05000305/FIN-2007003-02: 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 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.15 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.15 | ||
| Inspector = D Mcneil, R Ruiz, J Jandovitz, J Cassidy, C Brown, C Moore, M Kunowski, P Higgins, S Burton, K Barclay, R Russellg, O' | | Inspector = D Mcneil, R Ruiz, J Jandovitz, J Cassidy, C Brown, C Moore, M Kunowski, P Higgins, S Burton, K Barclay, R Russellg, O'Dwyerj Cassidy, P Higgins, S Burton, J Tapp | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The inspectors noted that equipment, procedures, and calculations to support the opening of the control room boundary were only established as a result of deficiencies associated with the tornado missile vulnerability to the SW supply to the CRAC system. The inspectors were concerned that the equipment, procedures, and calculations may have been prior credited in the USI A-46 response and would have been presumed available prior to the CRAC issue. Additionally, the licensee removed the related equipment and stored it in a non-seismically controlled building following completion of the modifications to protect the CRAC SW supply piping from tornado missiles. The inspectors noted that the licensee had multiple opportunities to recognize the relationship between the compensatory equipment and seismic requirements as stated in USI A-46, and therefore considered their failure to recognize these requirements a performance deficiency. Because the licensee referenced their USI A-46 seismic response as supporting this conclusion, the inspectors reviewed the related documentation and were unable to determine whether appropriate regulatory processes, such as 50.59, were used to establish compensatory measures that were credited in the USI A-46 response and subsequent safety evaluation report. Also, the inspectors noted that the compensatory measures the licensee credited for this issue might constitute a permanent modification to the design and if so, that the compensatory equipment should be seismically available and subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. The inspectors also noted that the USAR references supporting this safety evaluation report may not have sufficiently described the earthquake response and compensatory measures. These observations caused the inspectors to lose confidence that the permanently established compensatory measures and equipment was appropriate qualified, tested, and maintained for responding to a seismic event, and that the appropriate regulatory processes, such as 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, were used. Therefore, the inspectors considered the possible lack of information in the USAR related to the seismic response of the CRAC, the adequacy and qualification of compensatory equipment for a seismic event, and the potential issues with supporting documentation for the licensees A-46 response unresolved pending further review. (URI 05000305/2007003-02) | | description = The inspectors noted that equipment, procedures, and calculations to support the opening of the control room boundary were only established as a result of deficiencies associated with the tornado missile vulnerability to the SW supply to the CRAC system. The inspectors were concerned that the equipment, procedures, and calculations may have been prior credited in the USI A-46 response and would have been presumed available prior to the CRAC issue. Additionally, the licensee removed the related equipment and stored it in a non-seismically controlled building following completion of the modifications to protect the CRAC SW supply piping from tornado missiles. The inspectors noted that the licensee had multiple opportunities to recognize the relationship between the compensatory equipment and seismic requirements as stated in USI A-46, and therefore considered their failure to recognize these requirements a performance deficiency. Because the licensee referenced their USI A-46 seismic response as supporting this conclusion, the inspectors reviewed the related documentation and were unable to determine whether appropriate regulatory processes, such as 50.59, were used to establish compensatory measures that were credited in the USI A-46 response and subsequent safety evaluation report. Also, the inspectors noted that the compensatory measures the licensee credited for this issue might constitute a permanent modification to the design and if so, that the compensatory equipment should be seismically available and subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. The inspectors also noted that the USAR references supporting this safety evaluation report may not have sufficiently described the earthquake response and compensatory measures. These observations caused the inspectors to lose confidence that the permanently established compensatory measures and equipment was appropriate qualified, tested, and maintained for responding to a seismic event, and that the appropriate regulatory processes, such as 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, were used. Therefore, the inspectors considered the possible lack of information in the USAR related to the seismic response of the CRAC, the adequacy and qualification of compensatory equipment for a seismic event, and the potential issues with supporting documentation for the licensees A-46 response unresolved pending further review. (URI 05000305/2007003-02) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:32, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000305/2007003 Section 1R15 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2007 (2007Q2) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.15 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | D Mcneil R Ruiz J Jandovitz J Cassidy C Brown C Moore M Kunowski P Higgins S Burton K Barclay R Russellg O'Dwyerj Cassidy P Higgins S Burton J Tapp |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |