ML21039A781
| ML21039A781 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/2017 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | |
| John Lane | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21039A780 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML21039A781 (132) | |
Text
Component Reliability Data Sheets 2015 Update Table of Contents 1 Valves ..............................................................................................................7 1.1 Air-Operated Valve (AOV) .......................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Motor-Operated Valve (MOV) ................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Hydraulic-Operated Valve (HOV) .............................................................................................. 13 1.4 Solenoid-Operated Valve (SOV) ................................................................................................ 15 1.5 Explosive-Operated Valve (EOV) .............................................................................................. 18 1.6 Vacuum Breaker Valve (VBV) ................................................................................................... 20 1.7 Turbine Bypass Valve (TBV) ..................................................................................................... 22 1.8 Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSV) ........................................................................................... 24 1.9 Check Valve (CKV) .................................................................................................................... 26 1.10 Manual Valve (XVM) ................................................................................................................. 29 1.11 Flow Control Valve (FCV) ......................................................................................................... 31 2 Pumps ............................................................................................................33 2.1 Motor-Driven Pump (MDP)........................................................................................................ 33 2.2 Turbine-Driven Pump (TDP) ...................................................................................................... 38 2.3 Engine-Driven Pump (EDP) ....................................................................................................... 42 2.4 Positive Displacement Pump (PDP) ........................................................................................... 45 2.5 AFW Pump Volute (PMP) .......................................................................................................... 49 3 Generators ....................................................................................................50 3.1 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) .......................................................................................... 50 3.2 Hydro Turbine Generator (HTG) ................................................................................................ 53 3.3 Combustion Turbine Generator (CTG) ....................................................................................... 54 3.4 High-Pressure Core Spray Generator (HPCS) ............................................................................ 55 3.5 Station Blackout Generator (SBO) ............................................................................................. 56 4 Relief Valves .................................................................................................57 4.1 Safety Relief Valve (SRV) .......................................................................................................... 57 4.2 Safety Valve (SVV) .................................................................................................................... 60 4.3 Power-Operated Relief Valve (PORV) ....................................................................................... 62 4.4 Low-Capacity Relief Valve (RVL) ............................................................................................. 64 5 Electrical Equipment ...................................................................................66 5.1 Battery Charger (BCH) ............................................................................................................... 66 5.2 Battery (BAT) ............................................................................................................................. 68 5.3 Automatic Bus Transfer Switch (ABT) ...................................................................................... 69 5.4 Circuit Breaker (CRB) ................................................................................................................ 71 5.5 Inverter (INV) ............................................................................................................................. 74 5.6 Bus (BUS) ................................................................................................................................... 75 5.7 Motor Control Center (MCC) ..................................................................................................... 76 5.8 Transformer (TFM) ..................................................................................................................... 77 5.9 Sequencer (SEQ) ......................................................................................................................... 79 5.10 Fuse (FUS) .................................................................................................................................. 80 6 Strainers........................................................................................................82 6.1 Filter (FLT) ................................................................................................................................. 83 Component Reliability 1 February 2017
6.2 Self-Cleaning Strainer (FLTSC) ................................................................................................. 85 6.3 Sump Strainer (SMP) .................................................................................................................. 86 6.4 Traveling Screen Assembly (TSA) ............................................................................................. 87 6.5 Trash Rack (TRK)....................................................................................................................... 88 7 Reactor Protection .......................................................................................89 7.1 Bistable (BIS).............................................................................................................................. 89 7.2 Process Logic Components (PLDT, PLF, PLL, PLP) ................................................................ 90 7.3 Sensor/Transmitter Components (STF, STL, STP, STT) ........................................................... 91 7.4 Reactor Trip Breaker (RTB) ....................................................................................................... 92 7.5 Manual Switch (MSW) ............................................................................................................... 93 7.6 Relay (RLY)................................................................................................................................ 94 8 Control Rods ................................................................................................95 8.1 Control Rod Drive (CRD) ........................................................................................................... 95 8.2 Control Rod (ROD)..................................................................................................................... 97 8.3 Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU) ................................................................................................... 98 9 Heating and Ventilation ..............................................................................99 9.1 Damper (DMP) ........................................................................................................................... 99 9.2 Air Handling Unit (AHU) ......................................................................................................... 102 9.3 Chiller (CHL) ............................................................................................................................ 105 9.4 Fan (FAN) ................................................................................................................................. 108 10 Miscellaneous Equipment .........................................................................112 10.1 Air Compressor (CMP) ............................................................................................................. 112 10.2 Air Dryer Unit (ADU)............................................................................................................... 116 10.3 Accumulator (ACC) .................................................................................................................. 117 10.4 Cooling Tower Fan (CTF) ........................................................................................................ 119 10.5 Tank (TNK) .............................................................................................................................. 123 10.6 Orifice (ORF) ............................................................................................................................ 126 10.7 Pipe (PIPE)................................................................................................................................ 127 10.8 Heat Exchanger (HTX) ............................................................................................................. 129 10.9 Instrumentation (INS) ............................................................................................................... 131 11 References ...................................................................................................132 Component Reliability 2 February 2017
Update Notes This file represents the first update to the original set of component reliability data sheets, which was completed in February of 2007. The original set of component reliability data sheets were extracted from NUREG/CR-6928 [Reference 14] and generally contained data from the date range of 1998 to 2002.
This file generally represents reliability results using a date range of 1998 to 2015 directly analyzed using the Reliability and Availability Data System (RADS).
There have been several major enhancements to the collection and analysis of reliability data since the original issue of NUREG/CR-6928. The following is a summary of those changes:
- 1. Most of the reliability results, included herein, are taken directly from RADS. The Institute for Nuclear Power Operation (INPO) Consolidated Events System (ICES),
formerly the Equipment Performance Information Exchange (EPIX) data loaded into RADS has undergone significant review and scrutiny by the staff at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INL) to prepare the data to be useful in probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs). Most of the ICES failure data are being updated to reflect the results of the data collection and coding taken at the INL. In addition, the demand and run-hour data have been scrutinized before data load to remove or correct suspect data entries.
- 2. The overall performance of RADS has undergone extensive verification and validation.
RADS performs database searches for component failure data. These searches have been independently verified to be accurate for all combinations of search criteria.
- 3. NUREG/CR-6928 introduced the concepts of high and low-demand components as well as standby and normally running equipment. Off-line analysis of data was required to produce segregated results for these component partitions. Currently the identification of high and low-demand components as well as standby and normally running equipment is taken care of before the data is loaded into RADS.
This update incorporates several component and failure mode combinations that were not reported in the original NUREG/CR-6928. These are to support the SPAR data load and are listed here to provide a reference.
There have been several minor changes to the component reliability data sheets to enhance readability and simplify the product:
- 1. The tables from each section that compare the maximum likelihood estimators (MLE) and various methods of estimating uncertainty have been removed. Most readers were confused as to which of many possible estimates for reliability were valid and the NUREG/CR-6928 never used the component variability.
- 2. In many places, the text reiterated what was obvious in the figure or the table or described the selection of low-demand data. The text has been removed.
- 3. The selected industry distribution table showing the rounded results has been removed.
The user may round the data to suit their current needs.
- 4. The last section generally showed limited results for systems. Since we do not recommend the use of these results without further analysis, this section has been deleted.
- 5. Many results (leakage, operation, etc) depend on an exposure time that is independent of whether the plant is critical or shutdown. Previously, no allowance was made for whether the plant was operational, now the exposure time is based on reactor years.
Component Reliability 3 February 2017
- 6. The first column in the tables has been changed to Pooling Group. The pooling group indicates whether any refinements (All means no refinements) were made to the data search beyond what was discussed in the introduction.
The original NUREG/CR-6928 used some arbitrary statistical adjustments to data that have been modified to be less arbitrary:
- 1. The use of the SCNID distribution (a simplified version of the constrained non-informative distribution [CNID]) has been discontinued. The Jefferies update replaces that distribution.
The SCNID had the property of producing a result with a highly uncertain distribution, which was supposed to enhance the use of the reliability results as the prior to a plant-specific update. The primary use of these results is to support SPAR and the use of highly uncertain distributions leads to more uncertainty in the final CDF.
- 2. There was a decision made when the empirical Bayes (EB) analysis produced a result that had a low (<0.3) parameter to the beta or gamma distribution, that the parameter was reset to 0.3 and and the mean were recalculated. This action was motivated since the EB could produce extremely wide distributions that nobody believed were valid. This update revises the decision-making and the alternative method of obtaining a reasonable distribution. The decision point is now whether the difference between the 5th percentile and the mean is greater than 4 orders of magnitude (this happens to approximate the decision point of < 0.3). When the decision point is reached, instead of creating an arbitrary distribution, the Jeffries distribution is used, which is the same decision that is made when the EB does not return a result.
- 3. The abbreviations used to describe the distributions in this update are the empirical Bayes-plant level-Kass-Steffey (EB/PL/KS) and the Jeffries non-informative distribution at the industry level (JNID/IL).
Table 1 summarizes the top 10 percent of higher estimates of reliability in this update. Table 2 shows the top 10 percent of the lower estimates of reliability in this update. The tables show the original estimate in the column labeled Original and summarizes data leading to the estimate presented in this update. The In the comments section, references to the original estimates or the original NUREG refer to NUREG/CR-6928 and the estimates shown in that reference.
Component Reliability 4 February 2017
Table 1. Summary of top 10% increased unreliability estimates.
Section Rule Description Previous Data Current Data Delta Comments Failures Demands Comp. Mean Failures Demands Comp. Mean
/Time Count /Time Count 860% The 2015 rule specifies Hydraulic Operated Damper Fails 9.1 HOD-FTOC 20 35320 95 0.00058 11 6,225 d 39 5.57E-03 only low-demand To Open/Close components.
AFW-EDP- AFW Engine-driven pump Fails 341% Two new failures.
2.3 0 231 h 5 0.00216 2 262 h 5 9.53E-03 FTR>1H to Run >1H Strainer Plugging (Dirty water 265%
6.1 STR-FLT-PG 3 11281248 h 99 3.10E-07 10 9,300,024 h 59 1.13E-06 systems)
Engine Driven Compressor Fails 236%
10.1 EDC-FS-NS 2 1019 5 0.00245 17 2,121 d 5 8.24E-03 To Start, Normally Standby 1.1 XVM-FTOC Manual Valve Fails To Open 0 2605 76 0.000192 1 3,270 d 66 4.59E-04 139%
Hydraulic Operated Valve 69%
1.3 HOV-ILS 2 87527799 h 771 2.86E-08 4 93,083,360 h 601 4.83E-08 Internal Leakage (Small)
Positive Displacement Pump 46%
2.4 PDP-ELS 14 19599696 h 172 7.40E-07 28 26,271,740 h 175 1.08E-06 External Leakage (Small)
EDG-HCS- 21%
3.4 HCS Generator Fail to Run 3 3213 h 8 0.0009411 4 3,948 h 8 1.14E-03 FTR AHU-NR- Air Handling/Heating Unit Fails 18%
9.2 52 12998080 h 142 5.61E-06 62 17,498,560 h 139 6.65E-06 FTR To Run, Normally Running Table 2. Summary of top 10% decreased unreliability estimates.
Section Rule Description Previous Data Current Data Delta Comments Failures Demands Comp. Mean Failures Demands Comp. Mean
/Time Count /Time Count 4.2 SVV-FTO BWR Code Safety Fails To Open 7 17320 950 0.0004234 5 23,800 d 960 2.18E-04 -49%
Manual Valve Internal Leakage -49%
1.1 XVM-ILS 13 100961448 h 886 1.34E-07 7 128,295,300 h 866 6.88E-08 (Small)
Manual Valve External Leakage -57%
1.1 XVM-ELS 26 100961448 h 886 2.62E-07 14 128,295,300 h 866 1.13E-07 (Small)
Code Safety Valve External -58%
4.2 SVV-ELS 4 161355977 h 1416 2.79E-08 2 211,426,600 h 1426 1.18E-08 Leakage (Small)
Air-Operated Damper Internal -71%
9.1 AOD-ILS 12 20625312 h 181 6.06E-07 5 31,342,830 h 209 1.75E-07 Leakage (Small)
Safety Relief Valve (BWR Only) -71%
4.1 SRV-ELS 1 62541477 h 577 2.40E-08 0 72,220,220 h 558 6.92E-09 External Leakage (Small)
Low Capacity Relief Valve -74%
4.4 RVL-SO 1 7520832 h 66 1.99E-07 0 9,633,048 h 81 5.19E-08 Spurious Operation Main Steam Isolation External -76%
1.8 MSV-ELS 7 55836292 h 490 1.34E-07 2 79,241,950 h 513 3.15E-08 Leakage (Small)
Engine Driven Compressor Fails -94%
10.1 EDC-FR-E 15 5687 h 5 0.003777 0 2,121 h 5 2.36E-04 To Run <1H, Normally Standby Component Reliability 5 February 2017
Finally, the structure of the document has been changed to include high-level section descriptors that help the user to navigate to the desired information.
The RADS-based results in this update can be directly obtained from RADS Version 4.5.2015.12 and the set of rules that are available on the RADS down load web site.
Component Reliability 6 February 2017
Valves 1 Valves The valve component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for valves are listed in Table 1-1.
The selected ELL mean is the ELS mean multiplied by 0.07, with an assumed of 0.3. The selected ILL mean is the ILS mean multiplied by 0.02, with an assumed of 0.3. The 0.07 and 0.02 multipliers are based on limited EPIX data for large leaks as explained in Section A.1 in Reference 14.
Table 1-1. Valve failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description Standby FTO/C p - Failure to open or failure to close SOP 1/h Spurious operation ELS 1/h External leak small ELL 1/h External leak large ILS 1/h Internal leak small ILL 1/h Internal leak large Control FC 1/h Fail to control 1.1 Air-Operated Valve (AOV) 1.1.1 Component Description The air-operated valve (AOV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator (including the associated solenoid operated valves), local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry.
1.1.2 Data Collection and Review The data for AOV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the AOV data collection are listed in Table 1-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-2. AOV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 277 211 488 Chemical and volume control (CVC) 1 1 Circulating water system (CWS) 12 12 Component cooling water (CCW) 851 312 1163 Condensate system (CDS) 88 17 105 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 1 1 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 177 26 203 Containment isolation system (CIS) 7 9 16 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 30 36 66 Control rod drive (CRD) 483 71 554 Component Reliability 7 December 2016
Valves Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Emergency power supply (EPS) 319 23 342 Engineered safety features actuation (ESF) 1 1 Firewater (FWS) 4 1 5 Fuel handling (FHS) 2 2 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 731 101 832 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 81 7 88 High pressure core spray (HCS) 33 1 34 High pressure injection (HPI) 226 77 303 Instrument air (IAS) 26 21 47 Isolation condenser (ISO) 12 6 18 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 47 10 57 Main feedwater (MFW) 860 141 1001 Main steam (MSS) 978 110 1088 Normally operating service water (SWN) 719 309 1028 Reactor coolant (RCS) 238 55 293 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 82 7 89 Reactor protection (RPS) 8 13 21 Standby liquid control (SLC) 4 1 5 Standby service water (SWS) 162 20 182 Vapor suppression (VSS) 13 32 45 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 548 150 698 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 7021 1767 8788 Table 1-3 summarizes the data used in the AOV analysis. Note that the hours for FC, SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-3. AOV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 78 201,146 d 1767 98 3.2% 35.7%
- FTC 53 201,146 d 1767 98 2.7% 33.7%
- FTO/C 134 201,146 d 1767 98 5.9% 53.1%
- FC 279 1,347,257,000 h 8784 104 2.7% 79.8%
- SOP 132 1,347,257,000 h 8784 104 1.3% 55.8%
- ILS 104 1,347,257,000 h 8784 104 1.0% 38.5%
- ILL 104 1,347,257,000 h 8784 104 1.0% 38.5%
- ELS 60 1,347,257,000 h 8784 104 0.6% 30.8%
- ELL 60 1,347,257,000 h 8784 104 0.6% 30.8%
CCW SOP 25 178,863,300 h 1161 100 1.6% 13.0%
IAS SOP 0 7,056,096 h 45 24 0.0% 0.0%
Figure 1-1 shows the range of valve demands per year in the AOV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 8 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-1. AOV demands per year distribution.
1.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-4 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the AOV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for AOVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO EB/PL/KS 1.04E-05 2.44E-04 3.91E-04 1.27E-03 Beta 0.79 2.03E+03
- FTC EB/PL/KS 2.24E-06 1.78E-04 3.63E-04 1.35E-03 Beta 0.55 1.51E+03
- FTO/C EB/PL/KS 4.49E-05 5.49E-04 7.78E-04 2.29E-03 Beta 1.05 1.35E+03
- FC EB/PL/KS 2.41E-08 1.77E-07 2.28E-07 6.08E-07 Gamma 1.41 6.17E+06
- SOP EB/PL/KS 7.28E-09 7.61E-08 1.05E-07 2.99E-07 Gamma 1.14 1.09E+07
- ILS JNID/IL 6.57E-08 7.75E-08 7.76E-08 9.07E-08 Gamma 105.00 1.35E+09
- ILL JNID/IL 1.66E-13 3.78E-10 1.55E-09 7.10E-09 Gamma 0.30 1.93E+08
- ELS JNID/IL 3.58E-08 4.46E-08 4.49E-08 5.47E-08 Gamma 60.50 1.35E+09
- ELL JNID/IL 3.36E-13 7.66E-10 3.14E-09 1.44E-08 Gamma 0.30 9.55E+07 CCW SOP JNID/IL 9.94E-08 1.41E-07 1.43E-07 1.92E-07 Gamma 25.50 1.79E+08 IAS SOP JNID/IL 2.78E-10 3.22E-08 7.09E-08 2.72E-07 Gamma 0.50 7.06E+06 Component Reliability 9 December 2016
Valves 1.2 Motor-Operated Valve (MOV) 1.2.1 Component Description The motor-operated valve (MOV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for MOV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.2.2 Data Collection and Review The data for MOV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the MOV data collection are listed in Table 1-5 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-5. MOV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 258 476 734 Chemical and volume control (CVC) 13 13 Circulating water system (CWS) 69 74 143 Component cooling water (CCW) 760 683 1443 Condensate system (CDS) 43 1 44 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 6 6 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 34 7 41 Containment isolation system (CIS) 15 18 33 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 204 330 534 Control rod drive (CRD) 74 10 84 Emergency power supply (EPS) 61 1 62 Firewater (FWS) 10 8 18 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 189 22 211 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 101 262 363 High pressure core spray (HCS) 46 30 76 High pressure injection (HPI) 258 1004 1262 Instrument air (IAS) 16 14 30 Isolation condenser (ISO) 10 14 24 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 102 204 306 Main feedwater (MFW) 877 287 1164 Main steam (MSS) 707 177 884 Normally operating service water (SWN) 880 732 1612 Reactor coolant (RCS) 29 104 133 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 137 313 450 Reactor protection (RPS) 10 4 14 Standby liquid control (SLC) 7 21 28 Standby service water (SWS) 283 212 495 Vapor suppression (VSS) 9 14 23 Component Reliability Data Sheets 10 December 2016
Valves Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 914 1861 2775 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 6103 6902 13005 Table 1-6 summarizes the data used in the MOV analysis. Note that the hours for FC, SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-6. MOV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 293 740,890 d 6902 104 3.8% 88.5%
- FTC 234 740,890 d 6902 104 3.0% 76.9%
- FTO/C 558 740,890 d 6902 104 6.9% 94.2%
- FC 119 1,983,522,000 h 13001 104 0.8% 55.8%
- SOP 63 1,983,522,000 h 13001 104 0.5% 33.7%
- ILS 141 1,983,522,000 h 13001 104 0.9% 56.7%
- ILL 141 1,983,522,000 h 13001 104 0.9% 56.7%
- ELS 51 1,983,522,000 h 13001 104 0.3% 29.8%
- ELL 51 1,983,522,000 h 13001 104 0.3% 29.8%
BFV FTO 27 109,521 d 961 83 2.2% 20.5%
BFV FTC 34 109,521 d 961 83 3.4% 28.9%
BFV FTO/C 65 109,521 d 961 83 5.9% 44.6%
CCW SOP 6 223,471,400 h 1443 97 0.3% 3.1%
SWS SOP 3 73,067,170 h 495 41 0.6% 4.9%
BFVCCW SOP 6 106,466,800 h 708 72 0.8% 4.2%
Figure 1-2 shows the range of valve demands per year in the MOV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability Data Sheets 11 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-2. MOV demands per year distribution.
1.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-7 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the MOV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-7. Selected industry distributions of p and for MOVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO EB/PL/KS 1.17E-04 3.76E-04 4.21E-04 8.76E-04 Beta 3.08 7.32E+03
- FTC EB/PL/KS 5.25E-05 2.76E-04 3.35E-04 8.17E-04 Beta 1.82 5.44E+03
- FTO/C EB/PL/KS 2.00E-04 7.20E-04 8.22E-04 1.78E-03 Beta 2.66 3.24E+03
- FC EB/PL/KS 7.49E-09 4.69E-08 5.90E-08 1.50E-07 Gamma 1.58 2.69E+07
- SOP EB/PL/KS 2.90E-10 1.69E-08 3.24E-08 1.17E-07 Gamma 0.59 1.83E+07
- ILS EB/PL/KS 1.66E-09 4.58E-08 7.58E-08 2.52E-07 Gamma 0.75 9.86E+06
- ILL EB/PL/KS 1.62E-13 3.70E-10 1.52E-09 6.93E-09 Gamma 0.30 1.98E+08
- ELS EB/PL/KS 9.56E-11 1.21E-08 2.71E-08 1.05E-07 Gamma 0.49 1.81E+07
- ELL EB/PL/KS 2.03E-13 4.62E-10 1.90E-09 8.68E-09 Gamma 0.30 1.58E+08 BFV FTO JNID/IL 1.79E-04 2.49E-04 2.51E-04 3.36E-04 Beta 27.50 1.09E+05 BFV FTC EB/PL/KS 2.30E-05 2.45E-04 3.38E-04 9.68E-04 Beta 1.13 3.35E+03 BFV FTO/C EB/PL/KS 3.84E-05 4.98E-04 7.14E-04 2.12E-03 Beta 1.02 1.43E+03 CCW SOP JNID/IL 1.32E-08 2.77E-08 2.91E-08 5.01E-08 Gamma 6.50 2.23E+08 SWS SOP JNID/IL 1.48E-08 4.34E-08 4.79E-08 9.62E-08 Gamma 3.50 7.31E+07 BFV--CCW SOP JNID/IL 2.78E-08 5.82E-08 6.11E-08 1.05E-07 Gamma 6.50 1.06E+08 Component Reliability Data Sheets 12 December 2016
Valves 1.3 Hydraulic-Operated Valve (HOV) 1.3.1 Component Description The hydraulic-operated valve (HOV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for HOV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.3.2 Data Collection and Review The data for HOV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the HOV data collection are listed in Table 1-8 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-8. HOV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 46 11 57 Circulating water system (CWS) 5 3 8 Component cooling water (CCW) 4 4 Condensate system (CDS) 3 3 Containment isolation system (CIS) 3 3 Emergency power supply (EPS) 5 6 11 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 9 1 10 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 21 6 27 High pressure injection (HPI) 6 6 Instrument air (IAS) 1 1 Main feedwater (MFW) 44 73 117 Main steam (MSS) 192 104 296 Normally operating service water (SWN) 6 5 11 Reactor coolant (RCS) 3 3 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 13 3 16 Standby service water (SWS) 5 4 9 Vapor suppression (VSS) 1 1 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 14 4 18 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 371 230 601 Table 1-9 summarizes the data used in the HOV analysis. Note that the hours for FC, SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-9. HOV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO/C 26 19,862 d 230 42 9.1% 31.0%
- FC 42 93,083,360 h 601 80 5.3% 27.5%
- SOP 17 93,083,360 h 601 80 1.8% 11.3%
Component Reliability Data Sheets 13 December 2016
Valves Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- ILS 4 93,083,360 h 601 80 0.7% 5.0%
- ILL 4 93,083,360 h 601 80 0.7% 5.0%
- ELS 12 93,083,360 h 601 80 1.2% 8.8%
- ELL 12 93,083,360 h 601 80 1.2% 8.8%
Figure 1-3 shows the range of valve demands per year in the HOV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 1-3. HOV demands per year distribution.
1.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-10 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the HOV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for HOVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO/C JNID/IL 9.40E-04 1.32E-03 1.33E-03 1.79E-03 Beta 26.50 1.98E+04
- FC JNID/IL 3.48E-07 4.53E-07 4.57E-07 5.77E-07 Gamma 42.50 9.31E+07
- SOP JNID/IL 1.21E-07 1.84E-07 1.88E-07 2.67E-07 Gamma 17.50 9.31E+07
- ILS JNID/IL 1.79E-08 4.48E-08 4.83E-08 9.09E-08 Gamma 4.50 9.31E+07
- ILL JNID/IL 1.03E-13 2.35E-10 9.66E-10 4.42E-09 Gamma 0.30 3.11E+08
- ELS JNID/IL 7.85E-08 1.31E-07 1.34E-07 2.02E-07 Gamma 12.50 9.31E+07
- ELL JNID/IL 1.00E-12 2.29E-09 9.38E-09 4.29E-08 Gamma 0.30 3.20E+07 Component Reliability Data Sheets 14 December 2016
Valves 1.4 Solenoid-Operated Valve (SOV) 1.4.1 Component Description The solenoid-operated valve (SOV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for SOV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.4.2 Data Collection and Review The data for SOV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the SOV data collection are listed in Table 1-11 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-11. SOV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 25 31 56 Chemical and volume control (CVC) 2 2 Component cooling water (CCW) 10 10 Condensate system (CDS) 3 3 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 7 7 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 15 11 26 Control rod drive (CRD) 27 397 424 Emergency power supply (EPS) 53 23 76 Engineered safety features actuation (ESF) 5 5 Firewater (FWS) 48 1 49 Fuel handling (FHS) 2 2 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 20 47 67 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 11 8 19 High pressure injection (HPI) 31 6 37 Instrument air (IAS) 42 39 81 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 2 2 Main feedwater (MFW) 15 6 21 Main steam (MSS) 29 37 66 Normally operating service water (SWN) 14 12 26 Reactor coolant (RCS) 16 87 103 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 1 2 3 Reactor protection (RPS) 8 14 22 Standby service water (SWS) 3 3 Vapor suppression (VSS) 2 2 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 19 32 51 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 404 759 1163 Component Reliability Data Sheets 15 December 2016
Valves Table 1-12 summarizes the data used in the SOV analysis.
Table 1-12. SOV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO/C 23 33,316 d 759 54 2.6% 20.4%
- FC 58 143,582,100 h 1161 87 4.5% 21.8%
- SOP 9 143,582,100 h 1161 87 0.4% 5.7%
- ILS 20 143,582,100 h 1161 87 1.7% 13.8%
- ILL 20 143,582,100 h 1161 87 1.7% 13.8%
- ELS 3 143,582,100 h 1161 87 0.3% 3.4%
- ELL 3 143,582,100 h 1161 87 0.3% 3.4%
Figure 1-4 shows the range of valve demands per year in the SOV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 1-4. SOV demands per year (low demand devices) distribution.
1.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-13 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the SOV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-13. Selected industry distributions of p and for SOVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO/C JNID/IL 4.84E-04 6.95E-04 7.05E-04 9.60E-04 Beta 23.50 3.33E+04
- FC JNID/IL 3.23E-07 4.04E-07 4.07E-07 4.97E-07 Gamma 58.50 1.44E+08
- SOP JNID/IL 3.51E-08 6.37E-08 6.62E-08 1.05E-07 Gamma 9.50 1.44E+08
- ILS JNID/IL 9.49E-08 1.40E-07 1.43E-07 1.98E-07 Gamma 20.50 1.44E+08
- ILL JNID/IL 3.06E-13 6.97E-10 2.86E-09 1.31E-08 Gamma 0.30 1.05E+08 Component Reliability Data Sheets 16 December 2016
Valves Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- ELS JNID/IL 7.53E-09 2.20E-08 2.44E-08 4.88E-08 Gamma 3.50 1.44E+08
- ELL JNID/IL 1.83E-13 4.16E-10 1.71E-09 7.81E-09 Gamma 0.30 1.76E+08 Component Reliability Data Sheets 17 December 2016
Valves 1.5 Explosive-Operated Valve (EOV) 1.5.1 Component Description The explosive-operated valve (EOV) component boundary includes the valve and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure mode for EOV is listed in Table 1-1.
1.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for EOV UR baseline was obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the EOV data collection are listed in Table 1-14with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-14. EOV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Standby liquid control (SLC) 16 57 73 Grand Total 16 57 73 Table 1-15 summarizes the data used in the EOV analysis.
Table 1-15. EOV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 3 713 d 57 27 5.3% 11.1%
Figure 1-5 shows the range of valve demands per year in the EOV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 18 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-5. EOV demands per year distribution.
1.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-16 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution for the EOV FTO failure mode. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Table 1-16. Selected industry distributions of p and for EOVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO JNID/IL 1.52E-03 4.44E-03 4.90E-03 9.83E-03 Beta 3.50 7.11E+02 Component Reliability 19 December 2016
Valves 1.6 Vacuum Breaker Valve (VBV) 1.6.1 Component Description The vacuum breaker valve (VBV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for VBV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.6.2 Data Collection and Review Data for VBV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the VBV data collection are listed in Table 1-17 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-17. VBV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Main steam (MSS) 10 4 14 Vapor suppression (VSS) 165 163 328 Grand Total 175 167 342 Table 1-18 summarizes the data used in the VBV analysis.
Table 1-18. VBV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 2 27,842 d 167 17 1.2% 11.8%
- FTC 6 27,842 d 167 17 3.6% 23.5%
- FTO/C 8 27,842 d 167 17 4.8% 35.3%
- SOP 1 52,796,540 h 342 30 0.3% 3.3%
- ILS 15 52,796,540 h 342 30 4.4% 10.0%
- ILL 15 52,796,540 h 342 30 4.4% 10.0%
Figure 1-6 shows the range of valve demands per year in the VBV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 20 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-6. VBV demands per year (low demand devices) distribution.
1.6.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-19 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the VBV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-19. Selected industry distributions of p and for VBVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO JNID/IL 2.06E-05 7.83E-05 8.98E-05 1.99E-04 Beta 2.50 2.78E+04
- FTC EB/PL/KS 4.03E-06 1.27E-04 2.15E-04 7.25E-04 Beta 0.72 3.33E+03
- FTO/C EB/PL/KS 5.55E-06 1.94E-04 3.37E-04 1.15E-03 Beta 0.69 2.05E+03
- SOP JNID/IL 3.33E-09 2.24E-08 2.84E-08 7.40E-08 Gamma 1.50 5.28E+07
- ILS JNID/IL 1.83E-07 2.87E-07 2.94E-07 4.26E-07 Gamma 15.50 5.28E+07
- ILL JNID/IL 6.29E-13 1.43E-09 5.88E-09 2.69E-08 Gamma 0.30 5.10E+07 Component Reliability 21 December 2016
Valves 1.7 Turbine Bypass Valve (TBV) 1.7.1 Component Description The turbine bypass valve (TBV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator (including the associated solenoid operated valves), local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for TBV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.7.2 Data Collection and Review The data for TBV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the TBV data collection are listed in Table 1-20 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-20. TBV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Main steam (MSS) 83 73 156 Grand Total 83 73 156 Table 1-21 summarizes the data used in the AOV analysis. Note that the hours for FC are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-21. TBV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 8 2,725 d 73 15 8.2% 20.0%
- FTC 0 2,725 d 73 15 0.0% 0.0%
- FTO/C 8 2,725 d 73 15 8.2% 20.0%
- FC 14 23,964,260 h 156 27 5.8% 25.9%
Figure 1-7 shows the range of valve demands per year in the TBV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 22 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-7. TBV demands per year distribution.
1.7.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-22 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the TBV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-22. Selected industry distributions of p and for TBV s.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO JNID/IL 1.59E-03 2.99E-03 3.12E-03 5.05E-03 Beta 8.50 2.72E+03
- FTC JNID/IL 7.20E-07 8.33E-05 1.83E-04 7.03E-04 Beta 0.50 2.73E+03
- FTO/C JNID/IL 1.59E-03 2.99E-03 3.12E-03 5.05E-03 Beta 8.50 2.72E+03
- FC JNID/IL 3.69E-07 5.90E-07 6.05E-07 8.87E-07 Gamma 14.50 2.40E+07 Component Reliability 23 December 2016
Valves 1.8 Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSV) 1.8.1 Component Description The motor-operated valve (MSV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for MOV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.8.2 Data Collection and Review The data for MSV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the MOV data collection are listed in Table 1-23 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-23. MSV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Main steam (MSS) 94 419 513 Grand Total 94 419 513 Table 1-24 summarizes the data used in the MSV analysis. Note that the hours for SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-24. MSV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO/C 34 38,629 d 419 83 6.4% 24.1%
- SOP 25 79,241,950 h 513 104 4.3% 17.3%
- ILS 63 79,241,950 h 513 104 10.1% 20.2%
- ILL 63 79,241,950 h 513 104 10.1% 20.2%
- ELS 2 79,241,950 h 513 104 0.4% 1.9%
- ELL 2 79,241,950 h 513 104 0.4% 1.9%
Figure 1-8 shows the range of valve demands per year in the MSV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 24 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-8. MSV demands per year distribution.
1.8.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-25 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the MSV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-25. Selected industry distributions of p and for MSVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO/C JNID/IL 6.59E-04 8.84E-04 8.93E-04 1.16E-03 Beta 34.50 3.86E+04
- SOP EB/PL/KS 1.44E-09 1.45E-07 3.10E-07 1.18E-06 Gamma 0.52 1.66E+06
- ILS JNID/IL 6.44E-07 7.98E-07 8.01E-07 9.74E-07 Gamma 63.50 7.92E+07
- ILL JNID/IL 1.71E-12 3.91E-09 1.60E-08 7.33E-08 Gamma 0.30 1.87E+07
- ELS JNID/IL 7.23E-09 2.75E-08 3.15E-08 6.99E-08 Gamma 2.50 7.92E+07
- ELL JNID/IL 2.36E-13 5.38E-10 2.21E-09 1.01E-08 Gamma 0.30 1.36E+08 Component Reliability 25 December 2016
Valves 1.9 Check Valve (CKV) 1.9.1 Component Description The check valve (CKV) component boundary includes the valve and no other supporting components. The failure modes for CKV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.9.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CKV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the CKV data collection are listed in Table 1-26 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-26. CKV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 857 53 910 Circulating water system (CWS) 7 7 Component cooling water (CCW) 441 34 475 Condensate system (CDS) 81 81 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 3 3 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 2 1 3 Containment isolation system (CIS) 1 1 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 301 54 355 Control rod drive (CRD) 30 3 33 Emergency power supply (EPS) 314 21 335 Engineered safety features actuation (ESF) 2 2 Firewater (FWS) 32 32 Fuel handling (FHS) 29 29 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 2 4 6 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 157 10 167 High pressure core spray (HCS) 48 48 High pressure injection (HPI) 861 125 986 Instrument air (IAS) 126 126 Isolation condenser (ISO) 1 1 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 125 5 130 Main feedwater (MFW) 229 27 256 Main steam (MSS) 188 23 211 Normally operating service water (SWN) 509 10 519 Reactor coolant (RCS) 188 7 195 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 138 10 148 Reactor recirculation (RRS) 1 1 Standby liquid control (SLC) 15 15 Standby service water (SWS) 178 9 187 Vapor suppression (VSS) 5 4 9 Component Reliability Data Sheets 26 December 2016
Valves Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 967 93 1060 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 5835 496 6331 Table 1-27 summarizes the data used in the CKV analysis. Note that the hours for SOP, SC, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-27. CKV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 0 54,125 d 496 45 0.0% 0.0%
- FTC 8 54,125 d 496 45 1.4% 11.1%
- SO 2 977,258,600 h 6331 103 0.0% 1.9%
- SC 5 977,258,600 h 6331 103 0.0% 1.0%
- ILS 143 977,258,600 h 6331 103 2.0% 54.4%
- ILL 143 977,258,600 h 6331 103 2.0% 54.4%
- ELS 7 977,258,600 h 6331 103 0.1% 5.8%
- ELL 7 977,258,600 h 6331 103 0.1% 5.8%
Figure 1-9 shows the range of valve demands per year in the CKV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 1-9. CKV demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability Data Sheets 27 December 2016
Valves 1.9.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-28 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the CKV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-28. Selected industry distributions of p and for CKVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO JNID/IL 3.63E-08 4.20E-06 9.24E-06 3.55E-05 Beta 0.50 5.41E+04
- FTC JNID/IL 8.01E-05 1.51E-04 1.57E-04 2.55E-04 Beta 8.50 5.41E+04
- SO JNID/IL 5.86E-10 2.23E-09 2.56E-09 5.67E-09 Gamma 2.50 9.77E+08
- SC JNID/IL 2.34E-09 5.29E-09 5.63E-09 1.01E-08 Gamma 5.50 9.77E+08
- ILS EB/PL/KS 1.14E-09 1.00E-07 2.08E-07 7.80E-07 Gamma 0.53 2.57E+06
- ILL EB/PL/KS 4.45E-13 1.01E-09 4.16E-09 1.90E-08 Gamma 0.30 7.21E+07
- ELS JNID/IL 3.72E-09 7.34E-09 7.67E-09 1.28E-08 Gamma 7.50 9.77E+08
- ELL JNID/IL 5.75E-14 1.31E-10 5.37E-10 2.46E-09 Gamma 0.30 5.59E+08 Component Reliability Data Sheets 28 December 2016
Valves 1.10 Manual Valve (XVM) 1.10.1 Component Description The manual valve (XVM) component boundary includes the valve and valve operator. The failure modes for XVM are listed in Table 1-1.
1.10.2 Data Collection and Review Data for XVM UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2004 using RADS. The systems included in the XVM data collection are listed in Table 1-29 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-29. XVM systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 96 5 101 Circulating water system (CWS) 6 6 Component cooling water (CCW) 179 19 198 Condensate system (CDS) 2 2 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 1 1 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 30 2 32 Control rod drive (CRD) 5 5 Emergency power supply (EPS) 18 18 Firewater (FWS) 5 5 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 6 6 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 3 3 High pressure core spray (HCS) 29 29 High pressure injection (HPI) 28 1 29 Instrument air (IAS) 5 5 Isolation condenser (ISO) 24 24 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 12 12 Main feedwater (MFW) 6 1 7 Main steam (MSS) 21 6 27 Normally operating service water (SWN) 53 6 59 Reactor coolant (RCS) 9 9 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 13 13 Reactor protection (RPS) 2 2 Standby liquid control (SLC) 8 4 12 Standby service water (SWS) 113 8 121 Unknown (UKN) 1 1 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 126 14 140 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 801 66 867 Table 1-30 summarizes the data used in the XVM analysis. Note that the hours for SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Component Reliability 29 December 2016
Valves Table 1-30. XVM unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO/C 1 3,270 d 66 9 1.5% 11.1%
- SOP 6 128,295,300 h 866 78 0.7% 7.7%
- ILS 7 128,295,300 h 866 78 0.8% 9.0%
- ILL 7 128,295,300 h 866 78 0.8% 9.0%
- ELS 14 128,295,300 h 866 78 1.5% 12.8%
- ELL 14 128,295,300 h 866 78 1.5% 12.8%
SWS SOP 2 18,346,180 h 121 11 1.7% 18.2%
Figure 1-10 shows the range of valve demands per year in the XVM data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 1-10. XVM demands per year distribution.
1.10.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-30 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the XVM failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-31. Selected industry distributions of p and for XVMs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO/C JNID/IL 5.38E-05 3.62E-04 4.59E-04 1.19E-03 Beta 1.50 3.27E+03
- SOP JNID/IL 2.30E-08 4.82E-08 5.07E-08 8.74E-08 Gamma 6.50 1.28E+08
- ILS EB/PL/KS 9.97E-10 3.89E-08 6.88E-08 2.38E-07 Gamma 0.67 9.70E+06
- ILL EB/PL/KS 1.47E-13 3.35E-10 1.38E-09 6.29E-09 Gamma 0.30 2.18E+08
- ELS JNID/IL 6.92E-08 1.11E-07 1.13E-07 1.66E-07 Gamma 14.50 1.28E+08
- ELL JNID/IL 8.47E-13 1.93E-09 7.91E-09 3.62E-08 Gamma 0.30 3.79E+07 SWS SOP JNID/IL 3.13E-08 1.19E-07 1.36E-07 3.02E-07 Gamma 2.50 1.83E+07 Component Reliability 30 December 2016
Valves 1.11 Flow Control Valve (FCV) 1.11.1 Component Description The Flow Control Valve (FCV) component boundary includes the valve and valve operator.
Motor-operated and air-operated valves are included in this group. The failure modes for FCV are listed in Table 1-1.
1.11.2 Data Collection and Review Data for FCV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2004 using RADS. The systems included in the FCV data collection are listed in Table 1-32 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 1-32. FCV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand FCV Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 2 6 8 Component cooling water (CCW) 425 87 512 Condensate system (CDS) 18 18 Main feedwater (MFW) 7 7 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 26 3 29 PWRs) (RHR)
FCV Total 478 96 574 FWR Main feedwater (MFW) 196 20 216 FWR Total 196 20 216 Grand Total 674 116 790 Table 1-33 summarizes the data used in the FCV analysis. Note that the hours for SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 1-33. FCV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours FCV FTO/C 5 12,487 d 96 14 4.2% 21.4%
FCV FC 16 88,861,090 h 574 84 2.3% 10.7%
FCV SOP 10 88,861,090 h 574 84 1.0% 6.0%
FRV FF 72 33,730,380 h 216 76 26.4% 50.0%
Figure 1-11 shows the range of valve demands per year in the XVM data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 31 December 2016
Valves Figure 1-11. FCV demands per year distribution.
1.11.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 1-34 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the FCV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 1-34. Selected industry distributions of p and for FCVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type FCV FTO/C JNID/IL 1.83E-04 4.13E-04 4.40E-04 7.87E-04 Beta 5.50 1.25E+04 FCV FC JNID/IL 1.17E-07 1.82E-07 1.86E-07 2.67E-07 Gamma 16.50 8.89E+07 FCV SOP JNID/IL 6.52E-08 1.14E-07 1.18E-07 1.84E-07 Gamma 10.50 8.89E+07 FRV FF EB/PL/KS 3.08E-07 1.72E-06 2.10E-06 5.23E-06 Gamma 1.73 8.22E+05 Component Reliability 32 December 2016
Pumps 2 Pumps The pump boundary includes the pump, driver, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for pumps are listed in Table 2-1.
The selected ELL mean is the ELS mean multiplied by 0.07, with an assumed of 0.3. The selected ILL mean is the ILS mean multiplied by 0.02, with an assumed of 0.3. The 0.07 and 0.02 multipliers are based on limited EPIX data for large leaks as explained in Section A.1 in Reference 14.
Table 2-1. Pump failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description Standby FTS p - Failure to start FTR1H 1/h Failure to run for 1 h FTR>1H 1/h Fail to run beyond 1 h Running/Alternating FTS p - Failure to start FTR 1/h Fail to run All ELS 1/h External leak small ELL 1/h External leak large 2.1 Motor-Driven Pump (MDP) 2.1.1 Component Description The motor-driven pump (MDP) boundary includes the pump, motor, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The motor-driven pump component data in this section includes only centrifugal type pumps. Component data for positive displacement (also motor-driven) are presented in Section 2.4. The failure modes for MDP are listed in Table 2-1.
2.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for MDP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the MDP data collection are listed in Table 2-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 2-2. MDP systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Chemical and volume control (CVC) 8 8 Running Chilled water system (CHW) 1 2 3 Circulating water system (CWS) 113 32 145 Component cooling water (CCW) 98 291 389 Condensate system (CDS) 9 143 152 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 1 1 Component Reliability 33 December 2016
Pumps Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 25 25 Control rod drive (CRD) 3 43 46 Emergency power supply (EPS) 2 2 Firewater (FWS) 5 5 Fuel Oil Transfer (FOT) 17 17 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 2 2 High pressure injection (HPI) 1 5 6 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 15 4 19 Main feedwater (MFW) 2 44 46 Normally operating service water (SWN) 38 105 143 Reactor protection (RPS) 2 2 Standby service water (SWS) 27 2 29 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 1 1 PWRs) (RHR)
Normally 362 679 1041 Running Total Standby Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 128 128 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 157 157 Control rod drive (CRD) 9 9 Emergency power supply (EPS) 14 14 Firewater (FWS) 1 1 Fuel Oil Transfer (FOT) 20 20 High pressure core spray (HCS) 9 9 High pressure injection (HPI) 168 168 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 70 70 Standby service water (SWS) 2 442 444 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 293 293 PWRs) (RHR)
Standby 2 1311 1313 Total Grand 364 1990 2354 Total Table 2-3 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the MDP analysis. Note that the hours for ELS are reactor-year hours.
Table 2-3. MDP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Standby FTS 351 482,205 d 1311 106 20.6% 86.8%
Standby FTR<1H 48 437,647 h 1311 106 3.4% 32.1%
Standby FTR>1H 143 20,062,180 h 1311 106 9.3% 59.4%
- ELS 105 347,850,600 h 2344 104 3.5% 47.1%
- ELL 105 347,850,600 h 2344 104 3.5% 47.1%
Normally FTS 147 138,318 d 670 101 16.7% 63.4%
Running Normally FTR 225 59,582,350 h 664 101 25.0% 69.3%
Running CCW FTS 69 88,692 h 291 85 16.5% 45.9%
Component Reliability 34 December 2016
Pumps Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours CCW FTR 53 19,648,220 h 291 85 15.5% 38.8%
SWS FTS 149 249,956 h 446 97 24.0% 63.9%
SWS FTS 180 264,383 d 549 100 24.2% 66.0%
SWS FTR 64 10,443,960 h 106 37 34.9% 67.6%
SWS FTR 2 16,692,670 h 446 97 0.4% 2.1%
NSW FTR 64 10,256,170 h 104 37 35.6% 67.6%
SWS-NE FTS 179 264,383 d 549 100 24.0% 66.0%
SWS-NE FTR 151 26,944,240 h 548 100 20.4% 61.0%
CSW FTR 25 3,654,539 h 32 12 59.4% 66.7%
Figure 2-1a shows the range of start demands per year in the standby MDP data set. Figure 2-1b shows the range of start demands per year in the running MDP data set. Figure 2-2a shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby MDP data set. Figure 2-2b shows the range of run hours per demands in the running MDP data set.
Figure 2-1a. Standby MDP demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 35 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-1b. Running/alternating MDP demands per year distribution.
Figure 2-2a. Standby MDP run hours per demand distribution.
Component Reliability 36 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-2b. Running/alternating MDP run hours per demand distribution.
2.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 2-4 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the MDP failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 2-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for MDPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Standby FTS EB/PL/KS 1.59E-04 6.78E-04 7.94E-04 1.83E-03 Beta 2.21 2.78E+03 Standby FTR<1H EB/PL/KS 3.94E-06 7.86E-05 1.22E-04 3.89E-04 Gamma 0.84 6.91E+03 Standby FTR>1H EB/PL/KS 1.35E-07 6.28E-06 1.15E-05 4.07E-05 Gamma 0.63 5.49E+04
- ELS EB/PL/KS 9.46E-09 1.87E-07 2.91E-07 9.22E-07 Gamma 0.85 2.92E+06
- ELL EB/PL/KS 2.18E-12 4.97E-09 2.04E-08 9.32E-08 Gamma 0.30 1.47E+07 Normally FTS EB/PL/KS 2.61E-04 9.52E-04 1.08E-03 2.37E-03 Beta 2.62 2.41E+03 Running Normally FTR EB/PL/KS 1.15E-06 3.43E-06 3.79E-06 7.68E-06 Gamma 3.42 9.01E+05 Running CCW FTS EB/PL/KS 5.86E-05 6.32E-04 8.78E-04 2.52E-03 Beta 1.12 1.28E+03 CCW FTR EB/PL/KS 2.87E-07 2.13E-06 2.76E-06 7.33E-06 Gamma 1.40 5.09E+05 SWS FTS EB/PL/KS 5.67E-05 5.56E-04 7.55E-04 2.14E-03 Beta 1.18 1.56E+03 SWS FTS EB/PL/KS 6.20E-05 6.17E-04 8.41E-04 2.38E-03 Beta 1.17 1.39E+03 SWS FTR EB/PL/KS 4.14E-07 4.70E-06 6.56E-06 1.91E-05 Gamma 1.09 1.66E+05 SWS FTR JNID/IL 3.43E-08 1.30E-07 1.50E-07 3.31E-07 Gamma 2.50 1.67E+07 NSW FTR EB/PL/KS 4.34E-07 4.85E-06 6.72E-06 1.96E-05 Gamma 1.10 1.63E+05 SWS-NE FTS EB/PL/KS 6.39E-05 6.18E-04 8.36E-04 2.36E-03 Beta 1.19 1.42E+03 SWS-NE FTR EB/PL/KS 8.93E-07 4.69E-06 5.67E-06 1.39E-05 Gamma 1.82 3.20E+05 CSW FTR JNID/IL 4.88E-06 6.90E-06 6.98E-06 9.41E-06 Gamma 25.50 3.65E+06 Component Reliability 37 December 2016
Pumps 2.2 Turbine-Driven Pump (TDP) 2.2.1 Component Description The TDP boundary includes the pump, turbine, governor control, steam emission valve, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and controls. The failure modes for TDP are listed in Table 2-1.
2.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for TDP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the TDP data collection are listed in Table 2-5 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 2-5. TDP systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Main feedwater (MFW) 10 43 53 Running Normally 10 43 53 Running Total Standby Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 74 74 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 28 28 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 31 31 Standby 133 133 Total Grand 10 176 186 Total Table 2-6 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the TDP analysis. Note that the hours for ELS are reactor-year hours.
Table 2-6. TDP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Standby FTS 146 26,557 d 133 98 54.9% 60.2%
Standby FTR<1H 61 18,025 h 133 98 31.6% 38.8%
Standby FTR>1H 23 11,204 h 133 98 16.5% 22.4%
Normally FTS 12 1,395 d 43 20 20.9% 40.0%
Running Normally FTR 62 5,984,882 h 43 20 60.5% 85.0%
Running
- ELS 15 28,788,990 h 186 102 5.9% 10.8%
- ELL 15 28,788,990 h 186 102 5.9% 10.8%
Component Reliability 38 December 2016
Pumps Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours AFW FTS 72 18,053 d 74 65 41.9% 47.7%
AFW FTR<1H 40 12,075 h 74 65 32.4% 36.9%
AFW FTR>1H 13 9,282 h 74 65 17.6% 20.0%
HCI-RCI FTS 41 4,929 d 31 31 71.0% 71.0%
HCI-RCI FTR<1H 21 5,949 h 59 33 30.5% 42.4%
HCI-RCI FTR>1H 10 1,922 h 59 33 15.3% 27.3%
MFW FTS 62 5,984,882 d 43 20 60.5% 85.0%
MFW FTR 62 5,984,882 h 43 20 60.5% 85.0%
Figure 2-3a shows the range of start demands per year in the standby TDP data set. Figure 2-3b shows the range of start demands per year in the running/alternating TDP data set. Figure 2-4a shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby TDP data set. Figure 2-4b shows the range of run hours per demands in the running TDP data set.
Figure 2-3a. Standby TDP demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 39 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-3b. Running/alternating TDP demands per year distribution.
Figure 2-4a. Standby TDP run hours per demand distribution.
Component Reliability 40 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-4b. Running/alternating TDP run hours per demand distribution.
2.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 2-7 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the TDP failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 2-7. Selected industry distributions of p and for TDPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Standby FTS EB/PL/KS 4.70E-04 4.47E-03 6.01E-03 1.69E-02 Beta 1.20 1.98E+02 Standby FTR<1H EB/PL/KS 1.34E-04 2.43E-03 3.70E-03 1.16E-02 Gamma 0.88 2.37E+02 Standby FTR>1H JNID/IL 1.44E-03 2.07E-03 2.10E-03 2.86E-03 Gamma 23.50 1.12E+04 Normally FTS EB/PL/KS 4.04E-04 6.25E-03 9.17E-03 2.81E-02 Beta 0.94 1.01E+02 Running Normally FTR EB/PL/KS 1.43E-06 8.73E-06 1.09E-05 2.77E-05 Gamma 1.61 1.48E+05 Running
- ELS JNID/IL 3.35E-07 5.27E-07 5.38E-07 7.81E-07 Gamma 15.50 2.88E+07
- ELL JNID/IL 4.03E-12 9.18E-09 3.77E-08 1.72E-07 Gamma 0.30 7.97E+06 AFW FTS EB/PL/KS 9.44E-05 2.62E-03 4.33E-03 1.43E-02 Beta 0.75 1.72E+02 AFW FTR<1H EB/PL/KS 9.03E-05 2.26E-03 3.67E-03 1.20E-02 Gamma 0.77 2.11E+02 AFW FTR>1H JNID/IL 8.70E-04 1.42E-03 1.45E-03 2.16E-03 Gamma 13.50 9.28E+03 HCI-RCI FTS EB/PL/KS 2.52E-03 7.90E-03 8.78E-03 1.81E-02 Beta 3.16 3.56E+02 HCI-RCI FTR<1H EB/PL/KS 2.36E-04 2.68E-03 3.75E-03 1.09E-02 Gamma 1.09 2.91E+02 HCI-RCI FTR>1H EB/PL/KS 1.04E-03 4.67E-03 5.52E-03 1.29E-02 Gamma 2.10 3.81E+02 MFW FTS EB/PL/KS 1.43E-06 8.73E-06 1.09E-05 2.77E-05 Gamma 1.61 1.48E+05 MFW FTR EB/PL/KS 1.43E-06 8.73E-06 1.09E-05 2.77E-05 Gamma 1.61 1.48E+05 Component Reliability 41 December 2016
Pumps 2.3 Engine-Driven Pump (EDP) 2.3.1 Component Description The diesel-driven pump (EDP) boundary includes the pump, diesel engine, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for DDP are listed in Table 2-1.
2.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for EDP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the EDP data collection are listed in Table 2-8 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 2-8. EDP systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 1 1 Running Firewater (FWS) 23 6 29 Fuel Oil Transfer (FOT) 2 2 Standby service water (SWS) 3 3 Normally 29 6 35 Running Total Standby Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 5 5 Emergency power supply (EPS) 1 1 Firewater (FWS) 21 21 Standby service water (SWS) 10 10 Standby 37 37 Total Grand 29 43 72 Total Table 2-9 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the EDP analysis.
Table 2-9. EDP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTS 26 17,987 d 37 24 37.8% 50.0%
- FTR<1H 10 10,716 h 37 24 18.9% 29.2%
- FTR>1H 11 5,820 h 37 24 21.6% 29.2%
- ELS 8 9,129,089 h 69 40 11.6% 17.5%
- ELL 8 9,129,089 h 69 40 11.6% 17.5%
AFW FTS 3 1,274 d 5 5 40.0% 40.0%
Component Reliability 42 December 2016
Pumps Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours AFW FTR<1H 4 739 h 5 5 60.0% 60.0%
AFW FTR>1H 2 262 h 5 5 40.0% 40.0%
Figure 2-5 shows the range of start demands per year in the standby EDP data set. Figure 2-6 shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby EDP data set.
Figure 2-5. Standby EDP demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 43 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-6. Standby EDP run hours per demand distribution.
2.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 2-10 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the EDP failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 2-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for EDPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTS EB/PL/KS 2.52E-05 1.19E-03 2.17E-03 7.68E-03 Beta 0.63 2.89E+02
- FTR<1H JNID/IL 5.42E-04 9.50E-04 9.80E-04 1.53E-03 Gamma 10.50 1.07E+04
- FTR>1H JNID/IL 1.12E-03 1.92E-03 1.98E-03 3.02E-03 Gamma 11.50 5.82E+03
- ELS EB/PL/KS 5.15E-08 6.42E-07 9.12E-07 2.70E-06 Gamma 1.04 1.14E+06
- ELL EB/PL/KS 6.83E-12 1.56E-08 6.38E-08 2.92E-07 Gamma 0.30 4.70E+06 AFW FTS JNID/IL 8.52E-04 2.49E-03 2.74E-03 5.52E-03 Beta 3.50 1.27E+03 AFW FTR<1H JNID/IL 2.25E-03 5.64E-03 6.09E-03 1.14E-02 Gamma 4.50 7.39E+02 AFW FTR>1H JNID/IL 2.19E-03 8.30E-03 9.53E-03 2.11E-02 Gamma 2.50 2.62E+02 Component Reliability 44 December 2016
Pumps 2.4 Positive Displacement Pump (PDP) 2.4.1 Component Description The positive displacement pump (PDP) boundary includes the pump, motor, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for PDP are listed in Table 2-1.
2.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for PDP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the PDP data collection are listed in Table 2-11 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 2-11. PDP systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Chemical and volume control (CVC) 26 63 89 Running Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 6 6 Emergency power supply (EPS) 3 3 Fuel Oil Transfer (FOT) 3 3 Instrument air (IAS) 1 1 Standby liquid control (SLC) 1 1 Normally 40 63 103 Running Total Standby Emergency power supply (EPS) 2 2 Standby liquid control (SLC) 70 70 Standby 72 72 Total Grand 40 135 175 Total Table 2-12 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the PDP analysis. Note that the hours for ELS are reactor-year hours.
Table 2-12. PDP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Normally FTS 78 35,863 d 63 26 63.5% 73.1%
Running Normally FTR 71 2,905,081 h 60 25 53.3% 64.0%
Running Standby FTS 16 10,798 d 72 34 19.4% 38.2%
Component Reliability 45 December 2016
Pumps Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Standby FTR<1H 2 4,699 h 72 34 2.8% 5.9%
Standby FTR>1H 2 1,709 h 72 34 2.8% 5.9%
- ELS 28 26,271,740 h 175 74 10.9% 18.9%
- ELL 28 26,271,740 h 175 74 10.9% 18.9%
Figure 2-7a shows the range of start demands per year in the standby PDP data set. Figure 2-7b shows the range of start demands per year in the running PDP data set. Figure 2-8a shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby PDP data set. Figure 2-8b shows the range of run hours per demands in the running PDP data set.
Figure 2-7a. Standby PDP demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 46 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-7b. Running/alternating PDP demands per year distribution.
Figure 2-8a. Standby PDP run hours per demand distribution.
Component Reliability 47 December 2016
Pumps Figure 2-8b. Running/alternating PDP run hours per demand distribution.
2.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 2-13 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 2-13. Selected industry distributions of p and for PDPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Normally FTS EB/PL/KS 3.63E-04 2.13E-03 2.63E-03 6.63E-03 Beta 1.66 6.28E+02 Running Normally FTR EB/PL/KS 1.43E-06 2.49E-05 3.77E-05 1.17E-04 Gamma 0.89 2.37E+04 Running Standby FTS JNID/IL 9.65E-04 1.49E-03 1.53E-03 2.19E-03 Beta 16.50 1.08E+04 Standby FTR<1H JNID/IL 1.22E-04 4.63E-04 5.32E-04 1.18E-03 Gamma 2.50 4.70E+03 Standby FTR>1H JNID/IL 3.35E-04 1.27E-03 1.46E-03 3.24E-03 Gamma 2.50 1.71E+03
- ELS JNID/IL 7.73E-07 1.07E-06 1.08E-06 1.44E-06 Gamma 28.50 2.63E+07
- ELL JNID/IL 8.09E-12 1.84E-08 7.56E-08 3.46E-07 Gamma 0.30 3.97E+06 Component Reliability 48 December 2016
Pumps 2.5 AFW Pump Volute (PMP) 2.5.1 Component Description The AFW pump volute (PMP) boundary includes the pump volute portion of AFW EDPs, MDPs, and TDPs. PMP is used only to support the quantification of common-cause failure events across EDPs, MDPs, and TDPs. The failure modes for PMP are listed in Table 2-1.
