05000424/FIN-2012004-03: 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 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{finding | {{finding | ||
| title = Failure | | title = Failure to Generate a Condition Report Upon Notification of an OUT-OF-SPECIFICATION Reading Permits 1A ESF Chiller to Remain Inoperable for Nine Days | ||
| docket = 05000424, 05000425 | | docket = 05000424, 05000425 | ||
| inspection report = IR 05000424/2012004 | | inspection report = IR 05000424/2012004 | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Licensee | | identified by = Licensee | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = A Vargas, | | Inspector = A Vargas Mendez, F Ehrhardt, G Croon, M Cain, R Williams, T Chandler | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, criterion XVI requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrected. Contrary to the above, on August 17, 2012, at approximately 0000 hours, the Unit 1 Shift Supervisor failed to initiate a condition report (CR), nor did he direct any of the other operators to initiate a CR after being informed by a System Operator that the condenser pressure on the Unit 1 A train engineered safety features (ESF) chiller was out of specification high (< 15.5 inches of mercury). As a result, over the next nine days, condenser pressure on the 1A ESF chiller continued to increase until on August 26 at approximately 1400 hours, the on-duty Shift Manager noted that condenser pressure was 4 inches of mercury, and questioned the operability of the 1A ESF chiller. At 1436, after consulting with engineering personnel, the Shift Manager declared the 1A ESF Chiller inoperable and entered the appropriate 72-hour LCO Action Statement. The licensee documented this event in their corrective action program as CR 507143. Using IMC 0609 Attachment 4 Table 2, the inspectors determined the finding affected the Mitigation Systems Cornerstone. IMC 0609 Attachment 4 Table 3 directed the inspectors to use IMC 0609 Appendix A to characterize the finding. Because the finding represented an actual loss of function of one train of ECCS for greater than its Technical Specification Allowed Outage Time, a detailed risk evaluation was required. A detailed phase 3 risk evaluation was performed by a regional SRA in accordance with IMC 0609 Appendix A guidance using the NRC Vogtle SPAR model and the Sapphire 8 risk analysis code. An events and condition assessment was run with the U1 A train ESF chiller failed with no recovery allowed for a 9 day exposure period. The dominant sequence was a loss of offsite power with success of reactor trip and emergency power with late failure of feedwater and failure to implement feed and bleed cooling due to failure of the B train chiller and loss of the safety related switchgear. The phase 3 SDP analysis determined that the risk due to the performance deficiency was an increase in core damage frequency of <1E-6/year, which is a Green finding of very low safety significance. The risk was mitigated by the availability of alternate train components and the short exposure period. | | description = 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, criterion XVI requires that conditions adverse to quality be promptly identified and corrected. Contrary to the above, on August 17, 2012, at approximately 0000 hours, the Unit 1 Shift Supervisor failed to initiate a condition report (CR), nor did he direct any of the other operators to initiate a CR after being informed by a System Operator that the condenser pressure on the Unit 1 A train engineered safety features (ESF) chiller was out of specification high (< 15.5 inches of mercury). As a result, over the next nine days, condenser pressure on the 1A ESF chiller continued to increase until on August 26 at approximately 1400 hours, the on-duty Shift Manager noted that condenser pressure was 4 inches of mercury, and questioned the operability of the 1A ESF chiller. At 1436, after consulting with engineering personnel, the Shift Manager declared the 1A ESF Chiller inoperable and entered the appropriate 72-hour LCO Action Statement. The licensee documented this event in their corrective action program as CR 507143. Using IMC 0609 Attachment 4 Table 2, the inspectors determined the finding affected the Mitigation Systems Cornerstone. IMC 0609 Attachment 4 Table 3 directed the inspectors to use IMC 0609 Appendix A to characterize the finding. Because the finding represented an actual loss of function of one train of ECCS for greater than its Technical Specification Allowed Outage Time, a detailed risk evaluation was required. A detailed phase 3 risk evaluation was performed by a regional SRA in accordance with IMC 0609 Appendix A guidance using the NRC Vogtle SPAR model and the Sapphire 8 risk analysis code. An events and condition assessment was run with the U1 A train ESF chiller failed with no recovery allowed for a 9 day exposure period. The dominant sequence was a loss of offsite power with success of reactor trip and emergency power with late failure of feedwater and failure to implement feed and bleed cooling due to failure of the B train chiller and loss of the safety related switchgear. The phase 3 SDP analysis determined that the risk due to the performance deficiency was an increase in core damage frequency of <1E-6/year, which is a Green finding of very low safety significance. The risk was mitigated by the availability of alternate train components and the short exposure period. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:15, 29 May 2018
| Site: | Vogtle  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000424/2012004 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2012 (2012Q3) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | A Vargas Mendez F Ehrhardt G Croon M Cain R Williams T Chandler |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |