Information Notice 1993-72, Observations from Recent Shutdown Risk and Outage Management Pilot Team Inspections: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 09/14/1993
| issue date = 09/14/1993
| title = Observations from Recent Shutdown Risk and Outage Management Pilot Team Inspections
| title = Observations from Recent Shutdown Risk and Outage Management Pilot Team Inspections
| author name = Grimes B K
| author name = Grimes B
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = NRC Information Notice
| document type = NRC Information Notice
| page count = 8
| page count = 8
| revision = 0
}}
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:Ku
 
UNITED STATES
 
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 September 14, 1993 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 93-72:    OBSERVATIONS FROM RECENT SHUTDOWN RISK AND
 
OUTAGE MANAGEMENT PILOT TEAM INSPECTIONS
 
==Addressees==
All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power
 
reactors.
 
==Purpose==
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information
 
notice to inform addressees of observations from recent shutdown risk and
 
outage management pilot team inspections. It is expected that recipients will
 
review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider
 
actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. However, suggestions
 
contained in this information notice are not NRC requirements; therefore, no
 
specific action or written response is required.
 
Background
 
Events that occurred during the past several years have caused the NRC staff
 
to be increasingly concerned about plant safety during shutdown operations.
 
The Diablo Canyon event of April 10, 1987, in which boiling of the reactor
 
coolant resulted from a loss of decay heat removal, highlighted the fact that
 
operation of a pressurized-water reactor with a reduced reactor coolant system
 
(RCS) inventory is a particularly sensitive condition. Based on its review of
 
that event, the staff issued Generic Letter 88-17, "Loss of Decay Heat
 
Removal," October 17, 1988, which requested that licensees address certain
 
generic deficiencies to improve safety during operations with a reduced RCS
 
inventory. More recently, Incident Investigation Team report, NUREG-1410,
"Loss of Vital ac Power and the Residual Heat Removal System During Mid-Loop
 
Operations at Plant Vogtle Unit 1 on March 20, 1990," emphasized the need for
 
risk management of shutdown operations. Discussions with foreign regulatory
 
organizations support NRC staff findings that the core-damage-frequency for
 
shutdown operations may be a substantial fraction of the total core-damage
 
frequency.
 
==Description of Circumstances==
Between December 1991 and April 1993, the NRC staff conducted five pilot team
 
inspections to assess the effectiveness of industry initiatives for improving
 
shutdown safety. The inspections were performed at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 [NRC Inspection Report (IR)50-270/91-202], Indian Point Nuclear
 
9309090243
                      -          U              1?-.crn-9
                                                    3                  .
 
IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 Generating Station, Unit 3 (IR 50-286/92-901), Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (IR 50-275/92-201), Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (IR 50-282/92-201; 50-306/92-201), and Cooper Nuclear Station
 
(IR 50-298/93-201). Approximately one week of each inspection focused on
 
licensee pre-outage planning and control processes and 8 to 10 days focused on
 
licensee implementation of the outage.
 
In the pre-outage portion of the inspection, the inspectors evaluated the
 
following: (1) management involvement in and oversight of the outage planning
 
process, (2) planning and scheduling of outage activities, especially the
 
relationships between significant work activities and the availability of
 
electrical power supplies, decay heat removal systems, reactor coolant system
 
RCS inventory and containment integrity, (3) the process for developing
 
individual work packages to ensure coordination with other activities, and (4)
operator response procedures, contingency plans and training for mitigation of
 
loss of decay heat removal capability, loss of RCS inventory and loss of
 
electrical power sources during shutdown conditions.
 
The inspectors walked through procedures related to shutdown safety to
 
determine if the specified activities could be accomplished in the allotted
 
time frames and to verify that the procedures could be implemented considering
 
probable equipment availability. The inspectors reviewed training records on
 
outage procedures to determine if the training was adequate and that, when
 
appropriate, additional training was provided as the procedures were revised.
 
The inspectors also evaluated the probable effects of environmental conditions
 
such as temperature, steam and flooding on the performance of activities that
 
would be required to mitigate adverse shutdown events.
 
In the implementation portion of the inspection, the inspectors evaluated:
(1) the control of changes to the outage schedule, control of work activities, and control of system alignments, (2) the working relationships and
 
communication channels between operations, maintenance and other plant support
 
personnel, (3) the conduct of operations personnel both inside and outside of
 
the control room regarding awareness of plant status, control of plant
 
evolutions, response to alarms and other abnormal indications, (4) the
 
completeness and effectiveness of shift turnovers, (5) whether maintenance and
 
modification work was performed in accordance with current written and
 
approved procedures and appropriate post-maintenance testing was required and
 
performed, and (6) the adequacy of management involvement and oversight of the
 
conduct of the outage as it progressed.
 
Other areas observed were, plant housekeeping, normal and emergency plant
 
lighting, configuration control, radiological controls, equipment labeling and
 
status tagging, vital area access control, use of overtime and licensee
 
control of contractor work including contractor training and qualifications.
 
Discussion
 
In general, the inspectors found that licensees had instituted programmatic
 
changes developed from guidance contained in a Nuclear Management and
 
Resources Council document, NUMARC 91-06, "Guidelines for Industry Actions to
 
TV
 
IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 individual examples of
 
Assess Shutdown Management." The team inspectors found                the inspectors
 
licensee failure to follow procedures but more importantly        assessment      for
 
identified two areas of more  general  concern:      (1)  risk
 
and (2)
pre-outage planning, emergent work and schedule changes,                    availability.
 
methodologies    for  equipment
 
implementation of defense-in-depth                                Specific    details of
 
A general discussion of these  areas  is provided    below.
 
above.
 
the findings are contained in the inspection reports referenced
 
and Schedule Changes
 
Risk Assessment for Pre-Outage Planning, Emergent Work
 
controls to
 
The inspectors found that licensees used various programmatic            emergent    work and
 
assess shutdown risk factors during initial outage planning, outage planning
 
schedule changes. Assessment methodologies used for initial    availability to
 
ranged from following minimum guidelines for equipment outage activities.
 
performing a probabilistic risk assessment of scheduled            the licensee in
 
The inspection team found that the risk assessment aided during the sched led
 
identifying activities that would be subject to high risk                    became less
 
outage. However, as the outage progressed, the risk assessment      schedule    occurreda
 
valid because it was not updated as changes to the outage
 
inspectors found that
 
In the areas of emergent work and schedule changes, the                    effect of      \
three of the plants had a proceduralized process to assess the          two  plants  relied
 
other
 
emergent work or schedule changes on plant risk. Theoperators to adjust the
 
on a functional review by planners, schedulers, and
 
schedule appropriately to reduce risk.
 
status boards or
 
The inspectors found that all of the plants maintained in tracking the
 
checklists in the control room to assist the      operators
 
potential
 
configuration status of plant systems and to help identify
 
risk-significant activities.
 
Implementation of Defense-in-Depth for Equipment Availability
 
of defense-in-depth
 
The inspection teams found that licensee implementation industry guidelines for
 
for equipment availability was inconsistent.      Although
 
that the criteria
 
declaring equipment "available" exist, the inspectors found                of safety
 
an  appropriate      margin
 
for declaring equipment needed to ensure                                declaring    that
 
"available" varied from licensee to licensee.      For  example, include    ensuring    that  support    systems
 
equipment was "available" did not always                      conditioning)      were  also
 
(e.g., cooling water and heating, ventilation      and  air
 
had  been  performed,      equipment    was
 
available. At times, after maintenance                                      functional
 
listed as "available" without the benefit of a post-maintenance  considered      to be
 
test. The inspectors also found that    some  equipment    was
 
as  removal    of  clearances      or  realignment
 
"available" even though actions, such                            perform its function.
 
of valves, would be required before the equipment could
 
the team inspectors
 
In addition to the above concerns, at most of the plants                        restrictions
 
found examples of failures to comply with    technical    specification
 
to  exceed    overtime    limits  was
 
on overtime work in that management approval
 
inadequately documented.
 
K-,
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If
 
you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact
 
the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear
 
Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.
 
Brian K. Grimes, Director
 
Division of Operating Reactor Support
 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
Technical contact:  J.D. Wilcox, NRR
 
(301) 504-1262 Attachment:  List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
 
RSIB:DRIL:NRR      RSIB:DRIL:NRR      AC/RSIB:DRIL:NRR  D/DRIL:NRR
 
JDWilcox          SSanders            DNorkin          CERossi
 
07/02/93          07/02/93            07/02/93          07/10/93 RPB:ADM            OGCB:DORS:NRR      C70MO:DORS:NRR    D/DORS:NRR
 
NBeeson            JLBirmingham      iGHMarcus          BKGrimes
 
08/10/93          08 /1/ 93 J9        PT
 
;S/Al/93          09/ /93 RSIB:DRIL:NRR
 
PSKoltay
 
07/06/93
 
-                                                              IN 93-xx
 
September xx, 1993 This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If
 
you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact
 
the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear
 
Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.
 
Brian K. Grimes, Director
 
Division of Operating Reactor Support
 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
Technical contact:    J.D. Wilcox, NRR
 
(301) 504-1262 Attachment:    List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
 
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
 
*RSIB:DRIL:NRR      *RSIB:DRIL:NRR    *AC/RSIB:DRIL:NRR *D/DRIL:NRR
 
JDWilcox            SSanders          DNorkin          CERossi
 
07/02/93            07/02/93          07/02/93          07/10/93
*RPB:ADM            *OGCB:DORS:NRR > C/OGCB:DORS:NRR    D/DORS:NRR
 
NBeeson            JLBirmingham      GHMarcus/Wen      BKGrimes
 
08/10/93          08/27/93          08/27/93          09/ /93
*RSIB:DRIL:NRR
 
PSKoltay
 
07/06/93 DOCUMENT NAME:  OUTAGEIN.JLB
 
'-vJ
 
IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 Based on the five pilot inspections, the NRC inspection teams concluded that
 
NRC actions and industry initiatives have increased licensee awareness of the
 
risk associated with shutdown and low power conditions. The inspection teams
 
found that licensees were aware of the necessity for ensuring that required
 
systems be available and of the need to maintain the capability of backup
 
equipment during an outage. However, the inspection teams found that licensee
 
interpretations of industry initiatives for addressing shutdown risk varied
 
greatly. This was demonstrated by the various licensee interpretations of
 
industry guidelines for declaring equipment "available."
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If
 
you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact
 
the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear
 
Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.
 
Original signed by
 
Brian K.Grimes
 
Brian K. Grimes, Director
 
Division of Operating Reactor Support
 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
Technical contact:  J.D. Wilcox, NRR
 
(301) 504-1262 Attachment:
 
===List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices===
*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
 
*RSIB:DRIL:NRR    *RSIB:DRIL:NRR    *AC/RSIB:DRIL:NRR *D/DRIL:NRR
 
JDWilcox          SSanders          DNorkin                CERossi
 
07/02/93          07/02/93          07/02/93                07/1 dJ3 (qy
 
*RPB:ADM          *OGCB:DORS:NRR  *C/OGCB:DORS:NRR
 
NBeeson          JLBirmingham      GHMarcus/Wen
 
08/10/93          08/27/93          08/27/93
*RSIB:DRIL:NRR
 
PSKoltay
 
07/06/93 DOCUMENT NAME:  93-72.IN
 
IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 Based on the five pilot inspections, the NRC inspection teams concluded that
 
NRC actions and industry initiatives have increased licensee awareness of the
 
risk associated with shutdown and low power conditions. The inspection teams
 
found that licensees were aware of the necessity for ensuring that required
 
systems be available and of the need to maintain the capability of backup
 
equipment during an outage. However, the inspection teams found that licensee
 
interpretations of industry initiatives for addressing shutdown risk varied
 
greatly. This was demonstrated by the various licensee interpretations of
 
industry guidelines for declaring equipment "available."
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If
 
you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact
 
the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear
 
Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.
 
C-
                                    Brian K. Grimes, Director
 
Division of Operating Reactor Support
 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
 
Technical contact:  J.D. Wilcox, NRR
 
(301) 504-1262 Attachment:
 
===List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices===
 
KJ
 
Attachment
 
IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
 
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
 
Information                                  Date of
 
Notice No.            Subject                Issuance  Issued to
 
93-71          Fire at Chernobyl Unit 2      09/13/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
for nuclear power reactors.
 
93-70          Degradation of Boraflex        09/10/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
Neutron Absorber Coupons                  for nuclear power reactors.
 
93-69          Radiography Events at          09/02/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
Operating Power Reactors                  for nuclear power reactors
 
and all radiography
 
licensees.
 
93-68          Failure of Pump Shaft          09/01/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
Coupling Caused by                        for nuclear power reactors.
 
Temper Embrittlement
 
during Manufacture
 
92-16,        Loss of Flow from the          08/23/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
Supp. 2        Residual Heat Removal                    for nuclear power reactors.
 
Pump during Refueling
 
Cavity Draindown
 
93-67          Bursting of High              08/16/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
Pressure Coolant                          for nuclear power reactors.
 
Injection Steam Line
 
Rupture Discs Injures
 
Plant Personnel
 
93-66          Switchover to Hot-Leg          08/16/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
Injection Following                      for pressurized water
 
A Loss-of-Coolant                        reactors.
 
Accident in Pres- surized Water Reactors
 
93-65          Reactor Trips Caused          08/13/93  All holders of OLs or CPs
 
by Breaker Testing                        for nuclear power reactors.
 
with Fault Protection
 
Bypassed
 
OL = Operating License
 
CP = Construction Permit}}


{{Information notice-Nav}}
{{Information notice-Nav}}

Latest revision as of 04:24, 24 November 2019

Observations from Recent Shutdown Risk and Outage Management Pilot Team Inspections
ML031070092
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 09/14/1993
From: Grimes B
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
IN-93-072, NUDOCS 9309090243
Download: ML031070092 (8)


Ku

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 September 14, 1993 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 93-72: OBSERVATIONS FROM RECENT SHUTDOWN RISK AND

OUTAGE MANAGEMENT PILOT TEAM INSPECTIONS

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power

reactors.

Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information

notice to inform addressees of observations from recent shutdown risk and

outage management pilot team inspections. It is expected that recipients will

review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider

actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems. However, suggestions

contained in this information notice are not NRC requirements; therefore, no

specific action or written response is required.

Background

Events that occurred during the past several years have caused the NRC staff

to be increasingly concerned about plant safety during shutdown operations.

The Diablo Canyon event of April 10, 1987, in which boiling of the reactor

coolant resulted from a loss of decay heat removal, highlighted the fact that

operation of a pressurized-water reactor with a reduced reactor coolant system

(RCS) inventory is a particularly sensitive condition. Based on its review of

that event, the staff issued Generic Letter 88-17, "Loss of Decay Heat

Removal," October 17, 1988, which requested that licensees address certain

generic deficiencies to improve safety during operations with a reduced RCS

inventory. More recently, Incident Investigation Team report, NUREG-1410,

"Loss of Vital ac Power and the Residual Heat Removal System During Mid-Loop

Operations at Plant Vogtle Unit 1 on March 20, 1990," emphasized the need for

risk management of shutdown operations. Discussions with foreign regulatory

organizations support NRC staff findings that the core-damage-frequency for

shutdown operations may be a substantial fraction of the total core-damage

frequency.

Description of Circumstances

Between December 1991 and April 1993, the NRC staff conducted five pilot team

inspections to assess the effectiveness of industry initiatives for improving

shutdown safety. The inspections were performed at Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 [NRC Inspection Report (IR)50-270/91-202], Indian Point Nuclear

9309090243

- U 1?-.crn-9

3 .

IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 Generating Station, Unit 3 (IR 50-286/92-901), Diablo Canyon Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (IR 50-275/92-201), Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (IR 50-282/92-201; 50-306/92-201), and Cooper Nuclear Station

(IR 50-298/93-201). Approximately one week of each inspection focused on

licensee pre-outage planning and control processes and 8 to 10 days focused on

licensee implementation of the outage.

In the pre-outage portion of the inspection, the inspectors evaluated the

following: (1) management involvement in and oversight of the outage planning

process, (2) planning and scheduling of outage activities, especially the

relationships between significant work activities and the availability of

electrical power supplies, decay heat removal systems, reactor coolant system

RCS inventory and containment integrity, (3) the process for developing

individual work packages to ensure coordination with other activities, and (4)

operator response procedures, contingency plans and training for mitigation of

loss of decay heat removal capability, loss of RCS inventory and loss of

electrical power sources during shutdown conditions.

The inspectors walked through procedures related to shutdown safety to

determine if the specified activities could be accomplished in the allotted

time frames and to verify that the procedures could be implemented considering

probable equipment availability. The inspectors reviewed training records on

outage procedures to determine if the training was adequate and that, when

appropriate, additional training was provided as the procedures were revised.

The inspectors also evaluated the probable effects of environmental conditions

such as temperature, steam and flooding on the performance of activities that

would be required to mitigate adverse shutdown events.

In the implementation portion of the inspection, the inspectors evaluated:

(1) the control of changes to the outage schedule, control of work activities, and control of system alignments, (2) the working relationships and

communication channels between operations, maintenance and other plant support

personnel, (3) the conduct of operations personnel both inside and outside of

the control room regarding awareness of plant status, control of plant

evolutions, response to alarms and other abnormal indications, (4) the

completeness and effectiveness of shift turnovers, (5) whether maintenance and

modification work was performed in accordance with current written and

approved procedures and appropriate post-maintenance testing was required and

performed, and (6) the adequacy of management involvement and oversight of the

conduct of the outage as it progressed.

Other areas observed were, plant housekeeping, normal and emergency plant

lighting, configuration control, radiological controls, equipment labeling and

status tagging, vital area access control, use of overtime and licensee

control of contractor work including contractor training and qualifications.

Discussion

In general, the inspectors found that licensees had instituted programmatic

changes developed from guidance contained in a Nuclear Management and

Resources Council document, NUMARC 91-06, "Guidelines for Industry Actions to

TV

IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 individual examples of

Assess Shutdown Management." The team inspectors found the inspectors

licensee failure to follow procedures but more importantly assessment for

identified two areas of more general concern: (1) risk

and (2)

pre-outage planning, emergent work and schedule changes, availability.

methodologies for equipment

implementation of defense-in-depth Specific details of

A general discussion of these areas is provided below.

above.

the findings are contained in the inspection reports referenced

and Schedule Changes

Risk Assessment for Pre-Outage Planning, Emergent Work

controls to

The inspectors found that licensees used various programmatic emergent work and

assess shutdown risk factors during initial outage planning, outage planning

schedule changes. Assessment methodologies used for initial availability to

ranged from following minimum guidelines for equipment outage activities.

performing a probabilistic risk assessment of scheduled the licensee in

The inspection team found that the risk assessment aided during the sched led

identifying activities that would be subject to high risk became less

outage. However, as the outage progressed, the risk assessment schedule occurreda

valid because it was not updated as changes to the outage

inspectors found that

In the areas of emergent work and schedule changes, the effect of \

three of the plants had a proceduralized process to assess the two plants relied

other

emergent work or schedule changes on plant risk. Theoperators to adjust the

on a functional review by planners, schedulers, and

schedule appropriately to reduce risk.

status boards or

The inspectors found that all of the plants maintained in tracking the

checklists in the control room to assist the operators

potential

configuration status of plant systems and to help identify

risk-significant activities.

Implementation of Defense-in-Depth for Equipment Availability

of defense-in-depth

The inspection teams found that licensee implementation industry guidelines for

for equipment availability was inconsistent. Although

that the criteria

declaring equipment "available" exist, the inspectors found of safety

an appropriate margin

for declaring equipment needed to ensure declaring that

"available" varied from licensee to licensee. For example, include ensuring that support systems

equipment was "available" did not always conditioning) were also

(e.g., cooling water and heating, ventilation and air

had been performed, equipment was

available. At times, after maintenance functional

listed as "available" without the benefit of a post-maintenance considered to be

test. The inspectors also found that some equipment was

as removal of clearances or realignment

"available" even though actions, such perform its function.

of valves, would be required before the equipment could

the team inspectors

In addition to the above concerns, at most of the plants restrictions

found examples of failures to comply with technical specification

to exceed overtime limits was

on overtime work in that management approval

inadequately documented.

K-,

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact: J.D. Wilcox, NRR

(301) 504-1262 Attachment: List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

RSIB:DRIL:NRR RSIB:DRIL:NRR AC/RSIB:DRIL:NRR D/DRIL:NRR

JDWilcox SSanders DNorkin CERossi

07/02/93 07/02/93 07/02/93 07/10/93 RPB:ADM OGCB:DORS:NRR C70MO:DORS:NRR D/DORS:NRR

NBeeson JLBirmingham iGHMarcus BKGrimes

08/10/93 08 /1/ 93 J9 PT

S/Al/93 09/ /93 RSIB
DRIL:NRR

PSKoltay

07/06/93

- IN 93-xx

September xx, 1993 This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact: J.D. Wilcox, NRR

(301) 504-1262 Attachment: List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
  • RSIB:DRIL:NRR *RSIB:DRIL:NRR *AC/RSIB:DRIL:NRR *D/DRIL:NRR

JDWilcox SSanders DNorkin CERossi

07/02/93 07/02/93 07/02/93 07/10/93

  • RPB:ADM *OGCB:DORS:NRR > C/OGCB:DORS:NRR D/DORS:NRR

NBeeson JLBirmingham GHMarcus/Wen BKGrimes

08/10/93 08/27/93 08/27/93 09/ /93

  • RSIB:DRIL:NRR

PSKoltay

07/06/93 DOCUMENT NAME: OUTAGEIN.JLB

'-vJ

IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 Based on the five pilot inspections, the NRC inspection teams concluded that

NRC actions and industry initiatives have increased licensee awareness of the

risk associated with shutdown and low power conditions. The inspection teams

found that licensees were aware of the necessity for ensuring that required

systems be available and of the need to maintain the capability of backup

equipment during an outage. However, the inspection teams found that licensee

interpretations of industry initiatives for addressing shutdown risk varied

greatly. This was demonstrated by the various licensee interpretations of

industry guidelines for declaring equipment "available."

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

Original signed by

Brian K.Grimes

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact: J.D. Wilcox, NRR

(301) 504-1262 Attachment:

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE
  • RSIB:DRIL:NRR *RSIB:DRIL:NRR *AC/RSIB:DRIL:NRR *D/DRIL:NRR

JDWilcox SSanders DNorkin CERossi

07/02/93 07/02/93 07/02/93 07/1 dJ3 (qy

  • RPB:ADM *OGCB:DORS:NRR *C/OGCB:DORS:NRR

NBeeson JLBirmingham GHMarcus/Wen

08/10/93 08/27/93 08/27/93

  • RSIB:DRIL:NRR

PSKoltay

07/06/93 DOCUMENT NAME: 93-72.IN

IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 Based on the five pilot inspections, the NRC inspection teams concluded that

NRC actions and industry initiatives have increased licensee awareness of the

risk associated with shutdown and low power conditions. The inspection teams

found that licensees were aware of the necessity for ensuring that required

systems be available and of the need to maintain the capability of backup

equipment during an outage. However, the inspection teams found that licensee

interpretations of industry initiatives for addressing shutdown risk varied

greatly. This was demonstrated by the various licensee interpretations of

industry guidelines for declaring equipment "available."

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

C-

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact: J.D. Wilcox, NRR

(301) 504-1262 Attachment:

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

KJ

Attachment

IN 93-72 September 14, 1993 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

NRC INFORMATION NOTICES

Information Date of

Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to

93-71 Fire at Chernobyl Unit 2 09/13/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

for nuclear power reactors.

93-70 Degradation of Boraflex 09/10/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

Neutron Absorber Coupons for nuclear power reactors.

93-69 Radiography Events at 09/02/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

Operating Power Reactors for nuclear power reactors

and all radiography

licensees.

93-68 Failure of Pump Shaft 09/01/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

Coupling Caused by for nuclear power reactors.

Temper Embrittlement

during Manufacture

92-16, Loss of Flow from the 08/23/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

Supp. 2 Residual Heat Removal for nuclear power reactors.

Pump during Refueling

Cavity Draindown

93-67 Bursting of High 08/16/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

Pressure Coolant for nuclear power reactors.

Injection Steam Line

Rupture Discs Injures

Plant Personnel

93-66 Switchover to Hot-Leg 08/16/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

Injection Following for pressurized water

A Loss-of-Coolant reactors.

Accident in Pres- surized Water Reactors

93-65 Reactor Trips Caused 08/13/93 All holders of OLs or CPs

by Breaker Testing for nuclear power reactors.

with Fault Protection

Bypassed

OL = Operating License

CP = Construction Permit