ML19256E787
| ML19256E787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1979 |
| From: | Mayer L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911150216 | |
| Download: ML19256E787 (4) | |
Text
t NSD NORTHERH STATES POWER COMPANY M 8 N N E A P'O LI S. M I N N E S OTA 5 5401 November 7, 1979 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No. 50-282 License No. DPR-42 50-306 DPR-60 Review of Surveillance Activities
Reference:
(a) Letter, D G Eisenhut (NRC) to L 0 Mayer (NSP),
dated September 21, 1979 Reference (a) identified a series of events which occurred at a PWR facility that raised concern regarding multiple equipment failures and surveillance testing errors. Reference (a) requested reviews be conducteu by Northern States Power Company to evaluate methods employed to reduce the likelihood of similar scenarios occurring at the Prairie Island facility.
The following is a summary of that review.
Since plant startup, personnel errors have resulted in several erroneous SI actuations. These incidents have not caused substantial equipment degradation or malfunctions.
We do not believe that a potential problem exists associated with these occurrences that has not been previously considered. The criteria established in the FSAR satisfactorily address potential problems, and, at this time, a need to change the FSAR's basis is not apparent.
Present management policies concerning multiple equipment failures were reviewed.
There are several mechanisms used to make plant management aware of multiple equipment failures, and to pursue them.
First of all, plant trips are subject to a trip report. An engineer is assigned to analyze the cause of a trip, system responses to the trip, and any equipment malfunctions.
Any multiple equipment f ailures will be identified, and the engineer is charged with the responsibility of suggesting corrective action to managemant.
Second, events that would cause multiple safety-related equipment failures would probably be reportable occurrences.
In addition to the report sent to the NRC, an investigative report is written. An event investigator is assigned and the report format requires the addressing of areas such as:
1336 265 7911150 $2L / 5 l'
NORTi.ERN STATES POWER COMPANY November 7, 1979 Page Description of Occurrence Apparent Cause of Occurrence Analysis of Occurrence Corrective Actions Reconmendations for Prevention of Similar, Occurrences 10 CFR 21 Reporting Status Failure Data Operational Considerations The onsite and offsite review committees examine these reports to determine if a safety system problem exists.
Plant management becomes aware of multiple failures, and the investigation engineer is responsible for any recommendations.
A third mechanism is that events that are not R0r. but are deemed significant by the engineering superintendent are investigated by an assigned investigator.
He must generate a report that addresses the same areas the RO report would. Significant operating event (SOE) reports are also reviewed by the onsite and offsite review committees, and the committees determine if a safety problem exists.
The licensed operator requalification program requires that licensed personnel be informed of significant reportable occurrences.
These reviews are conducted annually. Operations supervising personnel route occurrence investigative reports for review by the majority of the shif.
operating staff.
In addition, training staff personnel have generally included discussion of personnel errors during various lectures in order to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.
Management policies already exist to investigate and inform management of multiple equipment failures.
The events are analyzed and solutions suggested.
Management then has the information it needs to implement any required changes.
Finally a review of the engineered safety system precautions was conducted.
To ensure that appropriate cautions are included the following procedures are being recommended for change:
SP-1002A [2002A]
Analog Protection System Calibration SP-1003 (2003]
Analog Protection Functional Test SP-1006B [2006B]
NIS PR Axial Offset Calibration SP-1007A (2007A]
PR Functional Test SP-1007B [2007B]
PR Quadrant Tilt Functional Test SP '.032A (2032A]
Safeguards Logic Test at Power Si iO35A [2035A]
Reactor Protection Relay Logic Test SP-1549C PR Channel Calibration 1336 266
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY November 7, 1979 Page Those surveillance test personnel errors resulting in engineered safety features actuation occurred during the initial startup period of the Prairie Island units. We agree that unnecessary scrams and safety injections must be minimized and have endeavored to reduce likelihood of these events through training and procedure improvement.
Yours very truly, d9 L O Mayer, PE Manager of Nuclear Support Services LOM/ JAG /j h cc J G Keppler G Charnoff 1336 267
a b
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ~ LAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket Nos. 50-282, 50-306 License Nos. DPR-42, DPR-60 LETTER DATED November 7, 1979 RESPONDING TO NRC REQUEST FOR REVIEU OF SURVEILLANCE TESTING ACTIVITIES Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, by this letter dated November 7,1979 hereby submits information in response to NRC reques' f-information concerning the surveillance testing activities.
This request contains no restricted or other defense inforvation.
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By
$h SJ 4 J Uachter ~
Vice President, Power Production
& System Operation On this 7th day of November,1979, before me a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared L J Uachter, Vice President, Power Production and System Operation, and being first duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document on behalf of Northern States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, the statements made in it are true and that it is not interposed f or delay.
/Anim o "C
!/
m :: ::...::: ::.:::- :::::: ::::
!l7 JEANNE M. HACKER l
ll NOTAAV PU8uC WW4NESOTA j
HENNEPIN COUNTY a
~ c. _,_ e.-.. ~. - a 1336 268