ML17250B262
| ML17250B262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Kewaunee, Point Beach, Prairie Island, Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1993 |
| From: | Gamberoni M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-89-10, NUDOCS 9306210140 | |
| Download: ML17250B262 (64) | |
Text
ga AK0V C'
~p0 o
"~A Docket No.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&0001 June 15, 1993 50-282, 50-306, 50-263, 50-266, 50-301, 50-305, and 50-244 LICENSEES:
Cooperative Efforts Group Facilities:
Prairie Island 1
8 2, Monticello, Point Beach 1
& 2,
- Kewaunee, and Ginna SUBJECT'RADED APPROACH FOR GENERIC LETTER 89-10, SAFETY-RELATED MOTOR-OPERATED VALVE TESTING AND SURVEILLANCE A meeting was held at NRC Headquarters on June 7,
1993, to discuss the Cooperative Efforts Group process to develop a graded Motor-Operated Valve (MOV) testing program.
The Cooperative Efforts Group consists of the following Utilities:
Northern States
A complete list of attendees is attached as Enclosure 1.
A copy of the presentation slides is attached as Enclosure 2.
The Cooperative Efforts Group graded MOV testing program combines the current MOV program scope and licensing design basis information and performs a
Probablistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and a deterministic review.
The MOV maintenance and testing results and non-Generic Letter (GL) 89-10 testing requirements are also reviewed.
The PRA review involves a process that reviews the MOVs that are in the GL 89-10 program that are not modeled in the PRA, the MOVs that are in the PRA that do not end up in the final sequence cutsets and the Generic Important Measures for all basic events.
The licensing design basis review identifies the MOVs in the GL 89-10 program, identifies the function the valve serves, and reviews the PRA results.
Representatives from Northern States Power and Wisconsin Public Service presented examples of the graded approach using the valve programs at Honticello and Kewaunee.
Results of the sensitivity study on the Monticello valve program concluded that 62 valves were considered to be not important and 14 valves were considered to be important.
The deterministic evaluation concluded that the shutdown cooling suction valves and the LPCI injection valves may be added.
Results of the sensitivity study on the Kewaunee valve program concluded that 39 valves were considered to be not important and 14 valves were considered to be important.
The deterministic evaluation added 9
additional valves.
The Cooperative Efforts Group's application of the graded approach results in two categories of valves, important valves and unimportant valves.
Testing of the important valves includes the initial static and dynamic testing with subsequent testing based on performance.
Testing for unimportant valves will be based on performance.
93062iOi40 930hi5 PDR ADOCK 05000244 P
PDR pgg t.if'jp ppj A~p~( j.D ppj~g'p
H
'I I
I 1
Based on this preliminary presentation, the staff acknowledged that the approach of assessing HOV safety significance and focusing resources commensurate with an MOV's safety significance was good.
The staff indicated that implementation and use of this approach would require further discussion.
The staff suggested that future discussions be delayed until the staff's position on grouping and scheduling is established and provided to the public.
At that time, another meeting could be scheduled, if determined appropriate by the Cooperative Efforts Group, to discuss application of the approach.
Original signed by
Enclosures:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Presentation Slides cc w/enclosures:
See next page Marsha Gamberoni, Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Rl RTI WDocket File-,
NRC 8 Local PDRs PD31 Reading File J.
Roe J. Zwolinski H. Gamberoni W. Shafer, RIII Dl TRIB TIDR (~f T. Hurley/F. Hiraglia C. Jamerson OGC T. McGinty J.
Norberg R.
Samworth A. Hansen J.
Hannon A. Gody, Jr.
E. Sullivan J.
Flack D. Fischer L. Harsh G. Grant, 17G21 W.
Dean cc:
Licensee 5 Service List J.
Partlow E. Jordan, J. Schiffgens
- 0. Rothberg T. Scarbrough
'. Johnson ACRS (10)
NUMARC OFFICE LA:PD III-1 PH: PDI II-1 LPH A PD:PDIII-1 NAME CJamerson 'K MGamberon AGody WDean b/i f/93 G / ('f/93
/
3
.& /s /93 DATE YES/NO E
NO YE /NO ES/NO COPY ORIGINAL OFFICE Y
FILENAME:
G: iWPDOCSi RIE ISLANDiPIHOVHTG.SUM
I T
l S
1
Northern States Power Company CC:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant J.
E. Silberg, Esquire
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.
W.
Washington DC 20037 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector Office 2807 W. County Road 75
. Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Site General Manager Honticello Nuclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Robert Nelson, President Hinnesota Environmental Control Citizens Association (MECCA) 1051 South McKnight Road St.
- Paul, Minnesota 55119 Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Commissioner of Health Minnesota Department of Health 717 Delaware Street, S.
E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Darla Groshens, Auditor/Treasurer Wright County Government Center 10 NW Second Street Buffalo, Minnesota 55313 Kris Sanda, Commissioner Department of Public Service 121 Seventh Place East Suite 200 St.
- Paul, Minnesota 55101-2145 Lisa R. Tiegel Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Suite 200 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Hr. Roger 0. Anderson, Director Licensing and Management Issues Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Mr. E.
L. Watzl, Site General Manager Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company Route 2
Welch, Minnesota 55089 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector Office 1719 Wakonade Drive East Welch, Minnesota 55089 Hr. Jeff Cole, Auditor/Treasurer Goodhue County Courthouse Red Wing, Hinnesota 55066
'l
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company Unit Nos.
1 and 2
CC:
1 Hr. Robert E. Link, Vice President Nuclear Power Department Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street, Room P379 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Ernest L. Blake, Jr.
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts
& Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Gregory J. Maxfield, Manager Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks Route 3
Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hills Farms State Office Building
- Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241
Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Wisconsin Public Service Corporation CC:
Hr. C. A. Schrock Manager - Nuclear Engineering Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Post Office Box 19002 Green Bay, Wisconsin 54307-9002 Foley 5 Lardner Attention:
Mr". Bradley D. Jackson One South Pinckney Street P.O.
Box 1497
- Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1497 Chairman Town of Carlton Route 1
- Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216 Mr. Harold Reckelberg, Chairman Kewaunee County Board Kewaunee County Courthouse
- Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hill Farms State Office Building
- Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Attorney General 114 East, State Capitol
- Madison, Wisconsin 53702 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Route ¹I, Box 999
- Kewaunee, Wisconsin 54216 Regional Administrator - Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Hr. Robert S. Cullen Chief Engineer Wisconsin Public Service Commission P.O.
Box 7854
- Madison, Wisconsin 53707
'L1
R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power, Plant CC:
Thomas A. Moslak, Senior Resident Inspector R.E.
Ginna Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, New York 14519 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Ms. Donna Ross Division of'Policy Analysis
& Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Nicholas S.
Reynolds Winston
& Strawn 1400 L St.
N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Ms. Thelma Wideman
- Director, Wayne County Emergency Management Office Wayne County Emergency Operations Center 7370 Route 31
- Lyons, New York 14489 Ms. Mary Louise Meisenzahl Administrator, Monroe County Office of Emergency Preparedness 111 West Fall
- Road, Room ll Rochester, New York 14620 Dr. Robert C. Mecredy Vice President, Nuclear Production Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
0 l
Enclosure 1
MEETING ATTENDANCE DATE:
June 7,
1993 LOCATION OWFN 8B11 PURPOSE COMPLIANCE WITH G.L. 89-10 USING A GRADED APPROACH FOR MOV TESTING/MAINTENANCE NAME
)r7 AFFILIATION
<<.g~~c~c; Em)~.
PHONE qcjv IVucPAcKA gT)'t I El P~wcPi AR.v'~ H-PR:V Ir.
kl a* i.
f <<~~L.- ~
I k.~C'C l'i 45/4 s
< (i~
~
C ]((
He~
As~~A~
F iP.
S Bks zo37 PwA'Icr. l=. Hi"itgi g/E 4JIG z
+la rid'5iii /apiiiKvi"i cubi
(< <) 3i~ z>~0 x
~~ /
I&i'$<c i ~ Po>i>c Ss',i'c 6 i CPA) 0'>3
1
NAME AFFILIATION p~ <~a i(
)
(
PHONE go2. - @7'- (gfg zuz Z P-tom c's 1444~4Z
- 87. - 26C n
AJ, 7~) om A~c n/A'1 "o i 0 - )3g /
o~ Qo/- g7 K~~d~n rv
'RCi'~S0 ro-'-
~
/./). p4 ACC De/
90r 09- /3+0
,i-'P) ~9)- 2c
p
)
~
Enclosure 2
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS GROUP/HRC MEETING 6/7/93 GRADED APPROACH FOR G.L. 89-10 MOV TESTING/MAIHTEHAHCE AGEHDA Introduction D. Antony NSP
~
Attendees
~
Cooperative Efforts Group
~
Purpose of this Meeting II.
Overview of Process R. Best, NSP
~
Licensing Design Basis Review
~
PRA Review III. Results of Examp1e Application
~
Monticello D. TiZZy, NSP
~
Kewaunee Z. Stanaszak, WPS IV.
Graded. Approach R. Best, NSP V.
Su@unary D. Ao.tony, NSP VI.
Questions and. Answers
il
ATTENDEE'S FROM COOPERATXVE EFFORTS GROUP NAME TXTLE PL2QFV OR COMPANY Doug Antony Bob Link Roger Anderson Charles Schrock VP Nuclear Generation VP Nuclear Power Dept Director Licensing
& Mgmt Xssues NSP Mgr Nuclear Engr Frank Stanaszak Randy Best Risk Assessment Supvr Sr Prod Engr Pat Michalkiewicz Plant Maint Engr Supvr
- Kewaunee, WP8 Kewaunee-,
WP8 Prairie Xsland, NSP Dean Tilly Stan Guokas Sr Prod Engr Proj Engr Nuclear Safety Analysis Monticello, NSP Point Beach, WEP Mark Flaherty Nuclear Safety
& Licensing Engr
- Ginna, RG&E George Wrobel 8'ulie Baker Don Baxa Dave Blanchard Peter Turi Mgr Nuclear Safety
& Licensing MOV Program Coordinator Prod Engr Principal Engineer Senior Project Manager
- Ginna, RG&E
- Ginna, RG&E Prairie Xsland, NSP TENERA TENERA
~ il
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS GROUP The Cooperative Efforts Group was formecX in September of 1992, when the following companies agreed. to share resources to reduce operating, maintenance and. capital expenditures.
Northern States Power Prairie Island I E IX Nonticello Wisconsin Electric Power Point Beach I E
XX Wisconsin Public Service - Kewaunee Rochester Gas
& Electric Ginna
l
These shared resources can he in the form of people, facilities, processes, or information.
There are many opportunities for benefit to the group.
o MOV and 89-10 Guidance o
Commercial Gxade Xnitiative o
Q-List Improvement O
Access Authorization o
General Employee Training o
Plant Training o
Audits o
0 E
M Cost Control
l
~
GENERIC LETTER 89-10 ISSUES 0
Curxent G.L. 89-10 pxogxam does not allow us to effectively manage our resources'people
& schedule) 0 The G.L. treats all safety-related MOV's as equally important.
The group has developed.
a process that provides rationale for a plant specific graded, approach for valve testing.
1 i
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING 0
Familiarize the staff with the graded response process.
0 Obtain reaction of the staff to this process.
Determine the proper steps to proceed with the graded approach.
OVERVIEW OF PROCESS TO DEVELOP A GRADED MOV TESTING PROGRAM Current hfOV Program Scope MOV Melnt.
- Testing History (Incl. GL 80-IO test results)
EOP fe Licensing Design Basis Info.
Non-CL 89-IO Testing Requirements Perform Deterministic Review Develop Graded hIOV Testing Program Implement Program I
I It.
I I
I Perform PRA Review Consider Plant Evolutions (e.g.,
test results, design fc EOP changes) impacting Craded Program S797900S 5393
I L
f?
LICENSING DESIGN BASIS REVIEW 89-10 Program Scope Basis for Inclusion Evaluate for a Graded
Response
L2 L.1 Identify MOVs in 89-10 program.
L.2 Identify function valve serves in:
Le3
~
PRA (See P.l in Figure 3-1)
Identify 89-10 criteria under which valve was selected for the program:
- Safety Related
- EOPs
- Important to safety
~Desi a Basis:
- RCS Pressure Boundary
- Containment Boundary
- Part 100 Release EOPs:
- Reactivity Control
- Secondary Heat Removal
- RCS Integrity
- RCS Inventory Control
- Containment Pressure Control
- Containment Isolation PRA:
- Core Damage
- Containment Failure
- Source Term Mitigation Identify specific License Commitments related to MOVs Design Basis/EOPs:
- Redundancy
- Diversity
- Recovery Potential
- Failure Mode
- Minimal Challenge
- Not Credited 10CFR50.59 Evaluation:
- Probability or consequences of previously analyzed accident or malfunction.
- Probability or consequences of new accident or malfunction.
- Margin of Safety.
S-727200-145 060393/D93C
J
PRA REVIEW PRA Level I/II Seq.
Cutsets Importance measures P.1 P.3 NUREG/CR 5140 Analysis P.4 P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 List MOVs that are in GL 89-10 program that are not modeled in the PRA.
Identify basis for not crediting each of these MOVs in preventing:
- Core Damage
- Containment Failure or in mitigating source term.
List MOVs that are in the PRA that do not end up in the final sequence cutsets.
