriate procedures, surveillance tests, i j operating procedures.

i j

- Verify the Chapter 14 analysis are consistent with the referenced calculations, analyses, i{

i

drawings, procedures, surveillance tests, and/or  :

operating practices.

15

................................................. ............. 1 i USAR Verification  !  ;

+ Purcose (continued)  :

j -

Verify that USAR statements are consistent with  !

j the plant physical configuration, j j -

This pro,'ect will also conduct a verification of the  !

EOP Technical Bases Document. This EOS  :

i review will be conducted upon completion of the i USAR review.  :

j -

Improve the knowledge base of our design and i j system engineers i i y Design Bases i i

y Design Margin i j v Safety Margin i

16

i USAR Verification

+ Methodoloav --

j -

An expert technical panel will vs. y that (1) FCS i

safety related and safety signcicant systems  :

i described in the USAR are consistent with the i j FCS design basis, licensing uases and i j calculations, and (2) tests and procedures j

appropriately implement USAR statements.  :

.f (Process shown on following flow chart) l l

The expert technical panel consists of a nuclear i

engineer responsible for the Chapter 14 analysis,  :

i the DBD sponsor, the system engineer, a licensing i i engineer and licensed operators.  !

l  :  :

i  :  :

17 l

i USAR Veri"ication Process i Operations Procedures Calculations & Analyses j i (OP,01, ARP, AOP, EOP) h i

y  :

System  :

Response  :

A  :

i .

USAR i j PhysicalPlant * *

• Chapter la j Statement

. Analyses  :

n  :

j NRCIssued SER i i Surveillance Tests

• Tech. Spec. j i (ISI, IST, ST) Amendments j

V  :

j Tech. Spec.  !

! Bases  !

4 18

i USAR Verification  !

+ in addition this review will verify the following are  :

i properly incorporated into the USAR i

. Any components that have been abandoned in  :

place.  :

. Evaluate tentromry modification that has been  :

j installed for more than one operating cycle to i j determine if a USAR update is necessary. j i . Any equipment operated in manual that is i j described in the USAR as being operated in j

automatic.  :

19

h USAR Verification  !

j System Reviews Com a etec j j + Completed as part of the NEl initiative (Sampling)  !

Instrument and Service Air  :

j -

Safety infection i i -

Chemical & Volume Control System i j -

Auxiliary Feedwater j

+ DC Distribution  :

j + Diesel Generators i

! + Component Cooling Water i

.  : + Raw Water  :

j + Control Room Habitability i 20

USAR Verification i i Source or Im alementing Document i  !

Ver... ne d  :

+ DC Distribution  :

4  :

+ Raw Water  :

! + Component Cooling Water i i + Spent Fuel Pool Cooling  !

O .

0 .

O .

. g i . ,

. y l

O 8

l e 21

I

\

. i

,4 . . :

. 1 i

USAR Verification Findin9s  !

1 .

l . ,

l Unable to Verify .

l

! . l .

Typographical Error .

l

.i .

i Testing .

i l Physical .

l

. l .

l Operations Practice or Procedure .

. l l l .

i . Open .

. I l

! Internal Discrepancy 1 . i .

Extemal Discrepancy .

. l Design Document Discrepancy  :

. l .

Additional Information ,

l

• Abandoned or Modified Equipment

{

\ . . . .

j 0 5 10 1s 20 [

1 . .

Misinterpretation 39  :

Improved Wording 99  :

. 0 22

.am.e a.4 e-. ~._ow- J _ . -..d ., _a- _ --W. -au 4 --, -=.2..

5

)

. b .

l 3

0 g _

i e

8 1

5

- n%

i 1 4

! .................................................................................................... . .t I

.i; [I II ,

A i

usu F si }

3 eae r 111 .

I -

l g x> ......... ........................ ...........

y)

D e 1 )

$e

• lI1

.8 - .

t lf

.J.ni.anin l!f inau llIl i inidi, i,!

l

. . 6............................................ ............

Fire Protection  !

! + OPPd, with support from Engineering Planning & i j Management Inc. and Duke Engineering & j

Services, has performed two Fire Protection  :

, i Program Assessments: i

- Appendix R Focused Self Assessment  !

j - Quality Assurance (QA) Functional Fire j

Protection Inspection Audit based on the NRC  :

i FPFl. i i + OPPD initiated these assessments after the 1997 i

! NRC Engineering & Technical Support inspection, i

! NRC questioned OPPD's maintenance of the Fire j

Protection program consistent with increasing  :

! Industry standards.  !

! + The Self Assessment Team and QA Audit Team i i team members possessed a high level of expertise  !

j and knowledge of current industry practice,

including Appendix R technical and regulatory  :

i issues. ,

23

................................................. ... ..... .. 0 i

Fire Protec': ion  !

i + The Self Assessment and QA FPFI determined the i j extent to which the Appendix R and Fire Protection j j Program: j j -

met current industry standards for enhanced j j compliance beyond regulatory requirements, j j -

met current interpretations of the requirements, j

and  :

j - included any compliance related deficienciese j

! + The Self Assessment conducted reviews in the i l j following areas to verify compilance with licensing j

basis and in view of the latest insights and  :

! interpretation of regulations:  !

l - Safe Shutdown Systems l l - Safe / Alternate Shutdown Circuits j j - Separation Analysis j i - Appendix R Compilance  !

