05000348/FIN-2010004-02
From kanterella
Revision as of 19:48, 20 February 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Finding | |
---|---|
Title | Failure to Adopt Appropriate Procedures to Evaluate Deviations and Failures to Comply with 10 CFR 21 Evaluations |
Description | An NRC identified violation of 10 CFR 21.21, Notification of failure to comply or existence of a defect and its evaluation, was identified for an inadequate procedure, resulting in the licensees untimely reporting of a substantial safety hazard. Specifically, the licensees station procedure FNP-0-AP-62, Evaluation of Defects and Noncompliances Potentially Reportable Under 10CFR21, failed to identify the appropriate timeliness aspect required by 10 CFR 21.21(a), and allowed the term discovery to be the date of the Plant Review Board (PRB) approval, regardless of the date of discovery of the deviation. This resulted in a substantial safety hazard being reported approximately 260 days after the deviation was identified. The NRC received the Part 21 report on July 6, 2010 (approximately 260 days after discovery of the deviation). The inspectors determined the inadequate procedure allowing untimely reporting of substantial safety hazards was a performance deficiency. This finding was more than minor because if the procedure was left uncorrected, a more serious safety concern could occur. Specifically, failure to evaluate deviations and to perform notifications within the specified time frame, 60 days, does not allow for timely evaluation of other components that could be subject to the deviation. Because this issue affected a potential reporting requirement and the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function, it was evaluated using the traditional enforcement process. Consistent with the guidance of the NRC Enforcement Policy, this violation was categorized at Severity Level IV NCV. This finding was assigned a cross-cutting aspect in the CAP component of the PI&R area in that problems should be thoroughly evaluated such that the resolutions address causes and extent of conditions, as necessary. This includes properly classifying, prioritizing, and evaluating for operability and reportability conditions adverse to quality. Specifically, the licensee was untimely in evaluating and reporting the substantial safety hazard (P.1(c)). |
Site: | Farley ![]() |
---|---|
Report | IR 05000348/2010004 Section 4OA2 |
Date counted | Sep 30, 2010 (2010Q3) |
Type: | TEV: Severity level IV |
cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
Identified by: | NRC identified |
Inspection Procedure: | IP 71152 |
Inspectors (proximate) | S Shaeffer R Reyes S Sandal P Capehart J Sowa K Schaaf E Crowe |
CCA | P.2, Evaluation |
INPO aspect | PI.2 |
' | |
Finding - Farley - IR 05000348/2010004 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Farley) @ 2010Q3
Self-Identified List (Farley)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||