05000382/FIN-2008005-03: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| CCA = P.2 | | CCA = P.2 | ||
| INPO aspect = PI.2 | | INPO aspect = PI.2 | ||
| description = The inspectors identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III to address three examples of inadequate calculations involving shutdown cooling Valves SI-405A and SI-405B. The calculations were also used, in part, to support valve operability, which made an existing operability assessment invalid. First, a calculation performed by a contractor to estimate the bounding thrust requirements for pressure locking contained errors and used mathematical formulas out of their intended context without applying uncertainties to account for the differences. Recent operational experience with these valves was inconsistent with the calculation's conclusions. In addition, the licensee failed to meet their quality assurance program requirements that specified that engineers perform a design verification of the calculation prior to use. Second, the licensee's calculation, that demonstrated valve actuator thrust capabilities, contained errors. Specifically, it failed to account for the friction between the actuator piston disk and walls as well as the weight of components. Third, a calculation that determined that the temperature within the valve bonnet would not heat up during small break loss of coolant accidents and faulted steam generator accidents was inadequate, in that it failed to address a faulted steam generator event, it used heat transfer calculation methods on water that were intended only for solid materials, it failed to model all components, and it failed to determine the temperatures inside the valve bonnets, which was the overriding variable of interest. The licensee entered the finding into the corrective action program as Condition Report CR-WF3-2009-00127.This finding was more than minor because it was similar to non-minor finding Example 3.j in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0612 Appendix E, Examples of Minor Issues, in that there was a reasonable doubt concerning the operability of Valves SI-405A(B). The inspectors utilized NRC Manual Chapter 0609,Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process, to characterize the significance of the issue. Using the worst case scenario of having both SI-405A(B) valves inoperable, the finding was of very low safety significance because multiple systems or components would still be available to remove decay heat and respond to a loss of inventory event. These systems included the emergency feedwater system, main feedwater system, auxiliary feed water system, atmospheric dump valves, charging pumps, safety injection tanks, and the high-pressure safety injection system. This performance deficiency would not result in any loss of instrumentation needed for safe shutdown and cool down of the plant. The finding had a crosscutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution (P.1(c)) because engineers failed to thoroughly evaluate the potential for valve pressure-locking. The calculations were completed in 2008 and were indicative of current performance(Section 4OA2) | | description = The inspectors identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III to address three examples of inadequate calculations involving shutdown cooling Valves SI-405A and SI-405B. The calculations were also used, in part, to support valve operability, which made an existing operability assessment invalid. First, a calculation performed by a contractor to estimate the bounding thrust requirements for pressure locking contained errors and used mathematical formulas out of their intended context without applying uncertainties to account for the differences. Recent operational experience with these valves was inconsistent with the calculation\'s conclusions. In addition, the licensee failed to meet their quality assurance program requirements that specified that engineers perform a design verification of the calculation prior to use. Second, the licensee\'s calculation, that demonstrated valve actuator thrust capabilities, contained errors. Specifically, it failed to account for the friction between the actuator piston disk and walls as well as the weight of components. Third, a calculation that determined that the temperature within the valve bonnet would not heat up during small break loss of coolant accidents and faulted steam generator accidents was inadequate, in that it failed to address a faulted steam generator event, it used heat transfer calculation methods on water that were intended only for solid materials, it failed to model all components, and it failed to determine the temperatures inside the valve bonnets, which was the overriding variable of interest. The licensee entered the finding into the corrective action program as Condition Report CR-WF3-2009-00127.This finding was more than minor because it was similar to non-minor finding Example 3.j in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0612 Appendix E, Examples of Minor Issues, in that there was a reasonable doubt concerning the operability of Valves SI-405A(B). The inspectors utilized NRC Manual Chapter 0609,Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process, to characterize the significance of the issue. Using the worst case scenario of having both SI-405A(B) valves inoperable, the finding was of very low safety significance because multiple systems or components would still be available to remove decay heat and respond to a loss of inventory event. These systems included the emergency feedwater system, main feedwater system, auxiliary feed water system, atmospheric dump valves, charging pumps, safety injection tanks, and the high-pressure safety injection system. This performance deficiency would not result in any loss of instrumentation needed for safe shutdown and cool down of the plant. The finding had a crosscutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution (P.1(c)) because engineers failed to thoroughly evaluate the potential for valve pressure-locking. The calculations were completed in 2008 and were indicative of current performance(Section 4OA2) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:36, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Waterford  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000382/2008005 Section 4OA2 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2008 (2008Q4) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71152 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | P Elkmann G Replogle J Clark R Azua D Overland B Correll |
| CCA | P.2, Evaluation |
| INPO aspect | PI.2 |
| ' | |