05000282/FIN-2013004-01: 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 = Self-Revealing | | identified by = Self-Revealing | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.12 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.12 | ||
| Inspector = K Riemer, D Szwarc, B Palagi, M Phalen, R Baker, K Stoedter, M Speck, K Barclay, P Laflamme, E Sanchez | | Inspector = K Riemer, D Szwarc, B Palagi, M Phalen, R Baker, K Stoedter, M Speck, K Barclay, P Laflamme, E Sanchez-Santiago, J Beavers, M Ziolkowski, T Daun | ||
| CCA = H.5 | | CCA = H.5 | ||
| INPO aspect = WP.1 | | INPO aspect = WP.1 | ||
| description = A self-revealing finding of very low safety significance (Green) and an non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings was identified on July 2, 2013, for the failure to have documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances while performing maintenance. Specifically, maintenance personnel rendered Unit 2 Containment High Range Area Monitor 2R-49 inoperable after lifting a wire as part of a Unit 1 Containment High Range Area Monitor 1R-49 power supply replacement. Corrective actions for this issue included returning 1R-49 and 2R-49 to service and providing additional supervisory involvement to ensure all maintenance personnel were aware of expectations for ensuring that energized leads were appropriately identified, that adequate barriers were established to prevent inadvertent contact with energized leads, and ensuring that access to leads to be lifted were adequate for safe manipulation. The inspectors determined that this issue was more than minor because it was associated with the configuration control and procedure quality attributes of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). This issue was of very low safety significance because each of the questions provided in IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, were answered no. This issue was cross cutting in the Human Performance, Work Control area because the licensee failed to appropriately plan work activities by incorporating job site conditions which may impact human performance or plant structures, systems, and components (H.3(a)). | | description = A self-revealing finding of very low safety significance (Green) and an non-cited violation (NCV) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings was identified on July 2, 2013, for the failure to have documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances while performing maintenance. Specifically, maintenance personnel rendered Unit 2 Containment High Range Area Monitor 2R-49 inoperable after lifting a wire as part of a Unit 1 Containment High Range Area Monitor 1R-49 power supply replacement. Corrective actions for this issue included returning 1R-49 and 2R-49 to service and providing additional supervisory involvement to ensure all maintenance personnel were aware of expectations for ensuring that energized leads were appropriately identified, that adequate barriers were established to prevent inadvertent contact with energized leads, and ensuring that access to leads to be lifted were adequate for safe manipulation. The inspectors determined that this issue was more than minor because it was associated with the configuration control and procedure quality attributes of the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). This issue was of very low safety significance because each of the questions provided in IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, were answered no. This issue was cross cutting in the Human Performance, Work Control area because the licensee failed to appropriately plan work activities by incorporating job site conditions which may impact human performance or plant structures, systems, and components (H.3(a)). | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:49, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000282/2013004 Section 1R12 |
| Date counted | Sep 30, 2013 (2013Q3) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | Self-revealing |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.12 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | K Riemer D Szwarc B Palagi M Phalen R Baker K Stoedter M Speck K Barclay P Laflamme E Sanchez-Santiago J Beavers M Ziolkowski T Daun |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V |
| CCA | H.5, Work Management |
| INPO aspect | WP.1 |
| ' | |