ML17003A033: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML17003A033
| number = ML17003A033
| issue date = 12/29/2016
| issue date = 12/29/2016
| title = Palo Verde, Enclosure 2 - APS Meeting Slides
| title = Enclosure 2 - APS Meeting Slides
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = Arizona Public Service Co
| author affiliation = Arizona Public Service Co
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Second License Amendment Request for the Unit 3 Train B Diesel GeneratorPalo Verde Nuclear Generating Station December 29, 2016 Agenda*Background
{{#Wiki_filter:Second License Amendment Request for the Unit 3 Train B Diesel Generator Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station December 29, 2016
*Regulatory Commitments
 
*Event Investigation
Agenda
*Risk Assessment
* Background
*Second License Amendment Request
* Regulatory Commitments
*Conclusions 2
* Event Investigation
* Risk Assessment
* Second License Amendment Request
* Conclusions 2
 
First License Amendment Request (LAR)
First License Amendment Request (LAR)
*One-time Technical Specification (TS) Change to Allow a 21 day Completion Time In Response to Failure of Unit 3 B Train DG on December 15, 2016-Extension of 11 days needed to collect/analyze data and continue repair  
* One-time Technical Specification (TS) Change to Allow a 21 day Completion Time In Response to Failure of Unit 3 B Train DG on December 15, 2016
-Deterministic justification based upon BTP 8-8
  - Extension of 11 days needed to collect/analyze data and continue repair
-Risk insights provided to support change  
  - Deterministic justification based upon BTP 8-8
-NRC commitments made in LAR
  - Risk insights provided to support change
-NRC Amendment 199 issued on December 23, 2016 3
  - NRC commitments made in LAR
  - NRC Amendment 199 issued on December 23, 2016 3
 
Regulatory Commitments
Regulatory Commitments
*Commitments documented in NRC Amendment #199 include but are not limited  
* Commitments documented in NRC Amendment #199 include but are not limited to:
  - Three, 2 MW portable DGs staged, tested and hooked-up to Unit 3 FLEX 4.16KV connections
  - Diesel driven FLEX Steam Generator make-up pump staged in Unit 3
  - Suspension of discretionary maintenance on SBOGs, Switchyard, Safety Systems
  - Establish protected equipment controls for Train A equipment, SBOGs, portable equipment
  - Commitments monitored and tracked by OPS
  - Dedicated personnel 4


to:-Three, 2 MW portable DGs staged, tested and hooked-up to Unit 3 FLEX 4.16KV connections
-Diesel driven FLEX Steam Generator make-up pump staged in Unit 3
-Suspension of discretionary maintenance on SBOGs, Switchyard, Safety Systems
-Establish protected equipment controls for Train A equipment, SBOGs, portable equipment
-Commitments monitored and tracked by OPS
-Dedicated personnel 4
Palo Verde AC Power System 5
Palo Verde AC Power System 5
Palo Verde AC Power System 6
Palo Verde AC Power System 6
Event Investigation
Event Investigation
*Partnerships established with MPR, Goltens, Structural Integrity, EPRI, and the Cooper-
* Partnerships established with MPR, Goltens, Structural Integrity, EPRI, and the Cooper-Bessemer Owners Group
* Evidence of high cycle fatigue on master connecting rod
* Second major failure of 3B DG (9R)
* 1986 event created localized misalignment 7


Bessemer Owners Group
*Evidence of high cycle fatigue on master connecting rod
*Second major failure of 3B DG (9R)
*1986 event created localized misalignment 7
Operating Experience (OE)
Operating Experience (OE)
*Cooper-Bessemer KSV-20 OE  
* Cooper-Bessemer KSV-20 OE
-1986 -Palo Verde 3B DG connecting rod (9R) failure during unit startup testing program
  - 1986 - Palo Verde 3B DG connecting rod (9R) failure during unit startup testing program
-1989 -South Texas Project DG 22 connecting rod failure during a surveillance test  
  - 1989 - South Texas Project DG 22 connecting rod failure during a surveillance test
-2003 -South Texas Project DG 22 connecting rod failure during a surveillance test (one-time LAR using a two-phased approach to extend allowable outage time to 113 days)
  - 2003 - South Texas Project DG 22 connecting rod failure during a surveillance test (one-time LAR using a two-phased approach to extend allowable outage time to 113 days)
-2016 -Palo Verde 3B DG connecting rod (9R) failure during a surveillance test 8
  - 2016 - Palo Verde 3B DG connecting rod (9R) failure during a surveillance test 8
 
DIRECT CAUSE OF FAILURE
DIRECT CAUSE OF FAILURE
*High cycle fatigue failure of the master  
* High cycle fatigue failure of the master connecting rod ligament which surrounds the lower part of the articulating rod pin.
9
 
Event Investigation Master Rod Fracture Surface 10
 
ROOT CAUSE OF FAILURE FLAW + STRESS = FATIGUE POTENTIAL FLAWS              STRESS
: 1. Residual tensile within master connecting rod bore due to machining process change Mis-Alignment
: 2. Fretting
: 3. Undersized Oversized Bearing following 1987 repair.
11
 
12 3A/3B COMPARITIVE EVALUATION
* Evaluating Wide Array of Data
* Relevant Data
    - Vibration
    - Engine Analysis
    - Line Bore Data
    - Work History
    - Event History 13
 
3A/3B COMPARITIVE EVALUATION
* Unit 3 B Emergency Diesel Generator experienced a catastrophic failure that induced crankshaft mis-alignment which increased the stress profile within the engine
* Unit 3 A engine has not had a catastrophic failure
* Unit 3 A engine vibration displacement data is consistently less and has significantly less variability
* Unit 3 A Master connecting rods are original equipment (i.e. Pre machining change) 14
 
Engineering Conclusion There is no common cause mode of failure to Unit 3 A Emergency Diesel Generator due to the unique aspects of the Unit 3 B Diesel Generator root cause.
15
 
Risk Assessment
* PRA models for
  - Internal Events
  - Internal Flood
  - Internal Fire
  - Seismic
* Other hazards screened out 16
 
PRA Model and Risk-Informed Application Model History Internal Events CEOG peer review & numerous risk-informed TS changes Internal Flood peer review Risk-informed 7-day inverter TS approved Internal Events self-assessment per RG 1.200 App B TSTF-425 Surveillance Frequency Control Program approved External Hazards Screening peer review 1st fire PRA peer review Seismic PRA peer review 2nd fire PRA peer review TSTF-505 submitted All Unit 3 Mods Comp
                                                                                            & all ASME PRA Std SRs Met to CC II Pre-2010      2010        2011        2012        2013          2014        2015        2016 17


connecting rod
Risk Assessment
* Palo Verde PRA Aspects
    - Six 100% capacity SG makeup pumps all supplied by onsite power sources
    - Only one of these powered by B DG if loss of offsite power
    - RCP seal LOCAs negligible - ECCS significance minimal in loss of offsite power events
    - No Pressurizer power-operated relief valves
    - Very low internal events CDF and LERF - consistent with STP and Millstone 3
    - Only shared systems in PRA are SBOGs and firewater
    - Dedicated fire department staff and equipment
    - Risk significant FLEX connections outside of unit
    - Did not need to implement NFPA-805 to address multiple spurious operations 18


ligament which
PRA Model Credited Changes
* Revised emergency operating procedures and night order to direct timely use of firewater to auxiliary feedwater cross-tie in total loss of feedwater event - validated in simulator
    - Additional dedicated auxiliary operator added to each shift to implement cross-tie
* Post continuous fire watch in fire zone FCCOR2 (120 Corridor Building)
* Establish new transient combustible and hot work exclusion zones and conduct shiftly inspections
    - Fire zones FCCOR2 (120 Corridor Building) and FCCOR2A (120 Corridor Riser Shaft)
    - Fire zones FCTB04 (upper level only, non-class DC Equipment,
[FCTB04-TRAN1])
    - Fire zone FC86A (train A Seismic Gap, make part of train A Electrical Protected Equipment)
    - Fire zone FCTB100 zone ZT1G (SW corner, south half of 100 Turbine between columns TA and TC) 19


surrounds the lower part of  
Risk Assessment
* Defense-in-Depth Evaluation
  - Unavailability does not reduce the amount of available equipment to a level below that necessary to mitigate a design basis accident
* Safety Margin Evaluation
  - No significant reduction in margin of safety
* Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 2 compliant
* Regulatory Guide 1.177, Revision 1 compliant
* Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 2 compliant 20


the articulating
Second License Amendment Request
* Requesting a extension of TS 3.8.1 Condition B.4 Completion Time to complete the DG Repairs
* Request on Emergency Basis
* Risk-informed LAR
* Carrying forward the Commitments made in Deterministic LAR
* To be submitted Friday, December 30
* Request approval by early Thursday morning 21


rod pin. 9 Event Investigation 10 Master Rod Fracture Surface ROOT CAUSE OF FAILUREFLAW + STRESS = FATIGUE POTENTIAL FLAWSSTRESS1. Residualtensile within master connecting rod bore due to machining process changeMis-Alignment2. Fretting 3. "Undersized" OversizedBearing following 1987 repair.
Conclusions
11 12 3A/3B COMPARITIVE EVALUATION
* Direct cause of the 3B DG failure has been determined
*Evaluating Wide Array of Data
* No common mode failure applicability to 3A DG
*Relevant Data
* Continue to have diverse and redundant sources of AC power and steam generator makeup
-Vibration
* PRA risk acceptable in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177
-Engine Analysis
* No significant hazards consideration criteria satisfied 22
-Line Bore Data
-Work History
-Event History 13 3A/3B COMPARITIVE EVALUATION
*Unit 3 "B" Emergency Diesel Generator experienced a catastrophic failure that induced crankshaft mis-alignment which increased the stress profile within the engine
*Unit 3 "A" engine has not had a catastrophic failure*Unit 3 "A" engine vibration displacement data is consistently less and has significantly less variability
*Unit 3 "A" Master connecting rods are original  equipment (i.e. Pre machining change) 14 Engineering Conclusion There is no common cause mode of failure to Unit 3 "A" Emergency Diesel Generator due to the unique aspects of the Unit 3 "B" Diesel Generator root cause.
15 Risk Assessment
*PRA models for
-Internal Events
-Internal Flood
-Internal Fire
-Seismic*Other hazards screened out 16 PRA Model and Risk-Informed Application Model History Pre-2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17Internal Events CEOG peer review & numerous risk-informed TS changesTSTF-425 Surveillance Frequency Control Program approved 2 ndfire PRA peer reviewTSTF-505 submittedInternal Flood peer reviewRisk-informed 7-day inverter TS approvedSeismic PRA peer review 1 stfire PRA peer reviewInternal Events self-assessment per RG 1.200 App B All Unit 3 Mods Comp
& all ASME PRA Std SRs Met to CC IIExternal Hazards Screening peer review Risk Assessment
*Palo Verde PRA Aspects
-Six 100% capacity SG makeup pumps all supplied by onsite power sources
-Only one of these powered by B DG if loss of offsite power
-RCP seal LOCAs negligible -ECCS significance minimal in loss of offsite power events
-No Pressurizer power-operated relief valves
-Very low internal events CDF and LERF -consistent with STP and Millstone 3
-Only shared systems in PRA are SBOGs and firewater
-Dedicated fire department staff and equipment
-Risk significant FLEX connections outside of unit
-Did not need to implement NFPA-805 to address multiple spurious operations 18 PRA Model Credited Changes
*Revised emergency operating procedures and night order to direct timely use of firewater to auxiliary feedwatercross-tie in total loss of feedwaterevent -validated in


simulator-Additional dedicated auxiliary operator added to each shift to implement cross-tie
Questions?}}
*Post continuous fire watch in fire zone FCCOR2 (120' Corridor Building)
*Establish new transient combustible and hot work exclusion zones and conduct shiftlyinspections
-Fire zones FCCOR2 (120' Corridor Building) and FCCOR2A (120' Corridor Riser Shaft)
-Fire zones FCTB04 (upper level only, non-class DC Equipment, [FCTB04-TRAN1])
-Fire zone FC86A (train A Seismic Gap, make part of train A Electrical Protected Equipment)
-Fire zone FCTB100 zone ZT1G (SW corner, south half of 100' Turbine between columns TA and TC) 19 Risk Assessment
*Defense-in-Depth Evaluation
-Unavailability does not reduce the amount of available equipment to a level below that necessary to mitigate a design basis accident
*Safety Margin Evaluation
-No significant reduction in margin of safety
*Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 2 compliant
*Regulatory Guide 1.177, Revision 1 compliant
*Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 2 compliant 20 Second License Amendment Request
*Requesting a extension of TS 3.8.1 Condition B.4 Completion Time to complete the DG Repairs*Request on Emergency Basis
*Risk-informed LAR
*Carrying forward the Commitments made in Deterministic LAR
*To be submitted Friday, December 30
*Request approval by early Thursday morning 21 Conclusions
*Direct cause of the 3B DG failure has been determined
*No common mode failure applicability to 3A DG*Continue to have diverse and redundant sources of AC power and steam generator makeup*PRA risk acceptable in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177
*No significant hazards consideration criteria satisfied 22 Questions?}}

Latest revision as of 09:47, 30 October 2019

Enclosure 2 - APS Meeting Slides
ML17003A033
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde Arizona Public Service icon.png
Issue date: 12/29/2016
From:
Arizona Public Service Co
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Watford M
References
CAC MF9019
Download: ML17003A033 (23)


Text

Second License Amendment Request for the Unit 3 Train B Diesel Generator Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station December 29, 2016

Agenda

  • Background
  • Regulatory Commitments
  • Event Investigation
  • Risk Assessment
  • Second License Amendment Request
  • Conclusions 2

First License Amendment Request (LAR)

  • One-time Technical Specification (TS) Change to Allow a 21 day Completion Time In Response to Failure of Unit 3 B Train DG on December 15, 2016

- Extension of 11 days needed to collect/analyze data and continue repair

- Deterministic justification based upon BTP 8-8

- Risk insights provided to support change

- NRC commitments made in LAR

- NRC Amendment 199 issued on December 23, 2016 3

Regulatory Commitments

  • Commitments documented in NRC Amendment #199 include but are not limited to:

- Three, 2 MW portable DGs staged, tested and hooked-up to Unit 3 FLEX 4.16KV connections

- Diesel driven FLEX Steam Generator make-up pump staged in Unit 3

- Suspension of discretionary maintenance on SBOGs, Switchyard, Safety Systems

- Establish protected equipment controls for Train A equipment, SBOGs, portable equipment

- Commitments monitored and tracked by OPS

- Dedicated personnel 4

Palo Verde AC Power System 5

Palo Verde AC Power System 6

Event Investigation

  • Partnerships established with MPR, Goltens, Structural Integrity, EPRI, and the Cooper-Bessemer Owners Group
  • Evidence of high cycle fatigue on master connecting rod
  • Second major failure of 3B DG (9R)
  • 1986 event created localized misalignment 7

Operating Experience (OE)

  • Cooper-Bessemer KSV-20 OE

- 1986 - Palo Verde 3B DG connecting rod (9R) failure during unit startup testing program

- 1989 - South Texas Project DG 22 connecting rod failure during a surveillance test

- 2003 - South Texas Project DG 22 connecting rod failure during a surveillance test (one-time LAR using a two-phased approach to extend allowable outage time to 113 days)

- 2016 - Palo Verde 3B DG connecting rod (9R) failure during a surveillance test 8

DIRECT CAUSE OF FAILURE

  • High cycle fatigue failure of the master connecting rod ligament which surrounds the lower part of the articulating rod pin.

9

Event Investigation Master Rod Fracture Surface 10

ROOT CAUSE OF FAILURE FLAW + STRESS = FATIGUE POTENTIAL FLAWS STRESS

1. Residual tensile within master connecting rod bore due to machining process change Mis-Alignment
2. Fretting
3. Undersized Oversized Bearing following 1987 repair.

11

12 3A/3B COMPARITIVE EVALUATION

  • Evaluating Wide Array of Data
  • Relevant Data

- Vibration

- Engine Analysis

- Line Bore Data

- Work History

- Event History 13

3A/3B COMPARITIVE EVALUATION

  • Unit 3 B Emergency Diesel Generator experienced a catastrophic failure that induced crankshaft mis-alignment which increased the stress profile within the engine
  • Unit 3 A engine has not had a catastrophic failure
  • Unit 3 A engine vibration displacement data is consistently less and has significantly less variability
  • Unit 3 A Master connecting rods are original equipment (i.e. Pre machining change) 14

Engineering Conclusion There is no common cause mode of failure to Unit 3 A Emergency Diesel Generator due to the unique aspects of the Unit 3 B Diesel Generator root cause.

15

Risk Assessment

- Internal Events

- Internal Flood

- Internal Fire

- Seismic

  • Other hazards screened out 16

PRA Model and Risk-Informed Application Model History Internal Events CEOG peer review & numerous risk-informed TS changes Internal Flood peer review Risk-informed 7-day inverter TS approved Internal Events self-assessment per RG 1.200 App B TSTF-425 Surveillance Frequency Control Program approved External Hazards Screening peer review 1st fire PRA peer review Seismic PRA peer review 2nd fire PRA peer review TSTF-505 submitted All Unit 3 Mods Comp

& all ASME PRA Std SRs Met to CC II Pre-2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17

Risk Assessment

  • Palo Verde PRA Aspects

- Six 100% capacity SG makeup pumps all supplied by onsite power sources

- Only one of these powered by B DG if loss of offsite power

- RCP seal LOCAs negligible - ECCS significance minimal in loss of offsite power events

- No Pressurizer power-operated relief valves

- Very low internal events CDF and LERF - consistent with STP and Millstone 3

- Only shared systems in PRA are SBOGs and firewater

- Dedicated fire department staff and equipment

- Risk significant FLEX connections outside of unit

- Did not need to implement NFPA-805 to address multiple spurious operations 18

PRA Model Credited Changes

  • Revised emergency operating procedures and night order to direct timely use of firewater to auxiliary feedwater cross-tie in total loss of feedwater event - validated in simulator

- Additional dedicated auxiliary operator added to each shift to implement cross-tie

  • Establish new transient combustible and hot work exclusion zones and conduct shiftly inspections

- Fire zones FCCOR2 (120 Corridor Building) and FCCOR2A (120 Corridor Riser Shaft)

- Fire zones FCTB04 (upper level only, non-class DC Equipment,

[FCTB04-TRAN1])

- Fire zone FC86A (train A Seismic Gap, make part of train A Electrical Protected Equipment)

- Fire zone FCTB100 zone ZT1G (SW corner, south half of 100 Turbine between columns TA and TC) 19

Risk Assessment

  • Defense-in-Depth Evaluation

- Unavailability does not reduce the amount of available equipment to a level below that necessary to mitigate a design basis accident

  • Safety Margin Evaluation

- No significant reduction in margin of safety

Second License Amendment Request

  • Requesting a extension of TS 3.8.1 Condition B.4 Completion Time to complete the DG Repairs
  • Request on Emergency Basis
  • Risk-informed LAR
  • Carrying forward the Commitments made in Deterministic LAR
  • To be submitted Friday, December 30
  • Request approval by early Thursday morning 21

Conclusions

  • Direct cause of the 3B DG failure has been determined
  • No common mode failure applicability to 3A DG
  • Continue to have diverse and redundant sources of AC power and steam generator makeup
  • PRA risk acceptable in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177
  • No significant hazards consideration criteria satisfied 22

Questions?