05000275/FIN-2010007-06
From kanterella
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Second Level Undervoltage Relay Time Delay to Initiate
Load Shed and Sequencing Upon the Diesel Generator is Adequate to Assure Plant Safety |
| Description | The team identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix B. Criterion III, \"Design Control.\" for failure to ensure that plant conditions were consistent with design calculation inputs and assumptions. The licensee failed to assure and verify that Technical Specification 3.3.5 (SR3.3.5.3) pertaining to the second level undervoltage relay time delay to initiate load shed and sequencing upon the diesel generator was adequate to assure plant safety. Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report 09, Section 8.1. requires that a second level of under voltage protection for the onsite power system be provided. Subsection (1)(c)(i), reads: \"The allowable second level undervoltage relay time delay, including margin. shall not exceed the maximum time delay that is assumed in the Final Safety Analysis Report Update accident analyses.\" Contrary to the above, as of March 4. 2010. the licensee failed to adequately implement the requirements of Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report 09. The second level undervoltage relay time delay setpoint for the emergency diesel generator of less than or equal to 20 seconds, assuming a safety injection signal concurrent with a degraded off site power source, exceeded the Final Safety Analysis Report Update accident analysis. This item identified in the licensee\'s corrective action document Notification 50301167. Failure to ensure that plant conditions were consistent with design calculation inputs and assumptions is a performance deficiency. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0612, Appendix E, Section 3 Example j, the vioiation was determined to be more than minor because the engineering calculation error results in a condition where there is now a reasonable doubt on the operability of a system or component. These deficiencies represented reasonable doubt regarding the mitigation of an accident by being in an unanalyzed condition. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, \"Significance Determination Process,\" Phase 2, the finding was determined to have very low safety significance (Green), did not represent an actual loss of a system safety function, did not result in exceeding a technical specification allowed outage time, and did not affect external event mitigation. The team reviewed the finding for crosscutting aspects and none were identified. |
| Site: | Diablo Canyon |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000275/2010007 Section 1R21 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2010 (2010Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.21 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | T Farnholtz S Makor B Correll S Hedger R Kbpriva |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |
Finding - Diablo Canyon - IR 05000275/2010007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Diablo Canyon) @ 2010Q2
Self-Identified List (Diablo Canyon)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||