05000254/FIN-2013003-07: 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) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Licensee | | identified by = Licensee | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = B Cushman, C Lipa, C Mathews, D Szwarc, G O, | | Inspector = B Cushman, C Lipa, C Mathews, D Szwarc, G O'Dwyer, J Bozga, J Mcghee, L Jones, R Langstaff, S Bell | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = Title 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IV, Procurement Document Control states, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that design basis and other requirements which are necessary to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, and services. Contrary to the above, the engineering change materials lists used by procurement to order materials for modification of the 1A and 1C RHR pump seal coolers were not updated to include the design requirements. Issue Report 01506966, Incorrect Tubing Installed on 1C RHR Pump seal Cooler, documented that the wrong material was ordered for installation of the modification of both pumps and had actually been installed on the 1A pump before the condition was identified. The design specified type 304 stainless steel tubing with a wall thickness of 0.65 inches and after an informal communication between the design engineer and the procurement specialist, type 316 stainless steel tubing with a wall thickness of 0.49 inches was ordered and subsequently installed on the 1A pump. The issue was more than minor because the performance deficiency, if left uncorrected, could be reasonably viewed as a precursor to a more significant event. Specifically, failure to update materials list with appropriate design basis information could result in installation of parts that reduce reliability or cause a loss of equipment operability or safety function. In this instance, the licensee determined that the nonconforming condition of the 1A RHR did not impact operability of the pump and inspectors agreed that the required functions were still satisfied. An engineering evaluation determined that the installed material was acceptable in the application and the plant documentation was appropriately updated to reflect the new material. Inspectors answered screening question A.1 of Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2 Yes since no loss of function occurred and the issue screened as Green. | | description = Title 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IV, Procurement Document Control states, in part, that measures shall be established to assure that design basis and other requirements which are necessary to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, and services. Contrary to the above, the engineering change materials lists used by procurement to order materials for modification of the 1A and 1C RHR pump seal coolers were not updated to include the design requirements. Issue Report 01506966, Incorrect Tubing Installed on 1C RHR Pump seal Cooler, documented that the wrong material was ordered for installation of the modification of both pumps and had actually been installed on the 1A pump before the condition was identified. The design specified type 304 stainless steel tubing with a wall thickness of 0.65 inches and after an informal communication between the design engineer and the procurement specialist, type 316 stainless steel tubing with a wall thickness of 0.49 inches was ordered and subsequently installed on the 1A pump. The issue was more than minor because the performance deficiency, if left uncorrected, could be reasonably viewed as a precursor to a more significant event. Specifically, failure to update materials list with appropriate design basis information could result in installation of parts that reduce reliability or cause a loss of equipment operability or safety function. In this instance, the licensee determined that the nonconforming condition of the 1A RHR did not impact operability of the pump and inspectors agreed that the required functions were still satisfied. An engineering evaluation determined that the installed material was acceptable in the application and the plant documentation was appropriately updated to reflect the new material. Inspectors answered screening question A.1 of Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2 Yes since no loss of function occurred and the issue screened as Green. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:47, 30 May 2018
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000254/2013003 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2013 (2013Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | B Cushman C Lipa C Mathews D Szwarc G O'Dwyer J Bozga J Mcghee L Jones R Langstaff S Bell |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion IV, Procurement Document Control |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |