05000285/FIN-2013008-17: 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 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{finding | {{finding | ||
| title = Failure | | title = Failure to Adequately Implement the Maintenance Rule | ||
| docket = 05000285 | | docket = 05000285 | ||
| inspection report = IR 05000285/2013008 | | inspection report = IR 05000285/2013008 | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| CCA = H.14 | | CCA = H.14 | ||
| INPO aspect = DM.2 | | INPO aspect = DM.2 | ||
| description = The team identified a non-cited violation of 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, associated with the licensees failure to adequately monitor the performance of structures, systems, and components, against established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these structures, systems, and components are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. Specifically, from June 7, 2011, to the present, the licensee failed to monitor the performance of the 480 Vac busses in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that they are capable of fulfilling their intended safety functions. This issue has been entered into the corrective action program as Condition Report CR 2013-04352. This performance deficiency is more than minor, and therefore a finding, because it is associated with the equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected the associated cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process, Attachment 1, Checklist 4, PWR Refueling Operation: RCS level > 23' OR PWR Shutdown Operation with Time to Boil > 2 hours And Inventory in the Pressurizer, which contained the initial screening for pressurized water reactors that are shutdown with a time to boil of greater than 2 hours. Technical Specification 2.7, Electrical Systems, stated that the reactor shall not be heated up or maintained at temperatures above 300 degrees Fahrenheit unless the electrical systems listed in that section [includes the 480 V busses] are operable. Because the plant was maintained below 300 degrees during the exposure period, the team determined that power availability Technical Specifications were being met as discussed in Checklist 4. Because the finding did not increase the likelihood of a loss of reactor coolant system inventory; did not degrade the licensees ability to terminate a leak path or add reactor coolant system inventory; and did not degrade the licensees ability to recover decay heat removal, this finding did not require a Phase 2 or 3 analysis as stated in Checklist 4. Therefore, the finding is determined to have very low safety significance (Green). This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance associated with the decision-making component because the licensee failed to use conservative assumptions in decision-making and adopt a requirement to demonstrate that the proposed action is safe in order to proceed rather than a requirement to demonstrate it is unsafe in order to disapprove the action | | description = The team identified a non-cited violation of 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, associated with the licensees failure to adequately monitor the performance of structures, systems, and components, against established goals in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these structures, systems, and components are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. Specifically, from June 7, 2011, to the present, the licensee failed to monitor the performance of the 480 Vac busses in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that they are capable of fulfilling their intended safety functions. This issue has been entered into the corrective action program as Condition Report CR 2013-04352. This performance deficiency is more than minor, and therefore a finding, because it is associated with the equipment performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and affected the associated cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process, Attachment 1, Checklist 4, PWR Refueling Operation: RCS level > 23\' OR PWR Shutdown Operation with Time to Boil > 2 hours And Inventory in the Pressurizer, which contained the initial screening for pressurized water reactors that are shutdown with a time to boil of greater than 2 hours. Technical Specification 2.7, Electrical Systems, stated that the reactor shall not be heated up or maintained at temperatures above 300 degrees Fahrenheit unless the electrical systems listed in that section [includes the 480 V busses] are operable. Because the plant was maintained below 300 degrees during the exposure period, the team determined that power availability Technical Specifications were being met as discussed in Checklist 4. Because the finding did not increase the likelihood of a loss of reactor coolant system inventory; did not degrade the licensees ability to terminate a leak path or add reactor coolant system inventory; and did not degrade the licensees ability to recover decay heat removal, this finding did not require a Phase 2 or 3 analysis as stated in Checklist 4. Therefore, the finding is determined to have very low safety significance (Green). This finding has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance associated with the decision-making component because the licensee failed to use conservative assumptions in decision-making and adopt a requirement to demonstrate that the proposed action is safe in order to proceed rather than a requirement to demonstrate it is unsafe in order to disapprove the action | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:00, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000285/2013008 Section 1R12 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2013 (2013Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.12 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | A Klett C Smith M Davis J Josey C Bickett G Warnick M Hay J Brand J Groom M Keefe R Latta W Schaup J Watkins B Hagar A Allen J Wingebach K Martin L Wilkins S Morrow R Deese F Ramirez |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50.65 Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.14, Conservative Bias |
| INPO aspect | DM.2 |
| ' | |