05000440/FIN-2015010-01
From kanterella
Revision as of 19:54, 20 February 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Finding | |
|---|---|
| Title | Unqualified Radiation Protection Manager |
| Description | The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance, and an associated violation of Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1 when an unqualified individual was designated and performed the duties of the Radiation Protection Manager since early 2015. Specifically, the individual did not have the required experience and background necessary to provide sound judgement for safe and successful operation of the plant. This designation occurred after an April 29, 2015 report documented an internal review by the licensees Fleet Oversight group that concluded that the candidate did not meet qualifications of TS 5.3.1. The NRC determined that this violation did not meet the criteria to be treated as a Non-Cited Violation because this issue was not documented in the licensees Corrective Action Program. In addition, the licensees staff communicated to the inspector that no violation of TS had taken place
The inspectors determined that the performance deficiency was more than minor in accordance with IMC 0612 because it was associated with the human performance 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 the lack of experience and background necessary to provide sound judgement for the Radiation Protection Program affects the licensees ability to control and limit radiation exposures. The finding was determined to be of very low safety significance (Green) in accordance with IMC 0609, Appendix C, Occupational Radiation Safety Significance Determination Process, because it was not an as-low-as-reasonably-achievable 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 inspectors concluded that the cause of the issue involved a cross-cutting aspect in the area of Human Performance, change management, because the licensee did not use a systematic process for evaluating and implementing change so that nuclear safety remains the overriding priority. |
| Site: | Perry  |
|---|---|
| Report | IR 05000440/2015010 Section 4OA2 |
| Date counted | Dec 31, 2015 (2015Q4) |
| Type: | Violation: Green |
| cornerstone | Or Safety |
| Identified by: | NRC identified |
| Inspection Procedure: | IP 71152 |
| Inspectors (proximate) | J Cameron J Nance M Doyle M Jones N Feliz-Adorno R Elliott S Bell V Meghani V Meyersh Petersonj Cassidy T Go |
| Violation of: | Technical Specification |
| CCA | H.3, Change Management |
| INPO aspect | LA.5 |
| ' | |
Finding - Perry - IR 05000440/2015010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Finding List (Perry) @ 2015Q4
Self-Identified List (Perry)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||