05000275/FIN-2013004-02: 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) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Self-Revealing | | identified by = Self-Revealing | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71153 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71153 | ||
| Inspector = L Carson, N O | | Inspector = L Carson, N O'Keefe, W Sifre, T Hipschman, J Laughlin, B Parks, I Anchondo, L Micewski, C Hale | ||
| CCA = H.12 | | CCA = H.12 | ||
| INPO aspect = QA.4 | | INPO aspect = QA.4 | ||
| description = The inspectors reviewed a self-revealing non-cited violation 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, associated with troubleshooting of the Unit 2, 4kV bus G that resulted in an unplanned de-energization. This caused an unplanned entry into a 72-hour shutdown technical specification action statement due to diesel fuel oil transfer pump 0-2 becoming unavailable. The licensee entered the condition into the corrective action program as Notification 50544198. The failure to plan and coordinate emergent maintenance such that it would not impact other mitigating systems was a performance deficiency. The performance deficiency was more than minor because it was associated with the human performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and it adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences, and is therefore a finding. This finding was evaluated for each unit separately. For Unit 1, which was at power, using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 04, Initial Characterization of Findings, and Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, this finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green) because, it was not a design or qualification deficiency, was not a loss of the system or function, and did not represent an actual loss of function of a single train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time. For Unit 2 this finding did not require evaluation using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, and Appendix G because the unit was defueled. The finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance, work practices component, because workers failed to use multiple human error prevention techniques. | | description = The inspectors reviewed a self-revealing non-cited violation 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings, associated with troubleshooting of the Unit 2, 4kV bus G that resulted in an unplanned de-energization. This caused an unplanned entry into a 72-hour shutdown technical specification action statement due to diesel fuel oil transfer pump 0-2 becoming unavailable. The licensee entered the condition into the corrective action program as Notification 50544198. The failure to plan and coordinate emergent maintenance such that it would not impact other mitigating systems was a performance deficiency. The performance deficiency was more than minor because it was associated with the human performance attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and it adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences, and is therefore a finding. This finding was evaluated for each unit separately. For Unit 1, which was at power, using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 04, Initial Characterization of Findings, and Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, this finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green) because, it was not a design or qualification deficiency, was not a loss of the system or function, and did not represent an actual loss of function of a single train for greater than its technical specification allowed outage time. For Unit 2 this finding did not require evaluation using Inspection Manual Chapter 0609, and Appendix G because the unit was defueled. The finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance, work practices component, because workers failed to use multiple human error prevention techniques. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:20, 21 February 2018
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000275/2013004 Section 4OA3 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2013 (2013Q3) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Self-revealing |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71153 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | L Carson N O'Keefe W Sifre T Hipschman J Laughlin B Parks I Anchondo L Micewski C Hale |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V Technical Specification Technical Specification - Procedures |
| CCA | H.12, Avoid Complacency |
| INPO aspect | QA.4 |
| ' | |