ML19332B856
| ML19332B856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/07/1989 |
| From: | Wohl M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911210078 | |
| Download: ML19332B856 (62) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:., L~C .p-
- c
'{' $o UNITED STATES a 0 I,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y > e. -[ -l W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 %... +.o November 7,1989 = 1;Ef'.0RANDUli F0F: Jose A. Ccivo Chief A Technical Specifications Branch Livision of Operational Events Assessnent. ll;<R THUR: David C. Fischer, Section Leadct Special Projects Section Technical Specificationt Eranch p FR0li: '!!illard L. Wohl, Reactor Engineer Special Projects Section Technical Specifications Branch iltJECT: SUl'l'/.EY OF OCTCEEr. 4, 1989 NFC-INEUSTRY TECHNICAL SPECIFICATILI:S litPROVEliEFT PROGRI.11 l:EETIllG 01: 01SK-BASED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATICLS Iembers of OTSB and cur contractors from S/IC and BNL nrt with perscrnc1 f rom i Pacific Cas and Llectric Ccrpany (PGLE) and Ph11adc1phia Electric Company (PECo) to discuss their contiruing risk profile date collection efforts, to discLss utility comments on several itcrs identified at the August 3 workii: group mecting, and to observe a cen.onstration of the Plant System Monitor (gPSM) j presented by the Electric Fcwer Research Institute (EPRI). FCLE and PECc presented ovcrviews of the types of data they have been able to collect. The data presented by PECo for the Limerick plant showed no tin;e perioc;s when more than one component was reinoved from service. Howt u r, the ' data presented Ly TG&E show d several instances where multiple component outages i.ed occurred. The diffetcnces in the results shown by the two utilities is perhaps inoicative of the cifferent types of information used to gertrate the catt. The PECo data was based on the renc ui from service of trains 01 systelas f ound-tn contribute to plent risk as determined by the Limcrick PRA. The types of equipment included in the PG&E data were more r extensise and included data for components that may not have been inoperable E (but were removed frora service) and compor.chts that apparently could have been f returned to service quickly if needed. The existence of the multiple component l' outages in one set of data, Lnd the number of such outage combinations, support the desirability of a. living-PRA, quasi real-tin;e risk model. The p differences in the data collection methods used need to be analyzed to I determine whether the data differences are due to plant-specific differences .or if the scope of the data collection at each plant was responsible for the -data differences. If the differences in the data collection methods and the spectrura of data collected are the reasons for the differences, the definition of the appropribte cata to be included in a quasi real-tine risk-based set of j Technical Specifications will have to be determined in the pilot study. Additional efforts beins pursued to incorporate risk perspectives into Technical Specificntions were also discussed at the n.eeting. PG&E presenteo (in cenjunction with Westinchouse) a proposal to evaluate the concept of flex specs, specific Technical Specifications with pre-planned risk-based alternatives. In S.CE consulter.t outliticc e diesel generator Technical Specification evaluation for the San Onofre 2/3 Units. This project is an example of a proposed linc /I iten,imprcvoment through the use of probabilistic methodclogy, fI '8911210078 891107 .h (((""M gy I PDR -ORG NRRB g
s A 4 - E'- November 7,1989 l I The afternoon was reserved for a presentation of the PSM by EPRI. Although directed primarily toward evaluating plant availability, the PSM has several l 1 cepabilities of interest to the Risk-Based Technical Specification Working Group. - Among.these is the on-line capability to monitor system, train,. and component availability. A routine for evaluating _the Technical Specification status of the plant zis built into the system. It identifies the applicable LCO conditions in force for the current plant configuration and for projected . configurations. On a system by system basis the PSN is able to recalculate the impact on system availabilities of change in component status. The PSM contains models for several systems not normally explicitly modelled in a PRA that may need to be modelled in a Technical Specification model. Additionally, PSM models these systems for all operating n' odes, r.ot just power operation. L Our next working group meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-January 1990. t By then we should have received input from all participating utilities on the proposed risk-based criteria and the costs associated witi. the implenientation of.the pilot program. Oricinal Syned By Millard L. Wohl, Reactor Engineer i Special Project Section i Technical Specifications Branch, DOEA/NRR
Enclosures:
1. Plant Risk Data - PEco 2. Plant Configuration Risk - PG&E 3.. Equipment Out of Service - PG&E 4.- Reliability-Based Tech Spec - PG&E/ Westinghouse 5. Diesel Generator TS Inprovements - SCE/ ERIN 6. PSH.EPRI DISTRIBUTION: Please see attached P DOCUl!ENT KAME: !!!!!S MTG 10/4 RISK-BASES TS Oh: EA:NRR OTSB OEA:NRR ttLWo ?N OCFischer 11/07/89 11/ 7 /89 o l b .j
p u " (b ' . w. i-V [I ' n[' November 7,: 1989 .LISTLIPUTION: . TEMurley/JH5niezek FJMiraglie i 0MCrutchfield. SAVarge CERossi' A BKGrimes !) TJCongel !~ FPGillespie 'JERichardsor-s ACTh6dani JWRoe j ~ GMHolahan BDLiaw l h T l CHBerlir.ger - CJHaughney ELJordan ~ CIGrin.es S!!ewberry. GTSB Members OTSB R/T 00EA R/r mcentraEE11esa FCF i f .i. f i l l 1 *] e I ,i 4 l i: w w w ~
-h? { g/ g ?.' , P E C c,. lummae s). ) %nu cof: s e-c /y { iono .1 % OF ACCEPTABLE CORE DAMAGE FREQ. SPENT j 4-9/1/89 1 80 78.8 'a 77.4 1 ROLLING 12 M ON T H TOTAL -( 70 i 64.5 60 l u 50 L t ' ' ^ 40 Ir i - 30 c -f [ 1 20 b l t l 10 - I O' A S' O N D J F M J J A M A 1968 SMM 1989 Cpfeswed. =0. (. l l: e l' i j '_ . ~
y e LGS SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITIES l' . MAY.. 1989. l-I CDF (E-6) 20 RCIC 17.2-l ( 67.5hr s.16.2%) - Ah 1 15 ~ l 1 10 4 1 DiV 11 BATT. 7.0 (6.5 hrs.16%) BASE - 5.9 9 m l 5 4 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 DAY 2
= Th h_'?_ ~ l1... a. -' M .."c: =;.;.- jg45 i- ~ ' ". .s L LGS SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITIES JUNE 1989 CDF (E-6) i 20 = i 15 10 l 8 RHRSW LP 6.4 DI V IV B AT T. 7.0 (1hr. 01%) (7.5h rs,.18%) BASE = 5.9 { s t i e i l O' 0 2 -4 6 8 10 12 .14 16 18 20 22 24 28 30 26 i DAY i i i = g, g g y e p p ps-. rg'C g g _m.mg.q. r9 qs'we"g..q ,..ws 4g,.+4, g e p..g sips.
[ -Q, L'_ ^ = .4 - ;< - ^ s LGS SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITIES ~ v JULYE1989 CDF. (E-S) ~ RCIC 17.2 ~' [ -(5.Shrs 1.40%) a 15 ~ 4 10 ~ i . i l D11 DG 6.0 D12 DG 6.0 D14 DG 6.0 - D13 DG 6.0 j (2Ehrs,.OO5%) (13 hrs 025) (16 hrs. 030) ( '.5 hrs 2.015) 5 l BASE = 5.9 1 ? i l \\ O O. l 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19. 21 23 25 27 29 31 i i i ' DAY j l l u
q 'M, w a, p
- . i
- :
,%a
- - g -
.a : { l'e ',.[ ~ ; , y O-' g, 'i I g ';. ~' ~.j .,1 "\\ E LGS SYSTEM ~UNAVAILABILITIES j 1 AUGUST 1989 CDF (E '6) 20 4 HPCI 19:2 4 (45 hrs.12.6%) i e 15 t i I 10 J D14 DG 6.0 [ BASE-5.9 ( 40.5n r s,0.1%) i i 5 - -~ - = 0 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
- 25. 27 29 31 t
DAY ~ i j. s.-
..-t .~. . i{'... 1 F ;_ ;.a_i ' s ' ( R l d R' UNAVAILABILITIES TECH. SPEC. VS PRA-- C D F(-6) -' '40 HPCI- . i < ^ RCIC 35 - - - =-- P L (I) t _,.. >,. -. : A 4.~w... n-_n.... r i
- k
,.h , ~,, s ... ~ i..-..,,. e. CS -20 RCIC -HPCI HPCI x (14 d) (I) (14 - d) 15 c l:. 2 CS l> El 0 ^ l (I) BASE CS BASE sump e-. g neeva.. e .ea+
- .u.ame,we,..sy e m ee m
( (7 d) 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAY s W l. 1 l ~, g
(;',!6? h3 _ lS l '. g ^ 3 f. .s....- a.+.- M, j l y1> r ' f. <ii. : .. K. ~ P n UNAVAILABILITIES 4 ~ !CDF(-6)- TECH. SPEC. VS PRA v 40 ~ y u'- l 35 HPCI SLC 30 S (8 hrs) 25 - ~ - ~ - - - 20 SLC HPCI s 'l5.. (8 hrs) (14 d) 10 /2 BASE BASE -5 0 4' O 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAY y s- ~ o w
.----,----,---..----,..--n
- -.. w g
. ~.. .. ~ s ?
- 4 1
Endauci -. i m .' ".. PG 46 4 l i 4 --),. a x i 1- - PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY - i 4 PRELIMINARY-EVALUATIONS OF PLANT CONFIGURATION RISK e y y b R. L. THIERRY s 4 L .~). l :^ 5.. m....... e i..m. c....., y w ~r
y, gg ~ Mf1 %...e : 14 4 Y g l' ',3 -I GOAL OF TECH SPEC-- RISK ASSESSMENT F'ROGRAM 9^
- )
+i e .3 VIEW PLANT CONFIGURATION TO DETERMINE (BY A PLANT j O., GFECIFIC PRA) THE IMPACT OF' EQUIPMENT STATUS CHANGE .w., v. ON RISK 'E 4 hI l '[ ' s a 9 e a g .!(S, Paolfis Oes and Electrie company
- ~ - [j,;*:
- ,J.
- e"
^ 9.c l E -RISK BASED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PILOT PROGRAM i e MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS i q e RISK CRITERIA e APPLICATIONS: SUBTLETIES a LIMITATIONS CONSERVATI'l2 ASSUMPTIONS PLANT CONFIGURATIONS j e
SUMMARY
4 -Peelfle See eng Eleettle Ceepony a .. a
c:5 , g.. 4 + f" E iMANPOWER REQUIREMENTS: L e DAILY PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA COLLECTION. 4 e' SCREENING' BASED ON PRA INPUT- -e RESEARCHiCONFIGURATION DETAILS SURVEILLANCE TEST 4 ACTION REQUEST CLEARANCE REQUEST e ~PRA'MODEL IMPACTS-BOUNDARY CONDITIONS s DEPENDENCIES -SUCCESS CRITERIA QUANTIFICATION .e MINIMUM MANPOWER-e 1.5 DEDICATED ENGINEERS j LPLANT KNOWLEDGE PRA KNOWLEDGE COMPUTER MODEL REVIEW OPERATIONS INVOLVEMENT sI_-- Ii. ,,..n....... s..,i. c.....,
,,.O '1'_ . v s.8.: ,. 4.;.. e;; o' l}. l RISK CRITERIA:z r e-PLANT SPECIFIC -fr'** b Nes
- ,z
.o MODELING DETAIL- - ' -MODELING ASSUMPTIONS /CONSERVATISMS 0.. . e CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY TECH. SPECS. DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS ACTUAL PLANT. EXPERIENCE POSTULATED CONFIGURATIONS 1 e CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY o - ' MITIGATING SYSTEMS CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS l L e: IPE p LEVEL II' RISK MEASURE
- o n.rsre f
a CONSEQUENCE ANALYSIS 3 CONTROVERSIAL 1 ) a i i J J............................ 2 ....L
R;g_ w_ ..; s;. r. way ~ p :.> 1 I APPLICATIONS:- y a.- 'e SUBTLETIE$_ ? UNIT 1 vs. UNIT 2 j ^ MULTIPLE UNIT IMPACTS e. LIMITATIONS ACTUAL EQUIPMENT UNAVAILABILITY NOT IN PRA MODEL EXISTING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS NEW BOUNDARY CONDITIONS j RE-EVALUATE SYSTEM ANALYSIS e CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS ) l L e PLANT CONFIGURATIONS L UNIT 1 AND UNIT.2 K 1 ONE MONTH OF DATA 5 i; L DELTA RISK l BASELINE RISK l 3 1 lc i l- ,t 'l- [t i EE4d m..m....... i..... c.....y L.
