NUREG-1715, Vol. 1

Component Performance 

Study - Turbine-Driven 

Pumps, 1987-1998

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

ý' R ,4A ota 

g0
AVAILABILITY NOTICE

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regu

lations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, may be purchased from one of the fol

lowing sources: 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

PO. Box 37082 

Washington, DC 20402-9328 

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/sudocs> 

202-512-1800 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

<http://www.ntis.gov> 

1-800-553-6847 or locally 703-605-6000 

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures 

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of confer

ences (NUREG/CP-X)OOX), (3) reports resulting 

from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), 

(4) technical and administrative reports and books 

[(NUREG-XXXX) or (NUREG/CR-XXXX)], and (5) 

compilations of legal decisions and orders of the 

Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing 

Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under 

Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG

XXOXX. 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for com

ment is available free, to the extent of supply, upon 

written request as follows: 

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Reproduction and Distribution 

Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: <DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov> 

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 

A portion of NRC regulatory and technical informa

tion is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:

<http://www.nrc.gov> 

After January 1, 2000, the public may electronically 

access NUREG-series publications and other NRC 

records in NRC's Agencywide Document Access 

and Management System (ADAMS), through the 

Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR), link. 

< http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html>. 

Publicly released documents include, to name a 

few, NUREG-series reports; Federal Register no

tices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents 

and correspondence; NRC correspondence and 

internal memoranda; bulletins and information no

tices; inspection and investigation reports; licens

ee event reports; and Commission papers and 

their attachments. 

Documents available from public and special tech

nical libraries ihclude all open literature items, such 

as books, journal articles, and transactions, Feder

al Register notices, Federal and State legislation, 

and congressional reports. Such documents as 

theses, dissertations, foreign reports and transla

tions, and non-NRC conference proceedings may 

be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 

are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint 

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 

20852-2738. These standards are available in the 

library for reference use by the public. Codes and 

standards are usually copyrighted and may be 

purchased from the originating organization or, if 

they are American National Standards, from

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 

New York, NY 10036-8002 

<http://www.ansi.org> 

212-642-4900
NUREG-1715, Vol. 1

Component Peformance 

Study - Turbine-Driven 

Pumps, 1987-1998 

Commercial Power Reactors 

Date Completed: March 2000 

Date Published: April 2000 

Prepared By 

J. R. Houghton, H. G. Hamzehee 

Division of Risk Analysis and Application 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001
ABSTRACT

This report documents an analysis of the performance of safety-related turbine

driven pump assemblies (turbine driver, pump, and governor subcomponents) used 

in the pressurized water reactor (PWR) auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system and in the 

boiling water reactor (BWR) reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) and high pressure 

coolant injection (HPCI) systems in U.S. commercial power reactor plants. 

A risk-based analysis of operating data and an engineering analysis of trends and 

patterns were performed to provide insights into the performance of turbine driven 

pump components on an industry basis and comparison of results with data used by 

plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments. The data used in this report was from 

the 1987-1995 period for engineering analysis of the PWR AFW system and the 

BWR RCIC and HPCI systems. Failure probability estimates used combined 

engineered safety features data (1987-1998) and surveillance test data (1987-1995) 

for the PWR AFW system and for the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems.

iii
CONTENTS 

ABSTRACT ......................................................... iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................. vii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................... xii 

ACRONYMS ........................................................ xiii 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 

1.1 P urpose .................................................. 1 

1.2 Background ............................................... 1 

1.3 Overall Study Structure ...................................... 2 

2. SCOPE OF STUDY .............................................. 3 

2.1 Risk-Important Systems and Components ....................... 3 

2.2 TDP Assembly Description and Boundaries ...................... 4 

2.3 Data C ollection ............................................ 4 

2.4 Operational Data Analysis .................................... 8 

3. RISK-BASED ANALYSIS ......................................... 9 

3.1 Calculation Results ......................................... 9 

3.2 Comparison With IPEs and Other Sources ...................... 11 

4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ....................................... 13 

4.1 Failure Trend Analysis ..................................... 13 

4.2 Component Trends in Time .................................. 15 

4.3 Failure Characteristics and Their Causes ....................... 21 

4.4 Related Issues - Information Notices .......................... 26 

5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ........................................ 27 

5.1 Failure Probabilities ........................................ 27 

5.2 Engineering Insights ....................................... 27 

6. REFERENCES ................................................ 28

V
CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

FIGURES 

1 NPRDS Database TDP Failures ............................... 6 

2 SCSS Database TDP Failures .............................. 6 

3 BWR HPCI System TDP Probability of Failure on Demand 

Yearly Trend - 1987-1995 ................................... 11 

4 PWR AFW System TDP Probability of Failure on Demand 

Comparison with Values Used in IPEs .......................... 12 

5 BWR RCIC System TDP Probability of Failure on Demand

Comparison with Values Used in IPEs ......................... 12 

6 BWR HPCI System TDP Probability of Failure on Demand

Comparison with Values Used in IPEs ......................... 13 

7 PWR and BWR TDP Failure Trends ........................... 14 

8 PWR AFW System TDP Component Trends in Time .............. 19 

9 BWR RCIC/HPCI Systems TDP Component Trends in Time ........ 20 

10 TDP Subcomponent Failure Apportionment ..................... 22 

11 PWR AFW System TDP Failure Causes ........................ 23 

12 BWR RCIC System TDP Failure Causes ....................... 24 

13 BWR HPCI System TDP Failure Causes ....................... 25 

TABLES 

A TDP Probability of Failure on Demand (1987-1998) ............... 10 

B TDP Standby Failure Rate (1987-1995) ........................ 11 

C NRC Information Notices Concerning TDP Assemblies (1986-1998) .. 26 

APPENDICES 

I Failure Probabilities -TDP Assembly 

II TDP Assembly - Component Trends in Time 

III TDP Assembly - Engineering Insights 

IV Data Source Inputs for Reported Failures and Estimated Demands 

TDP Assemblies

vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study provides the performance evaluation based on industry experience 

during the 1987 through 1998 period for turbine-driven pumps (TDPs) in the 

pressurized water reactor (PWR) auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system and in the 

boiling water reactor (BWR) reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) and high pressure 

coolant injection (HPCI) systems. The objectives of component performance studies 

are (1) to determine the reliability of risk-important components and compare the 

results with estimates in probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) and individual plant 

examinations (IPEs) and (2) to review the operational data from an engineering 

perspective to determine trends and patterns and gain insights into component 

performance: 

TDP failure and estimated demand data was obtained from two databases. The 

Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) provided data on component 

failures and surveillance test frequencies for the 1987-1995 period. The Sequence 

Coding and Search System (SCSS) provided engineering safety features (ESF) 

failure and demand data for the 1987-1998 period and some surveillance test failure 

data for the 1987-1995 period reported in Licensee Event Reports (LERs). 

For the PWR AFW system and the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems, the TDP 

probability of failure on demand estimates were based on the combined ESF and 

surveillance test data for failures and demands from SCSS and NPRDS data 

sources. The ESF data (LERs) was from the 1987-1998 period, while the 

surveillance test data (NPRDS) was from the 1987-1995 period. For the BWR 

HPCI system, the probability of failure on demand over the 1987-1995 period 

showed a decreasing trend. However, data over the entire period (1987-1998) was 

evaluated as more meaningful and is consistent with the NUREG/CR-4550 generic 

mean value for TDPs (3E-3). Table ES-A lists the TDP probability of failure on 

demand estimates developed in this study for the AFW, RCIC, and HPCI systems 

and the generic values from NUREG/CR-4550, which was the input to NUREG

1150. Table ES-B provides the standby failure rates for each system. 

TABLE ES-A 

TDP PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND (1987-1998) 

SYSTEM/SOURCE LOWER BOUND MEAN UPPER BOUND 

NUREG-4550 1.1E-3 3E-2 1.1E-1 

AFW system 1.3E-3 1.6E-2 4.6E-2 

RCIC system 9.1E-6 2.OE-2 8.7E-2 

HPCI system(1 987-1998) 1.6E-3 3.3E-2 9.7E-2

vii
TABLE ES-B 

TDP STANDBY FAILURE RATE (1987-1995) 

SYSTEMISOURCE LOWER BOUND MEAN UPPER BOUND 

AFW system 1 .4E-5/hour 1.8E-5/hour 2.1 E-5/hour 

RCIC system 9.1E-6/hour 1.3E-5/hour 1.7E-5/hour 

HPCI system 2.1E-5/hour 2.9E-5/hour 3.8E-5/hour 

The TDP mean probabilities of failure on demand used in plant-specific IPE studies 

were compared with the results of this study. For BWR RCIC and HPCI systems 

(1987-1995 data), all of the IPE mean values for the TDP failure on demand 

probability were within the range of this study and NUREG/CR-4550. For the AFW 

system, more than 90% of the IPE mean values were also within the range of this 

study and NUREG/CR-4550. Figures ES-1, ES-2, and ES-3 show these 

comparisons for the AFW, RCIC, and HPCI systems, respectively. 

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDPs 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

1.OOOE+00"----: " 

1.OOOE-O1 . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. !!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! 

T.. .... 0....".. .......................... ....'-. ......... 1 . 1 :"E- : : ý - - : :::' : . :i ' ' : :: -: 4 ' - - ' ' '' • !! : ''::': • : : : 

-.. ... .. .. .................... ................ 

1.000E-02 ....... 

: .: :..........:................. .... ...... 

1.OOOE-03 : ... .... 

1.000E-04 > 0 .- • M >- > z >- < se W ' ' (0 M "J .j W _.- ,- '" z 

•y•,,,3, . E u ,,,6 z •-<uwu! uz •_o 

,, ->z 0. m-J z -o a-W Z > 

+ <>-< -. <z M0 

rn <-1 < < <Z < ~ 

oD O 

Iz 

REPORT/PLANT 

FIGURE ES-1 

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

COMPARISON WITH VALUES USED IN IPEs

viii
BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDPs 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

1 .OOOE+OQ ............. .... .. .. ... ..... ..... ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

1.OOOE-O1 !L : M,2 1!t" - !11 wE! ; ,s - ! ! ! ,z sZ : . . .. ...... . . 1.000E-02 j 

1 - .0 30 . E ... ... ... ... ............. ....................... .......... 

1.OOOE-04-1.. ........ - - -- - - --.. .-. .-. - :: .: ..: ..: .: ..: ...: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

1.0OOE-06 > o r N, >- 0 ,, ao 

LL I- u U mn < - z 

BW 'Rl SYTM D PRBAIL0 OFILR ON DEAN 

COMARSO WTHVAUE USE IN IPs 

(n C N z D< 0 > LU LU cr : z I- cr - C d. C o< 0 cr 

z : : : : : : : : a, : : : : : : : : : 0.. .. .. .. > ,

REPORT/PLANT 

FIGURE ES-2 

BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDP PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

COMPARISON WITH VALUES USED IN IPEs 

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDPs 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

1.OOOE+OO :::::::::: 

1.00O...2. 1 .. ......... ................... .. .. .... 

1 .OOOE-02 

1.000E-032: 

0 0 x N - he 0 > , N Cr 0 C1Lu ) ir LU L) (L~ 0 U** Z C 

aI ) m o 0 >< w w 0 ) D 0 LU N m ccoUn LU L m _j m C 

d~ 0 ~ Cr I. < 

0 Cr : L) L 

0Z<0< it 

REPORT/PLANT 

FIGURE ES-3 

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDP PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

COMPARISON WITH VALUES USED IN IPEs 

ix
Failure trends for the PWR AFW system during the 1987-1995 period were relatively 

constant, except for an upward peak in 1989 and 1990. For BWRs (RCIC and HPCI 

systems combined), there was a marked decreasing trend after 1991. Figure ES-4 

shows the TDP failure trends for the 1987-1995 period.

PWR TDP FAILURES 

AFW SYSTEM

BWR TDP FAILURES 

RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEMS

NO. OF FAILURES

18 

" " 14 -i i . . 

12 

10 

9

7 

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 

CALENDAR YEARS

No. PWR TDP fail.: 101

12

95

15 

10 

5

[]PUMP 

EITURBINE 

El GOVERNOR

0

NO. OF FAILURES

15

U

16 

13 

-12 

10 

88 

6 

4

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

CALENDAR YEARS

No. BWR failures: 92

FIGURE ES-4 

TDP FAILURE TRENDS 

Failure rates, as a function of component-years, were compared among the PWR 

and BWR plant age groups (three groups, of approximately equal size, from older to 

newer plants by commercial operation date). For both PWRs and BWRs, the review 

of plant age groups did not show evidence of an increase in failure rates for any of 

the plant age groups due to "aging" mechanisms.

X

20 

15 

10 

5 

0

-PUMP 

0ITURBINE 

0l GOVERNOR

20, ]

8

94
The evaluation of TDP subcomponent failure patterns demonstrated that failures of 

governor subcomponents were significant contributors to the TDP failures in the 

BWR RCIC system, while both turbine and governor subcomponent failures were 

significant contributors to the PWR AFW system and BWR HPCI system. Pump 

subcomponent failures were relatively insignificant. 

Failures of TDP assemblies in AFW and RClC systems were mainly due both to 

age/wear and maintenance/procedural deficiencies, whereas 

maintenance/procedural deficiencies was singularly predominant for the HPCI 

system. Figure ES-5 shows the TDP assembly failure causes for the AFW, RCIC, 

and HPCI systems.

PWR AFW SYSTEM TOP ASSEMBLIES 

ALL SUBCOMPONENTS

Maint/Proc. 

24% 

Unknown 19%

BWR RCIC SYSTEM TOP ASSEMBLIES 

ALL SUBCOMPONENTS

Age/Wear 30%

S Design Def. Dirt/Contm. 8% 

8%

Unknown 23%

Dirt/Contm. 7%

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBUES ALL SUBCOMPONENTS

Maint/Proc. 45%

Unknown 

Dirt/Cont% . 5%

Design Def. 16%

FIGURE ES-5 

TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURE CAUSES

xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank our colleague Dr. Dale M. Rasmuson for his technical assistance in the 

review and presentation of the statistical data.

xii
ACRONYMS

AFW auxiliary feedwater system 

AOV air-operated valve 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

BWR boiling water reactor 

EPIX Equipment Performance and Information Exchange 

ESF engineered safety features 

HPCI high pressure coolant injection system 

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

INPO The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 

IPE Individual plant examination 

LER Licensee Event Report 

MDP motor-driven pump 

MOV motor-operated valve 

NPRDS Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System 

NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PWR pressurized water reactor 

RCIC reactor core isolation cooling system 

RI risk-important 

SCSS Sequence Coding and Search System 

TDP turbine-driven pump

xiii
COMPONENT PERFORMANCE STUDY - TURBINE-DRIVEN PUMPS, 1987-1998 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose 

This study provides the performance evaluation of turbine-driven pump (TDP) 

assemblies in the pressurized water reactors (PWR) auxiliary feedwater 

system and in the boiling water reactors (BWR) reactor core isolation cooling 

(RCIC) and high pressure coolant injection systems during the period 1987 

through 1998. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the reliability 

of TDP assemblies and compare the results with estimates in probabilistic risk 

assessments (PRAs) and individual plant examinations (IPEs) and (2) to 

review the operational data from an engineering perspective to determine 

trends and patterns and gain insights into component performance. 

An engineering analysis of the factors affecting TDP reliability was performed 

to determine trends and patterns in the TDP operating data for the 1987-1995 

period. This study was based on the actual operating history of TDPs for 

these safety-related systems. The reliability parameters calculated in this 

study are the probability of failure to start on demand and failure rate per 

standby hours (standby failure rate). Supplemental failure and demand data 

for 1996-1998 from operational events (engineered safety features actuations 

reported in Licensee Event Reports) was added to the 1987-1995 data for 

estimating the TDP probabilities of failure on demand. 

1.2 Background 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has undertaken to ensure 

that the stated NRC policy to expand the use of probabilistic risk assessment 

(PRA) within the agency is implemented in a consistent and predictable 

manner. As part of this effort, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

(RES), Division of Risk Analysis and Application (DRAA), has begun 

monitoring and reporting on the functional reliability of risk-important systems 

in commercial nuclear power plants. The approach is to compare estimates 

and associated assumptions in PRAs to actual operating experience. The 

first phase is identifying risk-important systems from a PRA perspective and 

doing a reliability and trending analysis of these systems. As a significant part 

of this effort, a risk-related performance study of the turbine-driven pumps for 

the AFW, RCIC, and HPCI systems was performed.

1
Over the past decade, the NRC has issued several studies applicable to TDP 

risk-important systems, TDP components or their subcomponent failures, 

failure on demand probabilities, and trends and patterns. 

NUREG-1275, Vol. 10, "Operating Experience Feedback Report 

Reliability of Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Standby Pumps," 

October 1994 (Ref. 1), documented a detailed analysis of failure 

initiators, causes, and design features for steam turbine assemblies 

(turbines and their related components such as governors and valves) 

that are used as drivers for standby pumps in the auxiliary feedwater 

systems of pressurized water reactor plants, and in the high pressure 

safety injection and reactor core isolation cooling systems of boiling 

water reactor plants (1974-1992). 

NUREG/CR-5500, Vol.4, "Reliability Study: High Pressure Coolant 

Injection (HPCI) System Performance, 1987-1993," September 1999 

(Ref. 2), documented an analysis of the performance of the BWR HPCI 

system during the period 1987-1993. A risk-based analysis and an 

engineering analysis of trends and patterns were performed from HPCI 

system operational events data (reported by LERs) to provide insights 

into the performance of the HPCI system throughout the industry and at 

a plant-specific level. 

NUREG/CR-5500, Vol.7, Reliability Study: Reactor Core Isolation 

Cooling System, 1987-1993," September 1999 (Ref. 3), documented 

an analysis of the performance of the BWR RCIC system during the 

period 1987-1993. A risk-based analysis and an engineering analysis 

of trends and patterns were performed from RCIC system operational 

events data (reported by LERs) to provide insights into the 

performance of the RCIC system throughout the industry and at a 

plant-specific level. 

NUREG/CR-5500, Vol. 1, "Reliability Study: Auxiliary/Emergency 

Feedwater System, 1987-1995," dated August 1998 (Ref. 4), 

documented an analysis of the performance of the PWR AFW system 

during the period 1987-1995. A risk-based analysis and an 

engineering analysis of trends and patterns were performed from AFW 

system operational events data (reported by LERs) to provide insights 

into the performance of the AFW system throughout the industry and at 

a plant-specific level 

1.3 Overall Study Structure 

This study is arranged in four sections.

2
Section 1 is the introduction.

(2) Section 2 describes the scope of the study, risk-important systems, the 

TDP assembly and its subcomponent boundaries, and the 

methodology used for operational data collection and analysis. 

(3) Section 3 provides the risk-based analysis of operational data, the 

calculation results for estimating the TDP probabilities of failure on 

demand and the standby failure rate for TDPs, the contingency test 

analysis for the data population, the comparison of TDP probability 

values with those in IPEs and other sources, and the regulatory 

implications of this component performance study. 

(4) Section 4 provides the engineering analyses (failure trend analysis, 

component trends in time, the failure characteristics and their causes, a 

brief discussion and listing of NRC regulatory initiatives related to 

TDPs, and engineering insights resulting from the various analyses). 

The appendices provide related data used in this study and evaluation results. 

Appendix I provides the estimated probabilities of failure on demand and the 

calculated standby failure rates. Appendix II contains tables of data for the 

combined total and for each plant age group used to plot the component 

trends in time and an evaluation of aging effects on TDPs. Appendix III 

provides data used for engineering analysis and insights into failure trends 

and patterns. Appendix IV provides operational data inputs for reported 

failures and estimated demands from the NPRDS database and LERs (SCSS 

database). 

2. SCOPE OF STUDY 

2.1 Risk-Important Systems and Components 

The PWR risk-important (RI) system that uses the TDP is the 

auxiliary/emergency feedwater (AFW) system (Westinghouse, Babcock & 

Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering reactor plants). The main safety 

function of the AFW system is to provide feedwater to the steam generators to 

maintain a heat sink in the event of a loss of main feedwater, a reactor trip, 

loss of offsite power, or a small break loss of coolant accident. The AFW 

system is typically a multi-train system, one train with a TDP and one or more 

trains with motor-driven pumps (MDPs). However, some plants have more 

TDP trains and a few plants have no TDP trains (motor-driven pump trains 

and/or diesel-driven pump trains).

3

(1)
The BWR RI systems that use TDPs are the reactor core isolation cooling 

(RCIC) and the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) systems. The RCIC 

system is a single train system that supplies high pressure makeup water to 

the reactor vessel when the reactor is isolated from the main condenser and 

the condensate and feedwater system is not available. The HPCI system is a 

single train system that maintains adequate reactor vessel inventory for core 

cooling in the event of small break loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCAs), and 

assists in the depressurization of the reactor vessel to allow the low pressure 

emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) to inject on intermediate break 

LOCAs. It also provides a backup function to the isolation condenser or the 

RCIC system under reactor isolation conditions. 

2.2 TDP Assembly Description and Boundaries 

For this study, a TDP assembly is comprised of a pump, a turbine driver, and 

a governor subcomponents. The pump is typically a horizontal, split-case, 

single stage centrifugal pump. Most plant designs use a single stage "Terry 

Turbine" (now supplied by Dresser-Rand), whose piece parts include a 

turbine trip and throttle valve, a mechanical overspeed trip mechanism, and a 

lubrication system. The various types of governors, used for turbine speed 

control in AFW, RCIC, and HPCI system TDPs, are mostly manufactured by 

the Woodward Corporation. For the AFW system TDPs, the governors are 

predominantly mechanical/hydraulic, pressure compensated, and have a 

pneumatic remote-speed setting capability. For the RCIC and HPCI systems, 

the TDPs typically have Woodward type EG-M electric/electronic governors 

and EGR actuators. Piece parts of all governors include a turbine stop valve 

and a governor valve, while the EG-M usually includes a ramp 

generator/signal converter and other electrical controls. The turbine and 

various type governor subcomponents are included in NUREG-1 275, Vol. 10 

(Ref. 1). 

The component boundaries are the TDP assembly, its subcomponents, and 

the piece parts described above, that are supplied as part of the TDP 

assembly. Other system components, such as steam inlet valves to the 

turbine, pump suction and discharge valves, flow instrumentation and 

controls, and remote electrical controls, are considered outside the 

component boundary in this study. 

2.3 DATA COLLECTION 

Data collection and reporting for the NPRDS were terminated at the end of 

1996. Therefore, the NPRDS does not have any failure information for 1997 

and later. Furthermore, the 1996 failure data reported in NPRDS was not as 

consistent as for the 1987-1995 period (the industry was transitioning for the

4
termination of NPRDS). The Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) 

has recently implemented a new component database called Equipment 

Performance and Information Exchange (EPIX). This system is intended to 

replace the NPRDS system that yields additional information, such as 

demands. In its present stage of development, the EPIX system was not 

considered to be sufficiently mature to provide a complete data source for the 

1996-1998 period for this study. Where applicable in the development of 

probability of failure on demand estimates for this study, the SCSS database 

of ESF failure and demand data (reported in LERs) were used for the 1996

1998 period. 

The NPRDS database was used to obtain the number of TDP assembly 

subcomponents and the estimated testing frequency for each subcomponent 

in each plant. The number and testing frequency of Application Coded pump 

subcomponents were compared with the number and testing frequency of 

Application Coded turbine driver and governor subcomponents for each TDP 

assembly. This was done for the AFW system in PWRs and for the RCIC and 

HPCI systems in BWRs for each plant. The comparison was made to assure 

that number of TDP assemblies was correct for each plant, since each 

assembly has one pump, one governor, and one turbine driver. The values 

developed in Appendix IV were also used in developing other appendices. 

The term "Application Coded" used in this study refers to risk-important 

components or subcomponents that are functionally designated within a 

specific system by the NPRDS. An example using the RCIC system TDP 

subcomponents that were separately Application Coded in NPRDS is as 

follows: 

COMP. SUBCOMP. REACTOR TYPE RI SYSTEM APPLICATION 

ASSY CODE 

DESCRIPTION 

TDP Pump BWR RCIC RCIC Turbine 

Driven Pump 

TDP Turbine BWR RCIC RCIC Turbine 

Driver 

TDP Governor BWR RCIC RCIC Governor 

A detailed review and evaluation was performed of the LERs and the NPRDS 

failure histories to determine the total number of TDP failures for this study. 

Only "complete" (i.e., catastrophic) failures were included in the failure count. 

For TDP subcomponents, the NPRDS "fail to start" (FS) and "fail to run" (FR) 

failure modes were both included for estimating probability of failure on 

demand. For the TDP governor subcomponent, the "failure to control (FC)

5
and "failure to run" (FR) failure modes were used. Because these failure 

modes occurred in a relatively short period, these various subcomponent 

failure modes were considered as equivalent to "fail to start." Figure 1 shows 

the relationship between various NPRDS database failure data subsets. 

Al All TDP assembly subcomponent 

failures as "complete"/catastrophic 

Ai failure category (1987-1995) 

Bi Bi Subset - TDP failures for risk

important systems 

C1 Subset - TDP failures occurring during 0 surveillance tests 

FIGURE 1 

NPRDS DATABASE TDP FAILURES 

The SCSS database was used to determine the number of TDP failures, 

reported in LERs, that occurred during surveillance tests or that were 

associated with an engineered safety features (ESF) actuation. The NPRDS 

database was used to obtain the number of surveillance test failures for each 

TDP subcomponent. Surveillance test failures reported in LERs were 

excluded from the NPRDS failure counts, but included in the LER failure 

counts. This was done to prevent a "double count" of failures. Figure 2 

shows the relationship between various SCSS database (reported by LERs) 

failure data subsets. 

A2 All TDP assembly failures (1987-1998) 

Az B2 Subset - TDP failures for risk

important systems 

Ba C2 Subset TDP failures associated with 

ESFs or occurring during surveillance 

tests 

FIGURE 2 

SCSS DATABASE TDP FAILURES 

TDP failures that occurred during surveillance testing were directly linked with 

surveillance test demands to assure that surveillance test probability of failure 

on demand estimates were valid. Similarly, ESF failures were linked with 

ESF demands to estimate ESF probability of failure on demand. For the few

6
plant AFW systems with more than one TDP (i.e, more than one train with a 

TDP), those TDPs that might have been actuated during pre-test or post-test 

system train alignment were not included in the surveillance test failure counts 

used in this study. 

When it was analytically determined that the ESF failures and demands were 

in the same population as the surveillance test failures and demands, the total 

number of demands was the sum of the ESF demands and the surveillance 

test demands. 

The first step in estimating ESF demands was to determine ESF actuations 

and then determine which component types and how many components of 

each type were actuated by this type of demand. Other demands that may 

have occurred during plant operation, startup, or shutdown but did not result 

in ESF actuations were not included in the ESF demand determination, nor 

were any associated failures included. However, inadvertent and spurious 

demands and manual actuations associated with an ESF (e.g., a reactor trip) 

were considered ESF demands. The SCSS database was used for the PWR 

AFW system and the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems for LERs that were 

coded with "ESF Actuations" and those coded as "SCRAMS and Shutdowns." 

The full text of each LER was reviewed to determine whether the selected 

systems were actuated, the number and type of trains (e.g., for AFW, the 

turbine-driven pump train(s) and/or the motor-driven pump train(s) actuated 

by the ESF), and the best estimate of the number of TDPs actuated, based 

on the plant-specific train configuration. 

The second step in estimating the total number of demands was to use 

NPRDS testing frequencies as the basis for surveillance test demands. This 

was done for the NPRDS Application Coded, functionally designated TDP 

assembly subcomponents in the AFW, RCIC, and HPCI systems (see Section 

2.1 for the description of the TDP assembly). The review of the NPRDS 

testing frequency was performed for each subcomponent of the TDP 

assembly (i.e., pump, turbine driver, and governor). When the NPRDS 

reported testing frequency differed among the subcomponents, an estimate 

was made for the TDP assembly testing frequency that included American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 

Section XI Inservice Testing interval requirements (as required by the 

Technical Specifications), the system, and the subcomponent function in the 

TDP assembly. When no frequency was provided by NPRDS, a minimum 

frequency of once per quarter was used. Demands associated with a 

surveillance test that occurred during train alignment and return to the "as 

found" condition of a system/train were not included in the total number of 

demands, nor were corollary failures included in the failure count. Although 

the Technical Specifications generally require a full flow test once per 

refueling cycle, no additional demands were included because the monthly

7
or quarterly surveillance test frequencies used in this study were assumed to 

envelope these refueling cycle demands. 

The total number of demands for the TDPs in a specific system was the sum 

of ESF TDP demands and surveillance test demands, where the latter is the 

sum of the products of the TDPs and their estimated testing frequencies over 

the 9-year period (1987-1995) and the former (ESFs) covers the 12-year 

period (1987-1998). 

The probability of failure on demand for TDPs was estimated by dividing total 

TDP failures by total TDP demands ( ESF failures + surveillance test failures 

- ESF demands + surveillance test demands) as long as the ESF data and 

the surveillance test data were analyzed to be in the same population. 

2.4 Operational Data Analysis 

A contingency test analysis was performed to reject or to not reject the 

hypothesis that failure and demand data from surveillance testing of 

Application Coded TDPs were in the same population as ESF failure and 

demand data. The analysis used surveillance test data for the TDPs in the 

PWR AFW system and in the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems during the 1987

1995 period and ESF data froml987-1998. 

The approximate method for contingency test tables (chi-square, 1 degree of 

freedom, 0.95 quantile) was used for the reject/not reject hypothesis that the 

ESF and surveillance test data are from the same population (X2 < 3.84). The 

contingency test table provides a short-cut method of computing chi-square 

using the following 2X2 table and formula: 

X = n (ad- bc) 2 where n = a + b+ c+ d and k = (a+b)(c+d)(a+c)(b+d) 

k 

ESFs SURVEILLANCE TEST TOTAL 

No. of a b (a+b) 

FAILURES 

No. of c d (c + d) 

SUCCESSES 

TOTAL (a + c) (b + d) n 

(DEMANDS)

Alternate Method (formula to correct for continuity) 

X2 = n (lad-bcl -_n12) 2 

k

8
Bayes Method

The Bayes method (Ref. 6), as applied to this study for TDPs by plant 

system, assumes that the probability of failure on demand varies from plant to 

plant according to a beta distribution. The parameters for this distribution 

were estimated from the pooled data by maximum likelihood. For each plant, 

this distribution was used as a Bayes prior distribution, and updated with the 

plant-specific failure data. This method was used in this study for the PWR 

AFW system and the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems. It is also used to 

evaluate the acceptability of combining data populations (ESF and 

surveillance test) when the simple contingency test rejects the hypothesis that 

the data are in the same population. 

Standby Failure Rate 

The average standby failure rate (A) for TDPs in each system is based on the 

data for the 9-year period 1987-1995, using the following equation: 

A = f , failures per component-hour 

(nc)(coy)(8760) 

where: f-- the number of failures during the period, nc= the number of TDPs in each plant for 

the system, coy = the actual number of calendar operating years during the 9-year 

period, and 8760 = the number of hours in a calendar year 

3. RISK-BASED ANALYSIS 

This section presents the risk-based analysis of operational data, the 

estimated TDP probabilities of failure on demand and estimated standby 

failure rate, the contingency test analysis for the data population, a 

comparison of TDP probability values with those in IPEs and other sources, 

and the regulatory implications of this component performance study. 

3.1 Calculation Results 

Appendix I provides tables applicable to the TDP probability of failure on 

demand by the selected systems in the 69 PWR and 31 BWR plants. The 

results are as follows: 

The simple contingency test for the PWR AFW system TDPs rejected the 

hypothesis that ESF data and surveillance test data were in the same 

population. The Bayes Method of comparison supported combining data 

populations (see 2.4, above). Therefore, the Bayes 90% intervals used for 

this study combined ESF data from 1987-1998 with surveillance test data 

from 1987-1995.

9
For BWR RCIC and HPCI systems the contingency tests did not reject the 

hypothesis that the ESF failures and demands were in the same population 

as the surveillance test failures and demands (see Section 2.4). Therefore, 

the Bayes 90% intervals for ESF + surveillance test (1987-1995) + ESF 

(1996-1998) probability of failure on demand was used. 

The generic failure probabilities used in PRAs are presently provided in terms 

of probability of failure on demand and probability of failure per operating 

hour. In this study, probability of failure on demand was used for TDPs 

because data was available to match failures to demands. Data on run times 

from LERs and NPRDS was not available to compare with generic failure to 

run data. The generic failure probability on demand ("failure to start") values 

used in this study are from NUREG/CR-4550 (Ref. 5), which was the input to 

NUREG-1 150. 

Table A shows the TDP probability of failure on demand values for 1987-1998 

for AFW, RCIC, and HPCI systems. 

TABLE A 

TDP PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND (1987-1998) 

SYSTEM/SOURCE LOWER BOUND MEAN UPPER BOUND 

NUREG/CR-4550 1.1E-3 3E-2 1.1E-1 

AFW system 1.3E-3 1.6E-2 4.6E-2 

RCIC system 9.1E-6 2.OE-2 8.7E-2 

HPCI system 1.6E-3 3.3E-2 9.7E-2 

The results shown in Table A indicated that the Bayes 90% interval 

probabilities of failure on demand were within the referenced NUREG/CR

4550 value range for TDPs used in this study. For the PWR AFW and BWR 

RCIC systems, the probability of failure on demand over the 1987-1995 

period showed a relatively constant trend. For the BWR HPCI system, the 

trend was decreasing (see Figure 3). The majority of the data for calculating 

the trends was surveillance test data. Since there was no new data for 

surveillance test failures and demands for the most recent three years (1996

1998) of the study, it is not certain whether these trends continued. The ESF 

data alone is sufficient to conclude that significant increases in the failure 

probability have not occurred, but is insufficient to determine whether the 

trends for 1996-1998 were constant or declining. Therefore, Table A uses the 

mean values over the entire period as the estimate for the probability of failure 

on demand.

10
I MEAN ± LOWER BOUND - UPPER BOUND

0. 

0.0

• t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDP PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

YEARLY TREND - 1987-1995 

FIGURE 3 

Table B shows the average standby failure rates based on 1987-1995 failure 

data for combined ESF and surveillance tests. 

TABLE B 

TDP STANDBY FAILURE RATE (1987-1995) 

SYSTEMISOURCE LOWER BOUND MEAN UPPER BOUND 

AFW system 1.4E-5/hour 1.8E-5/hour 2.1 E-5lhour 

RCIC system 9.1E-6/hour 1.3E-5/hour 1.7E-5/hour 

HPCI system 2.1E-5/hour 2.9E-5/hour 3.8E-5/hour 

3.2 Comparison With IPEs and Other Sources 

The TDP failure probabilities on demand developed for the PWR AFW 

system and the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems were compared with a 

selected group of plant-specific individual plant examinations (IPEs),as 

shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The sample of IPEs 

selected was from those with available data that identified a "failure to 

start" probability of failure on demand for TDPs. 

For the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems (1987-1995 data), all of the IPE 

mean values for the TDP failure on demand probability were within the 

range of this study and NUREG/CR-4550. Although the 1995 HPCI 

probability range is narrower, it is provided for information only for 

comparison with plant IPE mean values. For the AFW system, more 

than 90% of the IPE mean values were also within the range of this 

study and NUREG/CR-4550.

11

SPIP,
o 0 0 0 ) 0 0 

o00 0 0 0m 

TDP-ESF +S R ......... 

NUREG/CR4

5

5 0 

C O O P E R .... 

BRUN SWIGCK 

DUANEARNOLD 

FITZPATRICK ... 

GRANDGULF .... ...ý 

.

NINEMILEPT.... 

PEACHBOTTOM..... 

PILGRIM 

H ATCH 

VERMONTYANK 

RIVERBEND

n 

m 

0 

z 

ci 

m 

z ci

-0 

"nI 

Urn 

0-0 z

-C n 

mrn

CA0 

rn 

z ; 

M0

TDP-ESF +SUR NUREG/CR 4.

5 

AND 

CALLAWi 

CALVCLIFr 

COMANCHEI 

B EAVVALLI 

C RYSTAILR 

DIABLOCJ 

FARL 

GINI 

HADIDNE 

HARI 

oCO!N 

PALISAE 

POINTBEA 

PRAIRIE 

KEWAUI 

MAINEY 

McGU 

TI 

TURKE 

VOG 

WOLFCR

-v 

0 

-I

o 0 0 

o 0 

'K 

EY 

NA 

CK 

RIS 

ES 

,CH 

ISL 

NJEE. 

~NK 

1RE .... 

.MI-1..... 

YPT 

TLE 

EEK ... 

nIoN

X 

0 

ino 

CAn 

0-0 

-Ura 

0 

rnrn 

zn 0i

m 

-u 0

0 0 m 

0 

u 

0 

co 

I9

n1 

0 

n 

m z
PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

. . ... ... .... . . . .. .. . ...• .. .. . .. .. . ... . . 1. .. . .. • ... . .. . . •.. 1.OOOE+O- - - . .. 

1.0E3 6 -:I z o • I- > 

~~ o ~ FIGURE -J6a -< 

eniern &nihsfo thevarou analyses 

I. ....... . . 

4. ENGiNEreTrInG Analysis 

ThispecindiI provides thepeninebern danalystesdincluf Din failures trendr 

arnalss, omTPsonen talrens indtme failure frcharacteurisgticsan their99 cauesoda 

are shown in Figure 7. 

As indicated in Section 2.3, NPRDS failure data for 1996 was reported 

inconsistently by licensees and, therefore, was determined to be insufficient 

for trending purposes. Without NPRDS data, LER data from 1996 through 

1998 was insufficient for trending purposes. Therefore, failure data for 

trending in this study used NPRDS and LER failure data for the 1987-1995 

period. 

13
Failure trends of TDPs for the PWR AFW system showed no discernible 

trend, except for an upward peak in 1989 and 1990, with an average failure 

fraction (number of failures over the 9-year period divided by the number of 

TDPs and multiplied by 9 years) of 0.15. For the BWR systems (RCIC and 

HPCI combined), there was a marked decreasing failure trend after 1991, with 

an average failure fraction of 0.17, similar to AFW TDPs. 

PWR TDP FAILURES BWR TDP FAILURES 

AFW SYSTEM RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEMS

NO. OF FAILURES 

0IF 18

NO. OF FAILURES

20 

15 

10

0HHHHU PUMP 

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 LITURBINE 

CALENDAR YEARS LI GOVERNOR 

No. PWR TDP fail.: 101 

PWR TDP FAILURE FRACTION 

AFW SYSTEM

16 

15 

13 

- 12 

10 

// 8 8 

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

CALENDAR YEARS

R1 PUMP 

EI TURBINE 

0GOVERNOR

No. BWR failures: 92 

BWR TDP FAILURE FRACTION 

RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEMS

FAILURE FRACTION FAILURE FRACTION

CALENDAR YEARS 

No. PWR AFW SYS TOP Assys: 75 

Total No. Failures: 101

0. 

0.2 

0 

0.1

0

-PUMPS 

-TURBINES 

- TDP ASSYS 

-GOVERNORS

.3 

:5 

.2 

5 

05 

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

CALENDAR YEARS

- PUMPS 

TURBINES 

TDP ASSYS 

-GOVERNORS

No BWR RCIC AND HPCI SYS TOP Assys: 59 

Total No. BWR Failures: 92

PWR AND BWR TDP FAILURE TRENDS 

FIGURE 7 

14

5

0..
4.2 Component Trends in Time 

Methodology 

The initial assumption made in this study is that the rate of failure 

events over time (A) is constant. Several evaluation methods were 

used to check this assumption. The reason for checking was to 

determine if any significant age- related increase in A occurred among 

older plants. In order to conclude that an increase in A due to "aging" 

occurred, it would be necessary for the following conditions to be 

present: 

1. There was an increase in A over time (a nonconstant failure rate 

that was increasing) and, 

2. A was higher for the older plants and, 

3. The dominant contributor to failure was due to age/wear 

mechanisms. 

When individual failure events are arranged in chronological order, a 

cumulative plot helps to show whether A is constant throughout the 

period. 

This study used an average failure rate, AAVE., equal to the total number 

of TDP failures (ESF failure data and surveillance test failure data) for 

the 1987-1995 period, divided by the cumulative number of TDP 

component-years of operation during the period. Failure data from the 

1996-1998 period was not included since it was for ESF failure and 

limited surveillance test data only. 

The cumulative number of failures was plotted against the number of 

TDP component-years since the beginning of the study period (1987) 

for comparison with AAVE. This was done for PWRs and BWRs for 

combined plant age groups (total PWR and total BWR plants) and for 

plant age groups A, B, and C. These groups use 109 plants as a basis 

for all component studies, of which 100 plants had TDPs (69 PWR 

plants with AFW system TDPs, 31 BWR plants with RCIC system 

TDPs, and 28 BWR plants with HPCI system TDPs). The following 

table gives the definition of each plant age group and its 

apportionment, with the 109 plant basis: 

