05000259/FIN-2013011-05: 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 = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 95003 | | Inspection procedure = IP 95003 | ||
| Inspector = | | Inspector = C Even, C Moore, E Guthrie, J Eargle, J Heinly, R Skokowskib, Fuller C, Kontz F, Saba J, Bartley J, Worosilo M, Keefe M, Riches N,. Pitoniak T, Hartma | ||
| CCA = H.7 | | CCA = H.7 | ||
| INPO aspect = WP.3 | | INPO aspect = WP.3 | ||
| description = The team identified a Green non-cited violation (NCV) of Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1, Procedures. The team determined that the maintenance Primary Authorized Employee (PAE) did not verify that all blocking points were danger tagged to ensure worker personal safety and equipment protection for the A2 RHRSW pump planned maintenance. The PAEs decision to only verify two of nine clearance components was a violation of TVA Corporate Procedure NPG-SPP-10.2, Rev. 5, Clearance Procedure to Safely Control Energy . The maintenance PAE did not ensure that the A2 RHRSW pump was isolated from an unexpected release of energy that could have resulted in personnel injury or pump damage. The PAE did not verify or recognize that the A2 RHRSW pump manual discharge valve was full open and not danger tagged closed on May, 6, 2013. This performance deficiency was reasonably within BFNs ability to foresee and correct. This Finding was more than minor because, if left uncorrected the BFN Maintenance Supervisors failure to follow the clearance and tagging procedure requirement to verify all danger tag blocking points, he only verified two of nine danger tags, for the A 2 RHRSW planned pump the performance deficiency would have the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern, such as more severe plant transients, engineered safeguard system malfunctions, and a higher probability of personnel injury. The team determined that this Finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because it did not represent an actual loss of safety function or safety systems out of service for greater than the TS allowed outage time. The team identified a cross-cutting aspect in the Work Practices component of the Human Performance area. Specifically, the licensee ensures supervisory and management oversight of work activities such that nuclear safety is supported. | | description = The team identified a Green non-cited violation (NCV) of Technical Specification (TS) 5.4.1, Procedures. The team determined that the maintenance Primary Authorized Employee (PAE) did not verify that all blocking points were danger tagged to ensure worker personal safety and equipment protection for the A2 RHRSW pump planned maintenance. The PAEs decision to only verify two of nine clearance components was a violation of TVA Corporate Procedure NPG-SPP-10.2, Rev. 5, Clearance Procedure to Safely Control Energy . The maintenance PAE did not ensure that the A2 RHRSW pump was isolated from an unexpected release of energy that could have resulted in personnel injury or pump damage. The PAE did not verify or recognize that the A2 RHRSW pump manual discharge valve was full open and not danger tagged closed on May, 6, 2013. This performance deficiency was reasonably within BFNs ability to foresee and correct. This Finding was more than minor because, if left uncorrected the BFN Maintenance Supervisors failure to follow the clearance and tagging procedure requirement to verify all danger tag blocking points, he only verified two of nine danger tags, for the A 2 RHRSW planned pump the performance deficiency would have the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern, such as more severe plant transients, engineered safeguard system malfunctions, and a higher probability of personnel injury. The team determined that this Finding was of very low safety significance (Green) because it did not represent an actual loss of safety function or safety systems out of service for greater than the TS allowed outage time. The team identified a cross-cutting aspect in the Work Practices component of the Human Performance area. Specifically, the licensee ensures supervisory and management oversight of work activities such that nuclear safety is supported. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:59, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000259/2013011 Section 4OA4 |
| Date counted | Jun 30, 2013 (2013Q2) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 95003 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | C Even C Moore E Guthrie J Eargle J Heinly R Skokowskib Fuller C Kontz F Saba J Bartley J Worosilo M Keefe M Riches N . Pitoniak T Hartma |
| Violation of: | Technical Specification - Procedures Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.7, Documentation |
| INPO aspect | WP.3 |
| ' | |