~ - -.. -.. -... 3--.;---- f ; ~':"
- y
,y c i u. <i-4 PLANT CONFIGURATION' NOMENCLATURE-a 3 CCP CENTRIFUGAL-CHARGING PUMP j [.'. DIESEL GENERATOR L. DG 3 SSPS SOLID STATE PROTECTION SYSTEM PAMS POST ACCIDENT MONITORING SYSTEM DFO-DIESEL FUEL OIL } ASW -AUXILIARY SALTWATER SI SAFETY-INJECTION CFCU CONTAINMENT FAN COOLER UNITS i RVLIS REACTOR VESSEL LEVEL INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEM SFB START-UP-FEEDER BREAKER .FP FIRE PUMP j FCV FLOW CONTROL VALVE PCV PRESSURE-CONTROL VALVE PORY POWER OPERATED RELIEF VALVE AFW-AUXILIARY FEEDWATER 1 RHR RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL LCV LEVEL CONTROL VALVE' PDP POSITIVE DISPLACEMENT PUMP E,.......... o..,i. c...m __ +.
.f: t s -.d.(.. w{ d '. o -- 3 m.... .e. z a., - s.. t f..; .. w 1 8 - e w 4 $\\ z.. ~ -] F .r*- 4 h 1 i d --). - UNIT 1 CONFIGURAi!0N' RISK ) 4 i j" .I l-.. j . i -} s T t:I's* -)' i i t:. 1.' 3 Y ., 1 I i i, k-l; I i., p' l <4 9 El............................. ,f' .~ ....,n,~ ,.e-.....,,.-- -.n.,, e-
n -
- 7
- g b
~ og . n I-~ Oc .j [
- m' s;.
-1 .~ Con liguration vs. Risk'- Unit -1 ,a q . a o. i. ?> g g .A ) AFW' 1-1 / ? CCP ,- DFO 0-2 DG,-h -1 l0 / i 1-2 / k 1-3 i 1 e Bat. CCP 1-2 Chrg. r l I^ l I l July 21 July 22 July 23 July 24 July 25 16 2 -t s.s 3 osJ. .7 as .os Baseline I A Plant Risk l .A t 4 J 4 4 t [~ 4 A. A. u A. - - --. ---< + + 2 v +. . -. ~ ~ -
z gg. jht W .A 4W K e ~. 3-3, .'6 7 i 5 s. E-ca""9" rat' n vs. nisa - uoit 4 '1 2. =* SSPS . E Set 1 DFO 0-1 .g. Rack 3 / r . E DFO 0-2 52-HG-14 BKR CFCU 1 ;- CFCU 1 ' 4 l SI 1-1 p 3 ASW 1-1 August 14 August 15 ' ' August 10 August 17 August 18 i -2.9 2.6 3 A l + .22 t.29 l q A Plant Risk a 3 1 I ..._ _._ a. _ _ _. ..m _. _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
,.e,- c. ~ . 3 ;s t 1 -Q g Configuration vs. Risk - Unit 1 s 2 - SSPS- ~ RVLIS .. Train B ' ' Train A 8.4%E 16 1 _[ 'ph:m4/UMh 5 ^ %
- jug-f k =~ 1 A M ?f i
Rvus . \\ r I N #^^~ i i D 0-1 -CFCU Train A ' l [ .( - y 1-2,1 : 3 DG 1-3 \\ y / 3 s August 22 August 23 Augtest 24 ,k August 20 21 17 17 4 s.s i l l +l 2.3 A Plant Risk i I FirePump02 i ASW 1-2 ASW t2 I l A must25 l August 26 August 27 August 26 l August 29. .22 .22 5 i + l-l A ram R6k !l i 3 l l 1 e + .i e
7,genn m e.u. w - s, r,w m ~.ev..... m - m.... -. w ~.- - w w.. ,v.~~..--._.m. , ~cis-- y . t,. s. +~ + i . i
- i'.
~ _..-4 ,e g r. r .; p - , + s4: A h $ ~O1 37- .g , J e. 1 l ) i ~ r s t UNIT 2 CONFIGURA.TIONTRISK .o i 1 d 1 Y j 1 1 I ) 1 I, . i 'l 1 c 1.. e 1 9 ..I,, a- ~ ( Posille ;tes' and Electrie Compent ,2 ,.., ~. ~.......... - -
4
- g ;.
- g y
4 4. 7 ..'5 DG 1 Configuration vs. Risk - Ur.it 2 u 3 ssp. t ' Set 1 4 ' FCV-2-143 .i e, 1 t 2 L! [. PDP 2-3 .[ c. 11 b PCV-22(10% A. Dump) a o i E PORV 456 <i E July 21* July 22 July 23 July 24 July 25 .l .. p 48 5
- Plant not rurining
- <.1
[ l A Plant Risk Baseiine
- !.l L
RHR 2-1 AFW l} FI-159 i PCV-22 y } l PORV 456 { 4 July 26 ' July 27 July 28 July 29 July 30 j I 1.4 5 { <.1 <.1 [ i i Baseline A Plant Risk L .s-- -~. 9 ,,,r,..[_s --,Em _~%-
w.
- L i,
7.; ~ lsN ~ ~3 a; Configuration vs: Risk - Unit 2L ASW 2-1 s CFCU 2-5 DG 1-3 5 A DG. CFCU 2-1 ASW 2-1 - DG 2-1 t 2-1 '1 DG PDP 2-3 =g 1-3 K PCV-22 ~ Eo 3 e PORV 456 a 1 i l July 31 August 1 August 2 August 3 August 4 3.0 d0 3.0 3.0 + <.1. <.1 !*1 .22 ,,i c1 l A Plant Risk Baseline -i CSP SSPS LCV-108 2-2 Train B CSP 2-2. l DG 1-3 DG 2-2 ' PCV-22 PORV 456 y ^' August 5 August 6 August 7 August 8 August 9 3 3.0 . ga 3.4 <.1 <.1 l <.1 A Plant Risk Baseline - 2 - -_ ~ -- : _ --_. -- ~
s ~' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ -. i~ ~ Q (;, w u
- . g, -
~- +, Configuration vs. Risk.- Unit 2 ^%b CSP 2-1 72 ' DG 2-2 i \\- g. e LCV,108 (AFW) . CSP 2-M L AFW 2-1 E PCV-22 e N E \\ 2 3 + PORV 456 + n j August 10 August 11 - August 12 August 13 August 14 4 s.s ~.i + <1 3.,4 r <_t -l A Plant Risk Baseline D F O 0-1 -g -SSPS RHR 2-2 Train B l -y + AFW 2-1 PCV-21 + PCV-22 PORV 456 5 August 15 August 16 ' August'17 August'18 August 19 - 7 '03 10.4 i 8.9 i 2.4 + <.1 m <.1 B . A Plant' Risk' Baseline
- -~e
-a- ~-
F -.,-c.. + ~ .~.;:.,, ~ 7 ~ d: x5 Configuration vs. Risk - Unit 2.- qr i DFO 0-1 ..t . DG 1-3 ASW 2-1. +.- a .a 2 PCV-22 CFCU 2-2,2-5 + [/ j [ PCV-21 'E PORV 456 .e .T o h AugJst20 August 21 August 22 August 23 . August 24 ' 19 j =< b 5.7 s' 3.8 + .6 l .6 .22 , 14 ._j
- s A Plant Risk Baseline 52-HG-14 gBRKR
' Bus G -j 52-HG-13 1 i + ASW 1-1 y j j c CFCU 2-2,2-5 i i - e-- PORV 456 -+ f k August 25 August 26 August 27 August 28 August 29 a .14 + I 1 A Plant Risk i .i
^^ ^^ ^ ~ ^ ' ^ ~. ' ~ 1 y, i. :+ + ' g . y ;?. i sc
- z. - -
3-u '$$=. ) j ~
SUMMARY
j - e1..RESULTS.TO-DATE j O APPROXIMATELY 3 MONTHS OF IMTA. INTERESTING CONFIGURATIONS 1 UNDERSTANDING OF LIMITATIONS ' s FUTURE WORK MORE DETAILED INVESTIGATION a REDUCE-CONSERVATISMS SEQUENCE INTERPRETATION s DETERMINE BASE lLINE-DEFINE' RISK. CRITERIA PLANT OPERATIONS INVOLVEMENT i = l i O a e b R1..........................,. m.
