05000255/FIN-2011013-01: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by Mark Hawes) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Self-Revealing | | identified by = Self-Revealing | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71153 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71153 | ||
| Inspector = J Draper, J Giessner, S Shahl, | | Inspector = J Draper, J Giessner, S Shahl, Kozakt Taylor, J Ellegood, J Giessner | ||
| CCA = H.13 | | CCA = H.13 | ||
| INPO aspect = DM.1 | | INPO aspect = DM.1 | ||
| description = A self-revealed finding of low to moderate safety significance and associated Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings, occurred for the licensees failure to follow procedures for lubrication of linkages on the TDAFW pump overspeed trip device. Specifically, during a maintenance window the licensee greased a knife edge on the trip mechanism. The greasing of the knife edge contributed to a trip of the pump on May 10, 2011, as well as rendering the pump inoperable for a period of time in excess of what is allowed by Technical Specifications (TSs). After identification of the grease, the licensee removed the grease, restored the pump to an operable status, and initiated condition report (CR) PLP-2011-02350. The inspectors concluded that the finding was more than minor because it was associated with the equipment reliability and performance attributes of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone. In addition, this performance deficiency impacted the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, the TDAFW pump could not reliably perform its mitigating function. The inspectors performed a Phase 1 SDP evaluation and determined that a Phase 2 evaluation was required because this finding represented an actual loss of safety function of a single train of equipment for greater than the TS allowed outage time. The inspectors performed a Phase 2 evaluation using the pre-solved SDP worksheets for Palisades and determined that this finding screened as Yellow. In order to realistically assess the significance, IMC 0609 required a Phase 3 SDP evaluation. Based on the Probabilistic Risk Analysis conducted by the Senior Reactor Analyst (SRA), a Significance and Enforcement Review Panel reached a preliminary determination the finding was of low to moderate (White) safety significance. The finding occurred, in part, due to a worker making a change to a work instruction without following the process for procedure revisions. Therefore, the inspectors assigned a cross cutting aspect of H.1(a), risk-significant decisions using a systematic process. | | description = A self-revealed finding of low to moderate safety significance and associated Apparent Violation (AV) of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings, occurred for the licensees failure to follow procedures for lubrication of linkages on the TDAFW pump overspeed trip device. Specifically, during a maintenance window the licensee greased a knife edge on the trip mechanism. The greasing of the knife edge contributed to a trip of the pump on May 10, 2011, as well as rendering the pump inoperable for a period of time in excess of what is allowed by Technical Specifications (TSs). After identification of the grease, the licensee removed the grease, restored the pump to an operable status, and initiated condition report (CR) PLP-2011-02350. The inspectors concluded that the finding was more than minor because it was associated with the equipment reliability and performance attributes of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone. In addition, this performance deficiency impacted the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, the TDAFW pump could not reliably perform its mitigating function. The inspectors performed a Phase 1 SDP evaluation and determined that a Phase 2 evaluation was required because this finding represented an actual loss of safety function of a single train of equipment for greater than the TS allowed outage time. The inspectors performed a Phase 2 evaluation using the pre-solved SDP worksheets for Palisades and determined that this finding screened as Yellow. In order to realistically assess the significance, IMC 0609 required a Phase 3 SDP evaluation. Based on the Probabilistic Risk Analysis conducted by the Senior Reactor Analyst (SRA), a Significance and Enforcement Review Panel reached a preliminary determination the finding was of low to moderate (White) safety significance. The finding occurred, in part, due to a worker making a change to a work instruction without following the process for procedure revisions. Therefore, the inspectors assigned a cross cutting aspect of H.1(a), risk-significant decisions using a systematic process. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:44, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Palisades  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000255/2011013 Section 4OA3 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2011 (2011Q4) |
| Type: | Violation: White |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Self-revealing |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71153 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | J Draper J Giessner S Shahl Kozakt Taylor J Ellegood J Giessner |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.13, Consistent Process |
| INPO aspect | DM.1 |
| ' | |