ML20076C423

ECCS Repts (F-47) TMI Action Plan Requirements,Jcp&L, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20076C423
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	01/27/1983
From:	Ludington B, Overbeck G, Vosbury F FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Chow G NRC
Shared Package
ML20076C425	List: ML20076C423
References
CON-NRC-03-80-130, CON-NRC-3-80-130, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 TER-C5506-206, NUDOCS 8302020332
Download: ML20076C423 (16)

Text

.. . . .=.

g s+ .c.ds , ...

.'e_. '

. ... . t "*

. .. .~

. , ..... .. .. .e

. . .. ..s.

m  ; ,s f.

~

1

.., . L. .x .:..: c .. . .7.;m,TECHNICAL EVALOATION REPORT. wc.3.n r..e.z..: ..- w e, .

t i . ..

/ ,. l .. . . ;. . y . s ,. w. ..s. .,u, .. u. .

. .m. a. ;+ ..., .M.,.

.. ~

- . ~ . . _ x. . . . . .;. + . ..

, .,! E C CS R E P O .. -RT.  : 2. S .(F. .47),. _ J.-... .W.W& . .y R&W.~3:. .

.: . ... . .-.. . . . .u ru

. - . .. . . ~ .a. .. c .. .....

3.*,.,..

WwW..f~"n

'M .*- TMI ACTION P. LAN. REO UIR EM ENTS .

.n Og. o. ,R . S.. . s ....,.

., 5 . . .. . .. . .. I. ,. i . . S, .:. ~ '.:,,,.,,.,

'..s.'..r~.

,.7... * -

. .. , , .., . , ' Ah. s g) $.. a*$~', .(,.Hf.

q,s .- ; ;;'. .*!; 2. ,ll.. j.2. 'e.-.4 . % ;[.,T '."c ' . . ' ~ ~I.e . . l '.i.' ' . ,..Q R

.m z., . , . .

,4,.

.~v . d. .ERSEY Wo.. xam;

. .w .~ .- RJ,POWE.a.A.

ru ..

. .. . CEN.T.RAL - c ND. :=,.LI.G.H. .IG.~CO.M.P. AN.Y..

M

'.x"!

Iv. . j

.n.

, OYSTER. . .CREEK

... . . ...m..... .

NUCLEAR'GENERATINGisT

~ .......,

a. . .. .. . . ,w. .

...y..,,,... . . , . ..

bm.:.

.....<c ,

. ...~.;.. . .

NRC DOCKET NO. 50.2i9.s.u. w,..f;;p;.ci,7

.g..c: ,-+.7%,V -l <r m..

.- s. ..

... , .3 , .r. ., ; , o

p.y,. ']. .

[Q;4 FR -

..R

. .. ..- .. . o...g. . . . , .  : u. .. . .-p. v.w

.#.. ':w< a..;.,&,. ,,

t . .n. m..:.,,.;;c.s

.~.......a.1..+, ... . ., . .C , v. PR , e OJECT ..:.,  :- A; .A.+-:4 %C5506 . F ' i ..' .x..-

wp

..".,.....c.  ; y, ...f.. f.y. c ;;y.g. ...

,u . . .

. .:;,. M: .W.' FRC. ASSIGNMENT 7 .

. 4,WWy s.

m. : .e. g .

L . - Q! ~ .

y : 3- . .p.. :% . ..... ; .m . -. . ; .. g. . r.... .g- . ; .m.. - , s. . ww ..,p.m. '.

e

_dg . .-r-h . ,4,. ~.:. . ..s .

, . , . r . . .

y NRC. '. ..,CONTRACT NO. NRC.03-81.ts t.a?d.E }.. F y..c.i;, .. f206' . J,. . ~. ,s.  : ~ % 97 i ASK , ':? %..;:- @.TJ,.:!?.5 m.r:- :;.d.y.;2-s if&  ?-4[~..'L .5 - ~ &z. ;l. .'

. /.v v.c .nv,s.'.y. s:.r:w.f RC .=..

7. Q.7 u

~-

-. . Q, Q.. uf Q,. Q ..:, Q. . . Q.r.7Q:.?',%, . ;. 2 :

n;llM.e W- -

W

. .c- . ' . .

.. .- w . ::<::. .. . .. . . v t. . * ~ :>.: . .. . *

m , m. ..

,v .: . . . s. .

.  : - .. p . k ssv epared .

by.

. '. e. ,:a m.c:<i ~.2. 6n.v. 'mm  :.,: M 'x-Yna.:a."5re4 2. . . : u.g..c'hi..,p.... u +.e< -

n: C.Q~ .:a n '..,:. - . ..-W:#4;.r.. . < v: .:

G. ...w .C, EGh.--y?n.M'.

. Pr. - 3: -gK..,gNMT 1~W,?w.v.N:q,GkW:.A.  : W.E.W W " .

' " . w..v.....-

.,n; pm c. . m .;. & . : n -

W@n Eto .;:.W:qw.: '.C.

.9 -

. - W ., W f..y-. Q. v. p . ! wp .H. 3"" Y.

"1 E ,.N. r'a'nkli.n.Researc'h Center.'&m#!,4

1. ' ~,'tlJL;77..@,.

L j

20th and Race .EStreets Philadelph.ia, PA.19103;'J.;. ..

c?,

. ~y: .id,.,

. :, c. . ::. :: ,u.

)'

FRC

~ .

. Group

~~[ .~ M. -n...

Leader:.

5W-n.'. . E.:*.l9l,.G;pfl):<;0

~ . :.. , 0 rah.

G.. J.

N..4.x ~ k '. ".

ec

. . . ...: j .. ,

"s..r....' v

. . y . _. , . .g .,%. a.;x. ,.. .z . .., .. ._,mm.

G.s . . *

. ;g. _. ... , , .,

g . . . . ,

.s.3,....... . . . . . . , 7 F. _ . ..)

yfrepared for Q , %..cp _h, %....Q.y Q 5. . Q,... Q...., Q.&,.<

~..~

, . . . y f.f.,.{ G .. , .s,.Q } y '.[..u..._ ..... . . .

. . m.

... mf.g.. ,Q-.

Q. .Qyf. . ..

Nu.c lear Regulatory Commtssion . . ..w- ... r .: .vz' p :: ". >.  :-

g@ tngton, D.C 20555. .. a  :;w;  ;"-  :..;;%. 9::w; , .. Ls

.. . ..ad.. NRO. Engineer: ~- .E.9. . . ... .choe" m.'e. m..M L.. . Wash. ..: w. . . , .

-4 -

, h+. ;ng; ..:g <,.m. , .r .w.s. -

.c.w. w::~

w ? a i . .n.V.y:e  ;= .r.wp:.u.m> .:s. . .1. 3u,.m..

.v .:.

. .. . . . ....y.?. . . , 2. .mm., . .,. w. n. e,.. ...r

,..k. :w.c.;;. .. .; ..

.. .. .> .y . .,; w c., . . . . . s. .,. m...

. .m. a .v, . . ./. :.. -

~

. -. v.w.... , .u. ...; .. . ::s. _ ,.. .p,n _a. , . .,

f. ,. , . , . . .

a: c..:.:.:s

. . , w...,s.

... m. ..

. , . ..r t::,.: &..

... u ,2. .:n

, r: . v...,w::. .c .

. : ,: W; , . .- :

,, .. . ay . ,

w... ,..::. , y- s- .....s p: .,;...; + s-:,.~.a.: W.

y ... ...

. -. . :. ~ m~..;~; :.<:g. .:,s... . ~ . .u :2. ?s. .: :c. f. , : ' n.m. .*

. ". m .p. .".;,;....,:...

u ..- . , + - ..  : .a.

p+,

w.. .. ,.

" . ~ . ..+- .

s.

.._.s..>

w ..; >w

.c'- (. , .: 3. .v..

v. , .. , ,:a. .y. ,:.. 2 .

y w a:.g:.~, ..:.,.  : s..w.nr. .: e.:7y .

'; n

.~a. vitn.

.u,~ .;. . v. . . .c,,.m,.;;, ..w. > m ..ys

.? . .

. . .u <::.y< .c .;a

. . e.

+

g. i

,.. .s- -,

g; , .  ; > . n.::;

. . .:;. ;.. January 27 1983', ......._ . ,,g..9.r..m

..-l ,-

3. .. .

