ML20246A778

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Summary of Enforcement Conference on 890612 Re Insp Repts 50-313/89-04 & 50-368/89-04.Subj Discussed at Meeting Described in Encl Meeting Summary
ML20246A778
Person / Time
Site: Arkansas Nuclear  
Issue date: 06/30/1989
From: Milhoan J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To: Campbell G
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
EA-89-115, NUDOCS 8907070084
Download: ML20246A778 (35)
v • d • e


See also: IR 05000313/1989004

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:v q;3 - m) > - , ' ! k$ h*k ',V . 'j , . ,9[ f "1 8, T -

  1. .
  2. f*,

,,. 1

JUN 3 01989 - 4~ , < , s ~

-

4;L$ In-ReplyjReferdo: j ' ~ ' Q Dockets: ' 50-313/89-04 l

  • <

,. ,50-368/89-04

-

, EA 89-115 . , , , k Arkansas Power'&'Lighticompany ,

, ATTN: 'Mr. Gene; Campbell J { '

, Vice President, Nuclear , Operations;

, t" <P.O. Box-551. .- Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 yp [. = Gentlemen: " 4 < - - . ,

I This. refers to the Enforcement Conference conducted at Region IV's request in s the NRC: Region'IV office on June 12, 1989. This meeting related-to activities

authorized by NRC LicensesLDRP-51 and NPF-6 for Arkansas Nuclear One'(ANO) and J - ' wasLattended by thosel listed'on the enclosed Attendance-List. .The subjects discussed at,this. meeting are described in the enclosed Meeting Summary. ' , , We acknowledge your position that the high pressure injection (HPI) system , " piggyback" mode'was not in the original emergency core cooling system (ECCS) -design and was not relied'upon to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 which became effective at a.later date.' We understand that even though the " piggyback" .' mode was not addressed..in the original ECCS design for ANO, you did have this option available as part of the Emergency.0perating Procedures, and that those procedures reflect this. You have also stated that although'the HPI' system was not originally designed to operate with water. temperatures as high as 240 F, the system would perform its intended function even if subjected to the . temperatures determined by atalysis to be possible. Finally, we understand that on'the basis of your evaluation, you have presu:ly determined that there is a narrow band of conditions during a small oreak 1.ws of coolant accident (LOCA) where the HPI " piggyback" :nje mL be required. Basea er this -evaluation, you have committed to include th u mode of operation into the . ANO Unit 1 ECCS design. You also stated that piping support upgrades have " .been completed for the 240'F design temperature. On the basis of our evaluation of the information that was provided during the ' Enforcement Conference, we find that AP&L is not in violation of 10 CFR Part 50, . Appendix B, Criterion III. No response is required by AP&L as a result of this . conference. Please note that the other finding relating to temperature design of the low pressure coolant injection discussed in NRC Inspection Report 50-313/89-04; 50-368/89-04, will be addressed during followup of licensee event reports. RIV:RI:TPS* PM* C:TPS* D:DRS* E0* D:DRP* RAzua/cjg- CHarbuck WSeidle LJCallan GSanborn JLMilhoan / /89 / /89 -/ /89 / /89 / /89 / /89

  • previously concurred

_ 8907070084 890630 PDR ADOCK 050003.13 l O PDC il j _ _ .

- - - - . 3. g. .a ,y -y p

i . . . . - . Arkansas Power & Light Company > -2-

.. .-

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's." Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC's;Public Document Room. l L Should you havel.any question concerning this~ matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. ' Sincerely, Original Signed By, ,' 3, L Milhcan : James L. Milh'oan,' Director Division of Reactor Projects Enclosures: 1. Neeting Sumnary 2. Attendance List- '3. AP&L Presentation Guide .cc w/ enclosures: Arkansas Nuclear One ATTN: N. 5. Carns Director . Nuclear Operations P.O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Arkansas Radiation Control Program Director bec w/ enclosures: bec to DMB (IE01) k bec distrib. by RIV: RRI R. D. Martin, RA RPB-DRSS Section Chief (DRP/A)

Lisa Shea, RM/ALF RIV File 1 DRP -MIS System RSTS Operator Project Engineer (DRP/A) 1 DRS G. Sanborn j C. Harbuck, NRR Project Manager (MS: 13-0-18) l C. Poslusny, NRR Project Manager (MS: 13-D-18) l l k'. Seidle R. Azua J. Lieberman, OE 1 ! l I l

_ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ }

7v i x m , s. . c' - -.- - -- ' - - - - - - M" QQ w , ' '

,,9 iy - - - , !' ' ' fil( , _ _ _ _ ~ ~ i s , .. '9 '. _ -l ^ ! '[ ,:-9 . 4; y. n gr ,- , , " - y t 4 y' .. . , , , " ENCLOSURE 1 c , _ '

' . ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT. COMPANY ' L.e " lJuneJ12,.1989 ' c. t - . , h MEETING' SUMMARY a ' ' , , n v, . , W .. , ~

,3 . , .i G., ,q . Licensee: Ar. kansas Power'&' Light Company: . , . j y , , t .. . Facility:' Arkansa~st Nuclear: Chel r < . , ,m 2 . Dockets:, 50'-313. ' c50-368.

o.,; , g SUBJECT: ' ENFORCEMENTfCON:ERENCE CONCERNING NRC FINDINGS >(NRC INSPECT 10N' 1 - , " REPORT. 50-313/81-04; 50-368/89-04) 4 , . ,

  • %

. . ,. . . of Arkancas~ Power & Light Company met with On. June12, 1989, ' Region IV' personnel in Arlingterepresentctives, Texas, to discuss the apparent. violatio ' ., . . ' , Oc y identified during -the NRC.. inspection conducted February 6-24', 1989, and the' i corrective actions taken or planned'by the licensee. The[ licensee' presentation' addressed.theareasofconcern'identifiedinthe Enforcement Conference Agenda. - A ccpy. of the licensee's' presentation is . attached.. , t \\ P , .. I ' s .. J. [ 2_. ._ _ 7-

, 9 q- N; '. , , 3., . , .. h.' ' k

q. . 1s ; , ,- E, ENCLDSURE 2_1 a ' [[... . ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS .] NRC " J. ilaudon, Deputy Director, Division of Rector Safety (DRS), Region IV (RIV) E. Baker, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects (DRP), RIV 7 t A..Howell,' Project Engineer. DRP, RIV D. Chamberlain Section Chief. DRP, RIV- . B. Haag, Resident Inspectorf RIV

R. Azua, Reactor Inspector. DRS, RIV

' - -T. Stetka, Chief, Plant.-Systems Section, DRS, RIV R. Wise,; Enforcement Specialist, RIV I. Barnes, Section Chief, Materials & Quality Programs, DRS, RIV 'o .D. Wheeler, Chief, Performance Appraisal Section, ILPB, NRR lu? Sanborn, Enforcement' Officer, RIV.' ' ' .e AP&L- N. Carns, Director, Nuclear Operations, AP&L J. Vandergrift, Operations Manager, AP&L T. Campbell, Vice President; Nuclear C. Taylor, Licensing G. Jones, General Manager, Engineering E.' Ewing,' General Manager, Plant Support

C. Tuck, Supervisor, Nuclear Energy

B. Eaton, Manager of Mechanical, Civil, & Structural Design - ___.m_ _-_________.m__._ _ _ _ _ . . _ . .

_,, , _ _ _ - _ _ .t.... .

ENCLOSURE 3 s' ..:. - - ' - , ' "; l' . .. . , [7':

.

' . . I+ s . NRC/APSL ENFORCEMENT ~ CONFERENCE ^ JUNE 12, 1989 HPI/LPI PIGGiBACK DESIGN a

- - - - - - - - - - '- ' . . .. . 9 - , .. , I ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE JUNE 12,1989 HPl/LPI PIGGYBACK DESIGN , - 1. INTRODUCTION ll. HPI BACKFLOW EVENT AND AP&L RESPONSE 111. PIGGYBACK ISSUE A. POTENTIAL VIOLATION B. AP&L POSITION C. ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION C: PIGGYBACK OPTION FOR ANO-1 4 D. AP&L. ACTIONS i 1. SUBSEQUENT SBLOCA ANALYSIS ' 2. DEDICATION OF PIGGYBACK FOR ! ECCS DESIGN IV. CONCLUSION , A. ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

B. CONCLUDING REMARKS i ) ! ' i ! i J i' i '

< 1 l l l o-- -- -- - )

- - - - _ , _ 'f ' . ., ,

, a- ,, '

, . . I: f HPl BACKFLOW EVENT ' AND AP&L RESPONSE , , h

- _ - - - - - - - , . . - .- , - ... . .. . QUESTIONS RELATING TO A SYSTEM OR COMPONENT'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION WERE RESOLVED PRIOR TO RETURNING THE UNIT TO SERVICE i i ! l ! ! i' l F !) l l -

