05000266/FIN-2013003-07: 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 = Licensee | | identified by = Licensee | ||
| Inspection procedure = | | Inspection procedure = | ||
| Inspector = M Holmberg, P Pelke, S Burton, J Laughlin, D Betancourt, K Barclay, J Gilliam, M Thorpe | | Inspector = M Holmberg, P Pelke, S Burton, J Laughlin, D Betancourt, K Barclay, J Gilliam, M Thorpe-Kavanaugh, J Beavers, E Sanchez, V Myers, J Steffes | ||
| CCA = N/A for ROP | | CCA = N/A for ROP | ||
| INPO aspect = | | INPO aspect = | ||
| description = Title 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2) requires that a holder of a nuclear power reactor operating license follow and maintain the effectiveness of an emergency plan that meets the requirements in Appendix E to this part and the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b). The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure EPIP 1.2, Emergency Classification, Section 5.1 states in part, Review the basis for the selected Emergency Action Level (EAL) to determine/confirm that the EAL applies, and, if an event meets the threshold of the EAL, then classify the emergency. Contrary to the above, on April 25, 2012, the licensee failed to follow its Emergency Plan during an actual emergency and that resulted in a failure to properly implement EALs. Specifically, inaccurate communications resulted in the over classification of an alert emergency classification level based on (EAL) HA3.1. Using Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix B, Emergency Preparedness Significance Determination Process, dated February 24, 2012, Section 4.0 Actual Event Implementation Issue (Failure to Implement), and the inspectors determined that the violation was not greater than very low safety significance (Green) because no public official protective actions were implemented as a result of this event over classification. The issue is documented in the licensees Corrective Action Program as AR 01759720. | | description = Title 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2) requires that a holder of a nuclear power reactor operating license follow and maintain the effectiveness of an emergency plan that meets the requirements in Appendix E to this part and the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b). The Point Beach Nuclear Plant Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure EPIP 1.2, Emergency Classification, Section 5.1 states in part, Review the basis for the selected Emergency Action Level (EAL) to determine/confirm that the EAL applies, and, if an event meets the threshold of the EAL, then classify the emergency. Contrary to the above, on April 25, 2012, the licensee failed to follow its Emergency Plan during an actual emergency and that resulted in a failure to properly implement EALs. Specifically, inaccurate communications resulted in the over classification of an alert emergency classification level based on (EAL) HA3.1. Using Manual Chapter 0609, Appendix B, Emergency Preparedness Significance Determination Process, dated February 24, 2012, Section 4.0 Actual Event Implementation Issue (Failure to Implement), and the inspectors determined that the violation was not greater than very low safety significance (Green) because no public official protective actions were implemented as a result of this event over classification. The issue is documented in the licensees Corrective Action Program as AR 01759720. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:48, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Point Beach  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000266/2013003 Section 4OA7 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2013 (2013Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Licensee-identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | |
| Inspectors (proximate) | M Holmberg P Pelke S Burton J Laughlin D Betancourt K Barclay J Gilliam M Thorpe-Kavanaugh J Beavers E Sanchez V Myers J Steffes |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50.54 10 CFR 50.47 10 CFR 50.54(q) |
| INPO aspect | |
| ' | |