Identify plant design features, systems, operating characteristics that cause MOVs to be truncated from results for:
- Core Damage
- Containment Failure
- Source Term Generate Importance Measures for all basic events:
- Fussell-Vesely
- Birnbaum
- Risk Achievement Worth
- Risk Reduction Worth Identify plant design features, systems, operating characteristics that cause MOVs to be below threshold:
- Core Damage
- Containment Failure
- Source Term Mitigation Quantify Level I/IIsequences with NUREG/CR-5140 MOV failure rates for valves which must operate at high delta-p:
- Containment Pressure
- Pump shutoff head As sensitivity study, requantify using original failure rate for valves with confirmed switch settings.
Identify MOVs that do not significantly affect results, even at NUREG failure rates.
" ""o3/D93C Identify plant design features, systems, operating characteristics that cause specific MOVs to be unimportant to:
- Core Damage
- Containment Failure
- Source Term
f
Monticello Valve Program
~ Valves in PRA 76
~ Valves in 89-10 Program 61
~.Valves not modeled in PRA 21 Results of sensitivity study (based on PRA only)
~ Of the 76 valves 62 were considered to be not important
~ Of the 76 valves 14 were considered to be important Valves that may be added as part of deterministic evaluation
~ Shutdown cooling suctions
~ LPCI injection valve
MOV SENSITIVITYRESULTS FOR MONTICELLO Baseline (1)
Modified (2)
Optimized (3) 2.6 E-5/yr ACTA COF'.4 E-3/year 2.6 E-5/yr 1.
Monticello IPE 2.
Common Cause Factor for MOV Design 4 Maintenance
(.087/d) added to high dp valves (31 MOV's) 3.
Common Cause Factor removed for Important MOV's (14) (i.e. those high FV or Birnbaum Importance)
Integrated Plan for Optimizing the Safety Benefits ofGI. 89-10 (MOV Testing Program)
Cooperative E+orts Group
+pendir B - Validation ofPJM Application Table B4B MOV IMPORTANCE RA5KINGS FROM BASELINE PRA Bhsic Eve CVMMO1754N RVM3VALVEN HVMMO2062N HVMMO2061N HVMMO2067N HVMMO2068N HVMM0203 6N IVMMO2096N IVMMO2078N IVMMO2106N IVMMO2107N IVMMO2101N IVMMO2100N RVMMO2015N CVM5354CCN CVMMO1753N HVMSLDALME IVMSLDALME CVMMO1742T CVMMO1742Z LVMMO2398C LVMMO2397C CVMMO1742F CVMMO1752F CVMMO1754F HVMMO2061F Bhsrc Eve PROBABILIIY 2.72E%3 2.92ECS 2.92E%3 2.92E%3 2.92E%3 2.92E%3 2.92E-03 2.92E%3 2.92E%3 2,92E<3 2.92E-03 2.92E%3 2.92E%3 2.92E%3 2.04EM 2.72E<3 7.31ECS 7.31EZS 2.28EZS 1.64EZS 2.92E-03 2.92E3 4.80E-06 4.80E46 4.80E46 4.80'vsszu:asm.v 1.15E~
6,62E43 5.35E43 5.35E43 5.29E43 5.29E43 5,29E43 5.22E43 5,22E<3 5.22E<3 5.22E%3 5.19E<3 5.19E43 5.75E44 1.22'.78EZS 6,32E45 5.36ECS 3.65E45 2.13EAS 6.72E46 S.SSE46 2,75'.75E46 2.75E46 1A4E46 RRW 1.41E+01 1.41E+01 1.42E+01 1.42E+01 1.42E+01 1.42E+01 1.42E+01 1.43E+01 1.43E+Ol 1.43E+01 1.43E+01 1.42E+01 1.42E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+Ol 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1AOE+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 BIRNBhUM 1.07EZS 5.21E+00 5.73EM 2.27E+02 4.65E46 2.83E+00 4.65E46 2.83E+00 4.59E46 2.81E+00 4.59E46 2.81E+00 4.59'.81E+00 4.53'.78E+00 4.53E-06 2.78E+00 1.51E46 2.78E+00 4.53EM 2.78E+00 4.51E46 2.77E+00 4.51'.77E+00 S.OOE%7 1.20E+00 1,52E46 1.60E+00 6.33E48 1.03E+00 2.19'.87E+00 1.86E46 1.73E+00 4.OS'.60E+00 3.30E46 2.30E+00 5.85E49 1.00E+00 4.82EM 1.00E+00 1.45EM 1.57E+00 1.45EM 1.57E+00 1.45E46 1.57E+00 7.60E47 1.30E+00 S-727200-145 B-35 060493/D93C
C
Integrated Plan for Optimizing the Safety Benefits ofGI. 89-10 (MOVTesting Program)
Coopera'tive Egorts Group Appendix B - Validation ofPM Application Table B4B MOVIMPORTANCE RANKINGSFROM BASELINE PRA (Continued)
Bmtc Eve HVMMO2062F HVMMO2035F HVMMO2068F HVMMO2036F HVMMO2067F HVMMO2063F HVMMO2034F CVMMO1750L Bt~stc Eve PROBABILIIY 4.80'.80E46 4.80E-06 4.80'.80E46 4.80E46 4.80E-06 2.40EM Fussy;Visa.v 1.44E46 1.44E46 1.44E46 1.44EM 1.44E46 1.44E46 1.44EM 4.20E%7 RRW 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01'.40E+01 1,40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 1.40E+01 B~UM RAW 7.60E%7 1.30E+00 7.60E<7 1.30E+00 7.60E47 1.30E+00 7.60E%7 1.30E+00 7.60E%7 1.30E+00 7.60EM 1.30E+00 7.60E47 1.30E+00 4.44EZ7 1.18E+00 Notes 1.
2, 3.
Above ranking sorted on Fussell-Vesely.
Total core melt frequency is 2.6E-5 per reactor year.
Total number of cutsets is 58,478.
S-727200-145 B-36 060493/D93C
~
0
Integrated Plan for Optimizing the Safety Benefits ofGI. 89-10 (MOVTesting Program)
Cooperative E+orts Group Section 4 - Developing a Graded Program for MOVTesting Table 4-2 MONTICELLO-MOV SUMhlMRY There are currently 76 MOVs identified in the GL 89-10 MOVIndex (62 MOVs are in the scope of testing, 14 have been excluded - see MonticeHo MOV Program document for justification).
MO-2010 MO-2032 MO-2071*
MO4043A MO-4047A MO~8*
MO-2011 MO-2407 MO-2110*
MO-4043B MCh4047B MO-2026*
MO-2<3A*
MO-2373 MO-4044A M(M)85A*
MO-2027*
MO-2-43B*
MO-2374 MCh4044B MCh4085B*
MO-1426 MO-1427**
MO-1428**
MO-14294*
MO-1430**
MO-4229 MO-4230 MO-1741*
MO-1742*
MO-1749*
MO-1750*
MO-1751 MO-1752 MO-1045**
MO-1048**
MO-1049**
MO-1088**
MO-1089**
MO-1133*4 MO-1134**
MO-1154**
MO-1155**
MO-1156*4 MO-1157**
MO-1614**
MO-1615**
MO-1850**
MO-1851**
MO-1087A**
MO-1087B**
MO-2034 MO-2035 MO-2063 MO-2075 MO-2076 MO-2080 MO-2102 MO-3502*
MO-2397 MO-2398 MO-1986 MO-1987 MO-1988 MO-1989 MO-2002 MO-2003 MO-2006 MO-2007
MO-2008 MO-2-53A MO-2009 MO-2-53B MO-2012 MO-2013 MO-2014 MO-2020 MO-2021 MO-2022 MO-2023 MO-2029 MO-2030 MO-2033 MO-1753 MO-1754 MO-2036
MO-2061 MO-2068 MO-2100 MO-2107 MO-2062 MO-2078 MO-2101 MO-2015 MO-2067 MO-2096 MO-2106
- 4. Shutdown/External Events/etc.:
(LATER)
- 5. MOVs that would receive most rigorous testing in a graded program'. (14):
MO-1753 MO-2061 MO-2068 MO-2100 MO-2107 MO-1754 MO-2062 MO-2078 MO-2101 MO-2015 MO-2036 MO-2067 MO-2096 MO-2106 MOVs identified within the MOV Index as excluded from the testing scope.
MOVs not contained within the MOVIndex.
S-727200-145 060493/D93C
1
Table B-SB GL 89-10 SENSITIVITYSTUDY FOR MONTICELLO hccidcnt Class Ih Tran - High RPV Press IB Station Blackout ID Tran-Low RPV Press II Loss ofCont Heat Removal IIIh LOCh - RPV Rupture IIIB LOCh - High RPV Presa HIC LOCh-LoeIRPV Press IIID LOCh-Vap Sup Failure IV hTWS V LOCh Outside Cont S-TOThL Baseline Case CDF (1) 3.1E06 1.2FAS 3.2FA7 13847 1.1847 3.0847 3.9E07 1.9E46 6.7F 10 1.&FAS 7.9846 2.6845 CDF (2) 2.3E45 2.3E05 6.&FA3 1.4844 9.&E45 3.6846 3.2844 3.0847 3.4846 1.4849 7.4E43 73845 7.4843 Modified Case Delta (4) 2.084S 1.1FAS 6.8843 9.&E05 3.2E44 0.0 ISE06 7.2F 10 7.4E43 6880$
7.4843
%Dif(5) 86.17 48.13 28791.91 574A4 41&.23 13.98 1369.84 0.00 632 0.00 31309.22 275.59 CDF (3) 3.1E46 1.2E4S 3.2847 2.7FA7 I.IE07 3.0847 3.9E47 2.9E07 3.4846 6.7E.IO 2.0E0$
7.9E46 2.884$
Delta (4) 1.0E48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0E49 ISFA6 0.0 1.6FA6 0.0 1.6FA6 otes 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
From Monticello IPE Common Cause Factor oF.087 applied to every MOVwhich operates under high dp conditions, where high dp conditions are MOVopening or closing against reactor pressure, containment pressure or pump dicharge pressure.
Common Cause Factor of.087 applied only to those MOVs below a speciTied importance.
"Delta" column is a comparison against the Baseline CDF.
% of total change in CDF.
0
Kewaunee Valve Program
~ Valves in PRA 63
~ Valves in 89-10 Program 89
~ Valves not modeled in PRA 28 Results of sensitivity study (based on PRA only)
~ Of the 63 valves 39 were considered to be not important
~ Of the 63 valves 14 were considered to be important based on PRA Valves that may be added as part of deterministic evaluation
~ 9 additional valves added
)
MOV SENSITIVITYRESULTS FOR KEWAUNEE Baseline (I) 6.7 E-5/yr Modified (2)
Optimized (3) 6.0 E-4/year 6.7 E-5/yr 1.
Kewaunee IPE 2.
Common Cause Factor for MOV Design R Maintenance
(.087/d) added to high dp valves 3.
Common Cause Factor removed for Important MOV's (i.e. those high FV or Birnbaum Importance)
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
Integrated Plan for Optimizing the Safety Benefits of GL 89-10 PROV Testing Program)
Cooperative Efforts Group Appendix B - Validation ofPRA Application Table B-4A MOV IMPORTANCE RANKINGS FROM BASELINE PRA BASIC EVENT 34RMV-CC400AWC 34RMV-CC400B-CC 34RMV-SI350A-CC 34RMV-SI351A-CC 34RMV-SI350B-CC 34RMV-SI351B-CC 06-MV-MS102XCC 34RMV-RHR11-CC 33RMV-SI208-FC 33RMV-SI209-FC 35-MV-CVC301-FO 05AMV-FW12A-C C
06-MV-MS102-CC 35-MV-CVC1FC 33RMVRHR300A-F 0
33RMVRHR300B-F 0
33IMVSI2A-CC 33IMVSI2B-CC BASIC EVENT PROBABILIIY 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.00476 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 FUSS ELL-YESELY 0.023771 0.023707 0.020425 0.020425 0.020218 0.020218 0.013286 0.009056 0.004683 0.004683 0,004034 0.003527 0.002868 0,002541 0.001723 0,001682 0.001513 0.001505 RRW 1.0243 1.0243 1.0209 1.0209 1.0206 1.0206 1.0135 1.0091 1.0047 1.0047 1.0041 1.0035 1.0029 1.0025 1.0017 1.0017 1.0015 1.0015 BIRNBAUM 0.000212 0.000211 0.000182 0.000182 0.00018 0.00018 0.000118 0.000081 0.000042 0.000042 0.000036 0.000031 0.000026 0.000036 0.000015 0.000015 0.000013 0.000013 4.1457 4.1372 3.7029 3.7029 3.6756 3.6756 2.7582 2.1984 1.6197 1.6197 1.5338 1.4667 1.3795 1.5314 1.228 1.2225 1.2002 1.1992 33IMVSI4A-CC 33IMVSI4B-CC 0.0075 0.0075 0.001397 0.001396 1.0014 0.000012 1.0014
~ 0.000012 1.1849 1.1847 33RMVSISA-FC 33RMV SISB-FC 34IMV-SI302A-CC 34IMV-SI302B-CC 0.00476 0.00476 0.0075 0.0075 0.001025 0.001022 0.000943 0.000937 1.001 1.001 1.0009 1.0009 0.000014 0.000014 0.000008 0.000008 1.2143 1.2137
- 1. 1248 1.124 S-727200-145 B-33 060493/D93C
4 1
~
~
Integrated Plan for Optimizing the Safety Benefits of GL 89-10 (MOVTesting Program)
Cooperati ve E+orts Group Appendix B - Validation ofPRA Application Table BRA MOV Importance Ranhngs From Baseline PRA (Continued)
BASIC EVENT 34RMV-RHR1A-CC 34RMV-RHR1B-CC 34RMV-RHIUA-CC 34RMV-RHR2B-CC 07-MVBT3A-OO 07-MVBT2A-OO 07-MVBT3AXOO 07-MVBT3BXOO 35-MV-CVC440-FO 36-MV-PR1ACC OSAMV-FW2A-CC OSAMV-FW2B-CC BASIC EVENT PROBABILIIY 0.0075 0,0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.00477 0.00477 0.00476 0.00476 0.0075 0.0165 0.0075 0.0075 FUSSELL-VESELY 0,000128 0.000128 0.000128 0.000128 0.000066 0.000044 0.00004 0.00004 0.000039 0.000034 0.000032 0.000032 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 9.32E47 6.17E47 5.57E47'.57E47 3.44E47 1.39E47 2.87E47 2.87E47 1.0169 1,0169 1.0169 1.0169 1.0139 1.0092 1.0083 1.0083 1.0051 1.002 1.0043 1.0043 otes 1.
2.
3.
Above ranking sorted on Fussell-Vesely.
Total core melt frequency is 6.685E-S per reactor year.
Total number of cutsets is 3734.
S-727200-145 B-34 060493/D93C
4'
Integrated Plan for Optimizing the Safesy Cooperative Egorts Group Benefits ofGI 89-10 pfOV Testing Program)
Section 4 - Developing a Graded Program for MOVTesting II Table 4-1 KEWAUNEE-MOV SUMMITRY There are currently 89 MOVs identified in the GL 89-10 MOV Testing Program.
SI-9A SI-3 CC-653 SW-1400 SI-11A SI-11B SI-20A SI-20B CC4A CC4B MS-2A MS-2B
- 1. MOVs included in program, LD40 SI-9B MD(R)-323B SW-903A SI-15A SW-903 C SI-15B SW-903D but not modeled in the PRA (28):
CC-600 LOCA-2A CC401A SA-7003A CCW1B CC412B CC412A MD(R)-323A
- SA-7003B SW-10A SW-10B
- SW-502
- SW<01A
- SW-601B
- FW-2A**
- SW-903B
- FW-2B**
- PR-1A AFW-10A AFW-10B MS-100A MS-100B
- *BT-2A
- BT-2B
- BT-3A
- BT-3B ICS-2A ICS-2B OICS-SA
- ICS-5B
- ICSWA
- ICSAB
- LOCA-2B
- RHRQOOA
<<RHR-400B SI-300A SI-300B CVC-440 RHR-1A RHR-1B RHR-2A RHR-2B,
- CVC-211
- CVC-212
- PR-1B
- SW-1300A
- SW-1300B
- MS-102 SI-2A
- RHR-300B SI-2B FW-12A SI-4A FW-12B SI-4B SI-5B
- SI-302A
- SI-208
- SI-302B
- SI-209
- CC~A
- RHR-300A
- CC-400B
- SI-350A 4SI-350B QSI-351A
- SI-351B CVC-301 CVC-1 SI-5A
- RHR-11
- 4. MOVs from Deterministic Assessment (ShutdoMtn/External Event'slCommitments, etc.),
(12):
- SW-502
- SW401A
- SW401B ICS-5A SI-9B SI-15A SI-15B ICS-5B ICSWA ICSAA RHR-400A RHR~B
- 5. MOVs that receive most rigorous testing in a graded program (23)
RHR-11 SW-502 ICS-SA CCPOOA SI-302A RHR-300A MS-102 SWWOIA ICS-5B CC-400B SI-302B RHR-300B SW-601B ICSWA SI-208 RHRQOOA ICSAA SI-209 RH BOOB MOVs expected to operate under high D/P conditions.
MOVs not included in MOVProgram.
SI-350A SI-350B SI-351A SI-351B S-727200-145 4-5 060493/D93C
~
k
\\
KEWAUNEE GL 89-10 SENSITIVITY STUDY RESULTS CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY (YR.1) ~
TABLE B-5A INITIATING EVENT BASE CASE(1)
X IMP(1)
MODIFIED(2)
OPTIMIZED(3)
STATIOH BLACKOUT 2.6800E 05 40.02K 4.4800E-05 1.8000E-05 7.40X 2.6800E-05 SMALL LOCA MEDIUM LOCA 1.3600E.05 8.1300E-06 20.39X 12.16X 1.9600E-04 1.8800E-04 32.37X 8.1300E-06 2.7300E-04 2.5900E-04 45.03X 1.3600E-05 LOSS OF OFF SITE POWER 4.6700E.06 6.99X, 2.0800E.05 1.6100E 05 3.43X 4.6700E-06 STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE 5.2900E-06 7.91X 1.2200E 05 6.9100E-06 2.02X 5.2900E-06 TRANSIENTS WITH MFW 2.7400E-06 4.10X 3.4400E-06 7.0000E-07 0.57X 2.7400E-06 LARGE LOCA LOSS OF INSTRUMENT AIR 1.9400E-06 2.0800E-06 2.91X 3.11X 4.5700E-05 4.3800E.OS 7.56X 1.9400E.06 2.0800E.06 2.1600E.06 8.0000E-OB 0.36X TRANSIENTS WITHOUT MFW 4.5900E.07 0.69X 6.4500E-06 5.9900E-06 1.07X 4.5900E-07 LOSS OF SERVICE WATER VESSEL FAILURE 4.3400E.07 3.0000E-07 0.65X 0.45X 6.2500E.07 1.9100E.07 0.10X 4.3400E-07 3.0000E.07 0.0000E+00 0.05X 3.0000E-07 LOSS OF ONE VITAL DC BUS 2 '100E-07 0.32X 1.9800E-07 1.3000E-OB 0.03X 2.1100E-07 STEAM LINE BREAK 1.0000E-07 0.15X 1.1000E-07 1.0000E-DB 0.02X 1.0000E-07 ATWS WITHOUT MFW 6.8500E-OB 0.10X 6.5100E-OB 3.4000E-09 0.01X 6.8500E-OB LOSS OF COMPONENT COOLING 3 '300E-08 0.05X 1.8500E-OB 1.1800E-OB 0 ~ OOX 3.0300E-OB INTERFACING SYSTEM LOCA 1.4000E-08 0.02X 1.1900E-08 2.1000E-09 O.OOX 1.4000E-08 S TOTAL 6.6900E-05 6.0500E-04 6.6900E-05 IH'IERHAL FLOODIHG 2.6300E-07 2.8500E-07 2.6300E-07 TOTAL 6.7100E-05 6.0500E 04 6.7100E-05 (1)
FROM KEWAUHEE IPE (2)
COMMOH CAUSE FACTOR OF.087 APPLIED TO EVERY MOV WHICH OPERATES UNDER HIGH 0/P CONDITIONS, WHERE THE HIGH D/P CONDITIONS ARE MOV OPENING OR CLOSING AGAINST REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM PRESSURE@
STEAM GENERATOR PRESSURE@
CONTAIHMEHT PRESSURE OR PUMP DISCHARGE PRESSURE.
(3)
COMMON CAUSE FACTOR OF.087 APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE MOVs BELOW A SPECIFIED IMPORTANCE.
RESULTS LISTED HERE ARE THE SAME AS THE BASE CASE SINCE ALL VALVES THAT OPERATE UNDER HIGH D/P CONDITIONS AND HAVE A IPE IMPORTANCE OF >0.09X WERE ASSUMED TO RECEIVE FULL SCOPE TESTING IN THE MOV PROGRAM.
)
~
~
APPLXCATXOM OP GBM3ED APPROACH MOV TESTING All MOVs:
Periodic inspection, maintenance, refurbishment per plant-PM procedures.
Section XX/Tech. Spec.
surveillance stroke testing Important Valves:
Initial dynamic testing-at design basis conditions Initial static testing.
Subsequent dynamic/static test frecpxency based.
on performance.
Unimportant Valves:
~
Need. for testing (static/dynamic), including frequency, will be based.
on performance.
gL
~
h I
PROPOSED TINE LIME 0'une 7, 1993 t'une 1993 Presentation to NRC.
Submit final process document to MRC.
August 1993 Approval of process docUment.
Develop new schedule and notification.
Est 4 months after approval of process
- document, dependent on completion of PEA.
b
~ t
~
t
0 G.L. 89-10 scope similax to Maintenance Rule MUIIIIARC implementation of Maintenance Rule focuses on risk-significant systems only Proposed.
MOV process is similar to the MUIHARC document 0
MRC PEA working group defined.
a graded. approach to QA Proposed.
MOV px'ocess is similax 0 Utilities cannot meet schedule for G.L. 89-10 due to size of program
U 4
J 0
C,