_____ __-_- - - _____

!1i 1 . - _- _ - - ' . . . ) ENI P RO H HUI T( GS I S CP HE E M J R NU PI P I P'B P'C i l P'A H' H' H' A. A. A. rL ( 3 ;] rs 4 4 4 4 [ [ [ [ TNE p p p p VE } X 98 2, , 9 4 , 0 1 Q*0 _ _ x x 0

,

2 . N E I ' I l l I l d 7 d 7 d l d - A V E95cRWE L J AV DE L IA F p p p p _ . x x x x _ _ - _ - _ P P P, P _ C D' C C' CB C A' - )P RT R' R' R R' C ON R TA( CL A OP EOM RCU P - (

i'l1 l1 - . . - . -

.. . ,' , t s n wmre y a , e g wt rA n wN c . e u u I C s t s S A y , _ - \\ m _ - _ Ig a N m- n mC Pi Lp r P P i wt f eC ( nI I e s M t _ s it . s se q r n v e o E R _ r t m p a rc S W re e e - d n d g a bj wt _ t t u . o e e e W e e l c r g e ' o m F H, e s O

d r h m u t

n n y oM + d a c s w U e t v r n n c r e e o o e o e r w r m ie ~ J. T g D S P C C v g ~ r e e ~ '/ -x\\ /s t R n o C i m s t a E c r g e 5 s o m a f m / e t w , s e v z _ E O y I P m d He nA 7 p m \\ o l 6 ev d , e o r s l e DM a oform c i. a nk f e v. gh c S "" lY I e 1 N Pr t nt I HpOs ei P i y B P p H \\ H W n I o P n n a H tn e c f e ie o H n - e o o v d " is

.

c o M " p s i y . rr

d o R C n A n As .o Ci x gp . O hi s I Dly Pnin ri t .j i Hpr L a SVd On ie d _ PT A SA F' N'A . 9 , , . C - u s . N- t - e s e M' v r v r - i . d e d Vh V. R )m t e _ O k / c td C w o o o H rv r - y t n e c r e nn c f d d h e ai e g ve T r e o C p tmR S o c, n . e M I I w Pt S 1 - n t /

.

o Pw la in c g R i r o o. e

- o f n e 6 y s$ m 9n d , ic ma aN' Nw n c teB C o A v a ( s t s Ds ny e A K s pC R g f HA ) ) B C - -

- - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ . . , . .. . SUMMARY SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES WERE EXPENDED IN IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES 70 OUTAGE DAYS 14,000 MANHOURS OF ENGINEERING TIME OVER 4.5 MILLION DOLLARS I , ! l !

j' _ - _ -_ -

. , _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ e e E ., 9

4 l l PIGGYBACK ISSUE i t i b u ! 1 i i I t l l l l ! , i i t I i l 1 I; li 1 - - . - - - - _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l . ~ , . . . . .. . POTENTIAL VIOLATION t

  • INSPECTION REPORT 89-04 (APRIL' 3,1989)

STATES: l POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF 10CFR50 APPENDIX , l B, CRITERION 111, IN THAT- l - PIGGYBACK CONSIDERED DURING ORIGINAL ! DESIGN - PIGGYBACK INCLUDED IN EOP l - PIGGYBACK NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED IN HPI SYSTEM PIPING TEMPERATURE - HPI SYSTEM DESIGN TEMPERATURE OF 145 DEGREES F WAS EXCEEDED i i ! , ! ! " l _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ -

r . , . . - . ,. AP&L POSITION i I

PIGGYBACK OPTION WAS APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED IN DESIGN OF HPI ' CRITERION lil WAS ADEQUATELY . ADDRESSED BY THE ORIGINAL DESIGN i r

t ! ! < k .

I I p

) - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ .

. . . - m. .,.. w . . . .. .. . c . ,_i o,_J.R, ,.s 6- r ? PEG r 'BACK E0]E ' i (? 'g 1 ., 3I

  • U

O CVl235 1 8 1&4 g T trac 104 Cvnt34 "'

< 'l . COOLANT g -C X (u nnea pump <etra g - .. _, mutts ,W , '.&/ m ss Ma> X pep ,.-*==n>c. .e . "v'2 io 7 auitar aute 3 cvirge DISCHARGE ~ T b h "s .. WC.p ' *==X /

jw4

y 1 .; _. au)4C 4 asuttat anati Cvnt:9 y* a j.

