05000528/FIN-2014004-01
From kanterella
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Finding | |
---|---|
Title | Failure to Translate Design Basis Requirements for Establishing Operability of Spray Pond System |
Description | The inspectors identified a Green non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, for the failure to correctly translate the mission time of the essential spray pond system into a procedure used to determine operability. In response to the inspectors concerns, the licensee re-evaluated essential spray pond operability determinations that had used the erroneous 26-day mission time and concluded that acceptable margin was available to ensure the system would remain operable for the 30-day mission time. The licensee entered this issue into the corrective action program as Palo Verde Action Request 4550539. The failure to ensure that design basis information associated with the mission time of the essential spray pond system was correctly translated into a procedure used to determine operability was a performance deficiency. This performance deficiency was more than minor because if left uncorrected, it had the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern. Specifically, the failure to use the correct mission time when determining operability could establish nonconservative results that could lead to the essential spray pond system not being able to meet its design safety function. The inspectors performed an initial screening of the finding in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter IMC 0609, Appendix A, The Significance Determination Process (SDP) for Findings At-Power. Using IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, dated July 1, 2012, this finding is of very low safety significance (Green) because it: (1) was not a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of a mitigating system; (2) did not represent a loss of system and/or function; (3) did not represent an actual loss of function of a single train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time; and (4) does not represent an actual loss of function of one or more non-technical specification trains of equipment designated as high safety-significant in accordance with the licensees maintenance rule program for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance because the licensee failed to create and maintain complete, accurate, and up-to-date documentation. Specifically, after initially recognizing the adverse condition, the licensee did not document a standing order or temporary procedure change to prevent operability evaluations from using the incorrect essential spray pond mission time. |
Site: | Palo Verde |
---|---|
Report | IR 05000528/2014004 Section 1R15 |
Date counted | Sep 30, 2014 (2014Q3) |
Type: | NCV: Green |
cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
Identified by: | NRC identified |
Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.15 |
Inspectors (proximate) | B Parks D Reinert D You J Watkins M Hay S Makor T Brown |
Violation of: | Technical Specification - Procedures 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion III, Design Control Technical Specification |
CCA | H.7, Documentation |
INPO aspect | WP.3 |
' | |
Finding - Palo Verde - IR 05000528/2014004 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Palo Verde) @ 2014Q3
Self-Identified List (Palo Verde)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||