05000331/FIN-2014005-06: 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 71124.01 | | Inspection procedure = IP 71124.01 | ||
| Inspector = A Boland, A Dahbur, C Phillips, G O,' | | Inspector = A Boland, A Dahbur, C Phillips, G O, 'Dwyerj Beavers, J Gilliam, J Heath, J Jacobson, J Steffes, L Haeg, M Jeffers, M Jimenez, M Phalen, N Feliz-Adorno, R Murray, R Ng, S Smith, T Bilik, V Meyers | ||
| CCA = H.11 | | CCA = H.11 | ||
| INPO aspect = QA.2 | | INPO aspect = QA.2 | ||
| description = A finding of very low safety significance and an associated non-cited violation of Technical Specification 5.7.1.e was identified by the inspectors following entry into the fuel pool heat exchanger room which was a high radiation area (HRA). The inspectors determined that the licensee failed to determine the radiological conditions in the HRA in accordance with the Technical Specifications and plant procedures to ensure the workers were accurately briefed on the current conditions prior to entry. As a result, an individual was permitted entry into areas with greater than expected dose rates. This issue was entered into the licensees Corrective Action Program as condition report 02000258. The licensee subsequently performed a follow-up survey of the HRA and coached the individual that performed the brief. The performance deficiency was more than minor because it impacted the program and process attribute of the Occupational Radiation Safety cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring adequate protection of worker health and safety from exposure to radiation, in that, worker entry into HRAs without knowledge of the radiological conditions placed them at increased risk for unnecessary radiation exposure. The finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green) because the performance deficiency was not an as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) planning issue; there was neither an overexposure nor a substantial potential for an overexposure; and the licensees ability to assess dose was not compromised. The finding was associated with the cross-cutting aspect of challenge the unknown in the area of Human Performance because the licensee failed to challenge the adequacy of the January 19, 2014, radiological survey as the fuel pool cooling heat exchanger room contained equipment that continuously transported radioactive liquid and was subject to changing radiological conditions. [H.11] | | description = A finding of very low safety significance and an associated non-cited violation of Technical Specification 5.7.1.e was identified by the inspectors following entry into the fuel pool heat exchanger room which was a high radiation area (HRA). The inspectors determined that the licensee failed to determine the radiological conditions in the HRA in accordance with the Technical Specifications and plant procedures to ensure the workers were accurately briefed on the current conditions prior to entry. As a result, an individual was permitted entry into areas with greater than expected dose rates. This issue was entered into the licensees Corrective Action Program as condition report 02000258. The licensee subsequently performed a follow-up survey of the HRA and coached the individual that performed the brief. The performance deficiency was more than minor because it impacted the program and process attribute of the Occupational Radiation Safety cornerstone and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring adequate protection of worker health and safety from exposure to radiation, in that, worker entry into HRAs without knowledge of the radiological conditions placed them at increased risk for unnecessary radiation exposure. The finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green) because the performance deficiency was not an as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA) planning issue; there was neither an overexposure nor a substantial potential for an overexposure; and the licensees ability to assess dose was not compromised. The finding was associated with the cross-cutting aspect of challenge the unknown in the area of Human Performance because the licensee failed to challenge the adequacy of the January 19, 2014, radiological survey as the fuel pool cooling heat exchanger room contained equipment that continuously transported radioactive liquid and was subject to changing radiological conditions. [H.11] | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:51, 20 February 2018
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000331/2014005 Section 2RS1 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2014 (2014Q4) |
| Type: | NCV: Green |
| cornerstone | Or Safety |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71124.01 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | A Boland A Dahbur C Phillips G O 'Dwyerj Beavers J Gilliam J Heath J Jacobson J Steffes L Haeg M Jeffers M Jimenez M Phalen N Feliz-Adorno R Murray R Ng S Smith T Bilik V Meyers |
| Violation of: | Technical Specification - Procedures Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.11, Challenge the Unknown |
| INPO aspect | QA.2 |
| ' | |