i g_, m _, a.jf. f ygw 'L ~
- .c ',-
, EQUIPMENT-TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE, BUT NOT USED IN STUDY, l p -0N UNIT 1- ) ( t-s .FCV 662/663 FHB VENT' KINETTRICS SEISMIC R0-10CL - TEST OF RC INVENTORY ,+,, J S 6. CH 544, 534 VALVE 9356, A, B (RCS SAMPLE)- . RE - 25, 26, 71, 72, 29, 58, 59,11,12,14,142 FCVl662/663 (CONTAINMENT P' ESSURE RELIEF) RCS FLOW 415, 416, 426 q N-42, 44 PREZ. CH 456-
- ANI-20,:19 CHLORINE DETECTOR CONTAINMENT PRESSURE-CH 934, 936, 937 PAR-400:CH 3M (SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION)
RCS TEMP 441, 421, 431 RCS. PRE 935 CSP 1-1 EXH DUCT !~ a aux. BLDG. VENT SUPPLY a FAN FR-20, 12 (Lleulo RADWASTE) PRZ-LEVEL 461' S.G. LEVEL 518, 520, 519, 527, 537 ACCUM. LEVEL 951, 952, 953 AFD NON-AXIAL FLUX DIFFERENCE MONITOR N1-42 PRI MET. FACILITY TRIAXIAL ~ PEAK ACCID -PRZ. PRES. 457,-474 SCM, ACCIDENT MONITOR INSTRUMENT. CONDUITESUPPORT LT-942 - CONTAINMENT Sys. LEVEL ~ CEL CONTAINMENT HYDROGEN MONITOR SNUBBER 24-47 I RL........................... [ ,,--...._m
' $ b 1,^.' M r ' l, .l ^ s 7 b '.'n c, ? ' L ' EQUIPMENT TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE, BUT NOT USED IN STUDY, ON UNIT 2: 1
- FHV;- SYS.
] b RCS-2-80291, VALVE l7 ' RE-14B,.A, 11,--12, 58, 59, 28B +: L
- CEL-83,i82, 20
.o l-; -R-10Ci-TEST OF REACTOR INVENTORY L N-41, 43, 32, 31, 36, 35,-42 PRZ - LEVEL-459, 455,- 461 PRZ PRES. 456, 455-3LT R0D POSITION DEV. 474 ~ RCS FLOW. 414, 424, 434, 416, 426 RCS TEMP. 411, 431 FT-542 S.G.-- LEVEL 529, 539, 519, 549, 528, 538, 548, 518, 547, 537,.527, 517 S.G.4 FLOW 542,.540 FV-53!(STEAM GENERATOR BLOWDOWN) ANR 75/76 (0XYGEN MONITOR)- PORY CHS 456, 405, 423 i N-42, 44 SClf! - ACCIDENT MONITOR INSTRUMENT CONT. PRES.'- 936 GPTR ALARM (QUADRAWT POWER TILT RATIO) R0D P0S..DEV. HON. VENTILATION PANEL FUEL' HAND BLDG. E-G EXHAUST ANI' '19, 20 FCV 143. RIL MONITOR f VALVE 8149, R.C. SAMPLE AUX.' BLDG. FAN-FR - 53, 12: RM - 23 Pacit.c See snel Electric Company j.>
y-. - n- -~- -.. -.... Q 4 j i, y, a, N' + . UNIT l Reason for. equipment being taken out of. service: ^- l ~ July 21 1989:. AFW 1-1. STP CCP 1-2 . CR-Bat-Charg-CR DF0;XFer P.0 Opp Action-f ' July 22,1989: .D.G. 1-3 STP' CCP 1-2' - AR- . July 23,1989: - CCP-1-2 AR-w. July.24, 1989:- CCP'l-2 AR ni . July 25, 1989:'- 2 - CCP-1-2 AR: August:14, 1989: - ASW p 1 CR - August 15,l1989:. L SSPS ASW p 1-1 CR
- SIP 1-1.
CR y DF0 Xfer p 0-1 STP STP August ~16; 1989: SIP 1-1. CR ASW 1-1 CR - DFO'p 0-2 STP -- ) o August-17, 1989: L . SIP.1-1 CR STP - DF0 p 0-2 - CR . 52-HG-14 Breaker August 18, 1989: CFCU 1-2, 1-3 STP R Pacific One and Electric Company + .t +t-e se e r e-as h - w.-= - e w.re .--.4% -+.w- -e--. -.--*e-e.- we ,.,o n...
3, 7 .o
- t v w 3..