<-p.f~.. N ' 4;E , C .; . . ~g-9. .e.'. .

a: 9

.v. ,

.. 4 .. . . , . ... . . .

..u . ,, e . .g .. v . i.,. .. . y- . . ,

. .- .. ,.# c. . . . .w.;_ a.. . c.,.a,...nr . ..~.

e., . . . .. . . .. .., .s. ,........~..,1.

c... .. .... .....,,,,........(..3._.%. .m. . . .. n. , .m.

. .~ : . , . . . . . ~+

.. . . . ...1 ..

a .-  : . . .,4 . . . . .

, . . < 2. . < . ., - .

.a..;>.

. , .p. .. .a,. ..

.:. .:.rs~ . :. . , , . .. *

. , . . ..... . ;s . .r. .~

n . , . %, .~ "'1*:f;; * .

..nl:-l:}.. ,; .. ~\..;6 Q:

,3) .This report was prepared as an acc.t :n.:.;.:y; of 4::'q ager'cy o . ,, . :..y .. .ount worx s ponsored by an . h:-

1

' Government. Neimer the United States Government nor any agency thereof. or any of their :  ?..% 5 " ?

employees, makes any warranty . expressed or implied, or.iassumec any lega! liabilityCor' S'..

' -responsibility f0r cny. third party'.s use, or the 'resuIts of such use', cf any inforrr.ation;.hp ratus, product er process disclosed irr this reportcor; repreie'

~

3 ' j,#.

,v. v .. + ,.

• r.,...h. .:. ^.c.vparty . .;u:.m,. g.n,,..%

would - not

,. .g;.g.G .; a. .e.,;; >:.:.

infringe privatety 2,,.'::. ;Qwry.%. i'.W. M'rw.?J'.3./~- M:w

.w e -* FQ owned

rights

;*%.

~ N' W W,.('l*. Q .g *Q..:.'.;.'.a.h.a.

,&.v., ...,p&. .,l., .,. .;;i.s )* . , a,_.Q n.3 f$.9 4 , g .y;ts g.,

'{M.:I';*:i*ffWf;~)u.n.ps, ','I f.. f. y.

s-*.*,.,,f:

,* 5.,m N; s g.g.

.t.....

p 'g ',{. ' .,," l[. .

2 * * *

..y*.,.,. ..

M., . . ~..,,. + ..r.c . o., , . .:, ,..,--:,. ."

.. ..eg. . h.[. .f. c.. s' ,,,,,4..

.h

,,.e.... ,; m. ,7 .

..q+g. .

. .g.x.,, . ,. . . . . .

g%.R.,s..v.. .. ,...f. s . ,v .. ; uu,.:* . . ..

. . g.

s.3

.. . . . . ~ . - ..,,,;.

4~........p.....

r. . . . . ~,, w. a.. . . . . .

.u. ., .ca . . . . . . . ,%?. . . - . . - . - . . . m,.-

4. ..s ,...-.#

. .; g ,4..

. ~.w. . . . .-

.s

• ~ 2. " *' 7 *# '

1 f '.

• ' ~

l

2. . . ,

. z.w . ~ ; .y:n.. ,

c ert.g p. . 90R. ;.'. * *m. ,. '.s..

g. .. .. . . . . , . . - .

a 5. ..

• ^ ** .*

.'*L ..g,.; .w. .re. ...  ; , .,i,..

. . . 4 . . l *-c -. ',':, ' y- **;. .?

. . ;. - N ., .. .-

i.

t.7.4_. .

e g . ,.

.'.P' .

• Y, '.]' - .Q* p

• W.*,. .H

, i b?s ...'I'Y~.'

.

*'~

- . . h. ,;.iv%* W ..: Y,.

• 1.

..,.-~.s ."4.

. .., 4. < ..

., .;. . v: ,-> , . . . ' . ' . ,.. . , ...r ..- s ..

..,v,.~

.,f,,* .

. , . . . c. ...,.. ~. n.. . e.. .c .: . .

m,. ~,, ,..e.. u s. . . . . su . .:, . n . ~ -

x. ,.-

1.. (

,e... a.

u .

.J. Fra'nklin Research Center . , .

