05000483/FIN-2015003-04: 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) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Licensee | | identified by = Licensee | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = C Cowdrey, J O | | Inspector = C Cowdrey, J O'Donnell, L Carson, M Kennard, M Langelier, M Phalen, N Greene, N Taylor, P Hernandez, S Hedger, T Hartman, J Tice | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 55.46(c), Plant-Referenced Simulators, requires, in part, that a plant-referenced simulator must demonstrate expected plant response to operator input and to transient and accident conditions to which the simulators have been designed to respond. Contrary to the above, on December 12, 2013, and March 23, 2015, the simulator failed to demonstrate expected plant response to operator input and to transient and accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to respond. Specifically, during simulator post-event testing on those dates, the simulator did not correspond in direction of change of all monitored plant parameters and, in one case, the letdown portion of the chemical and volume control system automatically isolated when this did not occur in the reference plant. The violation was of very low safety significance because it dealt with identified simulator modeling deficiencies that did not negatively impact operator performance in the actual plant during reportable events. The licensee entered this issue into their corrective action program as Callaway Action Report 201504406. | | description = Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 55.46(c), Plant-Referenced Simulators, requires, in part, that a plant-referenced simulator must demonstrate expected plant response to operator input and to transient and accident conditions to which the simulators have been designed to respond. Contrary to the above, on December 12, 2013, and March 23, 2015, the simulator failed to demonstrate expected plant response to operator input and to transient and accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to respond. Specifically, during simulator post-event testing on those dates, the simulator did not correspond in direction of change of all monitored plant parameters and, in one case, the letdown portion of the chemical and volume control system automatically isolated when this did not occur in the reference plant. The violation was of very low safety significance because it dealt with identified simulator modeling deficiencies that did not negatively impact operator performance in the actual plant during reportable events. The licensee entered this issue into their corrective action program as Callaway Action Report 201504406. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:52, 30 May 2018
| Site: | Callaway  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000483/2015003 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2015 (2015Q3) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | C Cowdrey J O'Donnell L Carson M Kennard M Langelier M Phalen N Greene N Taylor P Hernandez S Hedger T Hartman J Tice |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 55.46 |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |