05000456/FIN-2010010-03: 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) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = Self-Revealing | | identified by = Self-Revealing | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 93812 | | Inspection procedure = IP 93812 | ||
| Inspector = G Shear, J Jandovitz, M Thorpe, | | Inspector = G Shear, J Jandovitz, M Thorpe Kavanaugh, N Feliz Adomo, T Goa, Garmoeb Bartlett, D Szwarc, E Duncan, J Benjamin, J Robbins, M Perry, R Langstaff, R Ng, T Go, V Meghani | ||
| CCA = P.1 | | CCA = P.1 | ||
| INPO aspect = PI.1 | | INPO aspect = PI.1 | ||
| description = A self-revealed finding of very low safety significance (Green) was identified for the failure to correct a condition that resulted in water being discharged to the turbine building floor during the reject of condensate from the condenser hotwell. Specifically, water had been observed to overflow to the turbine building floor in multiple instances in the past during hotwell condensate reject. However, the licensee did not implement corrective actions to correct this condition or evaluate its impact on plant equipment as required by the licensees corrective action program. The water discharged from the condensate hotwell reject during the Unit 2 trip caused a reactor trip of Unit 1 on August 16, 2010. The licensee entered this issue into its corrective action program and changed the operation of the condensate reject from an automated action to a manual action controlled by the operators. The finding was determined to be more than minor because it was associated with the Initiating Events Cornerstone attribute of configuration control, and affected the cornerstone objective of limiting the likelihood of those events that upset plant stability. The finding screened as very low safety significance (Green) because a Phase 3 evaluation determined that it resulted in a delta core damage frequency of 5.6E-7/year with Large Early Release Frequency (LERF) not being a risk contributor. No violation of NRC requirements was identified because the deficiencies that contributed to the reactor trip were associated with nonsafety-related components. The inspectors determined that this finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution, corrective action program component, because the licensee did not have a low threshold for identifying issues and did not identify issues completely. | | description = A self-revealed finding of very low safety significance (Green) was identified for the failure to correct a condition that resulted in water being discharged to the turbine building floor during the reject of condensate from the condenser hotwell. Specifically, water had been observed to overflow to the turbine building floor in multiple instances in the past during hotwell condensate reject. However, the licensee did not implement corrective actions to correct this condition or evaluate its impact on plant equipment as required by the licensees corrective action program. The water discharged from the condensate hotwell reject during the Unit 2 trip caused a reactor trip of Unit 1 on August 16, 2010. The licensee entered this issue into its corrective action program and changed the operation of the condensate reject from an automated action to a manual action controlled by the operators. The finding was determined to be more than minor because it was associated with the Initiating Events Cornerstone attribute of configuration control, and affected the cornerstone objective of limiting the likelihood of those events that upset plant stability. The finding screened as very low safety significance (Green) because a Phase 3 evaluation determined that it resulted in a delta core damage frequency of 5.6E-7/year with Large Early Release Frequency (LERF) not being a risk contributor. No violation of NRC requirements was identified because the deficiencies that contributed to the reactor trip were associated with nonsafety-related components. The inspectors determined that this finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution, corrective action program component, because the licensee did not have a low threshold for identifying issues and did not identify issues completely. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:41, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Braidwood  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000456/2010010 Section 4OA5 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2010 (2010Q3) |
| Type: | Finding: Green |
| cornerstone | Initiating Events |
| Identified by: | Self-revealing |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 93812 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | G Shear J Jandovitz M Thorpe Kavanaugh N Feliz Adomo T Goa Garmoeb Bartlett D Szwarc E Duncan J Benjamin J Robbins M Perry R Langstaff R Ng T Go V Meghani |
| CCA | P.1, Identification |
| INPO aspect | PI.1 |
| ' | |