2.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for PMP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the PMP data collection are listed in Table 2-14 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 2-14. PMP systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Standby Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 207 207 Standby 207 207 Total Grand 1 207 208 Total To identify pump volute failures within the AFW EDP, MDP, and TDP failures, the EPIX data was analyzed outside of RADS to determine the failures in the pump volute sub-component. Table 2-15 summarizes the data obtained from the event review and used in the PMP analysis.
Table 2-15. PMP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Standby FTR 25 158,885 h 207 69 12.1% 34.8%
2.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 2-16 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the PMP failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 2-16. Selected industry distributions of p and for PMPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Standby FTR JNID/IL 1.12E-04 1.58E-04 1.60E-04 2.16E-04 Gamma 25.50 1.59E+05 Component Reliability 49 December 2016
Generators 3 Generators The generators covered in this data sheet include those within the Class 1E ac electrical power system, the high-pressure core spray (HPCS) systems, and station blackout (SBO) generators.
The failure modes for the generator are listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Generator failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTS p - Failure to start FTLR p - Fail to load and run for 1 h FTR>1H 1/h Fail to run beyond 1 h Table 3-2 shows the breakdown of the generator component data available for calculations. Not all of the generators are provided with demand and run time estimates. The column, Unknown Demand shows the generator counts for which, there are no demand and/or run time estimates. The component count is broken down into two categories: Unknown Demand which shows the counts for those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year.
Table 3-2. Generator component counts.
Pooling System Number of Components Group Unknown Low Total Demand Demand CTG Emergency power supply (EPS) 1 3 4 Plant ac power (ACP) 2 2 CTG 3 3 6 Total EDG Emergency power supply (EPS) 4 232 236 Plant ac power (ACP) 1 1 EDG 5 232 237 Total HPCS High pressure core spray (HCS) 8 8 HPCS 8 8 Total HTG Emergency power supply (EPS) 2 2 HTG 2 2 Total SBO Emergency power supply (EPS) 6 2 8 Plant ac power (ACP) 14 2 16 SBO Total 20 4 24 Grand 28 249 277 Total 3.1 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) 3.1.1 Component Description The emergency diesel generators (EDGs) covered in this data sheet are those within the Class 1E ac electrical power system at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.
The EDG boundary includes the diesel engine with all components in the exhaust path, electrical generator, generator exciter, output breaker, combustion air, lube oil systems, fuel oil system, and starting compressed air system, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. However, the sequencer is not Component Reliability 50 December 2016
Generators included. For the service water system providing cooling to the EDGs, only the devices providing control of cooling flow to the EDG heat exchangers are included. Room heating and ventilating is not included.
The failure modes for EDG are listed in Table 3-1.
3.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for EDG UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the EDG data collection are listed in Table 3-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 3-3 summarizes the data obtained from the event review and used in the EDG analysis.
Table 3-3. EDG unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours EDG FTS 214 75,451 d 232 95 55.2% 86.3%
EDG FTLR 239 65,993 h 232 95 60.8% 82.1%
EDG FTR 184 133,975 h 232 95 51.7% 77.9%
Figure 3-1 shows the range of start demands per year in the EDG data set. Figure 3-2 shows the range of run hours per demand in the EDG data set.
Figure 3-1. EDG demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 51 December 2016
Generators Figure 3-2. EDG run hours per demand distribution.
3.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 3-4 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the EDG failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 3-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for EDGs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type EDG FTS EB/PL/KS 1.52E-03 2.78E-03 2.88E-03 4.60E-03 Beta 9.19 3.18E+03 EDG FTLR EB/PL/KS 1.14E-03 3.37E-03 3.72E-03 7.49E-03 Gamma 3.47 9.33E+02 EDG FTR EB/PL/KS 3.53E-04 1.33E-03 1.52E-03 3.36E-03 Gamma 2.53 1.66E+03 Component Reliability 52 December 2016
Generators 3.2 Hydro Turbine Generator (HTG) 3.2.1 Component Description The hydro turbine generator (HTG) boundary includes the turbine, generator, circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for HTG are listed in Table 3-1.
3.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for HTG UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the HTG data collection are listed in Table 3-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 3-5 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the HTG analysis.
Table 3-5. HTG unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours HTG FTS 11 7,270 d 2 1 100.0% 100.0%
HTG FTLR 7 4,629 h 2 1 50.0% 100.0%
HTG FTR 1 10,678 h 2 1 50.0% 100.0%
3.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 3-6 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 3-6. Selected industry distributions of p and for HTGs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type HTG FTS JNID/IL 9.00E-04 1.54E-03 1.58E-03 2.42E-03 Beta 11.50 7.26E+03 HTG FTLR JNID/IL 7.84E-04 1.55E-03 1.62E-03 2.70E-03 Gamma 7.50 4.63E+03 HTG FTR JNID/IL 1.64E-05 1.11E-04 1.40E-04 3.65E-04 Gamma 1.50 1.07E+04 Component Reliability 53 December 2016
Generators 3.3 Combustion Turbine Generator (CTG) 3.3.1 Component Description The combustion turbine generator (CTG) boundary includes the gas turbine, generator, circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for CTG are listed in Table 3-1.
3.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CTG UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the CTG data collection are listed in Table 3-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 3-7 summarizes the data obtained from the plant and used in the CTG analysis.
Table 3-7. CTG unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours CTG FTS 18 503 d 3 3 100.0% 100.0%
CTG FTLR 2 432 d 2 2 100.0% 100.0%
CTG FTR 5 648 h 2 2 100.0% 100.0%
3.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 3-8 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 3-8. Selected industry distributions of p and for CTGs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type CTG FTS EB/PL/KS 2.98E-03 3.73E-02 5.12E-02 1.48E-01 Beta 1.03 1.90E+01 CTG FTLR JNID/IL 1.33E-03 5.04E-03 5.79E-03 1.28E-02 Gamma 2.50 4.32E+02 CTG FTR JNID/IL 3.53E-03 7.98E-03 8.49E-03 1.52E-02 Gamma 5.50 6.48E+02 Component Reliability 54 December 2016
Generators 3.4 High-Pressure Core Spray Generator (HPCS) 3.4.1 Component Description The high-pressure core spray generator (HPCS) boundary includes the engine, generator, circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for HPCS are listed in Table 3-1.
3.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for HPCS UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015.
The systems included in the HPCS data collection are listed in Error! Reference source not found. with the number of components included with each system. Table 3-9 summarizes the data obtained from the plant and used in the CTG analysis.
Table 3-9. HPCS unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours HCS FTS 2 2,653 d 8 8 25.0% 25.0%
HCS FTR 4 3,948 h 8 8 37.5% 37.5%
3.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 3-10 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 3-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for HPCSs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type HCS FTS JNID/IL 2.16E-04 8.20E-04 9.42E-04 2.09E-03 Beta 2.50 2.65E+03 HCS FTR JNID/IL 4.21E-04 1.06E-03 1.14E-03 2.14E-03 Gamma 4.50 3.95E+03 Component Reliability 55 December 2016
Generators 3.5 Station Blackout Generator (SBO) 3.5.1 Component Description The station blackout generator (SBO) boundary includes the engine, exhaust, generator, circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for SBO are listed in Table 3-1.
3.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for SBO UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015.
The systems included in the SBO data collection are listed in Table 3-2 with the number of components included with each system. Table 3-11 summarizes the data obtained from the plant and used in the SBO analysis.
Table 3-11. SBO unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours SBO FTS 12 419 d 4 4 50.0% 50.0%
SBO FTR 2 1,667 h 4 4 50.0% 50.0%
3.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 3-12 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 3-12. Selected industry distributions of p and for SBOs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type SBO FTS JNID/IL 1.75E-02 2.90E-02 2.98E-02 4.45E-02 Beta 12.50 4.08E+02 SBO FTR JNID/IL 3.43E-04 1.30E-03 1.50E-03 3.31E-03 Gamma 2.50 1.67E+03 Component Reliability 56 December 2016
Relief Valves 4 Relief Valves The relief valves presented in this section include the BWR dual-acting relief valves (SRV), the PWR power-operated relief valves (PORV) that are on the pressurizer and on the steam generators, and the code safety valves (SVV) that are on the pressurizer and on the steam generators. The failure modes for relief valves are listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Relief valve failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTO p - Fail to open FTC p - Fail to close SOP 1/h Spurious opening FTCL p - Fail to close after passing liquid 4.1 Safety Relief Valve (SRV) 4.1.1 Component Description The safety relief valve (SRV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The SRV lifts either by system pressure directly acting on the valve operator or by an electronic signal to the pilot valve. These are known as dual acting relief valves. The failure modes for SRV are listed in Table 4-1.
4.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for most SRV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the SRV data collection are listed in Table 4-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 4-2. SRV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Main steam (MSS) 118 440 558 Grand Total 118 440 558 Table 4-3 summarizes the data used in the SRV analysis. Note that the hours for SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 4-3. SRV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 23 9,719 d 440 33 3.6% 27.3%
- FTC 8 9,719 d 440 33 1.8% 21.2%
- FC 0 72,220,220 h 558 34 0.0% 0.0%
- SOP 9 72,220,220 h 558 34 1.6% 23.5%
Component Reliability 57 December 2016
Relief Valves Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- SOP 9 72,220,220 h 558 34 1.6% 23.5%
- ILS 25 72,220,220 h 558 34 4.1% 38.2%
- ILL 25 72,220,220 h 558 34 4.1% 38.2%
- ELS 0 72,220,220 h 558 34 0.0% 0.0%
Figure 4-1 shows the range of valve demands per year in the SRV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 4-1. SRV demands per year distribution.
4.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 4-4 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the SRV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
The FTCL failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The selected distribution was generated by reviewing the FTC data in WSRC. To approximate the FTCL, the highest 95th percentiles for FTC were identified from that source. The highest values were approximately 1.0E-01. The mean for FTCL was assumed to be 1.0E-01. An of 0.5 was also assumed.
Table 4-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for SRVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO JNID/IL 1.66E-03 2.38E-03 2.42E-03 3.29E-03 Beta 23.50 9.70E+03
- FTC EB/PL/KS 9.42E-05 6.85E-04 8.86E-04 2.34E-03 Beta 1.42 1.61E+03
- FC JNID/IL 2.72E-11 3.15E-09 6.92E-09 2.66E-08 Gamma 0.50 7.22E+07
- SOP EB/PL/KS 6.03E-09 9.44E-08 1.40E-07 4.29E-07 Gamma 0.94 6.68E+06
- ILS EB/PL/KS 1.16E-09 1.76E-07 4.09E-07 1.61E-06 Gamma 0.47 1.15E+06
- ILL EB/PL/KS 8.76E-13 1.99E-09 8.18E-09 3.74E-08 Gamma 0.30 3.67E+07
- ELS JNID/IL 2.72E-11 3.15E-09 6.92E-09 2.66E-08 Gamma 0.50 7.22E+07 Component Reliability 58 December 2016
Relief Valves Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- ELL JNID/IL 5.18E-14 1.18E-10 4.84E-10 2.22E-09 Gamma 0.30 6.19E+08 Component Reliability 59 December 2016
Relief Valves 4.2 Safety Valve (SVV) 4.2.1 Component Description The safety valve (SVV) component boundary includes the valve and the valve operator. The SVV is a direct-acting relief valve. These relief valves are also known as Code Safeties since their lift points are the highest and are meant to protect the piping integrity. The failure modes for SVV are listed in Table 4-1.
4.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for SVV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the SVV data collection are listed in Table 4-5 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 4-5. SVV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand BWR Main steam (MSS) 22 43 65 PWR Main steam (MSS) 375 762 1137 Reactor coolant (RCS) 69 155 224 Grand Total 466 960 1426 The SVV data set obtained from RADS was further reduced to include only those SVVs with 20 demands/year. See Section A.1 in Reference 14 for a discussion concerning this decision to limit the component populations for valves. Table 4-6 summarizes the data used in the SVV analysis. The FTCL failure mode is not supported with EPIX data. Note that the hours for SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 4-6. SVV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 5 23,800 d 960 66 0.5% 6.1%
- FTC 3 23,800 d 960 66 0.3% 3.0%
- SOP 11 211,426,600 h 1426 79 0.8% 7.6%
- ILS 14 211,426,600 h 1426 79 1.0% 13.9%
- ILL 14 211,426,600 h 1426 79 1.0% 13.9%
- ELS 2 211,426,600 h 1426 79 0.1% 2.5%
- ELL 2 211,426,600 h 1426 79 0.1% 2.5%
PWR MSS FTO 4 20,242 d 762 46 0.5% 6.5%
PWR MSS FTC 2 20,242 d 762 46 0.3% 2.2%
PWR MSS SOP 8 172,245,500 h 1137 66 0.7% 4.5%
PWR RCS FTO 1 2,906 d 155 48 0.6% 2.1%
PWR RCS FTC 1 2,906 d 155 48 0.6% 2.1%
PWR RCS SOP 3 29,547,930 h 224 69 1.3% 4.3%
Component Reliability 60 December 2016
Relief Valves Figure 4-2 shows the range of valve demands per year in the SVV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 4-2. SVV demands per year distribution.
4.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 4-7 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the SVV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 4-7. Selected industry distributions of p and for SVVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO EB/PL/KS 4.04E-07 8.73E-05 2.18E-04 8.77E-04 Beta 0.44 2.01E+03
- FTC JNID/IL 4.55E-05 1.33E-04 1.47E-04 2.95E-04 Beta 3.50 2.38E+04
- SOP JNID/IL 3.10E-08 5.29E-08 5.44E-08 8.33E-08 Gamma 11.50 2.11E+08
- ILS JNID/IL 4.20E-08 6.71E-08 6.86E-08 1.01E-07 Gamma 14.50 2.11E+08
- ILL JNID/IL 1.47E-13 3.34E-10 1.37E-09 6.28E-09 Gamma 0.30 2.19E+08
- ELS JNID/IL 2.71E-09 1.03E-08 1.18E-08 2.62E-08 Gamma 2.50 2.11E+08
- ELL JNID/IL 8.84E-14 2.01E-10 8.26E-10 3.78E-09 Gamma 0.30 3.63E+08 PWR MSS FTO JNID/IL 8.23E-05 2.06E-04 2.22E-04 4.19E-04 Beta 4.50 2.02E+04 PWR MSS FTC JNID/IL 2.84E-05 1.08E-04 1.23E-04 2.74E-04 Beta 2.50 2.02E+04 PWR MSS SOP JNID/IL 2.52E-08 4.75E-08 4.93E-08 8.02E-08 Gamma 8.50 1.72E+08 PWR RCS FTO JNID/IL 6.04E-05 4.06E-04 5.16E-04 1.34E-03 Beta 1.50 2.91E+03 PWR RCS FTC JNID/IL 6.04E-05 4.06E-04 5.16E-04 1.34E-03 Beta 1.50 2.91E+03 PWR RCS SOP JNID/IL 3.67E-08 1.08E-07 1.18E-07 2.38E-07 Gamma 3.50 2.95E+07 Component Reliability 61 December 2016
Relief Valves 4.3 Power-Operated Relief Valve (PORV) 4.3.1 Component Description The power-operated relief valve (PORV) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, local circuit breaker, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for PORV are listed in Table 4-1.
4.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for PORV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the PORV data collection are listed in Table 4-9 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 4-8. PORV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Main steam (MSS) 206 111 317 Reactor coolant (RCS) 17 114 131 Grand Total 223 225 448 Table 4-9 summarizes the data used in the PORV analysis. Note that the hours for FC, SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 4-9. PORV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours PPR FTO 16 6,129 d 114 54 11.4% 22.2%
PPR FTC 4 6,129 d 114 54 3.5% 7.4%
RCS FTC 16 6,129 d 114 54 11.4% 22.2%
MSS FTO 19 10,401 d 111 36 14.4% 30.6%
MSS FTO 42 10,401 d 111 36 29.7% 55.6%
MSS FTC 19 10,401 d 111 36 14.4% 30.6%
MSS FC 42 10,401 d 111 36 29.7% 55.6%
MSS FC 13 49,398,360 d 317 64 3.5% 14.1%
- FC 13 49,398,360 d 317 64 3.5% 14.1%
- SOP 24 69,470,980 h 448 70 4.7% 22.9%
- ILS 18 69,470,980 h 448 70 3.6% 17.1%
- ILL 18 69,470,980 h 448 70 3.6% 17.1%
- ELS 0 69,470,980 h 448 70 0.0% 0.0%
- ELL 0 69,470,980 h 448 70 0.0% 0.0%
Figure 4-3 shows the range of valve demands per year in the PORV data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 62 December 2016
Relief Valves Figure 4-3. PORV demands per year distribution.
4.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 4-10 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the PORV failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 4-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for PORVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type PPR FTO EB/PL/KS 2.05E-05 1.60E-03 3.24E-03 1.20E-02 Beta 0.55 1.70E+02 PPR FTC JNID/IL 2.71E-04 6.80E-04 7.34E-04 1.38E-03 Beta 4.50 6.13E+03 RCS FTC EB/PL/KS 2.05E-05 1.60E-03 3.24E-03 1.20E-02 Beta 0.55 1.70E+02 MSS FTO EB/PL/KS 8.60E-06 1.00E-03 2.21E-03 8.46E-03 Beta 0.50 2.26E+02 MSS FTO EB/PL/KS 4.08E-04 3.67E-03 4.91E-03 1.36E-02 Beta 1.24 2.52E+02 MSS FTC EB/PL/KS 8.60E-06 1.00E-03 2.21E-03 8.46E-03 Beta 0.50 2.26E+02 MSS FC EB/PL/KS 4.91E-10 1.04E-07 2.57E-07 1.03E-06 Gamma 0.44 1.71E+06 MSS FC EB/PL/KS 4.08E-04 3.67E-03 4.91E-03 1.36E-02 Beta 1.24 2.52E+02
- FC EB/PL/KS 4.91E-10 1.04E-07 2.57E-07 1.03E-06 Gamma 0.44 1.71E+06
- SOP JNID/IL 2.44E-07 3.48E-07 3.53E-07 4.77E-07 Gamma 24.50 6.95E+07
- ILS JNID/IL 1.73E-07 2.61E-07 2.66E-07 3.75E-07 Gamma 18.50 6.95E+07
- ILL JNID/IL 5.69E-13 1.30E-09 5.32E-09 2.43E-08 Gamma 0.30 5.64E+07
- ELS JNID/IL 2.83E-11 3.27E-09 7.20E-09 2.76E-08 Gamma 0.50 6.95E+07
- ELL JNID/IL 5.39E-14 1.23E-10 5.04E-10 2.31E-09 Gamma 0.30 5.95E+08 Liquid a FTC JNID/IL 6.45E-05 2.46E-02 6.25E-02 2.54E-01 Beta 0.39 5.90E+00 Stick FTC JNID/IL 2.61E-04 1.23E-03 1.46E-03 3.46E-03 Beta 2.01 1.37E+03 Open a SO Point - - 1.48E-01 - - -
LOOP b Estimate SO Point - - 3.55E-02 - - -
Transient b Estimate
- a. NUREG/CR-7037 (Reference 15), Table 30
- b. NUREG/CR-7037 (Reference 15), Table 13 Component Reliability 63 December 2016
Relief Valves 4.4 Low-Capacity Relief Valve (RVL) 4.4.1 Component Description The low-capacity relief valve (RVL) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator,.
The failure modes for RVL are listed in Table 4-1.
4.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for RVL UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the RVL data collection are listed in Table 4-11 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 4-11. RVL systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 1 1 Component cooling water (CCW) 21 1 22 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 3 3 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 1 1 High pressure injection (HPI) 4 4 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 2 2 Main feedwater (MFW) 1 1 Normally operating service water (SWN) 10 10 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 1 1 Standby liquid control (SLC) 4 3 7 Standby service water (SWS) 5 5 Generic water system for relief valves (WAT) 1 1 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 17 6 23 PWRs) (RHR)
Grand Total 69 12 81 Table 4-12 summarizes the data used in the RVL analysis. Note that the hours for SOP, ELS, and ILS are reactor-year hours.
