05000335/FIN-2015007-03
From kanterella
Revision as of 00:59, 16 November 2017 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Adequacy of 10 CFR 50.59 Screening Performed for Unit 1 SGBD Maximum Flow Evaluation Test |
| Description | An unresolved item (URI) was identified regarding the adequacy of a 10 CFR 50.59 screening that was completed for the performance of a test on the Unit 1 SGBD system. A violation of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) was identified for the licensees failure to perform a full written 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation which provided the basis that the test or experiment did not require a license amendment. Specifically, the test introduced operating conditions that were inconsistent with the analyses described in the stations UFSAR, and a full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not performed. The URI is being opened to provide for additional inspection of the licensees past operability evaluation of the test conditions, and corresponding event re-analyses, to determine if the violation of 10 CFR 50.59 was more than minor. On November 11, 2011, the licensee performed a test using procedure 1-LOI-23.01, Steam Generator Blowdown Maximum Flow Evaluation Test, Rev. 1. During the test, SGBD flow was increased to 160 gpm on each steam generator. Prior to the performance of the test, a 10 CFR 50.59 screening was performed for the activity, which determined that the proposed activity did not involve a test or experiment not described in the UFSAR, where an SSC is utilized or controlled in a manner that is outside the reference bounds of the design for that SSC or is inconsistent with analyses or descriptions in the UFSAR. The inspectors determined that at the time the 10 CFR 50.59 screen was completed, Chapter 15 of the UFSAR identified that the assumed SGBD flow rate during the loss of normal feedwater event was 40 gpm per steam generator. Another event involving a loss of feedwater with no AFW flow, described in UFSAR Chapter 10, identified that the SGBD flow rate was assumed to be 35 gpm. The inspectors determined that the SGBD flow rate of 160 gpm allowed by 1-LOI-23.01 was inconsistent with the UFSAR analyses assumptions for the SGBD system. Following the inspectors identification of the discrepancy, the licensee planned to evaluate the test conditions to determine if analysis acceptance criteria could be met when the SGBD flow rate input was increased to values allowed during the test. Additional inspection of this re-analysis is needed to determine if the full 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation, had it been performed, would have concluded that a license amendment should have been pursued prior to implementing the activity. This issue will be identified as URI 05000335/2015007-03, Adequacy of 10 CFR 50.59 Screening Performed for Unit 1 SGBD Maximum Flow Evaluation Test. |
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000335/2015007 Section 1R17 |
| Date counted | Mar 31, 2015 (2015Q1) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.17 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | G Ottenberg J Bartley M Orr M Riley S Herricka Nielsen C Kontz G Ottenberg J Reyes J Rivera J Rivera-Ortiz L Suggs P Cataldo R Williams T Morrissey W Lo |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |
Finding - Saint Lucie - IR 05000335/2015007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Saint Lucie) @ 2015Q1
Self-Identified List (Saint Lucie)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||