05000249/FIN-2016010-01: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by Mark Hawes) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Self-Revealing | | identified by = Self-Revealing | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71153 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71153 | ||
| Inspector = M Garza, D Sargisg, | | Inspector = M Garza, D Sargisg, Roachi Hafeez, J Cameron, J Corujo-Sandin, R Elliott | ||
| CCA = H.6 | | CCA = H.6 | ||
| INPO aspect = WP.2 | | INPO aspect = WP.2 | ||
| description = A self-revealing finding preliminarily determined to be of low to moderate safety significance, and an apparent violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, was associated with the licensees failure to ensure that the applicable design basis for applicable structures, systems, and components was maintained by the performance of design reviews, through the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program. Specifically, the licensee failed to verify the adequacy of design for the Unit 3 high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) auxiliary oil pump (AOP) motor shunt resistor setting during motor replacement in March of 2002, and then again in March of 2015, eventually resulting in pump failure in June of 2016, and inoperability of the HPCI system. The licensee documented this issue in its corrective action program (CAP) as IR 2686163. The inspectors determined that the licensees failure to verify the adequacy of design for the Unit 3 HPCI AOP motor shunt resistor setting was a performance deficiency, the cause was reasonably within the licensees ability to foresee and correct due to previous events and licensee generated causal determinations regarding the significance of adjusting the shunt field resistors on motor and pump operations, and should have been prevented. The inspectors determined the issue was more than minor because it adversely impacted the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone attribute of Design Control and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e. core damage). Specifically, the failure to control the design of the Unit 3 HPCI AOP motor resulted in the degradation and ultimate failure of the pump motor windings, which is a required component for HPCI operation. The inspectors applied IMC 0609, Attachment 4, and IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Section A, for Mitigating Systems to screen this finding and determined that a detailed risk evaluation was required because the finding represented a loss of system and/or function. Therefore, a coordinated effort between inspection staff and regional Senior Reactor Analyst (SRA) was required to perform an appropriate risk evaluation for the degraded condition that resulted from the finding. The SRA used the Dresden Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) model, version 8.24 for the detailed risk evaluation. This evaluation concluded that the exposure time for the HPCI system was 1 year. The total delta core damage frequency (CDF) for the 1 year exposure period was 6.9E6/year, which is a finding of low to moderate safety significance (White). HPCI is an important high pressure injection system that is used to mitigate internal events, internal flooding, and internal fire events at Dresden. The inspectors determined the contributing cause that provided the most insight into the performance deficiency was associated with the crosscutting area of Human Performance, Design Margins because the licensee failed to operate and maintain equipment within design margins, in that margins are carefully guarded and changed only through a systematic and rigorous process with special attention placed on maintaining fission product barriers, defense-in-depth, and safety-related equipment [H.6]. Specifically, the licensee failed to verify the adequacy of design for the Unit 3 HPCI AOP motor shunt resistor setting during motor replacement in March of 2002 and then again in March of 2015. | | description = A self-revealing finding preliminarily determined to be of low to moderate safety significance, and an apparent violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, was associated with the licensees failure to ensure that the applicable design basis for applicable structures, systems, and components was maintained by the performance of design reviews, through the use of alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by the performance of a suitable testing program. Specifically, the licensee failed to verify the adequacy of design for the Unit 3 high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) auxiliary oil pump (AOP) motor shunt resistor setting during motor replacement in March of 2002, and then again in March of 2015, eventually resulting in pump failure in June of 2016, and inoperability of the HPCI system. The licensee documented this issue in its corrective action program (CAP) as IR 2686163. The inspectors determined that the licensees failure to verify the adequacy of design for the Unit 3 HPCI AOP motor shunt resistor setting was a performance deficiency, the cause was reasonably within the licensees ability to foresee and correct due to previous events and licensee generated causal determinations regarding the significance of adjusting the shunt field resistors on motor and pump operations, and should have been prevented. The inspectors determined the issue was more than minor because it adversely impacted the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone attribute of Design Control and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e. core damage). Specifically, the failure to control the design of the Unit 3 HPCI AOP motor resulted in the degradation and ultimate failure of the pump motor windings, which is a required component for HPCI operation. The inspectors applied IMC 0609, Attachment 4, and IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Section A, for Mitigating Systems to screen this finding and determined that a detailed risk evaluation was required because the finding represented a loss of system and/or function. Therefore, a coordinated effort between inspection staff and regional Senior Reactor Analyst (SRA) was required to perform an appropriate risk evaluation for the degraded condition that resulted from the finding. The SRA used the Dresden Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) model, version 8.24 for the detailed risk evaluation. This evaluation concluded that the exposure time for the HPCI system was 1 year. The total delta core damage frequency (CDF) for the 1 year exposure period was 6.9E6/year, which is a finding of low to moderate safety significance (White). HPCI is an important high pressure injection system that is used to mitigate internal events, internal flooding, and internal fire events at Dresden. The inspectors determined the contributing cause that provided the most insight into the performance deficiency was associated with the crosscutting area of Human Performance, Design Margins because the licensee failed to operate and maintain equipment within design margins, in that margins are carefully guarded and changed only through a systematic and rigorous process with special attention placed on maintaining fission product barriers, defense-in-depth, and safety-related equipment [H.6]. Specifically, the licensee failed to verify the adequacy of design for the Unit 3 HPCI AOP motor shunt resistor setting during motor replacement in March of 2002 and then again in March of 2015. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:56, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Dresden  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000249/2016010 Section 4OA3 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2016 (2016Q4) |
| Type: | Violation: White |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Self-revealing |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71153 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | M Garza D Sargisg Roachi Hafeez J Cameron J Corujo-Sandin R Elliott |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion III, Design Control |
| CCA | H.6, Design Margins |
| INPO aspect | WP.2 |
| ' | |