ML18152A557

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ECCS Repts (F-47),TMI Action Plan Requirements,Virginia Electric & Power Co,Surry Units 1 & 2, Technical Evaluation Rept
ML18152A557
Person / Time
Site: Surry  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 09/28/1982
From: Ludington G, Overbeck G, Vosbury F
FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To: Chow E
NRC
Shared Package
ML18141A083 List:
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.K.3.17, TASK-TM TER-C5506-297-2, TER-C5506-297-298, NUDOCS 8210010032
Download: ML18152A557 (14)


Text

r e

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ECCS REPORTS (F-47)

TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKET lliO. 50-280, 50-281 FRC PROJECT C5506 FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRCTASKS 297, 298 Prepared by F. W. Vosburjr Franklin Research Center Author: G. J. Overbeck 20th and Race Streets B. W. Ludington Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader:* G. J. Overbeck-Prepared for Nuclear. Regulatory Commission

  • Lead NRC Engineer: E. Chow Washington, O.C. 20555 September 28, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal llablllty or
  • responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus,* product or process disclosed In this report, or represents that its *use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Reviewed by: Approved by:

~ n k l i n Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The ~jl!lmin Fmnltlln P111mway, Phillil.. P&.19103 (215) 448-1000

@?Joo,00~,9 x4

  • /1; *,.

-- TER-CSSOG-297/298 CONTENTS Section ~ Page l INTRODUCTION l 1.1 Pur~~: of Review * . l 1.2 Generic Background. .. l 1.3 Plant-Specific Background. 2 2 REI/IE.W CRITERIA. 3 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION 0 . 4 3.1 Review*of completeness of the Licensee's Report 4 3.2 Comparison of ECC System Outages with Those of Other Plants.

  • 4 3.3 Review of Proposed Changes to Improve the Availability of ECC Equipment. 6 4 COR::LUSIONS. 9 5 _REFERENCES. 10 iii

~ n k l i n Research Center A Oi>nslon at The Fn,nid!n lnsllwte

e TER-C5506-297/298 FOREWORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the o.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical*

assistance in support of NRC operating reactor licensing actions. The technical evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC.

Mr * .G. .J. Over.beck# Mr. 2. w. Vosbury, and Mr * .B. w. Ludington contributed to the technical preparation of this report through a subcontract with WESTEC Services, Inc.

~nklin Research Center A OMsian o/ The Fn,nkiln lnotil!Jte

TER-CSSOG-297/298

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW This technical evaluation report (TER) documents an independent review of the outages of the emergency core cooling (ECC) systems at Virgina Electric and Power Company's (VEPCO) Surry Power Station Units land 2. The purpose of 0 this evaluation is to determine if the Licensee has submitted a report that is complete and satisfies the requirements of 'lMI Action Item II.K.3.17, *Report on outages of Emergency core-cooling Systems Licensee Repoi:t and Proposed Technical Specification Changes.*

1.2 GENERIC BACKGROUND FoJ lowing -th-e ..nu:ee Mil.e ..Isl.and Unit .2. acc.iaen.t.. -the .J3u.lletins and Orde.rs Task Force reviewed nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendors' small break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analyses to ensure that an adequate basis existed for developing guidelines for small break LOCA emergency procedures.

During these reviews, a concern developed about the assumption of the worst single failure. 'fypically, the small break LOCA analysis for boiling water reactors (BWRs) assumed a loss of the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system as the worst single failure. However, the technical specifications permitted plant operation for substantial periods with the BPCI system out of

.service with no limit on the accumulated outage time. There is concern not only about the HPCI system, but also about all Eec systems for whic~

-substantial outages might occur within the limits of the present technical

  • .* specificatione Therefore, to ensure that the small break LOCA analyses are

-. . ____ consistent with the actual plant response, the Bulletin and Orders Task Force

.recommended in NOREG-=0626 [l], *Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Sl!lall Break toss--of-COolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Term Operating License Applications,* that licensees of General Electric (GE)-designed NSSSs do the following:

-*submit a report detailing outage dates and lengths of the outages for

.-all ECC systemso The report should also include the cause of the outage (e.g., controller failure or spurious isolation). The outage data for ECC components should include all outages for the last five years of

~nkJin Research Center A OMsicn of,,,., Franldln lnslituce

e TER-CSS06-297/298 operation. The end result should be the quantification of historical unreliability due to test. a*nd* maintenance outages. This will establish if a need exists for cumul,ative outage requirements in technical specifications.* * ;:*. ;-...

  • Later, the recommendation was incorporated into NUREG-0660 [2], *NBC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the 'IMI-2 Accident,* for GE-designed NSSS's as TMI Action Item II.K.3.17. In NUREG-0737 [3], *clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,* the NRC staff expanded the action item to include all light water reactor plants and added a requirement that licensees propose changes that will improve and control availability of ECC systems and components. In addition, the contents of the reports to be submitted by the licensees were further clarified as follows:
  • The report should contain (l) outage dates and duration of outages:

(2) cause of the outage; (3) ECC systems or components involved in the outage1 and (4) conective action taken.*

l.3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND On li'abruary 27, 1981 [41, VEPCO submitted a report in response to NUREG-0737, Item I!.K.3.17,-*Report on Outages of Emergency*core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes.* The report submitted by VEPCO covered the period from.January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1980 for Surry Power Station Units land 2. VEPCO did not propose any

.changes to control and improve the availability of specific ECC equipmenta

~nklin Research Center A OMsion of The Franldln Institute

TER-C5506-297/298

2. REVIEW CRITERIA The Licensee's response to NUREG-0737, .Item II.K.3.17, was evaluated against criteria provided by the NRC in a letter dated July 21, 1981 [5]

outlining Tentative Work Assignment* F; Provided as review criteria in Reference 5, the NRC stated that the Licensee's response should contain the following information:

l. A report detailing outage dates, causes of outages, and lengths of outages for all ECC systems for the last 5 years of operation. This report was to include the ECC systems or components involved and corrective actions taken. Test and maintenance outages were to be included.
2. A quantific~tion of the historical unavailability of the ECC systems and components due to test and maintenance outages.
3. Proposed changes to improve the availability of ECC systems, if necessary.

The type of information required to satisfy the review criteria was clarified by the NRC on August 12, 1981 [6]. Auxiliary systems such as component cooling water and plant service water systems were not to be

. considered in determining the unavailability of ECC systems. Only the outages of the diesel generators were to be included along with the primary ECC system outages. Finally, the *1ast five years of operation~ was to be loosely interpreted as a continuous 5-year period of recent operation.

On July 26, **1982 [7], the NRC further clarified that the purpose of the

~ review** was to identify those licensees that have experienced higher ECC system outages than other licensees with similar NSSSs. The need for improved reliability of diesel generators is under review by the NBC. A Diesel r* -

.Generator Interim Reliability Program has been proposed to effect improved I ~

.performance at operating plants. As a consequence, a comparison of diesel generator outage information within this review is not required.

~nklin Research Center

  • A Oiviaioli cl Th<! Fl'llMlin lnJlibite

TER-CSSOG-297/298

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3ol RE.VIEW OF COMPLETENESS OF THE LICENSEE'S REPORT The ECC systems at VEPCO's Surry Power Station consist of the following four separate systems:

o accumulators o safety injection system (SIS) o recirculation spray (RS) system o refueling water storage tank (RNST).

In Reference 4, VEPCO also included systems and components that support the ECC systems in carrying out their design functions under various accident conditions. The support systems are:

o service water system o emergency diesel generators o changing pump component cooling.system.

For each ECC system outage. event, VEPCO provided the outage dates, the

.duration, and the cause, plus sufficient description to discern the corrective action taken. Maintenance and surveillance testing activities were included

-in the ECC system outage data. The results of VEPCO's review w~re provided for the period f;om January l, 1976 to December 31, 1980 for Surry Power Station Units land 2.

--:-.: : .Based on the preceding discussion, it has been established that VEPCO has

.-submitted a report which fulfills the requirements of review criterion l without exception.

COMPARISON OF ECC SYSTEM OUTAGES WITH THOSE-OF OTHER PLANTS

- .. - - - .:. .  ;'l'he_outages of ECC systems can be categorized as (l) unplanned outages due

_: ** ~ : ~, _.: - : , : ., _*:. to equipment failure or (2) planned outages due to sur:veillafice testing or

-~-" c: __ :,*.:a.preventive maintenance. Unplanned outages are reportable as Licensee Event

.. aepoi:ts: (LERs) under the technical specifications~ Planned outages for periodic

~ n k l i n Research Center A [);vision cl The Franldln lnsutuie

e TER-CSSOG-297/298 maintenance and testing are not reportable as LERs. The technical specifications identify the type and quantity of ECC equipment required as well as the maximum allowable outage times. If an outage exceeds the maximum allowable time, then the plant operating mode is altered to a lower status consistent with the available ECC system components still operational. The purpose of .. ,the technical.

specification maximum allowable outage times is to prevent _extended plant operation without sufficient ECC system protection. The maximum*al~owabl~ outage time, specified per event, tends to limit the unavailability of an ECC systei:a.

However, there is no cumulative outage time limitation to prevent repeated planned and unplanned outages from accumulating extensive ECC system downtime.

Unavailability, as defined in general terms in WASH-1400 [8], is the proba-bility of a system being in a failed state when required. However, for this review, a detailed unavailability analysis was not required. Instead, a prelim-inary estimate of the unavailability of an ECC system was made by calculating the ratio of the ECC system downtime to the number of days that the plant was in o~ration during the last 5 years. To simplify the tabulation of operating time, only the period when the plant was in operational Mode l was considered*. This simplifying assumption is reasonable given that the period of time that a plant is starting up, shutting down, and cooling down is small compared to the time it is operating at power. In addition, an ECC system was considered down whenever*

an ECC system component was unavailable due to any cause.

It should be noted that the ratio calculated in this manner is not a true measure of the ECC system unavailability, since outage events.are included that appear .to compromise system performance when, in fact, partial or full function

  • . -..Of the s.ystem would be expected *. FUll function of an ECC system would be expected if -th~.design capability of the system exceeded the capacity required for the system .to *fulfill its safety functiono For example, if an ECC system consisting
  • ..of *-two :loops with multiple pumps in ea.ch loop is* designed so th~t only one pump in each loop is required to satisfy core cooling requirements, then an outage of
a. :s:ingle pump would not prevent the system from performing its safety function.

)

.In-addition, the actual ECC system unavailability is a function of planned and unplanned outages of essential support systems as well as of planned and

.unplanned outages of primary ECC system componentso In accordance with the

~ n k l i n Research* Center A ONisioll cl The Franklin lnsdlUte

e TER-CSS06-297/298 clarification discussed in Section 2, only the effects of outages associated with primary ECC system components and emergency diesel generators are considered in this review. 'lbe inclusion of all outage events assumed to be true ECC system outages tends to overestimate the unavailability, while the exclusion of support system outages tends to underestimate the unavailability, of ECC systems and components. Only a detailed analysis of each ECC system for each plant could improve the confidence in the calculated result. Such an analysis is beyond the intended scope of this report.

The planned and unplanned (forced) outage times for the four ECC systems (accumulators, SIS, RS, RWST) and the emergency diesel generators were identified from the outage information in Reference 4 and are shown in number of days and as percentage of plant operating time per year in Tables 1 and 2 for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2, respectively. outages that occurred during nonoperational periods were eliminated as were those caused by failures or test and maintenance of.support systems. Data on plant operating conditions were obtained from the annual reports~ *Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience* [9-12], and from monthly reports, *Licensed Operating Reactors Status sll1unary Reports* (13]. The remaining outages were segregated into planned and unplanned outages based on VEPCO's description of the causes. The outage periods for each category were calculated by summing the individual outage durations.

Observed outage times of various ECC systems at Surry Power Station Units l and 2 were compared with those of other J:WRs. Based on this comparison, it was concluded that the historical unavailability of the accumulators, RWST, SIS, and RS.systems has been consistent with the performance of those systems throughout L

.the industry. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean for all .four ECC systems, a_ssuming that the underlying- unavailability is distributed

lognormally. The outage times were also consistent with existing technical specifications. 'l'he outages of the emergency diesel generators were not included in this comparisone

~ 3;3-.::REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPROVE '?HE AVAILABILITY OF ECC' EQUIPMENT

_In Reference 4, VEPCO did not propose any changes to improve the avail-ability of ECC systems and components"

~ n k l i n Research Center A Division of The Fn,nldln lnAlilllte

_I, I ,,.1. i.i' l,, .ii. ,  ! . ,II ,,

,w-~

11.::::i

I ;;o Ti
!ble 1. Planned and Unplanned (Forced) Outage Times for Surry Unit 1*

m ID J!

_:rri Year Days of Plant Opeution Accumulators outage in Dais Forced Planned SIS Outa!ije in Da]l&

Forced Planned Reci~

Outa9e in Dall:&

~ Planned RHST Outa9e in Da]l&

Forced Planned Diesel Generator Outa9e in Da:ts Forced Planned JQ r,;::i I= 1976 250.5 0.25 o.oo 0.01 o.oo o.oo 1.69 o.oo o.oo 4.72 3.50 (0.101) (<O.OU) (0.671) (l. 881) (1.401) 1977 277.6 o.o o.oo 0.02 o.oo o.oo 1.50 o.oo o.oo o.oo 2.00 (0.011) (0. 541) (0.721) 8 1979 262.2 o.o o.oo 0.09 o.oo o.oo J.31 o.oo . o.oo 0.04 2.13

..JI e (0.031) (0. 501} (0.021) (0.811) 1979 126.9 o.o o.oo O.OO* o.oo o.oo 0.75 o.oo o.oo o.oo 1.38 (0.591) (1.091) 1980 151.B 0~02 o.oo 0.5<< o.oo o.oo 0.94 o.oo o.04 0.09 1.38 (O.OlU (0.341) (0.601) (0.031) (0.061) (0.871)

Total 1075.0 0.21 o.oo 0.66 o.oo o.oo 6.19 o.oo 0.04

. ~.

  • ' 4.85 10.39 e

qo.on>> (0.061)) (0.581) (<0.011) .. (0.451) (0.971)

~

~Numbers !n parentheses !ndic~te system outage ti~e as a percentage bf total plant operating t-ime.

~

I.II I.II 0

0\

I N

ID N

ID CD

I ,1,, i *,I: II Ii *I

,. II Table 2. Planned and Unplanned (Forced) Outage Tim*s for Surry Unit 2*

Acou11111nlatoirs sxs Recir RWS'l' Diesel Generator Days of Plant outage in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Operation Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned 1976 191.3 o.u o.oo 1.06 o.oo o.oo 0.94 o.oo o.oo o.oo 1.00 (0.061) (0.551) (0.491) (0.521) 2419.3 o.oo o.oo 0.17 o.oo o.oo 0.75 o.oo o.oo o.oo 2.00 (0.071) (0.301) (0.801) 1978 302.0 o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo 1.69 o.oo o.oo o.oo 2.50 (0.561) (0 .831) 8 CID i 1Sl79 o.oo o.oo o.oo 0,00 o.oo 0.19 o.oo o.oo o.oo 0.63 (0.561) (1.851) 1980 116.8 o.oo o.oo o.33 0.25 o.oo 0.13 o.oo o.oo 0.09 1.50 (0.241) (0.181) (0.831) (1.101)

Totd 9U.5 o.u o.oo 1.56 0.25 o.oo 4.70 o.oo o.oo o.oo 7.63 (0.01%) (0.171) (0.031) (0.511) (0.841)

  • 1Nlu!lbe1tlil in pHentbeses indicate system outage t!me as a pel'centage of total plant operating time.

TER-CSS06-297/298

4. CDNCLUSIONS Virgina Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) has submitted a repor~ for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 that contains (l) outage dates and duration of outages, (2) causes of the outages, (3) ECC systems or components involved in the outages, and (4) corrective actions taken. It is concluded that VEPCO has fulfilled the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17. In addition, the historical unavailability of the ECC systems has been consistent with the performance of those systems throughout the industry. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean for all ECC systems. 'rhe outage.times were also consistent with existing technical specifications.

~ n k l i n Research Center A OMsion cl The Franklln lnsdtute

\

e TER-CSSOG-297/298

5. REFERENCF.S
      • -t
l. NUREG-0626
  • Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break JAss-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Term Operating License Applications*

NRC, January 1980

2. NOREG-0660 "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the 'l'MI-2 Accident~

NRC, March 1980

3. NUREG-0737
  • ciarification of '!'MI Action Plan Requirements*

NRC, October 1980

4. B. R. Sylvia (VEPCO)

. .Letter J:o B. .R. Denten (.Dixecto.r of Nuc.lear Reactor Regulation4' NRC)

Subject:

"Submitta1 of Information "Required by NOBEG-0737 VEPCO, February 27, 1981

5. J. N. Donohew, Jr. (NRC)

Letter to or. s. P. carfagno (FRC). -

Subject:

Contract No.

NBC-03-81-130, Tentative 'Assignment F NRC, July 21, 1981

6. NBC Meeting between NRC and FRC.

Subject:

C5506 Tentative Work Assignment" F, Operating Reactor. PORV and ECCS Outage Reports August 12, 1981

7. NRC Meeting between NRC and FRC.

Subject:

Resolution of Review Criteria and Scope of work July 26, 1982 8 WASH-J.400

.*Reactor Safety Study*

NRC, October 1975

9. NUREG-0366 "Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1976~

NRC, December 1977 10 .. NUREG=0483

  • Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1977a NRC, February 1979

=10-

  • ~ n k l i n Research Center A OMsion ol The Frankiln lnstitulfl

e e TER-C5506-297/298 ll. NU:REG-0618

  • Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1978*

NRC, December 1979 l2e NUBEG/CR-1496

  • Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1979*

NRC, May l98l l3o NUBEG-0020 "Licensed Operating ~actors Status Summary Report*

Volume 4, Nos. 1 th,:ough 12, and Volume 5, No. l NBC, December 1980 through January 1981

- -------*-- - --- ---- -- --- -- - - - - - - - - ~-------- --- ------- -- -- -- ------ ---- ------- --- - - - ---- -- --- - -* -~--- --------- -- ---- --~--- -- -- - -- ----

ll

~nklin Research Center A oi.;...,,. of The Franklin lnautute