. e

- MOV Hot Shorts  :

j - Manual Actions j l j - Other  !

e e 6 e6 eeeeeeeeee 4 e eeeeeeeeeeee ee eee eeee eeee eeee 9 eeee e e ee6 e e 9 . e 24 1

.n - - - . a ..

. .---.-a a....-.s s+ _ , - . - - . . - --...-.----.2-a--w -.-x -- ----..s Fire Protection i + The QA based FPFI conducted reviews in the j

following areas to verify conformance to licensing  :

' i basis and in view of the latest insights and i j interpretations of regulations: i

! - Fire Response prefire plans and incident i

! investigation i

! - Training of the fire brigade i

- Transient load permits are properly controlled j l

- Surveillance testing meets licensing basis  :

i requirements for suppression and detection i i systems i

! - Fire barriers and associated penetration seals i

! - Combustible loading l j - Configuration Change controls review impact j

on the Fire Protection Program  :

j -

Implementation of the Fire PRA results i j - Other i 25 i

i Fire Protection i j + Based on the results of the Self Assessment and i j QA FPFI Audit, the Fire Protection Program at FCS j j has been adequately implemented and protects the j

health and safety of the public.  :

! + Examples of positive aspects of the program: j j - Cleanliness of both the Radiation Controlled i

Areas and the Balance of Plant, and  :

i precautions taken to control both fixed and i i transient combustibles.  !

! - Management involvement with the Fire  !

j Protection Program, i

! - The Fire Hazards Analysis is frequently i

i updated. i i - Using the Corrective Action Program, actions  !

j are taken to identify and resolve deficiencies in i j a timely manner and documented. j j - The Modification process is well controlled and  !

j properly implemented. j j - The fire brigade, fire watch members and others  !

j are well prepared for combating a potential fire. j l :  :

l e.. e.ee... ... ............................................,

26 l

l .

i Fire Protection i i  :

i i + The assessments recommended the update of i j specific issues based on today's increasing industry j

expectations and current NRC interpretation of  :

i regulations.  !

! + Upgrades to the program are on-going and are i i being tracked by OPPD's corrective action program. i i + Example areas of weakness based on current NRC  !

! interpretations of requirements are: i

i -

Manual Action Methodology j Associated Circuit Documentation  :

j -

Documentation of Spurious Signal Analysis i Shutdown Cooling High/ Low Interface (Mode i j Control) {

i Emergency Lighting Documentation i Combustible Loading Documentation  !

l Penetration Inspections and 86-10 Methodology i 0 # # # # # # 4 8 9 9 0 9 9 e e 8 e 3 . 0 ee eeee e ee ee eeeg ea e eee g g a g g g g g g g g g a g , g g 27

i Fire Protection  !

j + The weaknesses were categorized to ensure timely i

and effective resolution of findings commensurate  :

i with their significance: i Category 1 Potential Noncompliance which  !

! could range from a physical feature and/or i j documentation characteristic that could j

potentially deviate from Fire Protection  :

i regulations as they are interpreted today. i Category 2: General Concern where  :

i documentation is not available to support  !

i compliance consist with current industry i i standards. j j -

Category 3: General Observation where i

conditions or dot,amentation varies from other  :

i facilities recognized as good performers.  !

28 m---'er-y

Fire Protection i i + Status of Ma or Activities related to the recent Self i j Assessment and QA FPFl: i

! - The findings from the two assessments are i

~

being tracked by the Correcilve action Program i j and corrective actions are in progress. j j - AOP-6 Fire Emergency, upgrade of engineering i j basis is progressing and is on schedule. j j - Reactor Coolant Lube Oil Collection j

Modification for potentia' unpressurized leakage  :

i sites has been approved by the Plant Review i j Committee and is on schedule for installation.  !

! - OPPD has submitted an exemption request for  !

i those components not collected on the Reactor  !

j Coolant Pump Motor Lube Oil System.  !

j - Procedure changes and/or basis documentation  !

upgrades for the weaknesses identified are in  :

i progress or being planned.  !

- The associated circuits soalysis has been  :

i updated. i 29

e.............................................. .............

i Fire Protection  !

j + Conclusion i

! - OPPD recognizes that substantial effort will be  !

i necessary to achieve a program that meets i j today's high standards. To that end, we have i

already expended significant resources and will  :

i continue to do so until the goal !s achieved. i

! - The performance of the Self Assessment and i j QA Functional Fire Protection inspection Audit i j clearly demonstrate OPPD's desire 'to have a j j quality Fire Protection Program.  :

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 30

- _ _ _ _ _ . ._ -. . .. . . - - _ - . _.