.. ' 3'3. . . - -e - . -

lymfon or,The Frankh.nInstJtute i

-[9 -

o,

' - '. s rtO '

. g4'u'e Len,emn FrarJdn Perhey. PM.s. 9a. IM 03 (215) .:.ts.icco * * ' '

.,t m., =

. .w ,

,~...

_mav

l' TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ECCS REPORTS (F-47)' -

TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY OYSTERCREEKNUCLEARGENERATINGSTATION 50-219 FRC PROJECT C5506 I NRCOOCKETNO.

NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC C3-81 130

, FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 FRC TASK 206 Prepared by

. B. 1.udington Franklin Research Center Author: 7. 'J. Vosbury 23th and Race Streets G. J. Overbeck Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: G. J. Overbeck

?repared for -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lead NRC Engineer: E. Chow Washington, D.C. 20555 January 27, 1983 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 empicyees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or esponsibility 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 rf ghts.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

'E.

lDrincipal A'uthor

/

'k ,_b fhl $ $f De'pa'rtment Dire or Q l

1 Oate: 'b 9/D

• /

Date. /-27-63 Date: l~ 27 - 93 4, _ .

. .L .

Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The r>enprrun Frankhn Parwwey. PNia Pa. 19103(215)448 1000-

TER-C550 6-20 6 CONETS Se ction Title Pace 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

~

1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Background. . . . . . . . . .' . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific 'Bacicground .- . . . . . . . . 2 2 REVIDi CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 4 J .1 Review of Fa platanasm of the licensee 8s Report . . . 4 3.2 Comparison of ECC System Outages with These of Other Plants . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3 Review of Proposed Changes to I= prove the Availability,of ECC Equipment . . . . . . . . 8 4 COtCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

. ~ .

l l iii i

O j L.kd Franklin Research Center . ,

A S a or n . r w a m. .

l

\

TER-C550 6-20 6 FORENORD This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Naclear 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. Overbeck, Mr. F. W. Vosbury, and Mr. B. W. Ludington cont:ibuted to the technical preparation of this report through a subcontract with 2"'m Services, I=c. ,

1

)

O . .

I R

.. 3 Frank!in,n,esearch Center ao . . r- % .

, ,.- . _ - . _ , . - - - _ - . ._ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . ~ _

TER-C5506-20G

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF RE'C EW This technical evaluation report (TER) documents an independent review of the outages of the emergency core cooling (ECC) systems at Jersey Central Power and Light Company's (JCP&L) Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if the Licensee has subalcted a report that is complete and satisfies the requirements of TMI Action It,em II.K.3.17, " Report on Outages ctf Emergency Core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes."

1.2 GENERIC BACKGROUND

- Following the . Nee Jille . Island rs i e J . m ~-4 Aan *, f.he.Paliatins and Orders Task Force reviewed nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendors' small break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) anal'yses to ensure that an adequate basis existed for developing guidelines for s=all break LCCA emergency procedures.

During these reviews, a concern developed about the assumption of the worst single failure. Typically, the small break LCCA analysis for boiling water reacters (BWas) assumed a loss of the high pressure coolant injection (EPCI) system as the worst single failure. However, the technical specifications permitted plant cperation for substantial periods with the EPCI system out of service with no limit on the accumulated cutage time. There'is concern not only about the EPCI system, but also about all ECC systems for which .

substantial outages might occur within the limits of the present technical specification. Therefore, to ensure that the small break LOCA analyses are consistent with the actual plant response, the Bulletin and Orders Task Force recom= ended in NUREG-0626 [1] , " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accidpnts 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 systems. 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

.. ' .3 Franklin Research Center

[

• A D=sson of The Frenman insonne .

• TER-C550 6-10 6 operation. The end result should oe the quantification of nistorica' l unreliz.bility due to test and maintenance outages' This will establish if a need exists for cumulative outage requirements in technical specifications."

Later the recommendation was incorporated into NUREG-0660 (2] , "NRC Action Pla. Developed as a Result of the U.I-2 Accident," for GE-designed NSSSs as IMI Action Item II.K.3.17. In NUREG-0737 (3], " Clarification of W.I 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 availe.bility of ECC systems and j components.  ::n addition, the contents of the reports to be submitted by the licensees were further clarified as follows:

"The report should contain (1) outage dates and duration of outages; (2). cause of .the outage; (3) .ECC systems cr. ye=ts involved in the outage; and (4) corrective action taken."

l.3 PIJJC-SPECIFIC FACKGROUND On February 10, 1981 (4], JCP&L submitted a report in response +4 NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17, "Paport on CX2tages of Emergency Core-Cooling Syste=s Licensee Paprt and Proposed Technical Specification Changes." The report submitted by JCP&L covered the period from August 1,1975 to August 1, 19 80 for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. JCP&L indicated that, due to the high availability of ECC systems as calculated by JCP&L using forced outages, no recommendations to improve availability of ECC systems would be made.

l e

. A .

.. .'. Franklin Research Ce'nter ,

A Dvmon of The Frannkn inson,te

TER-C5506-206

2. RI .*:rd CRITERIA The Licensee's response to NOF2~,-0737, Item II.K.3.17, was evaluated against criteria provided by the NR in a letter dated July 21, 1981 [5]

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

1. 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 300 systems or components involved and corrective actions taken. Cest and maintenance outages were to be included.

2. A quantification of the historical unavailability of the ECC systems and components due to test and maintenance outages.

3. Proposed changes to i= prove 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 cutages. Finally, the 'last 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 NRC. A Diesel Generator Interim Reliability Program has been proposed to effect improved performance at operating plants., As a consequence, a comparison of diesel generator outage information within this review is not required.

nklin Research Center A c- ot n rmaua w . .

l TER-C5506-206

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION

• 3.1 REVIEW OF COMPLETENESS OF THE LICENSEE'S REFORT The ECC systems at JCP&L's Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station consist of the following two separate systems:

o automatic depressurization system (ADS) o core spray system. ,

In Reference 4, JCP&L also included data on the _ emergency diesel generators which support the ECC systems in carrying out their design functions under various accident conditions. In additica, the L'icensee included information on the containment spray system, which is used in conjunction with the core spray system

.undir x-4 ^=nt ~^ 4

• 4 ^"c .to remove heat.1.rca 2.he .pr huy .can+1 hm*nt and to assure continuity of core cooling. Although the containment spray system is an.

essential support system for the core spray system, only the automatic depressuri:ation system and the core spray system are considered in this review.

ECC system forced outage data were extracted from records of reportable occurrences and from the control room logs. If an outage duration could not be determined from these records, the best available estimate was provided for the event. For each forced outage event, JCP&L provided the outage date, duration, and the cause, plus sufficient description to discern the corrective action taken.

Surveillance testing outages which render ECC systems out of service were not reported separately, but only as total outage time for each system. JPC&L stated that the other type of planned outage, preventive maintenance, is performed when technical specifications do not require availability of the system or when the specifications allow operation of the ECC system in a degraded mode for the maintenance activity. The results of JPC&L's review were provided from August 1,1975 to August 1,1980 for the Oyster Creek plant.

Based on the preceding discussion, it is concluded that JCP&L has submitted a report which fulfills the requirements of review criterion 1 without exception. . _ .

h . .

Ud'J FmnWin Research Center *

%.s n. r ama

TER-C5506-206 3.2 COMPARISON OF ECO SYSTEM OUTAGES WITH THOSE OF OTH,ER PLANTS The outages of ECC systems can be categori:ed as (1) unplanned outages due to equipment f ailure or (2) planned outages due to surveillance testing or t

preventive maintenance. Unplanned outages are reportable as Licensee Event Reports (LERs) under the technical specifications. Planned outages for 4

periodic maintenance and testing are not reportable as LERs. The technical l

specificat' ions identify the type and quantity of ECC equipment required as l 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 componenes still operational. The purpose of the technical specification naximum allowable outage times is to prevent extended plant operation without sufficient ECC system protection.

nel m ,m 21 % _ble ontage t.ime, e y iFied per event, f em d e to ll=it the unavailability of an ECC system. However, there is no cumulative outage time

li=itation to prevent repeated planned and unplanned outages from accumulating extensive ECC syste= downti=e.

Unavailability, as defined in general ter=s in WASH-1400 [8], is the probability of a system being in a failed state when required. However, for this review, a detailed unavailability analysis was not required. Instead, a preli=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 operation during the last 5 years. To simplify the tabulation j of operating time, only the period when the plant was in operational Mo'de 1 was considered. Tnis simplifying assumption is reasonable given that the pericd of ti=e that a plant is starting up, shutting down, and cooling down is small co= pared 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 .nanner 'is not a true measure of the ECC system unavailability, since outage events are included that appear to co= promise system performance when, in fact, partial or full function of the system would be expected. Pull function of an ECC system eU... FrankJin Research Center A w ot w r ~n m

TER-C550 6-20 6 would be expected if the design capability of the system exceeded the capacity required for the system to fulfill its safety function.. Por exa=ple, if an ECC syste= censisting of twc loops with multiple pu=ps in each loop is designed se that caly one pump in each loop is required to satisfy core cooling requirements, then an outage of a single pu=p. would not prevent the system fro 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 co=ponents.. In accordance with the clarification discussed in Section 2, only the effects of outages associated with primary ECC system co=ponents and emergency diesel generators are considered in this review. The inclusion cf all cutage 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 (f orced) outage times for the two ECC systems (aute:atic depressuri:atica and core spray) and the emergency diesel generators were identified from the outage information in Reference 4 and are shown in nu=ber of days and as percentage of plant operating time per year in Table 1 for the Oyster Creek plant. Outages that occurred during nonoperational periods were eli=inated, as were those caused by failures or test and maintenance of support systems. Data on plant operating conditions were obtained fro = the annual reports, " Nuclear Power Plant Operating Exper ience" [9, 10, 11, 12), and from monthly reports, " Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Reports"[13] . The remaining outages were segregated into planned and unplanned outages on the basis of JCP&L's description of the cause. The outage periods for each category were calculated by summing the individual outage durations.

Observed outage times of the two ECC systems at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station were compared with those of other BWF3. Based on this comparison, it was concluded that the historical unavailability of the ADS has

.. .' Franklin Research Ce'nter -

A cw am vm m .

. , . . - ,. -, - , . .,n - .. . - , . . . - . . - , - --, - - - - . - , -

e TER-C550 6-20 6 Table 1. Planned and Unplanned (Forced) Outage "imes for Oyster Creek Automatic Core Spray Depressuriration Diesel Generator Days of Plant Outace in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Year Oneration Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned 1976 290.25 3.90 13 .0 0 0.0 0.36 0.46 18.37 (1.3%) (4.5%) (0.1%) (0.2%l (6.3%)

1977 255.88 0.27 13 .0 0 0.0 0.36 4.40 18.37 (0.1% ) (5.1%) (0.1% ) (1.7%) (7.2%)

1978 271.29 0.0 13 .0 0 0.0 0.36 0.23 18.37 (4.8%) (0.1%) (0.1% ) (6.8%)

1979 313.50 1.21 13.00 0.31 0.36 6.50 18 .3 7 _

(0.4%) - (4. 6%) (0.1% ) (0.1%) (2.1%) (5.6%)

1980 157.97 0 0.13 13 .0 0 0.08 0.36 0.0 18.37 (0.1%) (8.2%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (11.6%)

Total 1288.89 5.51 65.00 0.39 1.80 11.58 91.85 (0.4%) (5.0%) (< 0.1% ) (0.1%) (0.9%) (7.1% )

• tunbers in parentheses indicate system outage time as a percentage of total plant operating time.

dd2 Fran'rjin Research Center '

A :>=en of The Franhan wie

i

\

TER-C5 50 6-20 6 been consistent with the performance of this system throughout the industry.

The observed unavailability was less than the industri'la cean for the ADS, assuming that the underlying unavailability is dis tributed lognormally. The outage times were also consistent with existing technical specifications.

Historical unavailability of the other ECC syste.m, core spray, did not cc= pare favorably with the perfor=ance of similar syste=s throughout the indus try. The average unavailability for this system, shown in Table-1, is well above the industrial mean plus one standard deviation. Due to th,e higher unavailability of the core sp ay system, the outage times were reviewed in detail using the JCP&L submittal [4] . Thi's review established that 90% of the system unavailability was due to a series of surveillance testing procedures involving various motor-operated valves, isolation valves, and instruments.

The Licensee was contacted for more information concerning the effects of the testing on the availability of the core spray trains. The Licensee verified

[14] that one core spray system is ' rendered inoperable during each of the surveillance tests listed in Re ference 4. A mitor-operated block is closed and its motor breaker racked open prior to the start of each test procedure, preventing any core spray water from reaching the core.

During the discussion of surveillance testing procedures with the Licensee [14], it was noted that the tests are performed monthly, whether the plant is operating or in shutdown. Therefore, periods of core spray inoperability that occurred when the plant was not in mode 1 operation should be subtracted fro: the unavailability indicated in Table 1. Although .the number of times that surveillance testing cccurred during shutdown periods is not known, an estimate can be =ade by using the ratio of days during Mode 1 cperation to the days in the. year. Using this estimated adjustment for Oyster Creek Station yields an overall planned outage for the core spray of 55 instead of 65 days, and an unavadlability percentage of 4.2 instead of 5.0.

3.3 REVIEN OF PROPOSED CHANGES T IMPROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF ECC EQUIP.WT In Reference 4, JCP&L indicated that, as forced outage time for the ECC syste=s was so minor, no changes to improve reliability would be made.

-s-E@) Franklin Research Center

• A cm.aa a n. rwa wou. ,

,g-,

TER-C550 6-20 6 Although the total unavailability for core spray is substantial, it is

~

airost entirely cc= prised of surveillance testing procedures that are required by technical specifications to ensure operability of the core spray equipment.

Hence, no changes in procedures or equipment are reco== ended.

~'~

[Udb Franklin Resea.ch Center '

A Omem of The Frenen insomme

TER-C550 6-20 6

4. CONCLUSIONS JCP&L has submitted a report for the Oyster Creek plant which contains (1) outage dates and durations, (2) causes of the outages, (3) emergency core cooling (ECC) syste=s or components involved in the outages, and (4) corrective actions taken. It is concluded that JCP&L has fulfilled the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17.

In addition, the historical unavailability of the automatic depressur-1:ation system has been consistent with the performance of similar systems throughout the industry. 'Ibe observed unavailability was less than the

~

industrial mean. The outages were also consistent with existing technical

specifications.

"te historical unavailability of te wre spray system has been higher than that of similar systems throughout the industry. The observed unavail-ability was above one standard deviation plus the industrial mean. However, since most of the outage time is due to required surveillance testing, no changes to equipment or procedures are reco=:nended.

4 f

4 l

UUE Franklin Research Center -

A Chan.cn of The Frannha ineenme

• TER-C5506-206

5. REFERENCES

1. NUREG-0626

" Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Term Operating License Applications" NRC, January 1980

2. NUREG-0660

, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the WI-2 Accident" NRC, March 1980 .

3. NUREG-073 7

" Clarification of MI Action Plan Requirements" NRC, October 1980

4. I. R. Finfrock, Jr. (JCP&L)

Le tter to D. G. Eisenhut (NRC).

Subject:

Submittal of Information Required by NUREG-0737 JCP&L, February 10, 1981

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

Letter to Dr. S. P. Carf agno (FRC).

Subject:

Contract No.

NRC-0 3-81-13 0, Tentative Assignment F e NRC, July 21, 1981

6. NRC 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-1400

" Reactor Safety Study" NRC, October 1975

9. NUEEG-0366

" Nuclear Power Plant C*perating Experience 1976" NRC, December 1977 ,

10. NUREG-0483 "Naclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1977" NRC, February 1979

)

dO

. Franklin Research Center .

A On on af The Frana6n inaeame

• CER-C550 6-20 6

11. NUREG-0618

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1978" ~

NRC, December 1979

12. NUREG/CR-1496

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1979" NRC, May 1981 ,

13. NUREG-0020

" Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report" .

~

Volume 4, Nos.1 through 12, and Volume 5, No.1 NRC, December 1980' through January 1981 ,

14. hr Telephone Conversation Between Pdul Craya (GPU Nuclear) and B.

Ludington (Westec/FRC) .

Subject:

Effects of Surveillance Testing on Core Spray Availability December 10, 1982

~

~

UUhd Frank!in Research Celiter .

A w een,r- % .

l

_ - . - . _ . _ - . _ . . -.