05000348/FIN-2014007-05
From kanterella
Revision as of 08:58, 25 September 2017 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by Mark Hawes)
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Inadequate Acceptance Criterion for Testing of Check Valves |
| Description | The team identified a Green non-cited violation of 10 CFR 50.55a(f), "Inservice testing requirements," subsection (4), American Society of Mechanical Engineers Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants code, Subsection ISTC-5221, Check Valves, with two examples for the licensees failure to incorporate adequate acceptance criteria for testing safety-related check valves into the procedures. The licensee entered both examples into their corrective action program as condition reports 816150 and 816303. A review of past pump data and testing indicated the check valves caused no degradation to the high-head safety injection system. The team determined the failure to establish acceptance criteria that demonstrates closure of safety-related check valves was a performance deficiency. The performance deficiency was determined to be more than minor because it was associated with the Mitigating Systems cornerstone attribute of Design Control and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, testing Unit 1 & 2 refueling water storage tank (RWST) supply to charging header check valves (Q1/2E21V026) using an acceptance criterion of boric acid tank pump discharge pressure greater than 80 psig (normally 115+ psig) with no change in boric acid tank level, may have resulted in the check valves not seating and allowed reverse flow to the RWST. In addition, using an acceptance criterion of no reverse rotation of the charging pump impeller when testing the Unit 1 & 2 charging pump mini-flow check valves (Q1/2E21V0121) and Unit 1 & 2 charging pump discharge check valves (Q1/2E21V0122) may result in the check valves not seating and challenge high head safety injection flow. The team determined that the finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because it was not a design deficiency resulting in the loss of functionality or operability. The team did not identify a cross-cutting aspect associated with this finding because it is not indicative of present licensee performance. |
| Site: | Farley  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000348/2014007 Section 1R21 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2014 (2014Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.21 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | D Mas E Stamm G Macdonald M Yeminy N Feliz _Adorno R Nease S Kobylarz T Light |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50.55a |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |
Finding - Farley - IR 05000348/2014007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Farley) @ 2014Q2
Self-Identified List (Farley)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||