From kanterellaJump to navigation Jump to search
Violation: Title 10 of theCode of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50.55a(g)(4), Inservice Inspection Standards Requirement for Operating Plants, requires that, throughout the service life of a boiling or pressurized water-cooled nuclear power facility, components (including supports) that are classified as ASME Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 must meet the requirements set forth in Section XI of the 2006 edition through 2008 addenda of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. This edition of the AMSE Code requires that a VT3 visual examination of supports other than piping supports be performed once every 10year inservice inspection (ISI) interval. Contrary to the above, since the beginning of plant operation, the safety-related CCW and SW pump lateral supports (classified as ASME Code Section XI Class 3) had never been included in the ISI program and therefore had never had the required VT3 examination performed during each 10year ISI interval. Corrective actions included incorporating the supports into the ISI program, scheduling the inspections as required, and validating that the supports were still capable of performing their safety function and that the CCW and SW systems remained operable.Significance/Severity Level: The inspectors determined that the failure to perform ASME Code Section XI required inspections of the CCW and SW pump lateral supports was a performance deficiency. The inspectors determined the performance deficiency was more than minor because it adversely affected the Design Control attribute of the Mitigating Systems cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). Specifically, the failure to periodically inspect the pump lateral supports could result in the failure to identify a nonfunctional support that could increase the risk of a pump failure.The inspectors assessed the significance of the finding using Appendix A of the SDP. The finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green) because although it was a deficiency affecting the design or qualification of a mitigating structure, system, or component (SSC), the SSC remained operable. Corrective Action Reference: CRPLP201705784, OE Review Identified Palisades Failure to Inspect ASME Class 3 Pump Supports for SW and CCW Pumps, 1/26/2018 Safety Conscious Work Environment Observations Based on interviews with plant staff and reviews ofthe latest safety culture survey results to assess the safety conscious work environment on site, the team determined that, in general, plant personnel appeared willing to raise nuclear safety concerns through at least one of the several means available. Most of those interviewed had an adequate knowledge of the CAP process and would initiate a CR, or work with someone who would do so on their behalf, if they knew of a safety concern. A weakness was identified in plant personnel knowledge ofhow to use the electronic CR system. Specifically, there were some personnel who were not familiar with how to generate a CR or how to track the resolution of a CR. Personnel also expressed an overall frustration with feedback provided on a CR; either with difficulties in being able to see how something was resolved or with not being able to understand the decision-making process for the resolution of issues.Most individuals expressed a willingness to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation and all employees knew the importance of having a strong safety conscious work environment. There were some instances where the free flow of information or a willingness to raise concerns through an individuals direct line of supervision were hampered due to the perception that supervision was not receptive to receiving the concern or addressing the issue. In some cases, this presented an uncomfortable work environment for the affected individuals. However, when presented with this situation, all individuals knew of other supervisors that they could bring their concerns to or other avenues to use to address anissue. All plant personnel were aware of the Employee Concerns Program (ECP), knew who the ECP coordinator was, and most were willing to use it as an avenue to raise concerns, if desired. However, some individuals believed that the ECP lacked the appropriate level of confidentiality to effectively address concerns.
|Report||IR 05000255/2018010 Section 4OA7|
|Date counted||Mar 31, 2018 (2018Q1)|
|Inspectors (proximate)||A Nguyen|
|Violation of:||10 CFR 50.55a|
Finding List (Palisades) @ 2018Q1
Self-Identified List (Palisades)