J . DISCHARC,g

I x .A s ) C) X j _,h_- "U193 ~ I , , . .,j Mu. tt33 !. a,c.e m, . . -.

_ ault 4 tvia27 1 - "FW5 x .) -

' attCHARGC N3*D A - s , "dC ' l L X- Xp=-- Q V jgh , ,g, , ====ix. p .; . a< aulf38 muta S CV1229

    • 83**

'

  • !; Chap 0t

. rwj 1 LP INJCC f C4 3CPa1[0 X ,a f a v YD etactDN ifanac,t i C vt400 1 anen ' l t (3 i I i. * (N J!C flP TD stacfSP O vl406 I#I

  1. '##8

CVt4t* n ,4. , C ,.0, , r, , - , .- = j p,4

t . ; j i j . i n- -

--e , , , 5 ; t c., , . -- '-- W -*

. _ =. . . ' . a . inj - '. _ .Id H --Dh3B

L 7 _ Ib) . - .a- - w w IE(AY M 4' & a m'2 880 C.

  • 760M , Cvlita )

sk ,, , 6- . - t$ 1,

  • .

w V V - -

, ,,, i

r .! i-

  • 344
  • )e n

e - 3Hla [ Dwea >4;t 48 61l' , 1 .. ., .

'd t visca .g y

vi4ia

, ~1 - to. C V I404 C - , U4 d N 6 i e . . ( Yh4O* vi is - st attrs 5 JI6 0 P+G 'F'Mt&& i . '

__ . -. _ . - - . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - .. - -- , , , A

. .. .. I SAFETY ANALYSIS OVERVIEW 1 I PIGGYBACK WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED i

AS AN ORIGINAL OPTION AND IS NOW APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED IN CURRENT ECCS DESIGN PIGGYBACK OPTION - ORIGINAL

- ORIGINAL DESIGN FEATURE (DESIGN FOR ONE-TIME USE) - NOT ECCS DESIGN PIGGYBACK DESIGN - CURRENT

- DEDICATION FOR ECCS DESIGN ! , '

l l w -h - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

- - - , . . . e' g. ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION OF PIGGYBACK OPTION 1. ECCS DESIGN BASIS - HISTORY - 1969 - ANO-1 PSAR - 1972 - ANO-1 FSAR - JAN 1974 - NRC ISSUED FINAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (FAC) AS REVISION TO 10CFR50.46 - AUG 1974 - AP&L REFERENCED B&W'S EVALUATI.ON MODEL FOR APPLICABILITY TO ANO-1 - JUL 1975 - AP&L RESUBMITTED ECCS ANALYSIS TO RESPOND TO NRC QUESTIONS (BAW-10103 AND BAW-10104) - OCT 1979 - NRC ISSUED FINAL SER ACCEPTING THE ECCS ANALYSES I - - _ _ _ - -

..; L .= . , . . ... . , ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION OF PIGGYBACK OPTION 2. HPI PIGGYBACK OPTION - - EARLY. DESIGN EVOLUTION OF HPI CONSIDERED A HPl/LPI CROSS CONNECT OPTION - THE PIPING DESIGN SPECIFICATION SHOWS ASSUMPTION OF A ONE-TIME

CYCLE OF SUMP FLUID INJECTION I OF 140 DEGREES F - THE HPl/LPI CONNECTING PIPING- WAS DESIGNED FOR 145 DEGREES F - THE HPI PUMPS WERE DESIGNED FOR 150 DEGREES F - THE 140-150 DEGREES F TEMPERATURE , THAT WAS ANALYZED IS CONSISTENT ,; WITH: - HPI FLOW OF 500-600 GPM - LPI LOW FLOW OR SHUTOFF i CONDITION l - NOMINAL SERVICE WATER FLOW ! THRU COOLER j 4

-- < . . , - .. , , ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION OF PIGGYBACK OPTION 3. SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT REFERENCES - ORIGINAL PSAR CONTAINED NO REFERENCES TO PIGGYBACK OPTION - ORIGINAL FSAR BRIEFLY REFERENCED OPTION OF HPl/LPI OPERATION IN THE RECIRCULATION MODE "...THE HPI SYSTEM MAY BE OPERATED THROUGH THE LPI SYSTEM IF RECIRCULATION THROUGH THE HPI SYSTEM IS REQUIRED " l - TABLE 6-3 " ENGINEERED SAFEGUARDS i PIPING DESIGN CONDITIONS" CONTAINS PIPING " DESIGN" TEMPERAT'JRES AND PRESSURES CONSISTENT WITH BC'JNDING i l PIPE CLASSIFICATION RATHER THAN j REFLECTING PIPING DESIGN ANALYSIS d TEMPERATURES - l l !

