05000341/FIN-2017002-03
From kanterella
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Licensee-Identified Violation |
| Description | Title 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) requires, in part, that the licensee maintain records of changes to the facility, of changes in procedures, and of tests and experiments made pursuant 10 CFR 50.59(c). These records must include a written evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does 38 not require a license amendment pursuant to Paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(ii) requires that a licensee shall obtain a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 prior to implementing a proposed change, test, or experiment if the change, test, or experiment would result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR (as updated). Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1.1, Reactor Protection System Instrumentation, states the RPS instrumentation for each function in Table 3.3.1.1 1 shall be operable. As specified in Table 3.3.1.1 1, Function 5, Main Steam Isolation Valve - Closure (8 channels) and Function 9, Turbine Stop Valve - Closure (4 channels) are required to be operable in Mode 1. TS 3.3.1.1, Required Action C.1 states with one or more functions with RPS trip capability not maintained to restore RPS trip capability in 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. Condition C was applicable to both the main steam isolation valve and turbine stop valve RPS logic functional testing. Contrary to the above, on or about August 19, 2016, the licensee failed to perform and maintain a written evaluation as required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) to demonstrate a change to its facility did not require a license amendment. Specifically, the licensee incorrectly concluded no license amendment was required in its 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation prior to implementing surveillance test procedures 24.110.05, RPS Turbine Control and Stop Valve Functional Test, Revision 44 and 24.137.01, Main Steam Line Isolation Channel Functional Test, Revision 40. The revised procedures incorporated a change that resulted in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a structure, system, or component important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR (as updated) as specified by Section (c)(2)(ii). Specifically, the use of the test box resulted in the loss of two RPS trip functions by bypassing m ore than the TS minimum allowed inputs per channel to maintain functionality, violating the requirements of TS 3.3.1.1 during testing on September 22 and 23, 2016. In accordance with IMC 0609, Significance Determination Process, Attachment 0609.04, Initial Characterization of Findings, Table 3, SDP Appendix Router, the inspectors determined this finding affected the Mitigation Systems Cornerstone, specifically the Reactivity Controls Systems contributor , and would require review using IMC 0609, Append ix A, The Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At -Power, June 19, 2012. The inspectors performed a Phase 1 SDP review of this finding using the guidance provided in IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, and determined this finding was a licensee performance deficiency of very low safety significance ( Green ) because it did not affect a single RPS trip signal to initiate a reactor scram AND the function of other redundant trips or diverse methods of reactor shutdown. Violations of 10 CFR 50.59 are dispositioned using the traditional enforcement process because they are considered to be violations that potentially impede or impact the regulatory process. This violation was also associated with a finding t hat has been evaluated by the SDP and communicated with a SDP color reflective of the safety impact of the deficient licensee performance. The SDP, however, does not specifically consider regulatory process impact. Thus, although related to a common regulatory concern, it is necessary to address the violation and finding using different processes to correctly reflect both the regulatory importance of the violation and the 39 safety significance of the associated finding. In accordance with Section 6.1.d.2 o f the NRC Enforcement Policy, this violation was categorized as Severity Level IV. This violation was entered into the licensees corrective action program as CARD 17 20163. |
| Site: | Fermi  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000341/2017002 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2017 (2017Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | B Kemker P Smagacz B Bergeon J Bozga T Briley G Edwards V Myers B Dickson |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50.59 |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |
Finding - Fermi - IR 05000341/2017002 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Fermi) @ 2017Q2
Self-Identified List (Fermi)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||