05000282/FIN-2014002-01: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by Mark Hawes) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| identified by = NRC | | identified by = NRC | ||
| Inspection procedure = IP 71111.15 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71111.15 | ||
| Inspector = E Sanchez, | | Inspector = E Sanchez Santiago, J Bozga, K Riemer, K Stoedter, L Haeg, M Phalen, P Laflamme, S Bell | ||
| CCA = H.14 | | CCA = H.14 | ||
| INPO aspect = DM.2 | | INPO aspect = DM.2 | ||
| description = The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and an non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings, on February 13, 2014, due to the failure to construct scaffolds as required by Procedure D80, Scaffolding, Ladders and Cable Trays Platforms. During routine plant walk downs, the inspectors identified multiple examples where scaffolds were erected within the two inch minimum clearance requirement without proper justification. Corrective actions for this issue included walking down all scaffolds erected onsite and removing those that failed to comply with Procedure D80, briefing maintenance, operations and engineering staff on scaffolding clearance requirements, and a future revision to Procedure D80 to better clarify the minimum clearance requirements. The inspectors determined that this issue was more than minor because it impacted the protection against external factors attribute of the Mitigating Systems cornerstone. In addition, the finding impacted the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, multiple scaffolds were erected in contact with safety-related equipment, or within the minimum clearance distance which could have challenged the availability, reliability or capability of safety-related systems during a seismic event. This issue was of very low safety significance because each question provided in IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, was answered No. The inspectors concluded that this finding was cross-cutting in the Human Performance, Conservative Bias area because workers did not utilize prudent decision making practices while erecting scaffolding near safety-related equipment (H.14). | | description = The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and an non-cited violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings, on February 13, 2014, due to the failure to construct scaffolds as required by Procedure D80, Scaffolding, Ladders and Cable Trays Platforms. During routine plant walk downs, the inspectors identified multiple examples where scaffolds were erected within the two inch minimum clearance requirement without proper justification. Corrective actions for this issue included walking down all scaffolds erected onsite and removing those that failed to comply with Procedure D80, briefing maintenance, operations and engineering staff on scaffolding clearance requirements, and a future revision to Procedure D80 to better clarify the minimum clearance requirements. The inspectors determined that this issue was more than minor because it impacted the protection against external factors attribute of the Mitigating Systems cornerstone. In addition, the finding impacted the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences. Specifically, multiple scaffolds were erected in contact with safety-related equipment, or within the minimum clearance distance which could have challenged the availability, reliability or capability of safety-related systems during a seismic event. This issue was of very low safety significance because each question provided in IMC 0609, Appendix A, Exhibit 2, Mitigating Systems Screening Questions, was answered No. The inspectors concluded that this finding was cross-cutting in the Human Performance, Conservative Bias area because workers did not utilize prudent decision making practices while erecting scaffolding near safety-related equipment (H.14). | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:50, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000282/2014002 Section 1R15 |
| Date counted | Mar 31, 2014 (2014Q1) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Mitigating Systems |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71111.15 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | E Sanchez Santiago J Bozga K Riemer K Stoedter L Haeg M Phalen P Laflamme S Bell |
| Violation of: | 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V |
| CCA | H.14, Conservative Bias |
| INPO aspect | DM.2 |
| ' | |