Table 4-12. RVL unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO 5 77 d 12 6 41.7% 50.0%
- FTC 0 77 d 12 6 0.0% 0.0%
- SO 0 9,633,048 h 81 31 0.0% 0.0%
- ILS 11 9,633,048 h 81 31 13.6% 29.0%
- ILL 11 9,633,048 h 81 31 13.6% 29.0%
- ELS 2 9,633,048 h 81 31 2.5% 6.5%
- ELL 2 9,633,048 h 81 31 2.5% 6.5%
Component Reliability 64 December 2016
Relief Valves Figure 4-4 shows the range of valve demands per year in the RVL data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 4-4. RVL demands per year distribution.
4.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 4-13 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the RVL failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 4-13. Selected industry distributions of p and for RVLs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO EB/PL/KS 1.67E-04 4.78E-02 1.07E-01 4.14E-01 Beta 0.41 3.45E+00
- FTC JNID/IL 2.52E-05 2.91E-03 6.34E-03 2.43E-02 Beta 0.50 7.84E+01
- SO JNID/IL 2.04E-10 2.36E-08 5.19E-08 1.99E-07 Gamma 0.50 9.63E+06
- ILS JNID/IL 6.80E-07 1.16E-06 1.19E-06 1.83E-06 Gamma 11.50 9.63E+06
- ILL JNID/IL 2.55E-12 5.80E-09 2.38E-08 1.09E-07 Gamma 0.30 1.26E+07
- ELS JNID/IL 5.95E-08 2.26E-07 2.60E-07 5.75E-07 Gamma 2.50 9.63E+06
- ELL JNID/IL 1.95E-12 4.44E-09 1.82E-08 8.33E-08 Gamma 0.30 1.65E+07 Component Reliability 65 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5 Electrical Equipment This section provides reliability estimates of various electrical equipment used in probabilistic risk assessment. The failure modes applicable to electrical equipment are listed in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Electrical equipment failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTO/C p - Failure to open or failure to close SOP 1/h Spurious operation FTOP 1/h Fail to operate FF p - Failure to function on demand 5.1 Battery Charger (BCH) 5.1.1 Component Description The battery charger (BCH) boundary includes the battery charger and its breakers. The failure mode for BCH is listed in Table 5-1.
5.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for BCH UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the BCH data collection are listed in Table 5-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-2. BCH systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All dc power (DCP) 758 2 760 Emergency power supply (EPS) 8 8 High pressure core spray (HCS) 1 1 Main steam (MSS) 2 2 Offsite electrical power (OEP) 4 4 Plant ac power (ACP) 9 9 Uninterruptable instrument power supply (UPS) 7 7 Grand Total 789 2 791 Table 5-3 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the BCH analysis.
Table 5-3. BCH unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 294 120,676,300 h 790 100 25.8% 76.0%
Component Reliability 66 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-4 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Table 5-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for BCHs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP EB/PL/KS 2.67E-07 2.00E-06 2.59E-06 6.93E-06 Gamma 1.39 5.36E+05 Component Reliability 67 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.2 Battery (BAT) 5.2.1 Component Description The battery (BAT) boundary includes the battery cells. The failure mode for BAT is listed in Table 5-1.
5.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for BAT UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the BAT data collection are listed in Table 5-5 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-5. BAT systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All dc power (DCP) 408 1 409 Uninterruptable instrument power supply (UPS) 6 6 Grand Total 414 1 415 Table 5-6 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the BAT analysis.
Table 5-6. BAT unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 23 63,157,740 h 415 99 5.5% 20.2%
5.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-7 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Table 5-7. Selected industry distributions of p and for BATs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP JNID/IL 2.55E-07 3.67E-07 3.72E-07 5.06E-07 Gamma 23.50 6.32E+07 Component Reliability 68 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.3 Automatic Bus Transfer Switch (ABT) 5.3.1 Component Description The automatic bus transfer switch (ABT) boundary includes the ABT component itself. The failure mode for ABT is listed in Table 5-1.
5.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the ABT UR baseline were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the ABT data collection are listed in Table 5-8 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-8. ABT systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All dc power (DCP) 5 5 Emergency power supply (EPS) 11 11 Plant ac power (ACP) 9 9 Uninterruptable instrument power supply (UPS) 7 7 Grand Total 9 23 32 Table 5-9 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the ABT analysis.
Table 5-9. ABT unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FF 4 3,976 d 27 7 14.8% 28.6%
- SOP 0 5,048,822 h 32 7 0.0% 0.0%
Figure 5-1 shows the range of ABT demands per year in the ABT data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 69 December 2016
Electrical Equipment Figure 5-1. ABT demands per year distribution.
5.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-10 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. Note that this distribution is based on zero failures and few demands and may be conservatively high. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Table 5-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for ABTs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FF JNID/IL 4.19E-04 1.05E-03 1.13E-03 2.13E-03 Beta 4.50 3.97E+03
- SOP JNID/IL 3.89E-10 4.50E-08 9.90E-08 3.80E-07 Gamma 0.50 5.05E+06 Component Reliability 70 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.4 Circuit Breaker (CRB) 5.4.1 Component Description The circuit breaker (CRB) is defined as the breaker itself and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The circuit breaker data presented here is limited to circuit breakers used in the distribution of power. Circuit breakers used to supply power to a specific load are included within that components boundary. External equipment used to monitor under voltage, ground faults, differential faults, and other protection schemes for individual breakers are considered part of the breaker. The failure modes for CRB are listed in Table 5-1.
5.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CRB UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the CRB data collection are listed in Table 5-11 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-11. CRB systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand 13.8 Plant ac power (ACP) 12 118 130 13.8 Total 12 118 130 250 dc power (DCP) 52 385 437 250 Total 52 385 437 480 dc power (DCP) 92 21 113 Emergency power supply (EPS) 1 2 3 Offsite electrical power (OEP) 1 12 13 Plant ac power (ACP) 762 1741 2503 480 Total 856 1776 2632 4160 Plant ac power (ACP) 152 1093 1245 4160 Total 152 1093 1245 16Kv Offsite electrical power (OEP) 30 108 138 Plant ac power (ACP) 8 32 40 16Kv 38 140 178 Total DC dc power (DCP) 50 195 245 Plant ac power (ACP) 4 22 26 DC Total 54 217 271 Grand 1164 3729 4893 Total Table 5-12 summarizes the data used in the CRB analysis. Note that the hours for SOP are reactor-year hours.
Component Reliability 71 December 2016
Electrical Equipment Table 5-12. CRB unreliability data.
Pooling Group Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTO/C 154 141,621 d 3512 101 4.0% 59.4%
- SOP 77 690,765,200 h 4609 101 1.6% 41.6%
HV (13.8 and FTO/C 21 11,066 d 258 39 7.0% 35.9%
16 Kv)
HV (13.8 and SOP 17 43,105,710 h 298 50 5.7% 24.0%
16 Kv)
MV (4160v FTO/C 72 60,179 d 1093 84 5.9% 51.2%
and 6.9kV)
MV (4160v SOP 19 184,867,300 h 1245 89 1.4% 16.9%
and 6.9kV)
LV (480v) FTO/C 56 55,060 d 1776 80 2.9% 32.5%
LV (480v) SOP 39 396,295,000 h 2629 85 1.4% 28.2%
DC FTO/C 2 5,777 d 217 19 0.9% 10.5%
DC SOP 1 42,345,960 h 271 31 0.4% 3.2%
Figure 5-2 shows the range of breaker demands per year in the CBK data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Figure 5-2. CRB demands per year distribution.
5.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-13 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the CBK failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Component Reliability 72 December 2016
Electrical Equipment Table 5-13. Selected industry distributions of p and for CRBs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTO/C EB/PL/KS 4.77E-05 1.26E-03 2.07E-03 6.85E-03 Beta 0.76 3.65E+02
- SOP EB/PL/KS 2.06E-09 9.01E-08 1.63E-07 5.72E-07 Gamma 0.64 3.95E+06 HV (13.8 FTO/C EB/PL/KS 3.93E-05 1.59E-03 2.83E-03 9.84E-03 Beta 0.66 2.32E+02 and 16 Kv)
HV (13.8 SOP EB/PL/KS 1.67E-09 2.15E-07 4.83E-07 1.87E-06 Gamma 0.49 1.01E+06 and 16 Kv)
MV FTO/C EB/PL/KS 3.15E-05 1.38E-03 2.49E-03 8.72E-03 Beta 0.64 2.58E+02 (4160v and 6.9kV)
MV SOP EB/PL/KS 2.80E-10 4.81E-08 1.15E-07 4.53E-07 Gamma 0.46 4.01E+06 (4160v and 6.9kV)
LV (480v) FTO/C JNID/IL 8.13E-04 1.02E-03 1.03E-03 1.26E-03 Beta 56.50 5.50E+04 LV (480v) SOP JNID/IL 7.52E-08 9.89E-08 9.97E-08 1.27E-07 Gamma 39.50 3.96E+08 DC FTO/C JNID/IL 9.91E-05 3.76E-04 4.33E-04 9.57E-04 Beta 2.50 5.78E+03 DC SOP JNID/IL 4.16E-09 2.80E-08 3.54E-08 9.24E-08 Gamma 1.50 4.23E+07 Component Reliability 73 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.5 Inverter (INV) 5.5.1 Component Description The inverter (INV) boundary includes the inverter unit. The failure mode for INV is listed in Table 5-1.
5.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for INV UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the INV data collection are listed in Table 5-14 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-14. INV systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All dc power (DCP) 15 15 Plant ac power (ACP) 23 23 Reactor protection (RPS) 18 18 Uninterruptable instrument power supply (UPS) 154 154 Grand Total 210 210 Table 5-15 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the INV analysis. Note that the hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 5-15. INV unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 92 30,051,790 h 210 37 27.6% 78.4%
5.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-16 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 5-16. Selected industry distributions of p and for INVs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP EB/PL/KS 3.40E-07 3.61E-06 4.97E-06 1.43E-05 Gamma 1.13 2.27E+05 Component Reliability 74 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.6 Bus (BUS) 5.6.1 Component Description The bus (BUS) boundary includes the bus component itself, which includes the bus bar, fuses, and control circuitry. Associated circuit breakers and step-down transformers are not included. The failure mode for BUS is listed in Table 5-1.
5.6.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the BUS UR baseline were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the BUS data collection are listed in Table 5-17 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-17. BUS systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand AC Plant ac power (ACP) 1221 92 1313 DC dc power (DCP) 56 56 Grand Total 1277 92 1369 Table 5-18 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the BUS analysis. Note that the hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 5-18. BUS unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours AC FTOP 129 198,241,600 h 1352 85 8.4% 63.5%
DC FTOP 0 2,305,320 h 15 5 0.0% 0.0%
5.6.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-19 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Table 5-19. Selected industry distributions of p and for BUSs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type AC FTOP EB/PL/KS 6.10E-08 6.81E-07 9.55E-07 2.75E-06 Gamma 1.10 1.16E+06 DC FTOP JNID/IL 8.51E-10 9.85E-08 2.17E-07 8.31E-07 Gamma 0.50 2.31E+06 Component Reliability Data Sheets 75 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.7 Motor Control Center (MCC) 5.7.1 Component Description The motor control center (MCC) component boundary includes the MCC cabinet, the bus bars, fuses, and protection equipment. The failure modes for MCC are listed in Table 5-1.
5.7.2 Data Collection and Review The data for MCC UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the MCC data collection are listed in Table 5-20 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-20. MCC systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Component cooling water (CCW) 1 1 dc power (DCP) 13 13 Emergency power supply (EPS) 16 16 Plant ac power (ACP) 170 3 173 Uninterruptable instrument power supply (UPS) 12 2 14 Grand Total 212 5 217 Table 5-21 summarizes the data used in the MCC analysis.
Table 5-21. MCC unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 6 34,080,880 h 217 18 2.8% 27.8%
5.7.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-22 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the MCC failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 5-22. Selected industry distributions of p and for MCCs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP JNID/IL 8.64E-08 1.81E-07 1.91E-07 3.28E-07 Gamma 6.50 3.41E+07 Component Reliability Data Sheets 76 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.8 Transformer (TFM) 5.8.1 Component Description The transformer (TFM) boundary includes the transformer unit, which includes the wiring, cooling, and protection equipment. The failure mode for TFM is listed in Table 5-1.
5.8.2 Data Collection and Review Data for TFM UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the TFM data collection are listed in Table 5-23 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-23. TFM systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand TFM dc power (DCP) 12 2 14
>15kV Emergency power supply (EPS) 1 1 Offsite electrical power (OEP) 8 8 Plant ac power (ACP) 474 9 483 TFM >15kV Total 495 11 506 TFM 3kV dc power (DCP) 2 2 to 15kV Plant ac power (ACP) 1262 22 1284 TFM 3kV to 15kV Total 1264 22 1286 TFM Control rod drive (CRD) 6 6
<3kV dc power (DCP) 9 9 Plant ac power (ACP) 670 670 TFM <3kV Total 685 685 Grand 2444 33 2477 Total Table 5-24 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the TFM analysis. Note that the hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 5-24. TFM unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
>15kV FTOP 185 71,234,060 h 506 97 25.5% 73.2%
5.8.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-25 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Component Reliability 77 December 2016
Electrical Equipment Table 5-25. Selected industry distributions of p and for TFMs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP EB/PL/KS 6.33E-07 2.50E-06 2.89E-06 6.47E-06 Gamma 2.40 8.32E+05 Component Reliability 78 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.9 Sequencer (SEQ) 5.9.1 Component Description The sequencer (SEQ) boundary includes the relays, logic modules, etc that comprise the sequencer function of the emergency diesel generator (EDG) load process. The failure mode for SEQ is listed in Table 5-1.
5.9.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the SEQ UR baseline were obtained from EPIX data from 1998 to 2015. The EPIX data was analyzed outside of RADS to determine the failures in the sequencer sub-component. The demand data are based on assuming a full test of the sequencer every fuel cycle (18 months) for each EDG. Table 5-26 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the SEQ analysis.
Table 5-26. SEQ unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 8 65,993 d 232 95 3.4% 7.4%
5.9.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-27 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 5-27. Selected industry distributions of p and for SEQs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP EB/PL/KS 1.37E-06 6.51E-05 1.20E-04 4.24E-04 Gamma 0.63 5.24E+03 Component Reliability 79 December 2016
Electrical Equipment 5.10 Fuse (FUS) 5.10.1 Component Description The fuse (FUS) boundary includes the transformer unit, which includes the wiring, cooling, and protection equipment. The failure mode for FUS is listed in Table 5-1.
5.10.2 Data Collection and Review Data for FUS UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the FUS data collection are listed in Table 5-28 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 5-28. FUS systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 8 8 Circulating water system (CWS) 14 14 Component cooling water (CCW) 4 4 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 6 6 Containment isolation system (CIS) 5 5 Control rod drive (CRD) 8 8 dc power (DCP) 369 369 Emergency power supply (EPS) 26 26 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 48 48 Instrument air (IAS) 2 2 Main steam (MSS) 24 24 Plant ac power (ACP) 752 752 Reactor coolant (RCS) 23 23 Grand Total 1289 1289 Table 5-29 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the FUS analysis. Note that the hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 5-29. FUS unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- SOP 2 203,224,300 h 1289 5 0.2% 40.0%
5.10.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 5-30 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. This industry-average failure rate does not account for any recovery.
Component Reliability 80 December 2016
Electrical Equipment Table 5-30. Selected industry distributions of p and for FUS.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- SOP JNID/IL 2.82E-09 1.07E-08 1.23E-08 2.73E-08 Gamma 2.50 2.03E+08 Component Reliability 81 December 2016
Strainers 6 Strainers This section contains reliability results for various strainer-like components used in PRAs. The strainers include passive filters (FLT), self-cleaning filters (FLTSC), travelling screens (TSA), and trash racks (TRK).
The failure modes for the strainer are listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Strainer failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All PG 1/h Plug ELS 1/h External leak small ELL 1/h External leak large BYP 1/h Bypass ILL 1/h Internal leak large Self Cleaning and FTOP 1/h Failure to operate Travelling Screen The systems and operational status included in the strainer data collection are listed in Table 6-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 6-2. Strainer systems and component counts.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand FLT Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 5 10 15 Chemical and volume control (CVC) 20 20 Circulating water system (CWS) 15 15 Component cooling water (CCW) 23 23 Condensate system (CDS) 10 10 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 13 13 Control rod drive (CRD) 21 21 Emergency power supply (EPS) 35 35 Firewater (FWS) 10 10 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 3 3 High pressure core spray (HCS) 3 3 Instrument air (IAS) 2 2 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 1 1 Main feedwater (MFW) 6 6 Main steam (MSS) 2 2 Normally operating service water (SWN) 2 2 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 2 2 Standby service water (SWS) 30 2 32 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 5 5 PWRs) (RHR)
FLT Total 208 12 220 FLTSC Normally operating service water (SWN) 101 2 103 Standby service water (SWS) 59 59 Component Reliability 82 December 2016
Strainers Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 4 4 PWRs) (RHR)
FLTSC 164 2 166 Total Sump Chemical and volume control (CVC) 7 7 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 7 7 Control rod drive (CRD) 17 17 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 3 3 High pressure core spray (HCS) 5 5 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 5 5 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 8 8 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 43 43 PWRs) (RHR)
Sump 95 95 Total TRK Circulating water system (CWS) 10 10 TRK 10 10 Total TSA Circulating water system (CWS) 163 163 Normally operating service water (SWN) 34 34 Standby service water (SWS) 15 15 TSA Total 212 212 Grand 689 14 703 Total 6.1 Filter (FLT) 6.1.1 Component Description The filter (FLT) boundary includes the filter. The failure mode for the FLT is listed in Table 6-1.
The systems available in the FLT data collection are listed in Table 6-2 with the number of components included with each system. The FLT data analysis uses only data from components installed in clean systems (e.g., not service water).
6.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for FLT UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2004. Table 6-3 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the FLT analysis. Note that PG hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 6-3. FLT unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours FLT PG 10 9,300,024 h 59 18 10.2% 27.8%
FLT ELS 3 33,686,420 h 220 45 0.9% 4.4%
FLT ELL 3 33,686,420 h 220 45 0.9% 4.4%
FLT-Clean PG 2 10,115,010 h 68 19 1.5% 5.3%
FLT-Clean BYP 0 10,115,010 h 68 19 0.0% 0.0%
IAS-FLT PG 0 122,688 h 2 1 0.0% 0.0%
Component Reliability 83 December 2016
Strainers 6.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 6-4 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 6-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for FLTs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type FLT PG JNID/IL 6.23E-07 1.09E-06 1.13E-06 1.76E-06 Gamma 10.50 9.30E+06 FLT-Clean BYP JNID/IL 1.95E-10 2.25E-08 4.94E-08 1.90E-07 Gamma 0.50 1.01E+07 FLT ELS JNID/IL 3.22E-08 9.42E-08 1.04E-07 2.09E-07 Gamma 3.50 3.37E+07 FLT ELL JNID/IL 7.79E-13 1.77E-09 7.28E-09 3.33E-08 Gamma 0.30 4.12E+07 IAS-FLT PG JNID/IL 1.60E-08 1.85E-06 4.08E-06 1.56E-05 Gamma 0.50 1.23E+05 IAS-FLT FC JNID/IL 1.60E-08 1.85E-06 4.08E-06 1.56E-05 Gamma 0.50 1.23E+05 Component Reliability 84 December 2016
Strainers 6.2 Self-Cleaning Strainer (FLTSC) 6.2.1 Component Description The strainer (FLTSC) component boundary includes the strainer, the rotating assembly, backwash valves, and control circuitry. The failure mode for FLTSC is listed in Table 6-1.
