05000387/FIN-2015003-01
From kanterella
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | RHR Shutdown Cooling Procedure Not Maintained Consistent with Technical Specification Requirements |
| Description | Inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance (Green) and associated NCV of SSES Unit 1 and 2 TS 5.4.1, Procedures, because Susquehanna did not maintain the procedure for operation of the residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling (SDC) system consistent with the requirements in TS 3.4.8, RHR Shutdown Cooling- Hot Shutdown. As TS 3.4.8 requires two RHR SDC loops to be operable and, if no reactor recirculation pumps (RRPs) are running, one of the loops to be in-service in Mode 3 below the RHR cut in permissive pressure (98 psig), inspectors determined that OP-1(2)49-002, RHR Shutdown Cooling, was not maintained appropriately because a change to the procedure precluded operation of the system between 40 psig and the RHR cut in permissive pressure (98 psig). Susquehanna entered the issue into the corrective action program (CAP) as CR-2015-22882 and CR-2015-24137 and revised the procedure to remove the requirement that precluded operation of the SDC system between 40 psig and the RHR cut in permissive pressure
This finding is more than minor because it is associated with the procedure quality attribute of the Mitigating Systems cornerstone and adversely affected its objective to ensure the availability and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, the 40 psig procedural limit impacted the availability and capability of RHR to be placed in SDC between 98 psi, the cut-in permissive for the system, and 40 psig. In accordance with Exhibit 2 of IMC 0609, Appendix A, The SDP for Findings At-Power, the inspectors determined that this finding is of very low safety significance (Green) because the performance deficiency was not a design or qualification deficiency, did not involve an actual loss of safety function, did not represent actual loss of a safety function of a single train for greater than its TS allowed outage time, and did not screen as potentially risk-significant due to a seismic, flooding, or severe weather initiating event. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, Change Management because Susquehanna did not use a systematic process for evaluating and implementing change so that nuclear safety remains the overriding priority (H.3). Specifically, implementation of Susquehannas procedure change process did not ensure that the RHR SDC procedure was maintained consistent with the requirements of plant TSs. |
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000387/2015003 Section 1R18 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2015 (2015Q3) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.18 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | B Smith C Graves E Gray F Bower J Grieves N Graneto T Daun |
| Violation of: | Technical Specification - Procedures Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.3, Change Management |
| INPO aspect | LA.5 |
| ' | |
Finding - Susquehanna - IR 05000387/2015003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Susquehanna) @ 2015Q3
Self-Identified List (Susquehanna)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||