05000352/FIN-2010007-01: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71152 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71152 | ||
| Inspector = | | Inspector = E Dipaolo, E Miller, J Amberosini, J Lilliendahl, J Richmond, J Tomlinson, N Sieller, P Krohn, S Ibarrola, T Moslakc, Bickett G, Barber J, Bream P, Krohn R, Montgomer | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The inspectors identified a Severity Level IV (SLlV) NCV of 10 CFR Part 50.71 (e) in that Exelon failed on multiple occasions to revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) with information consistent with plant conditions. Specifically, Exelon personnel failed to incorporate four previously identified UFSAR inconsistencies into the September 2010 UFSAR update as required. The inspectors determined that the failure to update the UFSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71 (e) was a performance deficiency that was reasonably within Exelon\'s ability to foresee and correct, and should have been prevented. Because the issue had the potential to affect the NRC\'s ability to perform its regulatory function, the inspectors evaluated this performance deficiency in accordance with the traditional enforcement process. Using example 6.1.d.3 from the NRC Enforcement Policy, the inspectors determined that the violation was a SLiV (more than minor concern that resulted in no or relatively inappreciable potential safety or security consequence) violation, because the information that was not updated in the UFSAR was not used to make an unacceptable change in the facility nor did it impact a licensing or safety decision by the NRC | | description = The inspectors identified a Severity Level IV (SLlV) NCV of 10 CFR Part 50.71 (e) in that Exelon failed on multiple occasions to revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) with information consistent with plant conditions. Specifically, Exelon personnel failed to incorporate four previously identified UFSAR inconsistencies into the September 2010 UFSAR update as required. The inspectors determined that the failure to update the UFSAR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71 (e) was a performance deficiency that was reasonably within Exelon\\\'s ability to foresee and correct, and should have been prevented. Because the issue had the potential to affect the NRC\\\'s ability to perform its regulatory function, the inspectors evaluated this performance deficiency in accordance with the traditional enforcement process. Using example 6.1.d.3 from the NRC Enforcement Policy, the inspectors determined that the violation was a SLiV (more than minor concern that resulted in no or relatively inappreciable potential safety or security consequence) violation, because the information that was not updated in the UFSAR was not used to make an unacceptable change in the facility nor did it impact a licensing or safety decision by the NRC | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 18:48, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Limerick  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000352/2010007 Section 4OA2 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2010 (2010Q4) |
| Type: | TEV: Severity level IV |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71152 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | E Dipaolo E Miller J Amberosini J Lilliendahl J Richmond J Tomlinson N Sieller P Krohn S Ibarrola T Moslakc Bickett G Barber J Bream P Krohn R Montgomer |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |