05000237/FIN-2006010-04: 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 71152 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71152 | ||
| Inspector = A Klett, T Ploski, J Jacobson, B Dickson, L Ramadan, D Melendez, | | Inspector = A Klett, T Ploski, J Jacobson, B Dickson, L Ramadan, D Melendez-Colon, M Sheikh, W Slawinski, C Phillips, S Orth, R Schulz, M Gryglak, W Snell, A Barker, E Bonanod, Jonesd Melendez Colon, G Roach, J Cameron, J Corujo Sandin, T Gor, Schulzs Bakhsh, A Dahbur, A Koonce, C Acosta, C Phillips, J Mcghee, J Pearson, M Bielby, M Gryglak, M Ring, M Sheikhj, Jandovitzj Cassidy, D Melendez-Colon, M Sheikh, W Slawinski, C Phillips, R Schulzb, Dicksonm Sheikh, W Slawinski, C Phillips, R Schulz, J Mcghee, A Koonce | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The inspectors reviewed the details of the pump test and the licensees conclusion as documented. The inspectors noted that the pump capacity at the maximum pump speed was measured at 298 gpm at a discharge head of 114 psig. This was only 80.5 percent of the expected capacity of 370 gpm based on the manufacturers pump curve. The inspectors were concerned that the lower than expected flowrate may be an indication of pump degradation. In addition, the licensee tested the pump at only one point and assumed that the pump curve would follow the same pump curve established by the manufacturer. The inspectors questioned the method of testing and the method used to extrapolate the flowrate to generate a pump curve. Also during this inspection, the inspectors questioned licensee personnel to determine if any actions had been taken to address the cause of the 19.5 percent degraded pump test results, and whether the licensee initiated any actions to ensure the pump would not degrade further over time. The inspectors learned that no actions had been taken. Licensee personnel stated that the test result did not necessarily indicate that the pump was degraded. The inspectors concluded that the lack of additional points tested on the pump curve did not ensure the pump would provide adequate flow at design conditions. The inspectors concluded that the licensees corrective actions of IR 246038 were not fully effective. Specifically, the lack of a robust testing methodology to ensure performance of the emergency flood pump to the manufacturers pump curve resulted in the licensees planning to send the pump to an offsite facility for adequate testing. This is an unresolved item pending NRC review of the licensees planned corrective action to perform full flow testing of the diesel driven pump at design conditions. (URI 05000237/2006010-04; 05000249/2006010-04) | | description = The inspectors reviewed the details of the pump test and the licensees conclusion as documented. The inspectors noted that the pump capacity at the maximum pump speed was measured at 298 gpm at a discharge head of 114 psig. This was only 80.5 percent of the expected capacity of 370 gpm based on the manufacturers pump curve. The inspectors were concerned that the lower than expected flowrate may be an indication of pump degradation. In addition, the licensee tested the pump at only one point and assumed that the pump curve would follow the same pump curve established by the manufacturer. The inspectors questioned the method of testing and the method used to extrapolate the flowrate to generate a pump curve. Also during this inspection, the inspectors questioned licensee personnel to determine if any actions had been taken to address the cause of the 19.5 percent degraded pump test results, and whether the licensee initiated any actions to ensure the pump would not degrade further over time. The inspectors learned that no actions had been taken. Licensee personnel stated that the test result did not necessarily indicate that the pump was degraded. The inspectors concluded that the lack of additional points tested on the pump curve did not ensure the pump would provide adequate flow at design conditions. The inspectors concluded that the licensees corrective actions of IR 246038 were not fully effective. Specifically, the lack of a robust testing methodology to ensure performance of the emergency flood pump to the manufacturers pump curve resulted in the licensees planning to send the pump to an offsite facility for adequate testing. This is an unresolved item pending NRC review of the licensees planned corrective action to perform full flow testing of the diesel driven pump at design conditions. (URI 05000237/2006010-04; 05000249/2006010-04) | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:34, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Dresden  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000237/2006010 Section 4OA2 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2006 (2006Q3) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71152 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | A Klett T Ploski J Jacobson B Dickson L Ramadan D Melendez-Colon M Sheikh W Slawinski C Phillips S Orth R Schulz M Gryglak W Snell A Barker E Bonanod Jonesd Melendez Colon G Roach J Cameron J Corujo Sandin T Gor Schulzs Bakhsh A Dahbur A Koonce C Acosta C Phillips J Mcghee J Pearson M Bielby M Gryglak M Ring M Sheikhj Jandovitzj Cassidy D Melendez-Colon M Sheikh W Slawinski C Phillips R Schulzb Dicksonm Sheikh W Slawinski C Phillips R Schulz J Mcghee A Koonce |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |