05000373/FIN-2011005-02
From kanterella
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Failure to Perform an Adequate 10 CFR 50.59 Screening for the Use of Racklife Spent Fuel Pool Monitoring Computer Model |
| Description | A finding of very low safety significance and associated SL-IV NCV of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2) was identified by the inspectors for the licensees failure to perform an adequate 10 CFR 50.59 screening when evaluating if the implementation of Racklife to monitor Unit 2 spent fuel pool (SFP) rack degradation was a departure from a method of evaluation described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, when evaluating in 2005, gif the proposed activity involved the use of an alternative evaluation methodology that is used in establishing the design bases or used in the safety analyses, the licensee dismissed the screening question as not applicable to the circumstances. As a result, the inspectors could not reasonably determine that the changes would not have ultimately required prior NRC approval. The licensee entered this issue into its CAP as AR 1294090. Since the licensee recently completed the installation of neutron absorbing inserts in the entire Unit 2 SFP, as referenced in License Amendment No.186, the use of Racklife to monitor its degradation will no longer be necessary. The inspectors determined that the performance deficiency is greater than minor because it was associated with the Barrier Integrity Cornerstone attribute of configuration controls (reactivity control) and adversely affected the cornerstone objective to provide reasonable assurance that physical design barriers protect the public from radionuclide releases caused by accidents or events. The inspectors performed a Phase 1 SDP review of this finding using the guidance provided in IMC 0609, and the finding screened as Green because all the questions in the Barrier Integrity Cornerstone column of IMC 0609s Table 4a were answered no. Because violations of 10 CFR 50.59 can affect the NRCs ability to perform its regulatory function, they are disposition using the traditional enforcement process. The inspectors used the NRCs Enforcement Policy to determine that the violation was a SL-IV violation because the resulting changes were evaluated by the SDP as having very low safety significance. The inspectors did not identify a cross-cutting aspect associated with the underlying finding because the finding was not representative of current performance. |
| Site: | LaSalle  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000373/2011005 Section 1R18 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2011 (2011Q4) |
| Type: | TEV: Severity level IV |
| cornerstone | Barrier Integrity |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.18 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | D Mcneil R Jickling R Ruiz R Winter F Ramirez J Jandovitz M Mitchell B Palagi C Moore M Kunowski J Yesinowski A Shaikh P Cardona-Morales |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |
Finding - LaSalle - IR 05000373/2011005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (LaSalle) @ 2011Q4
Self-Identified List (LaSalle)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||