6.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the FLTSC UR baseline were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the FLTSC data collection are listed in Table 6-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 6-5 summarizes the data used in the FLTSC analysis. Note that FTOP, BYP, ELS, and PG hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 6-5. FLTSC unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours FLTSC PG 55 25,738,850 h 166 46 16.9% 34.8%
FLTSC BYP 1 25,738,850 h 166 46 0.6% 2.2%
FLTSC FTOP 91 25,738,850 h 166 46 24.1% 41.3%
FLTSC ELS 14 25,738,850 h 166 46 5.4% 13.0%
FLTSC ELL 14 25,738,850 h 166 46 5.4% 13.0%
FLTSC PG 35 25,738,850 h 166 46 11.4% 23.9%
SWS-NE FLTSC PG 42 15,944,260 h 103 33 20.4% 36.4%
NSW FLTSC SWS PG 13 9,198,527 h 59 25 11.9% 20.0%
FLTSC PG 1 9,198,527 h 59 25 1.7% 4.0%
SWS-PE 6.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 6-6 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution for the FLTSC component. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 6-6. Selected industry distributions of p and for FLTSCs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type FLTSC PG JNID/IL 1.71E-06 2.15E-06 2.16E-06 2.66E-06 Gamma 55.50 2.57E+07 FLTSC BYP JNID/IL 6.85E-09 4.60E-08 5.83E-08 1.52E-07 Gamma 1.50 2.57E+07 FLTSC FTOP JNID/IL 2.97E-06 3.55E-06 3.55E-06 4.19E-06 Gamma 91.50 2.57E+07 FLTSC ELS JNID/IL 3.45E-07 5.51E-07 5.63E-07 8.28E-07 Gamma 14.50 2.57E+07 FLTSC ELL JNID/IL 4.22E-12 9.61E-09 3.94E-08 1.80E-07 Gamma 0.30 7.61E+06 FLTSC PG JNID/IL 1.02E-06 1.37E-06 1.38E-06 1.78E-06 Gamma 35.50 2.57E+07 SWS-NE FLTSC PG JNID/IL 2.04E-06 2.65E-06 2.67E-06 3.38E-06 Gamma 42.50 1.59E+07 NSW FLTSC PG JNID/IL 8.78E-07 1.43E-06 1.47E-06 2.18E-06 Gamma 13.50 9.20E+06 SWS FLTSC PG JNID/IL 1.91E-08 1.29E-07 1.63E-07 4.25E-07 Gamma 1.50 9.20E+06 SWS-PE Component Reliability 85 December 2016
Strainers 6.3 Sump Strainer (SMP) 6.3.1 Component Description The sum strainer (SMP) component boundary includes the strainer. The failure mode for SMP is listed in Table 6-1.
6.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the SMP UR baseline were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the SMP data collection are listed in Table 6-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 6-7 summarizes the data used in the SMP analysis. Note that PG hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 6-7. SMP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Sump PG 4 14,682,020 h 95 26 4.2% 15.4%
Sump PG 1 14,682,020 h 95 26 1.1% 3.8%
Sump BWR PG 0 6,565,272 h 42 7 0.0% 0.0%
Sump PWR PG 1 4,382,688 h 29 14 3.4% 7.1%
6.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 6-8 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution for the SMP component. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 6-8. Selected industry distributions of p and for SMPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Sump PG JNID/IL 1.13E-07 2.84E-07 3.06E-07 5.75E-07 Gamma 4.50 1.47E+07 Sump PG JNID/IL 1.20E-08 8.05E-08 1.02E-07 2.66E-07 Gamma 1.50 1.47E+07 Sump PG JNID/IL 2.99E-10 3.46E-08 7.62E-08 2.92E-07 Gamma 0.50 6.57E+06 BWR Sump PG JNID/IL 4.02E-08 2.70E-07 3.42E-07 8.92E-07 Gamma 1.50 4.38E+06 PWR Component Reliability 86 December 2016
Strainers 6.4 Traveling Screen Assembly (TSA) 6.4.1 Component Description The traveling screen (TSA) component boundary includes the traveling screen, motor, and drive mechanism. The failure mode for TSA is listed in Table 6-1.
6.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the TSA UR baseline were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the TSA data collection are listed in Table 6-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 6-9 summarizes the data used in the TSA analysis. Note that FTOP, BYP, and PG hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 6-9. TSA unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours TSA PG 68 30,417,290 h 212 48 22.6% 47.9%
TSA FTS 97 30,417,290 d 212 48 29.7% 60.4%
TSA BYP 8 30,417,290 h 212 48 2.8% 8.3%
TSA FTR 97 30,417,290 h 212 48 29.7% 60.4%
TSA FTOP 97 30,417,290 h 212 48 29.7% 60.4%
TSA-SWS- PG 0 2,331,600 h 15 5 0.0% 0.0%
NE TSA-SWS PG 0 2,331,600 h 15 5 0.0% 0.0%
6.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 6-10 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution for the TSA component. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 6-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for TSAs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type TSA PG EB/PL/KS 6.77E-09 1.08E-06 2.53E-06 9.98E-06 Gamma 0.47 1.84E+05 TSA FTS EB/PL/KS 3.30E-08 1.92E-06 3.67E-06 1.32E-05 Gamma 0.59 1.62E+05 TSA BYP JNID/IL 1.43E-07 2.69E-07 2.79E-07 4.54E-07 Gamma 8.50 3.04E+07 TSA FTR EB/PL/KS 3.30E-08 1.92E-06 3.67E-06 1.32E-05 Gamma 0.59 1.62E+05 TSA FTOP EB/PL/KS 3.30E-08 1.92E-06 3.67E-06 1.32E-05 Gamma 0.59 1.62E+05 TSA- PG JNID/IL 8.44E-10 9.76E-08 2.14E-07 8.24E-07 Gamma 0.50 2.33E+06 SWS-NE TSA-SWS PG JNID/IL 8.44E-10 9.76E-08 2.14E-07 8.24E-07 Gamma 0.50 2.33E+06 Component Reliability 87 December 2016
Strainers 6.5 Trash Rack (TRK) 6.5.1 Component Description The trash rack (TRK) component boundary includes the traveling screen, motor, and drive mechanism. The failure mode for TRK is listed in Table 6-1.
6.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the TRK UR baseline were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the TRK data collection are listed in Table 6-2 with the number of components included with each system.
Table 6-11 summarizes the data used in the TRK analysis. Note that PG hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 6-11. TRK unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours TRK PG 3 1,577,760 h 10 5 30.0% 40.0%
6.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 6-12 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution for the TRK component. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 6-12. Selected industry distributions of p and for TRKs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type TRK PG EB/PL/KS 2.05E-08 1.17E-06 2.23E-06 8.03E-06 Gamma 0.60 2.68E+05 Component Reliability 88 December 2016
Reactor Protection 7 Reactor Protection This section presents reliability data pertaining to the reactor protection system (RPS). The failure modes for reactor protection components are listed in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Reactor protection equipment failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTOP p - Fail to operate 7.1 Bistable (BIS) 7.1.1 Component Description The bistable (BIS) boundary includes the bistable unit itself. The failure mode for BIS is listed in Table 7-1.
7.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the BIS UR baseline were obtained from the reactor protection system (RPS) system studies (SSs). The RPS SSs contain data from 1984 to 1995. Table 7-2 summarizes the data obtained from the RPS SSs and used in the BIS analysis. These data are at the industry level. Results at the plant and component levels are not presented in these studies.
Table 7-2. BIS unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours All FTOP 55 102094 - - - -
7.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 7-3 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The selected FTOP distribution has a mean based on the Jeffreys mean of industry data and = 0.5. For all distributions based on RPS SS data, an of 0.5 is assumed (see Section A.1 in Reference 14).
Table 7-3. Selected industry distributions of p and for BISs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type All FTOP RPS SS 2.14E-06 2.47E-04 5.44E-04 2.09E-03 Beta 0.500 9.198E+02 Component Reliability 89 December 2016
Reactor Protection 7.2 Process Logic Components (PLDT, PLF, PLL, PLP) 7.2.1 Component Description The process logic delta temperature (PLDT), process logic flow (PLF), process logic level (PLL),
and process logic pressure (PLP boundary includes the logic components. The failure mode for these components is listed in Table 7-1.
7.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for process logic component UR baselines were obtained from the reactor protection system (RPS) system studies (SSs). The RPS SSs contain data from 1984 to 1995. Table 7-4 summarizes the data obtained from the RPS SSs and used in the process logic component analysis. These data are at the industry level. Results at the plant and component levels are not presented in these studies.
Table 7-4. Process logic component unreliability data.
Pooling Component Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Failure Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Mode Hours All PLDT FTOP 24.3 4887 - - - -
PLF FTOP - - - - - -
PLL FTOP 3.3 6075 - - - -
PLP FTOP 5.6 38115 - - - -
7.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 7-5 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The selected FTOP distributions have means based on the Jeffreys mean of industry data and = 0.5. For all distributions based on RPS SS data, an of 0.5 is assumed (see Section A.1 in Reference 14). Because PLF has no data, the PLL result was used for the PLL mean.
Table 7-5. Selected industry distributions of p and for process logic components.
Pooling Component Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Failure Mode Type All PLDT FTOP RPS SS 2.01E-05 2.32E-03 5.07E-03 1.94E-02 Beta 0.500 9.805E+01 PLF FTOP PLL 2.46E-06 2.85E-04 6.25E-04 2.40E-03 Beta 0.500 7.990E+02 PLL FTOP RPS SS 2.46E-06 2.85E-04 6.25E-04 2.40E-03 Beta 0.500 7.990E+02 PLP FTOP RPS SS 6.29E-07 7.28E-05 1.60E-04 6.15E-04 Beta 0.500 3.124E+03 Component Reliability 90 December 2016
Reactor Protection 7.3 Sensor/Transmitter Components (STF, STL, STP, STT) 7.3.1 Component Description The sensor/transmitter flow (STF), sensor/transmitter level (STL), sensor/transmitter pressure (STP), and sensor/transmitter temperature (STT) boundaries includes the sensor and transmitter. The failure mode for sensor/transmitter is listed in Table 7-1.
7.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the sensor/transmitter UR baseline were obtained from the reactor protection system (RPS) system studies (SSs). The RPS SSs contain data from 1984 to 1995. Table 7-6 summarizes the data obtained from the RPS SSs and used in the sensor/transmitter analysis. These data are at the industry level. Results at the plant and component levels are not presented in these studies. Unlike other component failure modes, each component FTOP has both a demand and a calendar time contribution.
Table 7-6. Sensor/transmitter unreliability data.
Pooling Component Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Failure Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Mode Hours All STF FTOP - - - - - -
STF FTOP - - - - - -
STL FTOP 5.0 6750 - - - -
STL FTOP 0.5 9831968 h - - - -
STP FTOP 2.3 23960 - - - -
STP FTOP 35.2 43430451 h - - - -
STT FTOP 17.1 40759 - - - -
STT FTOP 29.0 35107399 h - - - -
7.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 7-7 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The selected FTOP distributions have means based on the Jeffreys mean of industry data and = 0.5. For all distributions based on RPS SS data, an of 0.5 is assumed (see Section A.1 in Reference 14). Because there were no data for STF FTOP, the results for STL FTOP were used.
Table 7-7. Selected industry distributions of p and for sensor/transmitters.
Pooling Component Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Failure Mode Type All STF FTOP STL 3.21E-06 3.71E-04 8.15E-04 3.13E-03 Beta 0.500 6.132E+02 STF FTOP STL 4.00E-10 4.63E-08 1.02E-07 3.91E-07 Gamma 0.500 4.916E+06 STL FTOP RPS SS 3.21E-06 3.71E-04 8.15E-04 3.13E-03 Beta 0.500 6.132E+02 STL FTOP RPS SS 4.00E-10 4.63E-08 1.02E-07 3.91E-07 Gamma 0.500 4.916E+06 STP FTOP RPS SS 4.60E-07 5.32E-05 1.17E-04 4.49E-04 Beta 0.500 4.278E+03 STP FTOP RPS SS 3.23E-09 3.74E-07 8.22E-07 3.16E-06 Gamma 0.500 6.083E+05 STT FTOP RPS SS 1.70E-06 1.97E-04 4.32E-04 1.66E-03 Beta 0.500 1.157E+03 STT FTOP RPS SS 3.30E-09 3.82E-07 8.40E-07 3.23E-06 Gamma 0.500 5.950E+05 Component Reliability 91 December 2016
Reactor Protection 7.4 Reactor Trip Breaker (RTB) 7.4.1 Component Description The reactor trip breaker (RTB) boundary includes the entire trip breaker. The RTB has been broken up into three subcomponents for use in modeling the failure of the RTB to open on demand.
These three subcomponents are the mechanical portion of the breaker (BME), the breaker shunt trip (BSN), and the breaker undervoltage trip (BUV). The component and subcomponent failure modes for RTB are listed in Table 7-8.
Table 7-8. RTB failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All BME FTOP p - BME fail to operate BSN FTOP p - BSN fail to operate BUV FTOP p - BUV fail to operate RTB FTOP p - RTB fail to operate 7.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for RTB UR baselines were obtained from the pressurized water reactor (PWR) reactor protection system (RPS) system studies (SSs). The RPS SSs contain data from 1984 to 1995. Table 7-9 summarizes the data obtained from the RPS SSs and used in the RTB analysis. These data are at the industry level. Results at the plant and component levels are not presented in these studies.
Table 7-9. RTB unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours All BME FTOP 1 97359 - - - -
BSN FTOP 14 44104 - - - -
BUV FTOP 23.1 57199 - - - -
RTB FTOP - - - - - -
7.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 7-10 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The selected FTOP distributions have means based on the Jeffreys mean of industry data and = 0.5. For all distributions based on RPS SS data, an of 0.5 is assumed (see Section A.1 in Reference 14). The RTB FTOP is calculated using a Boolean expression for the RTB failure involving either the BME failure or the combination of BSN and BUV failures.
Table 7-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for RTBs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type All BME FTOP RPS SS 6.06E-08 7.01E-06 1.54E-05 5.92E-05 Beta 0.500 3.245E+04 BSN FTOP RPS SS 1.29E-06 1.50E-04 3.29E-04 1.26E-03 Beta 0.500 1.521E+03 BUV FTOP RPS SS 1.62E-06 1.88E-04 4.13E-04 1.58E-03 Beta 0.500 1.212E+03 RTB FTOP RPS SS 6.11E-08 7.07E-06 1.55E-05 5.97E-05 Beta 0.500 3.217E+04 Component Reliability 92 December 2016
Reactor Protection 7.5 Manual Switch (MSW) 7.5.1 Component Description The manual switch (MSW) boundary includes the switch itself. The failure mode for MSW is listed in Table 7-1.
7.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the MSW UR baseline were obtained from the reactor protection system (RPS) system studies (SSs). The RPS SSs contain data from 1984 to 1995. Table 7-11 summarizes the data obtained from the RPS SSs and used in the MSW analysis. These data are at the industry level. Results at the plant and component levels are not presented in these studies.
Table 7-11. MSW unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours All FTO/C 2 19789 - - - -
7.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 7-12 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The FTO/C failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The selected FTO/C distribution has a mean based on the Jeffreys mean of industry data and = 0.5. For all distributions based on RPS SS data, an of 0.5 is assumed (see Section A.1 in Reference 14).
Table 7-12. Selected industry distributions of p and for MSWs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type All FTO/C RPS SS 4.97E-07 5.75E-05 1.26E-04 4.85E-04 Beta 0.500 3.958E+03 Component Reliability 93 December 2016
Reactor Protection 7.6 Relay (RLY) 7.6.1 Component Description The relay (RLY) boundary includes the relay unit itself. The failure mode for RLY is listed in Table 7-1.
7.6.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the RLY UR baseline were obtained from the reactor protection system (RPS) system studies (SSs). The RPS SSs contain data from 1984 to 1995. Table 7-13 summarizes the data obtained from the RPS SSs and used in the RLY analysis. These data are at the industry level. Results at the plant and component levels are not presented in these studies.
Table 7-13. RLY unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 24 974,417 d - - - -
7.6.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 7-14 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The selected FTOP distribution has a mean based on the Jeffreys mean of industry data and = 0.5. For all distributions based on RPS SS data, an of 0.5 is assumed (see Section A.1 in Reference 14).
Table 7-14. Selected industry distributions of p and for RLYs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type All FTOP RPS SS 9.77E-08 1.13E-05 2.48E-05 9.54E-05 Beta 0.500 2.013E+04 Component Reliability 94 December 2016
Control Rods 8 Control Rods The control rod equipment includes the control rod drives and rods for PWRs and the hydraulic control units for BWRs. The failure modes for control rod components are listed in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. Control rod equipment failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTOP 1/h Fail to operate SOP 1/h Spurious operation HCU FTI p - Failure to Insert Data for control rod UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the control rod data collection are listed in Table 8-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 8-2. Control rod systems.
Pooling Description Number of Components Group High/
Unknown Low Demand Demand Total CRD Control rod drive (CRD) 1199 1199 CRD Total 1199 1199 HCU Control rod drive (CRD) 6012 370 6382 Reactor protection (RPS) 177 177 HCU Total 6189 370 6559 ROD Control rod drive (CRD) 742 742 Reactor coolant (RCS) 106 106 ROD Total 848 848 Grand Total 8236 370 8606 8.1 Control Rod Drive (CRD) 8.1.1 Component Description The control rod drive (CRD) boundary includes the PWR control rod drive mechanism. The failure modes for CRD are listed in Table 8-1.
8.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CRD UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2015. Table 8-3 summarizes the data from EPIX and used in the CRD analysis.
Table 8-3. CRD unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours CRDM FTOP 18 183,267,700 d 1,201 30 1.5% 30.0%
CRDM SOP 34 183,267,700 h 1,201 30 2.5% 33.3%
Component Reliability 95 December 2016
Control Rods 8.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 8-4 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 8-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for CRDs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type CRDM FTOP EB/PL/KS 1.62E-10 4.40E-08 1.15E-07 4.71E-07 Gamma 0.42 3.64E+06 CRDM SOP JNID/IL 1.39E-07 1.87E-07 1.88E-07 2.44E-07 Gamma 34.50 1.83E+08 Component Reliability 96 December 2016
Control Rods 8.2 Control Rod (ROD) 8.2.1 Component Description The control rod (ROD) boundary includes the PWR control rod excluding the drive mechanism.
The failure modes for ROD are listed in Table 8-1.
8.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for ROD UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2015. Table 8-5 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the ROD analysis.
Table 8-5. ROD unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Control Rod FTOP 20 132,832,800 d 846 39 2.1% 23.1%
Control Rod SOP 20 132,832,800 h 846 39 2.2% 17.9%
8.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 8-6 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 8-6. Selected industry distributions of p and for RODs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Control FTOP JNID/IL 1.03E-07 1.52E-07 1.54E-07 2.14E-07 Gamma 20.50 1.33E+08 Rod Control SOP JNID/IL 1.03E-07 1.52E-07 1.54E-07 2.14E-07 Gamma 20.50 1.33E+08 Rod Component Reliability 97 December 2016
Control Rods 8.3 Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU) 8.3.1 Component Description The hydraulic control unit (HCU) boundary includes the PWR control rod drive mechanism. The failure mode for HCU is listed in Table 8-1.
8.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for HCU UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2015. Table 8-7 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the HCU analysis.
Table 8-7. HCU unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours HCU FTI 29 1,625,902,000 d 10,436 35 0.3% 45.7%
HCU FTOP 29 1,625,902,000 h 10,436 35 0.3% 45.7%
HCU SOP 35 1,625,902,000 h 10,436 35 0.3% 57.1%
8.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 8-8 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 8-8. Selected industry distributions of p and for HCUs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type HCU FTI EB/PL/KS 1.16E-09 1.30E-08 1.81E-08 5.23E-08 Gamma 1.10 6.09E+07 HCU FTOP EB/PL/KS 1.16E-09 1.30E-08 1.81E-08 5.23E-08 Gamma 1.10 6.09E+07 HCU SOP EB/PL/KS 6.01E-09 1.93E-08 2.16E-08 4.49E-08 Gamma 3.08 1.43E+08 Component Reliability 98 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation 9 Heating and Ventilation The heating and ventilating (HVC) equipment included in this section includes: dampers, air-handling units, chillers, and fans. The failure modes for HVC equipment are listed in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1. Heating and ventilation equipment failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTO/C p - Failure to open or failure to close SOP 1/h Spurious operation ILS 1/h Internal leak small ILL 1/h Internal leak large FTOP 1/h Fail to operate Running FTS p - Failure to start FTR 1/h Fail to run Standby FTS p - Failure to start FTR1H 1/h Failure to run for 1 h FTR>1H 1/h Fail to run beyond 1 h 9.1 Damper (DMP) 9.1.1 Component Description The damper (DMP) component boundary includes the valve, the valve operator, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for dampers are listed in Table 9-1. This section presents results for dampers with pneumatic -operators (AOD), hydraulic-operators (HOD), and motor-operators (MOD).
9.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for DMP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015 using RADS. The systems included in the DMP data collection are listed in Table 9-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 9-2. Damper systems.
Pooling Description Number of Components Group High/
Unknown Low Demand Demand Total AIR Chemical and volume control (CVC) 1 1 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 2 22 24 Emergency power supply (EPS) 1 1 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 114 59 173 High pressure injection (HPI) 1 1 Instrument air (IAS) 4 4 Plant ac power (ACP) 1 1 AIR Total 123 82 205 Component Reliability 99 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Pooling Description Number of Components Group High/
Unknown Low Demand Demand Total HYD Containment fan cooling (CFC) 4 4 dc power (DCP) 1 1 Emergency power supply (EPS) 16 8 24 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 55 41 96 HYD 72 53 125 Total MOT Containment fan cooling (CFC) 3 3 Emergency power supply (EPS) 6 16 22 Engineered safety features actuation (ESF) 1 1 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 60 3 63 Standby service water (SWS) 6 6 MOT 72 23 95 Total Grand 267 158 425 Total Table 9-3 summarizes the data used in the DMP analysis. Note that SOP and ILS hours are reactor-year hours.
Table 9-3. DMP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Pneumatic FTO/C 2 7,799 d 49 10 2.0% 10.0%
Pneumatic SOP 3 31,342,830 h 209 37 1.4% 8.1%
Pneumatic ILS 5 31,342,830 h 209 37 2.4% 8.1%
Pneumatic ILL 5 31,342,830 h 209 37 2.4% 8.1%
Hydraulic FTO/C 11 6,225 d 39 6 25.6% 100.0%
Hydraulic SOP 8 19,397,950 h 128 15 6.3% 26.7%
Hydraulic ILS 0 19,397,950 h 128 15 0.0% 0.0%
Hydraulic ILL 0 19,397,950 h 128 15 0.0% 0.0%
Motor FTO/C 7 33,254 d 45 9 8.9% 22.2%
Motor SOP 0 17,147,900 h 111 23 0.0% 0.0%
Motor ILS 1 17,147,900 d 111 23 0.9% 4.3%
Motor ILL 1 17,147,900 h 111 23 0.9% 4.3%
Figure 9-1 shows the range of valve demands per year in the DMP data set (limited to low-demand components only).
Component Reliability 100 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Figure 9-1. DMP demands per year distribution.
9.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 9-4 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the DMP failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 9-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for DMPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Pneumatic FTO/C JNID/IL 7.34E-05 2.79E-04 3.21E-04 7.09E-04 Beta 2.50 7.80E+03 Pneumatic SOP JNID/IL 3.46E-08 1.01E-07 1.12E-07 2.25E-07 Gamma 3.50 3.13E+07 Pneumatic ILS JNID/IL 7.31E-08 1.65E-07 1.75E-07 3.14E-07 Gamma 5.50 3.13E+07 Pneumatic ILL JNID/IL 3.75E-13 8.53E-10 3.50E-09 1.60E-08 Gamma 0.30 8.57E+07 Hydraulic FTO/C EB/PL/KS 3.41E-05 2.74E-03 5.57E-03 2.07E-02 Beta 0.55 9.73E+01 Hydraulic SOP JNID/IL 2.23E-07 4.21E-07 4.38E-07 7.11E-07 Gamma 8.50 1.94E+07 Hydraulic ILS JNID/IL 1.01E-10 1.17E-08 2.58E-08 9.90E-08 Gamma 0.50 1.94E+07 Hydraulic ILL JNID/IL 5.52E-14 1.26E-10 5.16E-10 2.36E-09 Gamma 0.30 5.81E+08 Motor FTO/C JNID/IL 1.09E-04 2.16E-04 2.26E-04 3.76E-04 Beta 7.50 3.32E+04 Motor SOP JNID/IL 1.15E-10 1.33E-08 2.92E-08 1.12E-07 Gamma 0.50 1.71E+07 Motor ILS JNID/IL 1.03E-08 6.92E-08 8.75E-08 2.29E-07 Gamma 1.50 1.71E+07 Motor ILL JNID/IL 1.87E-13 4.27E-10 1.75E-09 8.01E-09 Gamma 0.30 1.71E+08 Component Reliability 101 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation 9.2 Air Handling Unit (AHU) 9.2.1 Component Description The air-handling unit (AHU) boundary includes the fan, heat exchanger, valves, control circuitry, and breakers. The failure modes for AHU are listed in Table 9-1.
9.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for AHU UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the AHU data collection are listed in Table 9-5 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 9-5. AHU systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 3 1 4 Running Circulating water system (CWS) 3 3 Component cooling water (CCW) 37 37 Condensate system (CDS) 10 10 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 113 55 168 Containment isolation system (CIS) 4 4 Control rod drive (CRD) 14 14 dc power (DCP) 1 2 3 Emergency power supply (EPS) 91 5 96 Fuel handling (FHS) 4 4 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 1001 121 1122 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 1 1 High pressure injection (HPI) 1 1 Instrument air (IAS) 1 8 9 Main feedwater (MFW) 4 4 Main steam (MSS) 107 107 Plant ac power (ACP) 13 13 Reactor coolant (RCS) 16 16 Reactor protection (RPS) 9 1 10 Standby service water (SWS) 8 8 Uninterruptable instrument power supply (UPS) 9 9 Normally Running Total 1450 193 1643 Standby Chemical and volume control (CVC) 2 2 Component cooling water (CCW) 3 3 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 64 64 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 2 2 Emergency power supply (EPS) 57 57 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 3 243 246 High pressure injection (HPI) 2 2 Standby service water (SWS) 6 6 Component Reliability 102 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 4 4 PWRs) (RHR)
Standby Total 3 383 386 Grand Total 1453 576 2029 Table 9-6 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the AHU analysis.
Table 9-6. AHU unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours NR FTS 45 17,336 d 139 34 19.4% 38.2%
NR FTR 62 17,498,560 h 139 34 25.2% 64.7%
Figure 9-2 shows the range of start demands per year in the standby AHU data set. Figure 9-3 shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby AHU data set. Figure 9-3 shows the range of run hours per demand in the running AHU data set.
Figure 9-2. AHU demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 103 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Figure 9-3. AHU run hours per demand distribution.
9.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 9-7 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 9-7. Selected industry distributions of p and for AHUs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type NR FTS EB/PL/KS 7.32E-06 1.18E-03 2.76E-03 1.09E-02 Beta 0.47 1.68E+02 NR FTR EB/PL/KS 2.64E-08 3.03E-06 6.65E-06 2.55E-05 Gamma 0.50 7.53E+04 Component Reliability 104 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation 9.3 Chiller (CHL) 9.3.1 Component Description The chiller (CHL) boundary includes the compressor, motor, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for CHL are listed in Table 9-1.
9.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CHL UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the CHL data collection are listed in Table 9-8 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 9-8. CHL systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Chilled water system (CHW) 115 25 140 Running Component cooling water (CCW) 23 3 26 Containment isolation system (CIS) 6 1 7 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 31 31 Emergency power supply (EPS) 58 3 61 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 93 56 149 High pressure core spray (HCS) 1 1 Instrument air (IAS) 2 2 Main steam (MSS) 3 3 Normally operating service water (SWN) 10 6 16 Offsite electrical power (OEP) 1 1 Plant ac power (ACP) 19 31 50 Reactor protection (RPS) 2 2 Standby service water (SWS) 48 20 68 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs; LPI in 1 1 PWRs) (RHR)
Normally Running Total 410 148 558 Standby Chilled water system (CHW) 5 5 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 2 57 59 Instrument air (IAS) 1 1 Standby Total 2 63 65 Grand Total 412 211 623 Table 9-9 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the CHL analysis.
Table 9-9. CHL unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Component Reliability 105 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours NR FTS 121 18,215 d 80 22 50.0% 77.3%
NR FTR 349 6,464,949 h 80 22 72.5% 100.0%
STBY FTS 0 20,433 d 63 10 0.0% 0.0%
STBY FTR<1H 61 279,348 h 63 10 36.5% 90.0%
STBY FTR>1H 61 279,348 h 63 10 36.5% 90.0%
Figure 9-4 shows the range of start demands per year in the standby CHL data set. Figure 9-5 shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby CHL data set.
Figure 9-4. CHL demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 106 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Figure 9-5. CHL run hours per demand distribution.
9.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 9-10 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 9-10. Selected industry distributions of p and for CHLs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type NR FTS EB/PL/KS 1.35E-04 5.25E-03 9.21E-03 3.17E-02 Beta 0.67 7.18E+01 NR FTR EB/PL/KS 4.19E-06 4.94E-05 6.93E-05 2.03E-04 Gamma 1.07 1.54E+04 STBY FTS JNID/IL 9.64E-08 1.12E-05 2.45E-05 9.42E-05 Beta 0.50 2.04E+04 STBY FTR<1H JNID/IL 1.76E-04 2.19E-04 2.20E-04 2.69E-04 Gamma 61.50 2.79E+05 STBY FTR>1H JNID/IL 1.76E-04 2.19E-04 2.20E-04 2.69E-04 Gamma 61.50 2.79E+05 Component Reliability 107 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation 9.4 Fan (FAN) 9.4.1 Component Description The fan (FAN) boundary includes the fan, motor, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for FAN are listed in Table 9-1.
9.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for FAN UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the FAN data collection are listed in Table 9-11 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 9-11. FAN systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Circulating water system (CWS) 3 3 Running Component cooling water (CCW) 3 3 Condensate system (CDS) 2 2 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 47 43 90 Containment isolation system (CIS) 1 1 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 3 3 Control rod drive (CRD) 14 2 16 dc power (DCP) 1 2 3 Emergency power supply (EPS) 98 30 128 Engineered safety features actuation (ESF) 1 1 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 551 141 692 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 20 20 Instrument air (IAS) 10 11 21 Main feedwater (MFW) 2 2 Main steam (MSS) 10 10 Normally operating service water (SWN) 8 8 Plant ac power (ACP) 8 8 Reactor coolant (RCS) 2 2 Reactor protection (RPS) 8 8 Standby service water (SWS) 3 3 Vapor suppression (VSS) 1 1 Normally Running Total 784 241 1025 Standby Component cooling water (CCW) 7 2 9 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 1 1 Emergency power supply (EPS) 72 72 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 44 44 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 2 2 Instrument air (IAS) 4 4 Normally operating service water (SWN) 1 1 Component Reliability 108 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs, LPI in 1 1 PWRs) (RHR)
Standby Total 7 127 134 Grand Total 791 368 1159 Table 9-12 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the FAN analysis.
Table 9-12. FAN unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Standby FTS 37 57,511 d 130 33 16.9% 45.5%
Standby FTR<1H 16 43,743 h 130 33 8.5% 27.3%
Standby FTR>1H 27 137,892 h 130 33 13.8% 33.3%
Normally FTS 46 85,577 d 218 31 14.2% 45.2%
Running Normally FTR 67 17,511,120 h 218 31 19.3% 58.1%
Running Figure 9-6a shows the range of start demands per year in the standby FAN data set. Figure 9-6b shows the range of start demands per year in the running FAN data set. Figure 9-7a shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby FAN data set. Figure 9-7b shows the range of run hours per demands in the running FAN data set.
Figure 9-6a. Standby FAN demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 109 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Figure 9-6b. Running/alternating FAN demands per year distribution.
Figure 9-7a. Standby FAN run hours per demand distribution.
Component Reliability 110 December 2016
Heating and Ventilation Figure 9-7b. Running/alternating FAN run hours per demand distribution.
9.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 9-13 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 9-13. Selected industry distributions of p and for FANs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Standby FTS JNID/IL 4.87E-04 6.46E-04 6.52E-04 8.36E-04 Beta 37.50 5.75E+04 Standby FTR<1H JNID/IL 2.39E-04 3.70E-04 3.77E-04 5.42E-04 Gamma 16.50 4.37E+04 Standby FTR>1H JNID/IL 1.41E-04 1.97E-04 1.99E-04 2.66E-04 Gamma 27.50 1.38E+05 Normally FTS JNID/IL 4.19E-04 5.40E-04 5.43E-04 6.81E-04 Beta 46.50 8.55E+04 Running Normally FTR EB/PL/KS 3.07E-08 2.21E-06 4.41E-06 1.63E-05 Gamma 0.56 1.27E+05 Running Component Reliability 111 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10 Miscellaneous Equipment This section presents reliability data on equipment that does not fall under the other major groupings. The failure modes applicable to these equipment are listed in Table 10-1.
The selected ELL mean is the ELS mean multiplied by 0.07, with an assumed of 0.3. The selected ILL mean is the ILS mean multiplied by 0.02, with an assumed of 0.3. The 0.07 and 0.02 multipliers are based on limited EPIX data for large leaks as explained in Section A.1 in Reference 14.
Table 10-1. Failure modes applicable to miscellaneous equipment.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All FTO/C p - Failure to open or failure to close SOP 1/h Spurious operation ILS 1/h Internal leak small ILL 1/h Internal leak large ELS 1/h External leak small ELL 1/h External leak large FTOP 1/h Fail to operate Running FTS p - Failure to start FTR 1/h Fail to run Standby FTS p - Failure to start FTR1H 1/h Failure to run for 1 h FTR>1H 1/h Fail to run beyond 1 h 10.1 Air Compressor (CMP) 10.1.1 Component Description The air compressor (CMP) boundary includes the compressor, driver, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for CMP are listed in Table 10-1. This section presents results for both the motor-driven (MDC) and engine-driven (EDC) air compressors.
10.1.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CMP UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the compressor data collection are listed in Table 10-2 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 10-2. CMP systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/
Unknown Demand Low Demand Total Motor- Containment Instrument Air (CIA) 9 9 Driven Instrument air (IAS) 58 92 150 Service Air System (SAS) 22 36 58 MOTOR Total 89 128 217 Component Reliability 112 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Pooling System Number of Components Group High/
Unknown Demand Low Demand Total Engine- Instrument air (IAS) 4 3 7 Driven Service Air System (SAS) 2 2 4 ENGINE Total 6 5 11 Grand Total 95 133 228 Table 10-3 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the CMP analysis.
Table 10-3. CMP unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours Motor-driven FTS 109 9,196 d 70 29 65.7% 93.1%
NR Motor-driven FTR 307 5,595,966 h 70 29 87.1% 96.6%
NR Motor-driven FTS 61 23,363 d 58 21 58.6% 85.7%
STBY Motor-driven FTR<1H 22 1,683,943 h 58 21 15.5% 33.3%
STBY Motor-driven FTR>1H 22 1,683,943 h 58 21 15.5% 33.3%
STBY Engine-driven FTS 17 2,121 d 5 4 40.0% 50.0%
Engine-driven FTR<1H 0 2,121 h 5 4 0.0% 0.0%
Engine-driven FTR>1H 0 1,735 h 5 4 0.0% 0.0%
IAS-Motor FTR 186 2,680,601 h 41 16 92.7% 100.0%
PCA-Motor FTR 3 118,273 h 2 1 100.0% 100.0%
Figure 10-1 shows the range of start demands per year in the CMP data set. Figure 10-2 shows the range of run hours per demand in the CMP data set.
Component Reliability 113 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Figure 10-1. CMP demands per year distribution.
Figure 10-2. CMP run hours per demand distribution.
10.1.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-4 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Component Reliability 114 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Table 10-4. Selected industry distributions of p and for CMPs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type Motor- FTS EB/PL/KS 2.06E-04 1.72E-02 3.41E-02 1.25E-01 Beta 0.54 1.53E+01 driven NR Motor- FTR EB/PL/KS 1.20E-05 5.50E-05 6.51E-05 1.53E-04 Gamma 2.06 3.16E+04 driven NR Motor- FTS EB/PL/KS 3.58E-04 3.14E-03 4.16E-03 1.15E-02 Beta 1.26 3.01E+02 driven STBY Motor- FTR<1H JNID/IL 9.11E-06 1.32E-05 1.34E-05 1.84E-05 Gamma 22.50 1.68E+06 driven STBY Motor- FTR>1H JNID/IL 9.11E-06 1.32E-05 1.34E-05 1.84E-05 Gamma 22.50 1.68E+06 driven STBY Engine- FTS JNID/IL 5.29E-03 8.07E-03 8.24E-03 1.17E-02 Beta 17.50 2.11E+03 driven Engine- FTR<1H JNID/IL 9.27E-07 1.07E-04 2.36E-04 9.06E-04 Gamma 0.50 2.12E+03 driven Engine- FTR>1H JNID/IL 1.13E-06 1.31E-04 2.88E-04 1.10E-03 Gamma 0.50 1.74E+03 driven IAS-Motor FTR EB/PL/KS 1.95E-05 6.64E-05 7.50E-05 1.60E-04 Gamma 2.85 3.80E+04 PCA-Motor FTR JNID/IL 9.18E-06 2.69E-05 2.96E-05 5.96E-05 Gamma 3.50 1.18E+05 Component Reliability 115 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.2 Air Dryer Unit (ADU) 10.2.1 Component Description The air dryer unit (ADU) boundary includes the air dryer unit. The failure mode for ADU is listed in Table 10-1.
10.2.2 Data Collection and Review Data for the ADU UR baseline were obtained from the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) database. None of the data sources used in WSRC are newer than approximately 1990. WSRC presents Category 1 data (see Section A.1 in Reference 14) from compressed gas systems for ADUs in commercial nuclear power plants.
10.2.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-5 lists the industry-average failure rate distribution. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The mean is from WSRC, and the parameter of 0.30 is assumed.
Table 10-5. Selected industry distributions of p and for ADUs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type IAS FTOP JNID/IL 5.35E-10 1.22E-06 5.00E-06 2.29E-05 Gamma 0.30 6.00E+04 Component Reliability 116 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.3 Accumulator (ACC) 10.3.1 Component Description The air accumulator (ACC) boundary includes the tank and associated relief valves. The failure modes for ACC are listed in Table 10-1.
10.3.2 Data Collection and Review Data for ACC UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the ACC data collection are listed in Table 10-6 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 10-6. ACC systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 4 4 Chemical and volume control (CVC) 60 60 Component cooling water (CCW) 46 46 Condensate system (CDS) 10 10 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 3 3 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 23 23 Control rod drive (CRD) 5 5 Emergency power supply (EPS) 184 184 Firewater (FWS) 11 11 Fuel handling (FHS) 18 18 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 3 3 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 4 4 High pressure core spray (HCS) 1 1 High pressure injection (HPI) 54 54 Instrument air (IAS) 95 95 Main steam (MSS) 43 43 Plant ac power (ACP) 1 1 Reactor coolant (RCS) 2 2 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs, LPI in 71 71 PWRs) (RHR)
Standby liquid control (SLC) 33 33 Standby service water (SWS) 4 4 Vapor suppression (VSS) 2 2 Grand Total 677 677 Table 10-7 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the ACC analysis.
Component Reliability 117 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Table 10-7. ACC unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Events Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FTOP 18 96,227,420 h 617 79 2.8% 17.7%
- ELS 11 96,227,420 h 617 79 1.8% 8.9%
- ELL 11 96,227,420 h 617 79 1.8% 8.9%
10.3.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-8 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The selected ELL mean is the ELS mean multiplied by 0.07, with an assumed of 0.3. The 0.07 multiplier is based on limited EPIX data for large leaks as explained in Section A.1 in Reference 14.
Table 10-8. Selected industry distributions of p and for ACCs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- FTOP JNID/IL 1.25E-07 1.89E-07 1.92E-07 2.71E-07 Gamma 18.50 9.62E+07
- ELS JNID/IL 6.80E-08 1.16E-07 1.20E-07 1.83E-07 Gamma 11.50 9.62E+07
- ELL JNID/IL 8.99E-13 2.05E-09 8.40E-09 3.84E-08 Gamma 0.30 3.57E+07 Component Reliability 118 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.4 Cooling Tower Fan (CTF) 10.4.1 Component Description The cooling tower fan (CTF) boundary includes the fan, motor, local circuit breaker, local lubrication or cooling systems, and local instrumentation and control circuitry. The failure modes for CTF are listed in Table 10-1.
10.4.2 Data Collection and Review Data for CTF UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems included in the CTF data collection are listed in Table 10-9 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 200 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g.,
leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 10-9. CTF systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Normally Circulating water system (CWS) 1 1 Running Normally operating service water (SWN) 16 16 Standby service water (SWS) 10 5 15 Normally Running Total 11 21 32 Standby Circulating water system (CWS) 1 1 Component cooling water (CCW) 16 17 33 Normally operating service water (SWN) 4 4 Standby service water (SWS) 24 24 Standby Total 16 46 62 Grand Total 27 67 94 Table 10-10 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the CTF analysis. Note that for the running/alternating CTFs, those components with > 200 demands/year were removed.
Table 10-10. CTF unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours STBY FTS 16 44,600 d 54 6 25.9% 66.7%
STBY FTR<1H 0 44,487 h 54 6 0.0% 0.0%
STBY FTR>1H 2 1,073,115 h 54 6 3.7% 33.3%
NR FTS 1 2,687 d 20 2 5.0% 50.0%
NR FTR 3 1,504,717 h 20 2 15.0% 100.0%
Figure 10-3a shows the range of start demands per year in the standby CTF data set. Figure 10-3b shows the range of start demands per year in the running CTF data set. Figure 10-4a shows the range of run hours per demand in the standby CTF data set. Figure 10-4b shows the range of run hours per demands in the running CTF data set.
Component Reliability 119 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Figure 10-3a. Standby CTF demands per year distribution.
Figure 10-3b. Running/alternating CTF demands per year distribution.
Component Reliability 120 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Figure 10-4a. Standby CTF run hours per demand distribution.
Figure 10-4b. Running/alternating CTF run hours per demand distribution.
10.4.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-11 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Component Reliability 121 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Table 10-11. Selected industry distributions of p and for CTFs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type STBY FTS JNID/IL 2.34E-04 3.62E-04 3.70E-04 5.31E-04 Beta 16.50 4.46E+04 STBY FTR<1H JNID/IL 4.42E-08 5.11E-06 1.12E-05 4.32E-05 Gamma 0.50 4.45E+04 STBY FTR>1H JNID/IL 5.35E-07 2.03E-06 2.33E-06 5.17E-06 Gamma 2.50 1.07E+06 NR FTS JNID/IL 6.54E-05 4.40E-04 5.58E-04 1.45E-03 Beta 1.50 2.69E+03 NR FTR JNID/IL 7.22E-07 2.12E-06 2.33E-06 4.69E-06 Gamma 3.50 1.50E+06 Component Reliability 122 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.5 Tank (TNK) 10.5.1 Component Description The tank (TNK) boundary includes the tank. The tank component has been further broken down into tanks that hold pressurized liquid, unpressurized liquid, and gas. The failure modes for TNK are listed in Table 10-1.
10.5.2 Data Collection and Review Data for TNK UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2004. These data were then further partitioned into pressurized and unpressurized components. The systems and operational status included in the TNK data collection are listed in Table 10-12 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories:
High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 10-12. TNK systems.
Pooling Group System Number of Components High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Liquid, Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 16 16 Unpressurized Chemical and volume control (CVC) 29 29 Component cooling water (CCW) 30 30 Condensate system (CDS) 16 16 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 15 15 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 12 12 Emergency power supply (EPS) 42 42 Firewater (FWS) 3 3 Fuel handling (FHS) 6 6 High pressure core spray (HCS) 2 2 High pressure injection (HPI) 13 13 Main feedwater (MFW) 2 2 Main steam (MSS) 1 1 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 3 3 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs, LPI 15 15 in PWRs) (RHR)
Standby liquid control (SLC) 11 11 Standby service water (SWS) 5 5 Liquid, Unpressurized Total 221 221 Liquid, Chemical and volume control (CVC) 19 19 Pressurized Component cooling water (CCW) 11 11 Condensate system (CDS) 10 10 Condensate transfer system (CTS) 3 3 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 5 5 Emergency power supply (EPS) 10 10 Firewater (FWS) 7 7 Fuel handling (FHS) 1 1 High pressure injection (HPI) 20 20 Instrument air (IAS) 2 2 Component Reliability Data Sheets 123 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Pooling Group System Number of Components High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Main steam (MSS) 1 1 Reactor coolant (RCS) 11 11 Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs, LPI 75 75 in PWRs) (RHR)
Standby service water (SWS) 2 2 Liquid, Pressurized Total 177 177 Gas Emergency power supply (EPS) 5 5 Firewater (FWS) 2 2 Instrument air (IAS) 25 25 Gas Total 32 32 Grand Total 430 430 Table 10-13 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the TNK analysis.
Table 10-13. TNK unreliability data.
Pooling Group Failure Data Counts Percent With Failures Mode Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- FC 15 59,350,270 h 379 76 3.7% 15.8%
Liquid, ELS 8 24,349,940 h 156 45 5.1% 13.3%
Pressurized Liquid, ELL 8 24,349,940 h 156 45 5.1% 13.3%
Pressurized Liquid, ELS 7 29,235,430 h 191 67 3.7% 10.4%
Unpressurized Liquid, ELL 7 29,235,430 h 191 67 3.7% 10.4%
Unpressurized IAS FC 0 3,944,400 h 25 4 0.0% 0.0%
SWS FC 0 1,086,910 h 7 4 0.0% 0.0%
Gas ELS 2 5,048,832 h 32 7 6.3% 14.3%
Gas ELL 2 5,048,832 h 32 7 6.3% 14.3%
10.5.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-14 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
Table 10-14. Selected industry distributions of p and for TNKs.
Pooling Group Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Mode Type
- FC JNID/IL 1.62E-07 2.55E-07 2.61E-07 3.79E-07 Gamma 15.50 5.94E+07 Liquid, ELS EB/PL/KS 1.22E-09 1.49E-07 3.31E-07 1.28E-06 Gamma 0.49 1.49E+06 Pressurized Liquid, ELL EB/PL/KS 2.48E-12 5.65E-09 2.32E-08 1.06E-07 Gamma 0.30 1.29E+07 Pressurized Liquid, ELS JNID/IL 1.24E-07 2.46E-07 2.57E-07 4.28E-07 Gamma 7.50 2.92E+07 Unpressurized Liquid, ELL JNID/IL 1.93E-12 4.39E-09 1.80E-08 8.23E-08 Gamma 0.30 1.67E+07 Unpressurized IAS FC JNID/IL 4.99E-10 5.77E-08 1.27E-07 4.87E-07 Gamma 0.50 3.94E+06 SWS FC JNID/IL 1.80E-09 2.09E-07 4.60E-07 1.76E-06 Gamma 0.50 1.09E+06 Gas ELS JNID/IL 1.13E-07 4.31E-07 4.95E-07 1.10E-06 Gamma 2.50 5.05E+06 Component Reliability Data Sheets 124 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Pooling Group Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Mode Type Gas ELL JNID/IL 3.71E-12 8.45E-09 3.47E-08 1.59E-07 Gamma 0.30 8.66E+06 Component Reliability Data Sheets 125 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.6 Orifice (ORF) 10.6.1 Component Description The orifice (ORF) boundary includes the orifice. The failure mode for ORF is listed in Table 10-1.
10.6.2 Data Collection and Review Data for ORF UR baselines were obtained from the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) database. None of the data sources used in WSRC are newer than approximately 1990. WSRC presents Category 3 data (see Section A.1 in Reference 14) for ORFs in water systems.
10.6.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-15 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The mean is from WSRC, and the parameter of 0.30 is assumed.
Table 10-15. Selected industry distributions of p and for ORFs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- PG WSRC 1.07E-10 2.44E-07 1.00E-06 4.57E-06 Gamma 0.300 3.000E+05 Component Reliability 126 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.7 Pipe (PIPE) 10.7.1 Component Description The pipe (PIPE) boundary includes piping and pipe welds in each system. The flanges connecting piping segments are not included in the pipe component. The failure modes for PIPE are listed in Table 10-1.
10.7.2 Data Collection and Review Data for PIPE UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1997-2004. There are 10,330 PIPE components in 112 systems from 96 plants in the data originally gathered from EPIX.
EPIX reporting requirements allow great flexibility in defining PIPE components. Within a given system, one plant may report one PIPE component covering the entire system, while another may subdivide the piping into many smaller segments. The systems included in the PIPE data collection are listed in Table 10-16 with the number of plants reporting information for each system. Note that the number of PIPE components per system is not a meaningful number given the flexibility in reporting requirements.
However, the number of plants per system is useful, given the system footage information presented in Table 10-16.
Table 10-16. PIPE systems.
System Description Count of PWR System BWR System Comment Plants Footage per Footage per (note a) Plant Plant (note b) (note b)
ESW Emergency service water 37 5036 PWR estimate used for average footage CCW Component cooling water 13 4008 2920 CCW footage for BWRs is RBCCW AFW Auxiliary feedwater 14 624 CSR Containment spray recirculation 11 1875 RHR (PWR) estimate used for CSS footage HCS High pressure core spray 1 2912 HPCI estimate used for HPCS footage HCI High pressure coolant injection 7 2912 LCS Low pressure core spray 4 666 RCI Reactor core isolation 4 520 LCI Low pressure coolant injection 7 2681 LPI Low pressure injection 13 1875 HPI High pressure injection 11 1422 CVC Chemical and volume control 19 3276
- a. This entry is the number of plants reporting piping data to EPIX for the system indicated.
- b. Estimates are from NUREG/CR-4407, Pipe Break Frequency Estimation for Nuclear Power Plants (Ref. A-13).
Estimates are for piping with 2-inch or larger diameter.
Table 10-17 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the PIPE analysis. Piping ELS events are those with external leakage rates from 1 to 50 gpm. Events that were uncertain were counted as 0.5 events. Note that the hours for ELS are reactor-year hours.
Table 10-17. PIPE unreliability data.
Pooling Group System Failure Events Total Foot-Hours Mode (1997 - 2004) (1997 - 2004)
All ESW ELS 8.5 1.306E+10 CCW ELS 0.5 3.321E+09 Component Reliability 127 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Pooling Group System Failure Events Total Foot-Hours Mode (1997 - 2004) (1997 - 2004)
AFW ELS 0.0 6.122E+08 CSR ELS 0.0 1.445E+09 HCS ELS 0.0 2.041E+08 HCI ELS 0.0 1.429E+09 LCS ELS 0.0 1.867E+08 RCI ELS 0.0 1.458E+08 LCI ELS 0.0 1.315E+09 LPI ELS 0.5 1.708E+09 HPI ELS 1.0 1.096E+09 CVC ELS 1.5 4.362E+09 All but ESW ELS 3.5 1.583E+10 10.7.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-18 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. For ESW piping, the selected ELL mean is the ELS mean multiplied by 0.2, with an assumed of 0.3. For non-ESW piping, the ELL mean is multiplied by 0.1. These multipliers are based on limited EPIX data for large leaks as explained in Section A.1 in Reference 14.
Table 10-18. Selected industry distributions of for PIPEs.
System Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Mode Type ESW ELS SCNID/IL 2.71E-12 3.14E-10 6.89E-10 2.65E-09 Gamma 0.500 7.255E+08 ELL ELS/EPIX 1.48E-14 3.36E-11 1.38E-10 6.31E-10 Gamma 0.300 2.176E+09 Non-ESW ELS SCNID/IL 9.94E-13 1.15E-10 2.53E-10 9.71E-10 Gamma 0.500 1.978E+09 ELL ELS/EPIX 2.71E-15 6.16E-12 2.53E-11 1.16E-10 Gamma 0.300 1.187E+10 Component Reliability 128 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.8 Heat Exchanger (HTX) 10.8.1 Component Description The heat exchanger (HTX) boundary includes the heat exchanger shell and tubes. The failure modes for HTX are listed in Table 10-19.
Table 10-19. HTX failure modes.
Pooling Group Failure Mode Parameter Units Description All LOHT 1/h Loss of heat transfer ELS (tube) 1/h External leak of the heat exchanger tube side ELS (shell) 1/h External leak of the heat exchanger shell side 10.8.2 Data Collection and Review Data for HTX UR baselines were obtained from the ICES database, covering 1998-2015. The systems and operational status included in the HTX data collection are listed in Table 10-20 with the number of components included with each system. The component count is broken down into two categories: High/Unknown Demand which shows the counts for either high-demand components or those components that do not have demand information available, Low-Demand which shows the counts for those components that are known to be 20 demands per year. The reliability estimates that do not require specific component demand information use all components regardless of whether there are demand data available (e.g., leakage, spurious operation, and operation).
Table 10-20. HTX systems.
Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand All Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) 9 9 Chemical and volume control (CVC) 105 105 Circulating water system (CWS) 2 2 Component cooling water (CCW) 273 8 281 Condensate system (CDS) 341 341 Containment fan cooling (CFC) 206 1 207 Containment spray recirculation (CSR) 30 4 34 Control rod drive (CRD) 2 2 Emergency power supply (EPS) 189 189 Firewater (FWS) 1 1 Heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVC) 104 1 105 High pressure coolant injection (HCI) 4 4 High pressure core spray (HCS) 3 3 High pressure injection (HPI) 11 11 Instrument air (IAS) 33 33 Isolation condenser (ISO) 11 11 Low pressure core spray (LCS) 2 2 Main feedwater (MFW) 120 120 Main steam (MSS) 40 40 Normally operating service water (SWN) 22 22 Plant ac power (ACP) 5 5 Reactor coolant (RCS) 151 151 Reactor core isolation (RCI) 7 7 Component Reliability Data Sheets 129 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment Pooling System Number of Components Group High/ Low Total Unknown Demand Demand Residual Heat Removal (LCI in BWRs, LPI in 251 251 PWRs) (RHR)
Standby service water (SWS) 21 21 Grand Total 1943 14 1957 Table 10-21 summarizes the data obtained from EPIX and used in the HTX analysis.
Table 10-21. HTX unreliability data.
Pooling Failure Mode Data Counts Percent With Failures Group Failures Demands or Components Plants Components Plants Hours
- LOHT 87 269,796,800 h 1,770 102 3.6% 39.2%
- ILS 98 269,796,800 h 1,770 102 3.8% 33.3%
- ILL 98 269,796,800 h 1,770 102 3.8% 33.3%
- ELS 65 269,796,800 h 1,770 102 3.3% 36.3%
- ELL 65 269,796,800 h 1,770 102 3.3% 36.3%
CCW LOHT 17 34,265,020 h 227 80 6.6% 16.3%
CCW PG 17 34,265,020 h 227 80 6.6% 16.3%
CCW FC 17 34,265,020 h 227 80 6.6% 16.3%
CCW-NE PG 7 34,265,020 h 227 80 3.1% 7.5%
10.8.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-22 lists the selected industry distributions of p and for the HTX failure modes. These industry-average failure rates do not account for any recovery.
The selected ELL (shell) mean is the ELS mean multiplied by 0.07, with an assumed of 0.3. The selected ELL (tube) mean is the ELS (tube) mean multiplied by 0.15, with an assumed of 0.3. The 0.07 and 0.15 multipliers are based on limited EPIX data for large leaks as explained in Section A.1 in Reference 14.
Table 10-22. Selected industry distributions of p and for HTXs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type
- LOHT EB/PL/KS 2.32E-09 1.88E-07 3.85E-07 1.44E-06 Gamma 0.54 1.41E+06
- ILS EB/PL/KS 5.03E-10 1.42E-07 3.73E-07 1.54E-06 Gamma 0.42 1.11E+06
- ILL EB/PL/KS 7.98E-13 1.82E-09 7.46E-09 3.41E-08 Gamma 0.30 4.02E+07
- ELS EB/PL/KS 9.77E-09 1.82E-07 2.79E-07 8.81E-07 Gamma 0.87 3.10E+06
- ELL EB/PL/KS 4.48E-12 1.02E-08 4.19E-08 1.91E-07 Gamma 0.30 7.17E+06 CCW LOHT EB/PL/KS 5.34E-10 1.92E-07 5.33E-07 2.22E-06 Gamma 0.40 7.47E+05 CCW PG EB/PL/KS 5.34E-10 1.92E-07 5.33E-07 2.22E-06 Gamma 0.40 7.47E+05 CCW FC EB/PL/KS 5.34E-10 1.92E-07 5.33E-07 2.22E-06 Gamma 0.40 7.47E+05 CCW- PG EB/PL/KS 2.32E-10 7.56E-08 2.06E-07 8.51E-07 Gamma 0.41 1.97E+06 NE Component Reliability Data Sheets 130 December 2016
Miscellaneous Equipment 10.9 Instrumentation (INS) 10.9.1 Component Description The instrumentation (INS) boundary includes the orifice. The failure mode for INS is listed in Table 10-1.
10.9.2 Data Collection and Review Data for ORF UR baselines were obtained from the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) database. None of the data sources used in WSRC are newer than approximately 1990. WSRC presents Category 3 data (see Section A.1 in Reference 14) for ORFs in water systems.
10.9.3 Industry-Average Baselines Table 10-15 lists the industry-average failure rate distributions. The FTOP failure mode is not supported by EPIX data. The mean is from WSRC, and the parameter of 0.30 is assumed.
Table 10-23. Selected industry distributions of p and for INSs.
Pooling Failure Source 5% Median Mean 95% Distribution Group Mode Type ICC FA NUCLARR 6.89E-04 1.52E-03 1.70E-03 3.33E-03 Lognormal 2.20 -
ICC FC NUCLARR 6.89E-04 1.52E-03 1.70E-03 3.33E-03 Lognormal 2.20 -
ACT FC NUCLARR 6.89E-04 1.52E-03 1.70E-03 3.33E-03 Lognormal 2.20 -
Component Reliability 131 December 2016
References 11 References
- 1. The Institute of Nuclear Power Pooling Groups, Equipment Performance and Information Exchange System (EPIX), Volume 1 - Instructions for Data Entry, Maintenance Rule and Reliability Information Module, INPO 98-001, 1998 (proprietary).
- 2. D.M. Rasmuson, T.E. Wierman, and K.J. Kvarfordt, An Overview of the Reliability and Availability Data System (RADS), International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Analysis PSA05, American Nuclear Society, Inc., 2005.
- 3. S.A. Eide et al., Reliability Study: Westinghouse Reactor Protection System, 1984 - 1995, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5500, Vol. 2, April 1999.
- 4. S.A. Eide et al., Reliability Study: General Electric Reactor Protection System, 1984 - 1995, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5500, Vol. 3, May 1999.
- 5. T.E. Wierman et al., Reliability Study: Combustion Engineering Reactor Protection System, 1984 - 1998, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5500, Vol. 10, July 2002.
- 6. T.E. Wierman et al., Reliability Study: Babcock & Wilcox Reactor Protection System, 1984 -
1998, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-5500, Vol. 11, July 2002.
- 7. C.H. Blanton and S.A. Eide, Savannah River Site Generic Data Base Development (U),
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, WSRC-TR-93-262, June 1993.
- 8. S.A. Eide, Historical Perspective on Failure Rates for US Commercial Reactor Components, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2003; 80:123-132.
- 9. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mitigating Systems Performance Index (MSPI),
http://nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/mspi.html.
- 10. C.L. Atwood et al., Handbook of Parameter Estimation for Probabilistic Risk Assessment, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6823, September 2003.
- 11. S.A. Eide et al., Component External Leakage and Rupture Frequency Estimates, Idaho National Laboratory, EGG-SSRE-9639, November 1991.
- 12. The Institute of Nuclear Power Pooling Groups, NPRDS Reportable System and Component Scope Manual, INPO 83-020, 1994.
- 13. R. Wright, J. Steverson, and W. Zuroff, Pipe Break Frequency Estimation for Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4407, May 1987.
- 14. S.A. Eide et al., Industry-Average Performance for Components and Initiating Events at U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6928, January 2007.
- 15. T.E. Wierman, et al, Industry Performance of Relief Valves at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants through 2007, NUREG/CR-7037, December 2015.
Component Reliability 132 December 2016