05000354/FIN-2016004-01: 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) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Self-Revealing | | identified by = Self-Revealing | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.13 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.13 | ||
| Inspector = B Fuller, F Bower, J Deboer, J Hawkins, J Patel, M Draxton, R Rolph, S Haney, T Hedigan, T O | | Inspector = B Fuller, F Bower, J Deboer, J Hawkins, J Patel, M Draxton, R Rolph, S Haney, T Hedigan, T O'Hara | ||
| CCA = H.5 | | CCA = H.5 | ||
| INPO aspect = WP.1 | | INPO aspect = WP.1 | ||
| description = Green. A self-revealing very low safety significance (Green), non-cited violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.65(a)(4) was identified for inadequately assessing and managing risks associated with maintenance activities to prevent plant transients that upset plant stability. Specifically, because PSEG did not identify a conflict with the reactor water cleanup (RWCU) pump trip logic prior to conducting a planned breaker swap, the A RWCU pump tripped while it was credited to as a defense-in-depth system for decay heat removal (DHR). PSEG assigned a corrective action to perform a work group evaluation and address lessons learned from this event. The issue was more than minor because it was associated with the Equipment Performance (availability) attribute of the Initiating Event cornerstones and adversely affected its objective to limit the likelihood of events that upset plant stability and challenge critical safety functions during shutdown. Additionally, this issue was similar to IMC 0612, Appendix E, examples 7.e and 7.f, in that the resulting increased risk put the plant into a higher risk category. In this case, the plant risk would have been reclassified from Yellow to Orange when RWCU pump was unavailable during residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling outage window. The inspectors evaluated the finding using IMC 0609, Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process, Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Initiating Event Screening Questions. The inspectors determined the finding was Green because no quantitative phase 2 analysis was required, and RWCU system was not identified as a major system on Table G1 for Decay Heat Removal safety function. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, Work Management, because PSEG did not identify and appropriately manage risk associated with the breaker swap activity. Specifically, PSEGs work order to swap the breaker was not planned or scheduled during a RWCU system outage window where the plant shutdown safety risk would have been properly managed (H.5). | | description = Green. A self-revealing very low safety significance (Green), non-cited violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.65(a)(4) was identified for inadequately assessing and managing risks associated with maintenance activities to prevent plant transients that upset plant stability. Specifically, because PSEG did not identify a conflict with the reactor water cleanup (RWCU) pump trip logic prior to conducting a planned breaker swap, the A RWCU pump tripped while it was credited to as a defense-in-depth system for decay heat removal (DHR). PSEG assigned a corrective action to perform a work group evaluation and address lessons learned from this event. The issue was more than minor because it was associated with the Equipment Performance (availability) attribute of the Initiating Event cornerstones and adversely affected its objective to limit the likelihood of events that upset plant stability and challenge critical safety functions during shutdown. Additionally, this issue was similar to IMC 0612, Appendix E, examples 7.e and 7.f, in that the resulting increased risk put the plant into a higher risk category. In this case, the plant risk would have been reclassified from Yellow to Orange when RWCU pump was unavailable during residual heat removal (RHR) shutdown cooling outage window. The inspectors evaluated the finding using IMC 0609, Appendix G, Shutdown Operations Significance Determination Process, Attachment 1, Exhibit 1, Initiating Event Screening Questions. The inspectors determined the finding was Green because no quantitative phase 2 analysis was required, and RWCU system was not identified as a major system on Table G1 for Decay Heat Removal safety function. This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, Work Management, because PSEG did not identify and appropriately manage risk associated with the breaker swap activity. Specifically, PSEGs work order to swap the breaker was not planned or scheduled during a RWCU system outage window where the plant shutdown safety risk would have been properly managed (H.5). | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:24, 22 February 2018
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000354/2016004 Section 1R13 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2016 (2016Q4) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Initiating Events |
| Identified by: | Self-revealing |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.13 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | B Fuller F Bower J Deboer J Hawkins J Patel M Draxton R Rolph S Haney T Hedigan T O'Hara |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) |
| CCA | H.5, Work Management |
| INPO aspect | WP.1 |
| Finding closed by | |
| IR 05000354/2016004 () | |
| ' | |