05000483/FIN-2011003-01: 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 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.06 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.06 | ||
| Inspector = D Dumbacher, G Miller, J Groom, L Willoughbyc, | | Inspector = D Dumbacher, G Miller, J Groom, L Willoughbyc, Alldredgec Graves, D Dumbacher, G Guerra, G Miller, J Groom, L Ricketson, P Elkman, R Latta | ||
| CCA = P.2 | | CCA = P.2 | ||
| INPO aspect = PI.2 | | INPO aspect = PI.2 | ||
| description = The inspectors identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, after the licensee failed to provide adequate design control measures for verifying the adequacy of the flooding analysis associated with the 2009 modification that replaced essential service water carbon steel piping with high density polyethylene piping. The licensee did not update the flooding analysis of record to consider potential failures in the new piping. The licensee generated Callaway Action Request 201102957 to develop a means to evaluate the relative stresses associated with the new pipe. This finding was determined to be greater than minor because it impacted the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone attribute of design control and affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Using Manual Chapter 0609.04, Phase 1 - Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings, this finding required a Phase 2 significance determination. Using the presolved worksheet from the Risk Informed Inspection Notebook for the Callaway Station, Revision 2.01a, the finding was red, which warranted further review. Therefore, a senior reactor analyst performed a bounding Phase 3 significance determination. The bounding change to the core damage frequency was approximately 4.1E-7 (Green). This was impacted significantly by the very small amount of new piping in the room. This finding was determined to have a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Problem Identification and Resolution associated with the corrective action component in that the licensee did not thoroughly evaluate the extent of condition when the residents challenged the flooding calculation in December 2010 such that the resolutions addressed causes and extent of conditions, as necessary. | | description = The inspectors identified a noncited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, after the licensee failed to provide adequate design control measures for verifying the adequacy of the flooding analysis associated with the 2009 modification that replaced essential service water carbon steel piping with high density polyethylene piping. The licensee did not update the flooding analysis of record to consider potential failures in the new piping. The licensee generated Callaway Action Request 201102957 to develop a means to evaluate the relative stresses associated with the new pipe. This finding was determined to be greater than minor because it impacted the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone attribute of design control and affected the cornerstone objective to ensure the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Using Manual Chapter 0609.04, Phase 1 - Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings, this finding required a Phase 2 significance determination. Using the presolved worksheet from the Risk Informed Inspection Notebook for the Callaway Station, Revision 2.01a, the finding was red, which warranted further review. Therefore, a senior reactor analyst performed a bounding Phase 3 significance determination. The bounding change to the core damage frequency was approximately 4.1E-7 (Green). This was impacted significantly by the very small amount of new piping in the room. This finding was determined to have a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Problem Identification and Resolution associated with the corrective action component in that the licensee did not thoroughly evaluate the extent of condition when the residents challenged the flooding calculation in December 2010 such that the resolutions addressed causes and extent of conditions, as necessary. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:42, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Callaway  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000483/2011003 Section 1R06 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2011 (2011Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.06 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | D Dumbacher G Miller J Groom L Willoughbyc Alldredgec Graves D Dumbacher G Guerra G Miller J Groom L Ricketson P Elkman R Latta |
| CCA | P.2, Evaluation |
| INPO aspect | PI.2 |
| ' | |