,ji. -3 UNIT 1(continued) Reason-for equipment being taken out of service: l August 20, 1989: { SSPS-STP August 21, 1989: -DF0 p 0-1 CR - Rantz Procedure DG l-3 CR = August 22, 1989: 'DF0 p 0-1 OP Required Action -DG l-3 CR AFW p 1-1 CR i SSPS STP RVLIS CR CFCU 1-2, 1-5 STP August 23, 1989: l-August 24, 1989; RVLIS-CR t ~ August 25, 1989: SFB -: CR ASW 1-2 AR August 26, 1989: ASW 1-2 AR j August 27, 1989: 'SSPS STP August-28, 1989: Fire Pings CR (PH.) FP p.0-2 ASW p 0 2 CR August 29, 1989: FP 0-2 CR (PM.) ASW p 0-2 CR Pacific ese and Electric Company _ _, _.. ~..... -.
u s. 1 s c.; y -y UNIT 2 1 . Equipment Out of Service 'I July 21,1989: j PCV 2-3 (I) . AR DG l STP 1 AFW p 2 AR .PORV 4 5.6 (2)- gg -PDP 2 CO. July 22,1989:. PDP 2-3 CO SSPS STP: - July 23, 1989: -PDP 2-3 CO 5 L July 24, 1989:- L' 'PDP 2-3' C0 July 25, 1989:- a July 26,1989: l: SSPS STP July 27, ~1989: RHR 2-1 CR ' July 28, 1989: L l RHR C0 " July 29,1989: AFW AR 1 {ij~k[j (({51[21 lb[toAugust 23, 1989 T g (2) PORV is out the entire time of the study l' l I, Pacific ese and Electric Company u. ......-.. -..... z --.- -..-...-.. -....
. ~. _.. _.. UNIT 2(continued) . Equipment out of Service- -July 30, 1989: SSPS STP July 31,.1989: ASW 2-1 CR-CFCU 2-l' CR CFCU 2 CR PDP AR-August 1, 1989: ~DG 2-1 CR' . August 2, 1989: I-ASW 2-1 AR I-PDP 2-31 AR L DG.1-3 CR August 3,-1989: PDP 2-3 AR DG l-3 CR DG 2-1 CR L August 4,-1989:- PDP 2-3. 'AR DJ
- 3 Not Stated X El CR l-Augus! 6, 1989:
' CSP 2-2 STP DG 1-3 Not Stated August 6, 1989: SSPS STP l August 7, 1989: Pacific One and Electric Company .. _, ~........
I _..i
- l : f =
w UNIT 2 (continued)_- i . Equipment-Out of Service . August 8, 1989: DG 2-2-. CR
- CSP 2-2 CR
- August 9, 1989:--
LCV-108'(AFW) STP, CSP 2-2 CR DG 2 CR August 10, 1989: ~ LCV 108 (AFW). CR . August 11, 1989: L DG 2-2 STP ' August 12, 1989: [ CSP 2-1 STP August 13, 1989:- CSP.2-2 STP SSPS' STP- -August 14,.1989: AFW p 2-1 CR August 15, 1989: AFW p 2-1 CR RHR p 2-2 CR .DFD XFer STP August 16, 1989:- RHR p 2-2 CR August 17, 1999: SSPS STP R Pacific See and Elsettic Company .,/,.,-.-. - _. -,. - -... - - _.. - -.. _ _., - _. - _ _ _. - _....., - -..,, =..,... _ _.. _.. _..
. ~., _ _ _ ,.. _.. ~. ~.. g, f i~ e y,f f y + .. - :f . UNIT 2 (continued) Equipment Out of Service-a .' August'18 1989: _ August 19, 1989: PCV 2-1 CR August-20, 1989: PCV<22 AR. PCV 21 CR SSPS STP August 21, 1989: r PCV 21 CR 'PCV 22 AR
- l. -
DG 1-3 CR DF0 p 0-1 CR 0 August 22,.1989: PCV 21 CR ~ b PCV 22 AR b August 23, 1989: PCV 21 CR' PCV 22 AR August 24, 1989: ASW p 2-1 CR CFCU 2-2, 2-5 rR August 25, 1989:
- ASW p 2-1 CR
. CFCU 2-2, 2-5 CR August 26, 1989: ' Pacific Gas and Electric Company .. _ _, ~. - _.. _ _ _ _...,. - -
~. Y :.: u. 2.1, UNIT 2(continued). Equipment Out of Service -,1 August 27, 1989.. 'SSPS-STP I 1 August 28, 1989: J 4'.KV Bus CR .t t s l' \\ ;- l'. L l. 1 ~; l 1 Pacific-One and Electric Company 1. .........~ --.
r Reliability Based Tech Specs Program Attributes s i i i Specific System Specific WOG TOPS, Byron. LCORP, PG8E i Relaxations PGE Diesel Generators, MERITS,'. System RCM.PGE.PRA AOTs/STI
- Risk Based
- Relaxations Risk Rased Tradeoff Specs
- Flex Specs
- Cone; stent with MERITS (Specific Specs with Site Dioceselone, Feasibility Studies,. Specific System Preplanned Alternatives)
Relaxations, PGE PR A, i RCM, M E RITS,... -} . -. ~ I Operational Risk Barometer Flex Spece, PGE PRA, Performance Objective Monitoring LCOM, MERITS,._ 1 4 4 i .s' (F S2 C:\\H ARY\\ WEST 2.CHT) j 4. i
0:. 6:.. /' Ee stoc arc : e I l I .l l ?: I POTENTIAL DIESEL GENERATOR l H TECHNICAL-SPECIFICATION l lMPROVEMENTS [ 4 i AT SONGS UNITS 2/3 i I. t I t 4 OCTOBE.R 4,1989 ~ i I i I at
h. o O ;; '9 p~ T AGENDA
- Purpose
~ a' Status of Related NRC Progra'ms
- Current Technical Specification Requirements L.
.* Potential Areas of improvement in Existing Technical Spec!fications I 1 l t I 1 l .i 1 1 l l ': i. l 4 i t l \\ r
~ ' ~9 3 - i!" e 4 PURPOSE i identify Potential Improvements To The. SONGS 2/3 Emergency Diesel Generator Technical Specifications Which: Could Be Recommended To The NRC For Consideration Under Their -j Technical Specification Improvement ] Program i Can Be. Justified Based' On e Reliability / Risk Arguments
- Would Result in A Net -Benefit To The Plant L
+ i L l: 1 l i
- t..
x; 1 NRC PROGRAMS RELATED l TO EDG. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l l i. EDG-Refiability Procrams l. NUREG Published Describing An-Acceptable EDG Reliability Program (NUREG/CR-5078) Draf t Reg. Guide 1.9 Issued . t
- NUMARC 87-00 Appendix D Published Describing industry's EDG Reliability Program
- Final Resolution -of EDG. Reliability Program Underway Within NRC I.
m. .t a :,, r EDG Reliability Target' Level. l o Responsibilities and Management Oversight a Surveillance Maintenance Requirements Program-Data System Performance Failure Analysis Monitoring and Root Cause Investigations Problem Closeout NRC Concept For An EDG Reliability Program s m m .w.,., .w.... .......,_,..,,...,m,,,, _ _ o ,_,,.--,,,.-,,,__._,.,,____-3-4 y,
e F> ,0 a ' CURRENT' SONGS 2/3-DIESEL GENERATOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS .i i SECTION REQUIREMENTS 3.8.1.1 Limiting Conditions For Operation - Establishes L i Allowed Outage Times (AOTs) y 4.8.1.1.1 Of fsite Power Surveillance Testing 4.8.1.1. 2.a - c Diesel Surveillance Testing (STis) g 4.8.1.1.2.d 18 Month Testing / Surveillance 4.8.1.2.d.1 Diese! Teardown
- 4. 8.1. 2. d. 2 -14 18 Month Load Sequencing /
Testing li 4.8.1.2.e Diesel Dependency Test i 4.8.1. 2. f Fuel Oil System Surveillance f 4.8.1.1.3 Reporting Requirements l e+- e e ,w.,.- e----.-,4,--.-e - --e.,-.<- + - - -- -w---
s u ae .c i l-POTENTIAL. AREAS. OF IMPROVEMENT i i i-18 MONTH DIESEL TEARDOWN [ J Current-Reauirement. . At least once every operating cycle' subject the diesel .i tof an. inspection in accordance with procedures j prepared in conjunction with its manufacturer's recommendations for this class of standby service. Il i LAlternative i k n n L in Conjunction With The Diesel Manufacturer: F ~ I L
- Develop a Comprehensive Condition Monitoring Program for Monthly Testing Based on RCM Analysis i
i
- Develop.a Comprehensive Periodic Predictive L
Maintenance Program l i i L i n 0
- 3 w.#
e
- .,:q <,.
=
- q. ~ :';* ' o gg,;fc m
8, POTENTIAL AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT (CONT'D)- 1 1, ALLOWED OUTAGE TIMES I i l-r p Current AOTs l p Single Diesel 72 hrs. L Two Diesels - 2 hrs. One Diesel And 2 hrs. f Turbine AFW Pump [i i Alternative 1 l' i,
- Establish Risk-Based AOTs on Basis of Bus Availability Using PRA Models
- Preliminary Analyses Indicate That AOTs i
for Diesel Configuration Are Consistent With NRC Approach However, Cross-Connection Between Units Has Major impact on Risk-Based AOTs i li ~ L f l I n n i f g
- Fve y--VV-yw t-T9"*7 epT-'w' g
m =>=,wgr v 14 Wge Mw w -'+ma-rr it u-+--m --r= m- ' - -a-- -- ---*----- =%
,Je1 4; 1, i
SUMMARY
' OF RISK-BASED. AOTs BASED-ON; j NRC METHODOLOGY WITH SIMPLE MODEL i No Cross-Connect Cross-Connected Existing Risk-Based Risk-Based AOT AOT AOT a l One Diesel Inoperable 72 hrs. 79 hrs. 91 ' days l (2190 hrs.) l Two Diesels Inoperable 2 hrs. 1.8 hrs. 91 hrs. I j One Diesel and Steam 2 hrs. 4.8 hrs. 238 hrs. l Driven AFW Pump (10 days) Inoperable i l - - - - - - - _. - _ _. _ = = -
=
t L.
g 9 s L i POTENTIAL AREAS OF: L IMPROVEMENT (CONT'D) j i i SURVEILLANCE TEST INTERVALS-i - Current Reauirements I -Monthly Testing of Diesels Unless 2 Failures Occur in Past 20 Demands, Then Weekly Testing is Required i ' Alternative i
- Implement NUMARC 87-00 Appendix D Graded Response Program B
[
- Implement Data-Oriented Technical Specification l
l m,...
N g' . c n 'i L I POTENTIAL AREAS OF l I lMPROVEMENT (CONT'D) t 18 MONTH TESTS -- Current ~ Reauirements l -- R t Every 18 Months Perform A Series of Tests To-Demonstrate Diesel Performance Under Accident Conditions l L Alternative l l-
- Change to Once Every Operating Cycle l
i j i I 1- ' n l h
f, il . l-; _ Er.e/isyrr C < r r; Sfh I_ (Sn r & e f/a %tus HouL-r / EPRtNPD RAPIDh0FTWARE WITH PILOT DEMONSTRATION Prepared by Boyer B. Chu PRESENT AT RISK BASED TECH SPEC MEETING DATE: Oct. 4,1989 ' PLACE: Philadelphia, PA - t P EPRL'NPD RAPID /PSM PRESENTATION . BACKGROUND . FUNCTIONS . STATUS . LESSONS LEARNED . DEMONSTRATION ST/SP . ca = = 1.; -.-. - _.. _ ____-.-._____--_____-.___._____.___m, ~ ~. _. - _ _ _ _. _ -, _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ -. _.
.,3 = .ve.enm,. .a ...xa e-u 3 t... ~;; c
- c..
I EPRL'NPD ) RAPID /PSM CONCEPT-Risk Management . Utilize SRA & Modem Computar Technology to Assist the I Management of Plant O&M Adivities .v . Develop an Integrated Plant Equipment Status Database for . Assessing Dynamic Plant Safety and Producten Reliability . Provide a Framework to Perform Plant Risk Management ST/SP 5 EPRL'NPD f RAPID /PSM DEVELOPMENT Scope & Background a Proof of Principle Study - Evaluate Technical Feasibility
- 1. Technical Approaches Selected an aux feed system with 130 Components Developed models by GO and Fault Tree approaches Computerized system Tech Spec and other procedures
- Correlate Tech Spec with system model outputs Develop PC software to perform Tech Spec monitoring
- 2. Results Demonstrated feasibility of using SRA to monitor Determined to select GO modeling for risk management identified potential technical issues and concerns ST/SP
.\\
b;
- c '_, s
- .
..~ I l L L L EPRINPD RAPID /PSM DEVELOPMENT Scope & Background (con 1) i . Initial R&D Demonstration Phase Full Scale Study
- 1. Technical Approach i
I . Modeled the entire plant including 6 operation modes Computertred all appleable Tech Spec and procedures Modeled multiple levels of plant power production Identthed computer softwars and hardware -
- 2. Results
-{ Developed software architecture design Developed distributive GO evaluaton scheme j Resolved technicalissues identifed provously Implemented QACC and cocumentation control ST/SP r RAPID /PSM DEVELOPMENT I Scope & Background (Con't) a Current Production Phase Validation Training and Appleations l
- 1. Technical Approach Added an automated tagging system to enhance acceptability Updated all models, proceoure Tech. Spec revisions Increased levelof detailfor severalsystems GO models
- Tested and optimized software efficiency Trained operators and assisted in the latest refueling outage
- 2. Results Complete software va!idation and verificaticn Prepare production release RAPID /PSM software Complete RAPID /PSM documentaten ST/SP c
=.
.. _;s. f '4. ? EPRL'NPD 1 RAPlD/PSM TECHNICAL ELEMENTS . Use GO-based System Rehability Modeling Technique . Use Relational Database Management System . Use Modularized Software Development Approach . Apply Human Factor in Design Software +1uman interface . Practice OACC to Document Software Development and Testing . Operate on IBM Mainframe or PS2/70 PC Computer ST/SP I t : { l i t-EPRl/NPD PSM - Software Functionalities . Monrter System / Train / Component Operability Status l- . Provide Tech Spec Compliance Tracking and Advice L Identify and Resolve LCO Conflicts j '. . Perform Dynamic Power Production Reliability Evaluation . Evaluate impact of Out of Service Equipments to Unavailability . Evaluate "What if for Proposed Actions . Automate Preparation, Control and Tracking of Equipment Tags . Assess Equipment Maintenance and Repair Priority Use Computerized P&lD to input Equipment Status Changes and Display System Status ST/SP L
7 _,o ~ x EPRLWPD TAGS - Software Functionalities . Prepare Component Tags and Worksheet: . Standard and staggered tags . Hold-tags and pre-staged tags
- Generate Reports and Shift Logs, e.g., tags listed by specified person, component in off normal positien, et al,
. Prepare Tagging Boundary Line up and Changes . Interf ace with PSM for Tech Spec Compliance Evaluation . Interf ace with Plant Information Management System, Optionalty i sT/SP j L l { I I EPRL'NPD RAPID /PSM IDENTIFIED USES l l . Enhance Technica! Specification and Procedure Compliance
- Maintain Plant Status and System Configuration Control l
. Assist in Shift Turnovers i.e. operator awareness of equipment l status and changes + Optimize and Pricrrtize Scheduling and Maintenance Activities . Assist Plant Operational Safety and Productivity Management . Irnproving Administrative Controlof Component Status ST/SP =... i l' - - - - ~ ~ ---- ~ ~ ~ ~
v 4.: i -,t, 1 w,- EPRINPD RAPID /PSM IDENTIFIED USERS . Operations Monitor Plant Status and Control . Maintenance Planning, Prioritization, Scheduling and Tagging . Licensing LCOs, LERs, Tech. Spec. Compliance
- Plant Engineering Safety and Engineering Analysis
. Plant Material Spare Parts and inventory Control . Tech. Functions Determination of Tech Spec Compliara . Site Safety Review Performance Monitor ST/SP t EPRIHPD RAPID /PSM PLANT SPECIFIC MODELING A Practical Example 46 Systems GO Models and SPlant Operation Modes 10 to 400 GO Operators in each Model per System I . Approximately 8000 Components included in the Database . GO Plant Model Linked up to 600 input and 340 Output S gnals . Average Computer Executen Time Required for Each Run: - Tech Spec & Status 2 mins Tech Spec & Probability Smins on IBM 3090 Mainframe Computer ST/SP
R , c. : j- .. t - w X: 4'. t EPRVNPD RAPID /PSM PROCESS. SCHEME A
SUMMARY
Stauc6 A5
- OneE6f of Models for both Plant Status and Reliability Applicatens MModels Signals Used for Cross Referencing Procedural Requirements U.
- Many Component Modeled in Multiple States
- Many Systems Modeled in Detail to Futfilltbe O&M Practical Needs j
Model Segmentaten for enhancing Numerical Efficiency . Use o and 1 input for Monitoring System Operability and Plant Status . Probability Evaluation by GO Distributive Process j ( = Use of Relational Database Manager to Administer Data Flow a Data included Models. Signals, Tech Spec & Procedural Requirements L y ST/SP I ...o l. e EPRL'NPD RAPID /PSM MENU l' AN EXAMPLE OF MAIN MENU i r$M.ves t asT i GL ANT C TODAY5 DATE NT MAIN MENU DEct2-86 1 DISDL AV CURREN' COMPONENT ST ATUS
- D:SPL AY CURAENT PowtA LIVEL C ALCUL4T10NS 3 AlVilw / CHANGE PL ANT ST ATUS d PEVIEw TECH $DEC $TATUS FOR CURRENT CONFIGJATION
! REVIEW FL ANT MEALTH MESS A5ES FOA CURRENT CONFIGURATION 1 0 ou r!M ST/SP m =... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
c,.. es .e.. ' 7 V-9 = - J w . j es EPRL'NPD RAPID /PSM MENU AN EXAMPLE OF SUS
- MENU (LEVEL 1) r
- $M
- YOVRPL ANT MAIN MINU I ANT NODE s
6 TODAv$DATE ntyttw TEcu $ptC CURAINT ST ATU$ FOA CUAAENT DECl2 86 AuN CONFIGUR AT ION D!$D AY SV$ TIM ST ATVM00 T[CN SDt: Sv3TE**$ -I L 2 DISPL AY TECH $PEC ACTION ST ATEPTNTS 3 D!$p; Av ACTION ST AttMNT$ TIMER SV $YSTEM d Di$D' AY DL ANT ACTION ST ATEMENT TIMER & OfTUDN TO M A!N MINU a L ST/SP ramus.W pit EPRINPD. RAPID /PSM OUTPUT AN EXAMPLE OF LISTED SYSTEM S EFFECTED BY TECH SPECS (LEVEL 2) ( Atvitw TECM SptC i ST ATUS FOR CURRENT PL ANT McCI CONFIGUR ATION TODAv5DATE 1 $v5TIMSIMPACTfD CURDENT IN CURRENT CfC12*06 AVN CON 810VR ATION i mes 2 #ECiRC 2 CwFO a ar2 Pe T Akk (N"ER *>( NLP9fD OF 04 0F *4 480vt IMP 4C*tD SfS EMS Fw 7cea sett ****t9 atSSat43 on m *o ar ten o pet was agNu e ST/SP a.. e + ....... - -.. -.... _ - -..,,.., _ -.. -, - ~ _ -. _ - - - _ _
i p 8 a.r. - g ~ -t 4 I_ La [.. l l-RAPID /PSM OUTPUT AN EXAMPLE OF TECH SPEC SYSTEM r (LEVEL 3) P TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION STATUS FOR CURRENT CONFIGURATION SYSTEM NITROGEN INERTING S?ATUS: TORUS VENT VALVE V tS-4718 INOPERASLE. CLOSED F THE TORUS MUST BE VENTED THROUGH THE STANDSY OAS TRE ATMENT SYSTEM, VLA V. art 47,THE FILTERS MAY SE DAMAGED THE DRYWELL OarYOEN SAMPLE SYSTEM 18 INOPE RASLE. THE TORUS OxYoEN SAMPLE SYSTEM 88 INOPE RASLE. ONE OR SOTH OF THE RE ACTOR SulLDING TO TORUS VACUUM SRE AMERS ARE INOPERABLE OPEN THE N2 INERTING FUNCTION IS WOPERASLE. THE N2 MAKEUP FUNCTION IS WOPE RAB6E THE AIR PURGING FLOW PATH IS INOPERABLE. ONE OR MORE N2 SYSTEM AIR OPERATED VALVES ARE WOPE RASLE. CLOS E D. PRESS ENTER TO COP (TINUE.. ST/SP SSGesp.M pit EPRL'NPD RAPID /PSM OUTPUT AN EXAMPLE OF SYSTEM UNAVAILABILITY CHANGE (LEVEL 3) TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION STATUS FOR CURRENT CONFIGURATION $v$1[M NITROGEN IN(RING UNAVAILABILITY RE50LT5 N2 VNAV AsL ABLE UNAV AIL ABILITY RATIC CVCptNT IC000 8 57 BASE OI166 1 00 00E55 TO CONTIMJE a_ ST/SP eses.m m pie .. =
I- ) m L 'f' 4 O. e' j i I i ~ EPR!'!!N: I RAPID /PSM OUTPUT ) { AN EXAMPLE OF TECH SPEC SUS 8YSTEM IN EFFECT (LEVEL 4) i TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION STATUS FOR CURRENT CONFIGURATION SYSTEM NrTROGEN NERTNG STATVS. THE te WAME UP FUNCTION NOPERA4LE. ACTION ST ATEMENT: o AS THE N2 NE RTING SYSTEM IS NOPERABLE. THE COMT ANMENT ATMOSPHf R4 May NOT BE ONE RTf D #F NECE SSARY. IF THE i CONTANMENT HAS NOT DEEN INE RTED. PLACE TFE RE ACTOR N THE COLD SHLTfDOWN CONDrTtON WrTHeN 30 HOURE. ? REFE RENCE: 3 0 A 4 3 S A & . PRESS tNTE R TO COwf Nut.. ST/SP ese = v. t i 6 EPRINPD i RAPID /PSM OUTPUT t: AN EXAMPLE OF TECH SPEC SUS SYSTEM IN EFECT (LEVEL 4) CON'T TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION STATUS FOR CURRENT CONFIGURATION SYSTEM. NITROGEN NERTING STATUS: THE N2 MAMEUP FUNCTION INOPERABLE. ACTION STATEMENT; AS THE MAMEUP CAPADILITY OF THE N2 SYSTEM 18 DNOPERABLE. IT MAY NOT BE POSSesLE TO MAINTAIN THE REOuiMED PRESSURE AND OXYGEN CONCENTRATION WITHIN THE CONTAINMENT. IF THE l-REOutREMENTS Or TECHNICAL SPECirtCATION 3 & A 4 et NOT MET, PL ACE THE RE. ACTOR IN THE COLD SHUTDOWN CONDITION WITMsN l, 30 HOURS.
REFERENCE:
3 0A 4 3 & A S b -se j ST/SP e= i 1 ,.-._---e --w--- ~ ~ - - ---'---w'--'-
.y. g - s t RAPID /PSM R&D RESOURCES ) EXPANDED . Software Development Phase:
- 1. EPRI contractors.16 man years
- 2. Host utility she - 4 man years
. Mechanical engineer whh SRO (100%) Electrical engineer (25%) Ex Group shift supervisor with SRO (25%) Software system analyst (50%)
- 3. Contractor cost sharing - 2 man years
- 4. Host utility mainframe computer usages
. Production Demonstraten Phase:
- 1. EPRIcontractor
.5 man years
- 2. Host utility see - 1 man year GT/SP e
EPRI'NPD RAPID /PSM BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS Overall Benefns: Enhance tech. spec. compliances Enhance power producten Reduce outage duration Reduce QAM staff work load and costs . Enhance administrative control Enhance consistency and availability of plant data Limitations: Require signifcant resources and commitment . Need strong administratrve control Require constant and accurato database maintenance Require large computer Resources ST/SP e .,-.c- ,.. +- ,-,,e- -r.- e.- ,,,,-wy v-,w , - -m -,w.w,-..- u -...a--
p;: L \\ o + EPRINPD RAPID /PSM IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES ESTIMATED REQUIREMENT
- Development at a Plant wnh PRMPE:
Modekng Effort 2 man-years Computerited Documentation - 2 manyears She Review 2 man years Testing anc Training 1 man year e implementation Phase: Computer System Engineer 0.5 man year Plant Engineering Staff 2 man years Training Staff 0.5 man year i . Production Phase: So'tware Maintenance 0.5 man year Site Maintenance 1 man year EPRI'NPD RAPID /PSM A SOFTWARE DEVELOPED FOR PROVIDING A FRAMEWCRK TO PERFORM RISK MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT: I_ . Characterize Plant by Dynamic SRA Models l . Contain Latest Plant Configuration information l . Contain All Procedural Requirements . Contain On going and PlannedPlant of M Activities ST/SP -.c_., , - ~.. - - -, - -,, ~ < - - - - - - + - - ~ ~ - - ~ ^ - ~ ~ ' ' ' ' - ~ ' " ' ~ " ' ~ ~ " ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ' ^ ' ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ '
vy.. l s p o t t i EFRlNPD 3 RAPID /PSM SOFTWARE PILOT DEMONSTRATION SOFTWARE NAME: EPRl's PSM OF RAPID /PSM HARDWARE: IBM PS2WODEL 70 (3M RAM) DATABASE NAME: XQL RELATION P&lD SOFTWARE: AUTOCAD PLANT DATABASE: A gWR PLANT / FULL SCALE a h I; 1 f 6 J I .. ~.
f. .f* .o ,o-i 4 I:CC/ Industry Risk-Based Tech. Spec..lieeting 10-4-89 i:AME - Aff1L I AT10t! Jose A. Calvo NRC/0TSB Cerclay S. Lew PG&E/ Licensing Boyer B. Chu EPRI Caniel C. Fees I;US l'ario J. Acstaino Phila Elec. Nick Liparulo kestinghouse Kent Deschke Westinghouse Jerry Fhillabeum PECO Cob Dickinson PECO Carl Johnson i.RC Caug True ERIN Engineering Pranab Samante Cl;L Janes Wing !!RC Bahr.an Atefi SAIC Caniel Gallagher SAIC Millard Wohl f.RC E6yn.ond Thierry PG&E l' l l-. -}}