t _ _____________-_ _ -_ _ _ -

', . o . - .. s ,. ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION OF PIGGYBACK OPTION , 4. EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES -INITIAL DRAFT OF PROCEDURES PRODUCED BY B&W CONTAINED ONLY A BRIEF REFERENCE TO PIGGYBACK OPTION - ORIGINAL ANO PROCEDURES CONTAINED ONLY A NOTE IN REFERENCE TO OPTION FOR LINEUP IN PIGGYBACK , - AFTER TMI ACCIDENT NEW OPERATOR GUIDELINES WERE DEVELOPED WHICH PROVIDED FOR ADDITIONAL DETAIL IN OPERATOR GUIDANCE WITHOUT LIMITATION TO ECCS DESIGN ANALYSIS (NOTE: EOP PHILOSOPHY PROVIDES FOR SYMPTOM ORIENTED GUIDANCE TO OPERATORS AND EXTENDS WELL BEYOND ' DESIGN BASIS" SCENARIOS. PROCEDURES ADDRESS MULTIPLE FAILURES, "BEST-ESTIM ATE" EQUIPMENT RESPONSES, ETC.) - NONE OF THESE PROCEDURES / REVISIONS THEMSELVES SUGGEST PIGGYBACK { l l CONSIDERED AN ECCS DESIGN FUNCTION I , l

l l l l _ _ - - - - -

' '.

' . . ' .- ,. ORIGINAL CONSIDERATION OF PIGGYBACK OPTION 5. CONCLUSION - THE HPl/LPI PIGGYBACK OPTION WAS NOT CONSIDERED A REQUIRED ECCS DESIGN FEATURE FOR CONFORMANCE WITH 10CFR50.46 - CAPABILITY TO INITIATE PIGGYBACK WAS INCLUDED AS AN OPTION OF ANO-1 HPI SYSTEM - IN CONJUNCTION WITH HPI BACKFLOW ISSUES, WE UNDERTOOK EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH SPECIFIC ANALYTICAL BASES FOR DESIGN OF THE PIGGYBACK CAPABILITY 1 .

! ' l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

m--, i e , . e 4 AP&L ACTIONS < l < I i i $ !j ' I i 4 ! l ' ' l , ! I i "J 5 ( l I l l l 1. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

--.---,-----------,m---------.-,-r----_- - , - - - - - 'h - .- .. AP&L ACTIONS ! 1. SUBSEQUENT SBLOCA ANALYSES - ASSESSMENT OF BASIS FOR 145F VALUE- - FOR HPI PIPING DESIGN .. - AP&L lNITIATED INTERNAL ANALYSES (EXTRAPOLATIONS, TIME STUDIES, VARIATION OF SINGLE FAILURE ASSUMPTIONS, ETC.) TO CONFIRM PIGGYBACK UNNECESSARY FOR REQUIRED ECCS RESPONSE- - WE CONFIRMED PIGGYBACK WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR MOST LOCA SCENARIOS - HOWEVER WE IDENTIFIED A NARROW SPECTRUM OF SBLOCA WHICH COULD ' REQUIRE PIGGYBACK - WE ELECTED TO TREAT PIGGYBACK AS A REQUIRED ECCS DESIGN FEATURE AND ! MODIFIED THE SYSTEM ACCORDINGLY _ _ - _ ___

.i . , , .. .. s* AP&L ACTIONS 2. DEDICATION OF PIGGYBACK FOR ECCS - HPI UPGRADE QUALIFICATION BASED ON CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS, ANALYSES - PROCEDURAL REVISIONS FUTURE HPI ENHANCEMENTS - ! l l l 1 , - - - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ - . - - --- ---- _ ------ -------- - .b.- . .. . HPl UPGRADED DESIGN

  • USE OF CONSERVATIVE BOUNDING TEMPERATURE

OF 240 DEGREES BASED ON COINCIDENT EXTREME CONDITIONS RESULTING IN HIGH HPl TEMPERATURE - SBLOCA SUMP TEMPERATURE - HIGH LPI FLOW THRU COOLER - LOW SW FLOW THRU COOLER

  • PIPING REANALYZED WITH SUBSEQUENT

SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS

  • PUMP SEALS REQUALIFIED
  • IN OUR JUDGEMENT ORIGINAL DESIGN WOULD

NOT HAVE BEEN RENDERED INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING INTENDED FUNCTION AS A RESULT OF NE'N CONSERVATIVE TEMPERATURE ASSUMPTIONS, ALTHOUGH CERTAIN COMPONENTS (PIPE SUPPORTS) MIGHT HAVE SEEN CONDITIONS OUTSIDE OUR CONSERVATIVE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ! 1 l .! .

