05000237/FIN-2010003-09: 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 = Licensee | | identified by = Licensee | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = A Dunlop, D Melendez | | Inspector = A Dunlop, D Melendez-Colon, W Slawinski, C Phillips, D Reeser, B Palagi, J Neurauter, M Ring, J Draper, M Learn, D Sand, R Edwards, R Jickling, R Schulz, J Tapp, R Russell | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = On April 16, 2010, a plant engineer performed an ultrasonic examination (UT) of the 3B core spray pump suction piping and identified that an air bubble existed in the piping. The purpose of the UT was to determine post-maintenance operability. The test procedure required an examination within one foot of the vent valve on the suction piping. The engineer found no air in that location and called the test satisfactory. However, the engineer performed additional UT examination of the piping farther away from the vent valve and found air in that location. The licensee declared the 3B core spray subsystem operable after the completion of the UT examination. The engineer neither evaluated the size of the air bubble for operability nor contacted operations personnel or wrote an issue report so that operability could be evaluated until April 19, 2010. The air bubble was eventually documented in IR 1058558, Air Ribbon Discovered in 3B Core Spray Suction, and was determined to not impact the operability of the 3B Core Spray subsystem. The fact that the air bubble was identified and that no IR was written until three days later was documented in IR 1058966, UT Inspection Process Improvement. Exelon Procedure LS-AA-125, Corrective Action Program (CAP) Procedure, Revision 14, Section 4.1.2, states, in part, that at any time any question of current or past operability arises, then initiate an Issue Report. Air in the suction piping of emergency core cooling system piping raised a question of operability. This violation was not greater than Green because the air bubble did not result in the inoperability of the 3B core spray subsystem. The adequacy of the PMT procedure as addressed in IR 1057049, Air Void U2 HPCI Discharge Piping Above Acceptance Criteria. | | description = On April 16, 2010, a plant engineer performed an ultrasonic examination (UT) of the 3B core spray pump suction piping and identified that an air bubble existed in the piping. The purpose of the UT was to determine post-maintenance operability. The test procedure required an examination within one foot of the vent valve on the suction piping. The engineer found no air in that location and called the test satisfactory. However, the engineer performed additional UT examination of the piping farther away from the vent valve and found air in that location. The licensee declared the 3B core spray subsystem operable after the completion of the UT examination. The engineer neither evaluated the size of the air bubble for operability nor contacted operations personnel or wrote an issue report so that operability could be evaluated until April 19, 2010. The air bubble was eventually documented in IR 1058558, Air Ribbon Discovered in 3B Core Spray Suction, and was determined to not impact the operability of the 3B Core Spray subsystem. The fact that the air bubble was identified and that no IR was written until three days later was documented in IR 1058966, UT Inspection Process Improvement. Exelon Procedure LS-AA-125, Corrective Action Program (CAP) Procedure, Revision 14, Section 4.1.2, states, in part, that at any time any question of current or past operability arises, then initiate an Issue Report. Air in the suction piping of emergency core cooling system piping raised a question of operability. This violation was not greater than Green because the air bubble did not result in the inoperability of the 3B core spray subsystem. The adequacy of the PMT procedure as addressed in IR 1057049, Air Void U2 HPCI Discharge Piping Above Acceptance Criteria. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:40, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Dresden  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000237/2010003 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2010 (2010Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | A Dunlop D Melendez-Colon W Slawinski C Phillips D Reeser B Palagi J Neurauter M Ring J Draper M Learn D Sand R Edwards R Jickling R Schulz J Tapp R Russell |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |