05000298/FIN-2011006-05: 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) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71152 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71152 | ||
| Inspector = D Powers, I Anchondo, J Josey, N Okonkwoc, | | Inspector = D Powers, I Anchondo, J Josey, N Okonkwoc, Hendersonj Josey, J Laughlin, S Garchow, V Gaddy | ||
| CCA = H.14 | | CCA = H.14 | ||
| INPO aspect = DM.2 | | INPO aspect = DM.2 | ||
| description = The inspectors identified a cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, for the licensees failure to assure that the applicable design basis for applicable structures, systems, and components were correctly translated into specifications, procedures, and instructions. Specifically, the licensee failed to justify through evaluation that the diesel generator fuel oil day tanks would be available following a tornado missile strike on the tank vents. The violation was cited because the licensee failed to restore compliance in a reasonable time following documentation of the issue as a noncited violation in NRC Inspection Report 2010007 (issued December 3, 2010). The licensee entered this issue into the corrective action program as Condition Report 2011-06655. The performance deficiency was determined to be more than minor because it was associated with the protection against the external factors attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone, and affected the associated cornerstone objective to ensure availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences, and is therefore a finding. Using Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 4, Phase 1 - Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings, the finding was determined to have very low safety significance because the finding: (1) was not a design or qualification issue confirmed not to result in a loss of operability or functionality; (2) did not represent an actual loss of safety function of the system or train; (3) did not result in the loss of one or more trains of nontechnical specification equipment; and (4) did not screen as potentially risk significant due to a seismic, flooding, or severe weather initiating event. The finding was determined to have a crosscutting aspect in the area of human performance, associated with the decision making component in that the licensee failed to use conservative assumptions in decision making and adopt a requirement to demonstrate that the proposed action is safe in order to proceed rather than a requirement to demonstrate it is unsafe in order to disapprove the action. | | description = The inspectors identified a cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, Design Control, for the licensees failure to assure that the applicable design basis for applicable structures, systems, and components were correctly translated into specifications, procedures, and instructions. Specifically, the licensee failed to justify through evaluation that the diesel generator fuel oil day tanks would be available following a tornado missile strike on the tank vents. The violation was cited because the licensee failed to restore compliance in a reasonable time following documentation of the issue as a noncited violation in NRC Inspection Report 2010007 (issued December 3, 2010). The licensee entered this issue into the corrective action program as Condition Report 2011-06655. The performance deficiency was determined to be more than minor because it was associated with the protection against the external factors attribute of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone, and affected the associated cornerstone objective to ensure availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences, and is therefore a finding. Using Manual Chapter 0609, Attachment 4, Phase 1 - Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings, the finding was determined to have very low safety significance because the finding: (1) was not a design or qualification issue confirmed not to result in a loss of operability or functionality; (2) did not represent an actual loss of safety function of the system or train; (3) did not result in the loss of one or more trains of nontechnical specification equipment; and (4) did not screen as potentially risk significant due to a seismic, flooding, or severe weather initiating event. The finding was determined to have a crosscutting aspect in the area of human performance, associated with the decision making component in that the licensee failed to use conservative assumptions in decision making and adopt a requirement to demonstrate that the proposed action is safe in order to proceed rather than a requirement to demonstrate it is unsafe in order to disapprove the action. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:44, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Cooper  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000298/2011006 Section 4OA2 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2011 (2011Q2) |
| Type: | Violation: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71152 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | D Powers I Anchondo J Josey N Okonkwoc Hendersonj Josey J Laughlin S Garchow V Gaddy |
| CCA | H.14, Conservative Bias |
| INPO aspect | DM.2 |
| ' | |