05000266/FIN-2015003-02
From kanterella
Revision as of 08:58, 25 September 2017 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by Mark Hawes)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Finding | |
---|---|
Title | Potential Failure of Multiple Safety-Related Trains During Flooding Events |
Description | The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, "Design Control," for the licensees failure to ensure that a non-Category I (seismic) component failure, that results in flooding, would not adversely affect safety-related equipment needed to get the plant to safe shutdown (SSD) or to limit the consequences of an accident. Specifically, the design of Point Beach did not ensure that the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps would be protected from all credible non-Category I (seismic) system failures. The licensees corrective actions included an extensive internal flooding design review, which will result in an updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) with a more detailed description of the stations flooding licensing basis; modifications to multiple flood barriers to bring them into compliance with the licensees flooding licensing basis; installation of additional flood level alarms where necessary, and evaluation or modification of service water (SW) piping to properly qualify it as seismic. The inspectors determined that the finding was more than minor because it was associated with the Design Control attribute of the Mitigating System cornerstone and affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, the inadequate design resulted in an unanalyzed condition and loss of safety function of the RHR system while the plants were in Modes 4, 5, and 6, when relying on the RHR system for decay heat removal. The inspectors determined the finding could be evaluated using the SDP in accordance with IMC 0609, Significance Determination Process, Attachment 0609.04, Initial Characterization of Findings, dated June 19, 2012, and Appendix A, The Significance Determination Process for Findings At-Power, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, dated June 19, 2012. The inspectors answered yes to question 2 of the screening questions because the finding represented a loss of safety function. Thus the inspectors consulted the Region III Senior Risk Analysts (SRAs) who performed a detailed risk evaluation and determined that the finding was of very low safety significance (Green). The inspectors determined that the associated finding did not have a cross-cutting aspect because the finding was not reflective of current performance. |
Site: | Point Beach |
---|---|
Report | IR 05000266/2015003 Section 4OA3 |
Date counted | Sep 30, 2015 (2015Q3) |
Type: | NCV: Green |
cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
Identified by: | NRC identified |
Inspection Procedure: | IP 71153 |
Inspectors (proximate) | B Bartlett B Palagi D Oliver E Coffman J Cameron J Mancuso J Rutkowski K Barclay R Baker V Meyers |
Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion III, Design Control |
INPO aspect | |
' | |
Finding - Point Beach - IR 05000266/2015003 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Point Beach) @ 2015Q3
Self-Identified List (Point Beach)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||