05000348/FIN-2011010-10: 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 9: | Line 9: | ||
| significance = | | significance = | ||
| cornerstone = Mitigating Systems | | cornerstone = Mitigating Systems | ||
| violation of = | | violation of = | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = D Jones, M Shlyamberg, S Sandal, R Nease, J Eargle, P Wagnerb, | | Inspector = D Jones, M Shlyamberg, S Sandal, R Nease, J Eargle, P Wagnerb, Caballeroe Crowe, F Ehrhardt, J Laughlin, J Sowa, M Coursey, M Riley | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = The team indentified an Unresolved Item (URI) regarding the licensees use of administrative controls in lieu of automatic degraded voltage protection to assure adequate voltage to safety-related equipment during design basis events. The team noted that the degraded voltage protection system at Farley uses administrative controls to assure adequate voltage to safety-related equipment during design basis events. Farleys current system configuration, which relies on administrative actions, was recognized as a deviation from the guidance on degraded voltage protection provided in a NRC letter (dated June 2, 1977), but was accepted by the NRC in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (dated November 21, 1995). The licensee entered this issue into their corrective action program as CR 2011106624 on May 17, 2011. This same issue is currently being assessed at plant Hatch, another Southern Company licensee, where the agency issued a backfit letter (Hatch Inspection Report 05000321/2011009 and 05000366/2011009, dated May 25, 2011). In the backfit letter, the staff concluded that the NRC was in error in accepting the use of administrative controls. Because of the similarities of this issue for plants Farley and Hatch, this issue is unresolved pending completion of the appeal process that is afforded to Southern Company for plant Hatch. | | description = The team indentified an Unresolved Item (URI) regarding the licensees use of administrative controls in lieu of automatic degraded voltage protection to assure adequate voltage to safety-related equipment during design basis events. The team noted that the degraded voltage protection system at Farley uses administrative controls to assure adequate voltage to safety-related equipment during design basis events. Farleys current system configuration, which relies on administrative actions, was recognized as a deviation from the guidance on degraded voltage protection provided in a NRC letter (dated June 2, 1977), but was accepted by the NRC in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (dated November 21, 1995). The licensee entered this issue into their corrective action program as CR 2011106624 on May 17, 2011. This same issue is currently being assessed at plant Hatch, another Southern Company licensee, where the agency issued a backfit letter (Hatch Inspection Report 05000321/2011009 and 05000366/2011009, dated May 25, 2011). In the backfit letter, the staff concluded that the NRC was in error in accepting the use of administrative controls. Because of the similarities of this issue for plants Farley and Hatch, this issue is unresolved pending completion of the appeal process that is afforded to Southern Company for plant Hatch. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:44, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Farley  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000348/2011010 Section 4OA5 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2011 (2011Q4) |
| Type: | URI: |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | D Jones M Shlyamberg S Sandal R Nease J Eargle P Wagnerb Caballeroe Crowe F Ehrhardt J Laughlin J Sowa M Coursey M Riley |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |