Documented safety analysis

Documented safety analysis Documented safety analysis means a documented analysis of the extent to which a nuclear facility can be operated safely with respect to workers, the public, and the environment, including a description of the conditions, safe boundaries, and hazard controls that provide the basis for ensuring safety. 

The achievement of proper operating conditions, prevention of incidents, or mitigation of incident consequences, resulting in protection of workers, the public, and the environment from nndne radiation hazards. This covers nuclear power plants as well as all other nuclear facilities, the transportation of nuclear materials, and the use and storage of nnclear materials for medical, power, industry, and military uses. In addition, there are safety issues involved in products created with radioactive materials. The Office of Nuclear and Facility Safety establishes and maintains the Department of Energy (DOE) reqnirements for nuclear criticality safety. The DOE s detailed requirements for criticality safety are contained in Section 4.3 of the DOE Order 420.1, Facility Safety. Criticality safety requirements are based on the documented safety analysis leqnired by 10 CFR 830, Subpart B. 

To support this enforcement process, DOE developed several DOE orders, guides, and manuals. These documents were to be used by the contractors to prepare documented safety analysis (DSA) and technical safety requirements (TSRs). 

As stated in DOE-STD-3009-94, a preparation guide for U.S. DOE Nonreactor Documented Safety Analysis reports, "It is not the intention of the DSA to cover safety as it relates to the common industrial hazards that make up a large portion of basic OSHA regulatory compliance." Therefore, in the context of 10 CFR 830, Subpart B requirements, the scope of HAZWOPER is taken to include those hazards, associated controls, and safety and health (S H) programs that must be identified and maintained within a Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 facility s safety basis. 

The modified FMEA approach has been used by the API to develop RP14C. In this document ten different process components have been analyzed and a Safety Analysis Table (SAT) has been developed for each component. A sample SAT for a pressure vessel is shown in Table 14-4. The fact that Tables 14-3 and 14-4 are not identical is due to both the subjective natures of a Hazard Analysis and FMEA, and to the fact that RP14C is a consensus standard. However, although the rationale differs somewhat, the devices required are identical. (The gas make-up system in Table 14-4 is not really required by RP14C, as we shall see.)... 

In addition to these requirements, if a PrHA is conducted to satisfy safety analysis requirements of DOE Order 5480.23, "Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports," the resolution of action items must be documented to obtain approval of the safety analysis and the startup of the facility. In this case, the contractor may be required to satisfy specific safety criteria before an action item is considered resolved. 

The data analysis included evaluating the number, impact, profile, and causes of reactive incidents. CSB examined more than 40 data sources (e.g., industry and governmental databases and guidance documents safety/loss prevention texts and journals and industry association, professional society, insurance, and academic newsletters), focusing on incidents where the primary cause was related to chemical reactivity. 

The result of the safety analysis needs to be documented with an assessment of normal operation as well as the identified upsets and the measures adopted (see section D). Tables 1 and 2 can be used for identification of possible upsets (failures). 

Initiate the Incident Action Plan Safety Analysis (HICS Form 261) to document hazards and define mitigation. ... 

This safety analysis is part of the licensing documents and must be revised in the case of new safety-technological findings. 

Safety Analysis—A documented process to (1) provide systematic identification of hazards within a given DOE operation (2) describe and analyze the adequacy of the measures taken to eliminate, control, or mitigate identified hazards and (3) analyze and evaluate potential accidents and their associated risks. 

DOE 0 420.1 Facility Safety Requires fire hazard analysis and natural phenomena analysis for all facilities. For Hazard Category 2 or 3 nuclear facilities only, requires a criticality safety evaluation. Criticality Safety Analysis Fire Hazard Analysis Effects of natural phenomena hazards on facility systems, structures, or components (SSCs) included as part of safety analysis documented in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), Basis for Interim Operation (BIO), or Auditable Safety Analysis (ASA). 

The project specific regulatory requirements include also specification of documentation that is to be submitted for licensing evaluation in addition to the amendment to the existing plant Final Safety Analysis Report, sueh as a series of Topical Reports addressing specific safety issues. 

Examples of such events are reactivity accidents and steamline breaks which are regularly analysed at zero reactor power. The quality of the safety analysis report directly influences the quality of NPP documentation, technical specifications and EOPs in particular. 

Operating experience with technical plants shows that errors cannot be avoided even if plant designers and operators are very experienced. Therefore it makes sense to maintain a documentation of safety-relevant incidents like for example [23, 50], which may be one of the bases of a safety analysis. 

---