_- - - - - - - '. - . - ,. .. l L PROCEDURAL REVISIONS

  • IN CONNECTION WITH AP&L'S DECISION TO

DEDICATE * PIGGYBACK" AS REQUIRED ECCS FEATURE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL ENHANCEMENTS WERE MADE, INCLUDING: - CLARIFICATION OF ACTIONS FOR SITUATIONS WHERE PIGGYBACK MAY BE REQUIRED, AND - MORE EXPLICIT GUIDANCE CONCERNING SITUATIONS WHERE PIGGYBACK IS NOT REQUIRED i l ) l ! l l 1

, - - _ - _ _- (, ; s ?, . . . -. . . .. 4._ FUTURE HPI' MODIFICATIONS

  • MOV'S ON.PlGGYBACK CROSSTIE VALVES
  • HPI VENTURIS

l u i < ! J - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

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

g 8- 1 + , I ' , . - . . CONCLUSION . --a_.~2__

,; 4 f.' "o ' ( . ' .e-

. .- . ,, .*

llj ,e] i ~ .

. ..

l

l

l .l n;. , 1; ' .I ' k (

r ' t- l ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 1 i l 1 ! i a i i ( I l 1 I _ _ _ _ _. _. 1

- , . . f, - -, . . . . . _ . ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

  • CRITERION lli WAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED

BY THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND, THEREFORE, NO APPARENT VIOLATION EXISTS

  • IN THE EVENT A VIOLATION IS FOUND,

ENFORCEMENT ACTION SHOULD BE LIMITED BECAUSE: - MINIMAL ACTUAL SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - APPLICATION OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION - APPLICATION OF MITIGATION FACTORS 1 i l

.,. . ,. ',. : - . SAFETY. SIGNIFICANCE

  • NO SIGNIFICANT SAFETY IMPLICAT(ON
  • IN OUR JUDGEMENT ORIGINAL DESIGN WOULD

NOT HAVE BEEN RENDERED INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING INTENDED FUNCTION AS A RESULT OF NEW CONSERVATIVE TEMPERATURE ASSUMPTIONS i i l 1 ! ! I u__ -

. ?. ' , . . . 4 EXERCISE OF ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION IS APPROPRIATE i PROPOSED LEVEL IV SELF-IDENTIFIED AND REPORTED AS REQUIRED e CORRECTIVE ACTIONS INCLUDING MEASURES

TO PREVENT RECURRENCE NOT WILLFUL OR PREVENTABLE BY PRIOR

CO'RRECTIVE ACTION l PROPOSED LEVEL lil

  • SELF-IDENTIFIED AND NOT REASONABLY

PREVENTABLE

  • NOT WILLFUL
  • NO BREAKDOWN IN MANAGEMENT CONTROLS

l 1 l l l l q

,.s., . ',. .r . - APPLICATION OF MITIGATION FACTORS 1. IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING - DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF BACKFLOW EVENT IDENTIFIED PIGGYBACK ISSUE - PROMPTLY REPORTED 2. CORRECTIVE ACTION - PROMPT AND EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS PERFORMED PRIOR TO RESTART , 1 - CURRENT DESIGN PROCESS INTENDED TO PREVENT RECURRENCE 3. PAST PERFORMANCE - CLEAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

OF DESIGN BASIS DOCUMENTATION REFLECTED IN DESIGN CONFIGURATION DOCUMENTATION !l PROJECTS ! 4. PRIOR NOTICE , l - NO PRIOR EVENT OR NOTICE INDICATING l NEED TO EVALUATE USE OF PIGGYBACK i i FOR ECCS RESPONSE l l 5. DURATION - ADDRESSED AT FIRST OPPORTUNITY !!

i __-_____m_. _ _ . . __ _ _ . _

, __. - _ _ _ O d

j - .: t I )

! 1 CONCLUSION - _ - - - - - - }}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20246A778&oldid=3907086"