05000382/FIN-2017002-03
From kanterella
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Failure to Ensure Appropriate Testing of TSP Baskets Inside Containment |
| Description | The inspectors identified a non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, Test Control, for the licensees failure to assure that testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily while in service was identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures incorporating the requirements and acceptance limits contained in the applicable design documents. Specifically, prior to performing Licensee Procedure OP-903-027, Inspection of Containment, Attachment 10.3, Trisodium Phosphate Storage Basket Inspection, the licensee routinely performed a preliminary check to fill the trisodium phosphate storagebaskets, thereby ensuring the successful completion of the technical specification-required surveillance. As a result, following unsatisfactory preliminary checks, the trisodium phosphate storage baskets were not evaluated for past operability. The licensee entered this condition into their corrective action program as Condition Report CR-WF3-2017-05108. The licensees corrective actions will include performing the surveillance procedure as an as-found check and evaluating failed surveillances for past operability.The performance deficiency was more than minor because it was associated with the equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and adversely affected its objective to ensure availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, conducting preliminary checks of the trisodium phosphate storage baskets and refilling them prior to performing the technical specification surveillance can mask the as-found condition of the test and preclude an evaluation of past operability if the levels are below the technical specification-required values. The inspectors screened the finding in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Significance Determination Process. Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 4, Initial Characterization of Findings, instructed the inspectors to use Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process. Using Appendix G, Attachment 1, Exhibit 3, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, the inspectors determined that the finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because the finding: (1) was not a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of a mitigating structure, system, or component; (2) did not represent a loss of system safety function; (3) did not represent an actual loss of safety function of at least a single train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time or two separate safety systems out-of-service for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time; (4) with the cavity flooded, it did not represent an actual loss of safety function of one or more nontechnicalspecification trains of equipment during shutdown designated as risk-significant, for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />; (5) did not degrade the reactor coolant system level indication and/or core exit thermal couples when the cavity was not flooded; (6) did not screen as potentially risk significant due to a seismic, flooding, or severe weather initiating event; (7) did not involve fire brigade training and qualification requirements, or brigade staffing; (8) did not involve the response time of the fire brigade to a fire, and; (9) did not involve fire extinguishers, fire hoses, or fire hose stations. The finding had a change management cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance because leaders did not use a systematic process for evaluating and implementing change so that nuclear safety remains the overriding priority. Specifically, when the licensee implemented the preliminary check practice in 2012, they did not evaluate the unintended consequences of how that practice would impact the results of the technicalspecification surveillance. Additionally, the licensee performed the preliminary check during each successive refueling outage between 2012 and 2017 giving the licensee an opportunity to identify the improper practice. As a result, the inspectors concluded this performance deficiency was indicative of current performance [H.3]. |
| Site: | Waterford  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000382/2017002 Section 1R15 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2017 (2017Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.15 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | F Ramirez C Speer B Correll S Graves N Greene R Kopriva J O'Donnell G Miller |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XI Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.3, Change Management |
| INPO aspect | LA.5 |
| ' | |
Finding - Waterford - IR 05000382/2017002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Waterford) @ 2017Q2
Self-Identified List (Waterford)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||