05000528/FIN-2004014-04: 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) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 93812 | | Inspection procedure = IP 93812 | ||
| Inspector = | | Inspector = B Mallett, C Baron, D Proulx, J Clark, J Groom, M Hay, M Sitek, S Sheldona, Howellg Miller, J Shea, M Hay | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The team identified an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.59 requirements for the licensee's failure to perform a written safety evaluation and receive NRC approval prior to implementing changes to the facility in 1992 which involved draining, and maintaining drained, a significant segment of containment sump safety injection recirculation piping during normal plant operations. This change resulted in the failure to maintain the safety injection piping full of water in accordance with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. This represented an unreviewed safety question since it increased the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report. In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0612, Appendix B, Issue Disposition Screening, the team determined that traditional enforcement applied because this finding may have impacted the NRCi12s ability to perform its regulatory function. This is an apparent violation pending the results of a predecisional enforcement conference | | description = The team identified an apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.59 requirements for the licensee\'s failure to perform a written safety evaluation and receive NRC approval prior to implementing changes to the facility in 1992 which involved draining, and maintaining drained, a significant segment of containment sump safety injection recirculation piping during normal plant operations. This change resulted in the failure to maintain the safety injection piping full of water in accordance with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. This represented an unreviewed safety question since it increased the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report. In accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0612, Appendix B, Issue Disposition Screening, the team determined that traditional enforcement applied because this finding may have impacted the NRCi12s ability to perform its regulatory function. This is an apparent violation pending the results of a predecisional enforcement conference | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:31, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000528/2004014 Section 4OA5 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2004 (2004Q4) |
| Type: | TEV: Severity level III |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 93812 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | B Mallett C Baron D Proulx J Clark J Groom M Hay M Sitek S Sheldona Howellg Miller J Shea M Hay |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50.59 |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |