05000440/FIN-2010002-01: 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 71111.13 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.13 | ||
| Inspector = M Marshfield, D Melendez | | Inspector = M Marshfield, D Melendez-Colon, W Slawinski, R Baker, J Cameron, T Hartman, P Smagacz | ||
| CCA = H.14 | | CCA = H.14 | ||
| INPO aspect = DM.2 | | INPO aspect = DM.2 | ||
| description = A finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) was identified by the inspectors for the licensee's failure to accurately assess plant risk during maintenance activities. The inspectors determined that the licensee failed to correctly identify the plant risk condition when the Unit 1 Division 1 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) was out of service for maintenance. Specifically, there was a 5-hour period of time that the licensee restored plant risk to GREEN status while the EDG remained unavailable and plant risk was actually YELLOW. The licensee entered the issue associated with their failure to correctly assess the plant risk condition into their corrective action program (CAP).The performance deficiency was determined to be more than minor because the finding was similar to IMC 0612, Appendix E, Example 7.e, and resulted in actual plant risk being in a higher licensee-established risk category than declared. The finding was of very low safety significance because the risk deficit, or incremental core damage probability deficit (ICDPD) was < 1E-6. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, Decision-Making per IMC 0310 (H.1(b)) because the licensee did not use conservative assumptions in decision making nor adopt a requirement to demonstrate that the proposed action is safe in order to proceed rather than a requirement to demonstrate that it is unsafe in order to disapprove the action. Specifically, the licensee chose to minimize system unavailability time and as a result did not perform a complete post-maintenance test which would have verified the EDG system was fully functional and available to perform its mission at the end of the maintenance period. | | description = A finding of very low safety significance and associated NCV of10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) was identified by the inspectors for the licensee\'s failure to accurately assess plant risk during maintenance activities. The inspectors determined that the licensee failed to correctly identify the plant risk condition when the Unit 1 Division 1 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) was out of service for maintenance. Specifically, there was a 5-hour period of time that the licensee restored plant risk to GREEN status while the EDG remained unavailable and plant risk was actually YELLOW. The licensee entered the issue associated with their failure to correctly assess the plant risk condition into their corrective action program (CAP).The performance deficiency was determined to be more than minor because the finding was similar to IMC 0612, Appendix E, Example 7.e, and resulted in actual plant risk being in a higher licensee-established risk category than declared. The finding was of very low safety significance because the risk deficit, or incremental core damage probability deficit (ICDPD) was < 1E-6. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, Decision-Making per IMC 0310 (H.1(b)) because the licensee did not use conservative assumptions in decision making nor adopt a requirement to demonstrate that the proposed action is safe in order to proceed rather than a requirement to demonstrate that it is unsafe in order to disapprove the action. Specifically, the licensee chose to minimize system unavailability time and as a result did not perform a complete post-maintenance test which would have verified the EDG system was fully functional and available to perform its mission at the end of the maintenance period. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:39, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Perry  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000440/2010002 Section 1R13 |
| Date counted | Mar 31, 2010 (2010Q1) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.13 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | M Marshfield D Melendez-Colon W Slawinski R Baker J Cameron T Hartman P Smagacz |
| CCA | H.14, Conservative Bias |
| INPO aspect | DM.2 |
| ' | |