PLT AGE COMMERCIAL TOTAL NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PWR NUMBER OF BWR 

GROUP OPERATION DATE PLANTS PLANTS PLANTS 

A 12/31/74 and earlier 3W 24 12 

B 1/1/75 through 3/31/84 37 25 12 

C 4/84 and later 36 24 12

15
The assumption (i.e., null hypothesis) that AAVE. is constant during the study 

period for each plant age group and for the combined plant age groups was 

evaluated. The failure rates (AAvE.) are the slope of the plots for each plant 

age group. Comparison between plant age groups were made to determine 

whether there was any indication of plant aging (e.g., higher slope for the 

older plant age groups than for the newer plant age groups). A statistical test 

for the null hypothesis that the failure rate is constant is the Laplace test. For 

this test, L/2 is defined as the midpoint of the cumulative number of 

component-years during the 1987-1995 period. If A is constant, about half of 

the events should occur before L12 and half afterwards. The criteria for not 

rejecting the null hypothesis is that the statistic U is approximately normal for 

a number of failures > 3 (U is within + 1.645 for the 0.95th and 0.05th 

quantiles, respectively, of the standard distribution). For a nonconstant 

failure rate (rejected null hypothesis) that is increasing (U >+1.645), possible 

aging exists. The formula for the U statistic is: 

U = T-L/2 where: n = no. of failures, Ti = interval between failures in component-years, 

Lx/ 1/12n T= 2Ti/n 

The mean time between failures was provided for information, using the 

reciprocal of the AAvE. applicable to each PWR and BWR plant age group and 

the combined plant age groups. 

Results 

Appendix II provides tables applicable to component trends in time 

evaluations of TDPs. These analyses were performed to determine whether 

the failure rates were constant over time and whether the failure rates 

between older and newer plant age groups increased as an indication of 

possible "aging." The plots of cumulative TDP failures over time compared to 

the applicable average failure rate (AAVE.) plots for PWRs and BWRs indicated 

the following: 

PWRs (see Figure 8) - For the AFW system, a review of plant age groups did 

not show evidence of an increase in A for any of the plant age groups due to 

an "aging" mechanism. 

For plant age group A, the assumed hypothesis that the failure rate 

was constant was rejected. The value of U at the 10% significance 

level was +2.181 (>+1.645) and indicated a nonconstant failure rate 

(increasing) and possible "aging." 

For plant age group B, the hypothesis of a constant failure rate was 

also rejected. The value of U at the 10% significance level was -2.618

16
(< -1.645 ). Although the failure rate was nonconstant, it was 

decreasing. Therefore, there is no evidence of "aging." 

For plant age group C, the hypothesis of a constant failure rate was not 

rejected. The value of U was -0.27 (very close to zero) and did not 

provide any evidence of a nonconstant failure rate. 

When the average failure rates were compared among the plant age 

groups, plant age effects were assumed to be reflected by highest 

average failure rates for the older plant age group A, ranging to the 

lowest average failure rate for plant age group C. However, the 

reverse order occurred, where AAVE. for A (0.10) was lower than B 

(0.15), and both were lower than C (0.22). Therefore, there was no 

evidence of increasingly higher failure rates as a function of plant age 

groups. 

When the failure causes for PWR TDP assemblies were reviewed, 

age/wear causes (26%), maintenance/procedural deficiencies (24%) 

and "other" causes (24%) were found to be more significant (see 

Figure 11). Therefore, age/wear mechanisms were not the 

predominant cause of failure. 

BWRs (see Figure 9) - For the combined RCIC and HPCI systems TDPs, the 

review of plant age groups did not show evidence of an increase in A for any 

of the plant age groups due to an "aging" mechanism. 

For plant age group A, the hypothesis of a constant failure rate was not 

rejected. The value of U at the 10% significance level was -0.54 (>

1.645) and did not provide any evidence of a nonconstant failure rate. 

For plant age group B, the hypothesis of a constant failure rate was 

rejected. The value of Uat the 10% significance level was -0.1.81 

(< -1.645). Although the failure rate was nonconstant, it was 

decreasing. Therefore, there is no evidence of "aging." 

For plant age group C, the hypothesis was not rejected. The value of U 

was -1.60 (>-1.645) and did not provide evidence of a nonconstant 

failure rate. 

When the average failure rates were compared among the plant age 

groups, plant age effects were assumed to be reflected by highest 

average failure rates for the older plant age group A, ranging to the 

lowest average failure rate for plant age group C. Both plant age 

groups A (0.20) and B (0.22) were higher than C (0.11), While plant

17
age group B was slightly higher than A. Therefore, there was no 

evidence of increasingly higher failure rates as a function of plant age 

groups. 

The more significant failure causes for BWR RCIC TDP assemblies 

were age/wear (30%), maintenance/procedural deficiencies (27%) and 

"unknown" causes (23%), while for the BWR HPCI TDPs, 

maintenance/procedural deficiencies (45%) was the more significant 

(see Figures 12 and 13). Therefore, age/wear mechanisms were not 

the predominant cause of TDP failure.

18
PWR PLANT AGE GRP "A" 

CUMULATIVE NO. FAILURES

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 

TOP COMPONENT-YEARS x 10

PERIOD: 1987-1995 

No. fail.: 25 

PWR PLT AGE GRP "B"

CUMULATIVE NO. FAILURES

40F -

30 .....

20F .....

.. z ... .

A

* 7 ,7. 

.7 I :7 I :7 

7 

I II I I I I I

PWR PLT AGE GRP "C"

CUMULATIVE NO. FAILURES

30

20

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 

TOP COMPONENT-YEARS x 10

PERIOD: 1987-1995 

No. failures: 39

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

TDP COMPONENT-YEARS x 10

PERIOD: 1987-1995. 

No. failures: 37

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP COMPONENT TRENDS IN TIME 

FIGURE 8

19

0 v 0

10

* 7 

S I I

----------- / 

S . f 

S.7 

/ 

'/ 

// 

/ I " II I I I

E.

14 16

° .

J
BWR PLT AGE GRP "A" 

CUMULATIVE NO. FAILURES

25 

20 

15 

10 

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

TDP COMPONENT-YEARS x 10 

PERIOD: 1987-1995 

No. failures: 29 

BWR PLT AGE GRP "B" BWR 

CUMULATIVE NO. FAILURES CUMULATIVE N(

40 

30 

20 

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 

TDP COMPONENT-YEARS x 10 

PERIOD: 1987-1995 

No. failures: 47

PLT AGE GRP "C" 

0. FAILURES

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 

TDP COMPONENT-YEARS x 10 

PERIOD: 1987-1995 

No. failures: 16

BWR RCIC/HPCI SYSTEMS TDP COMPONENT TRENDS IN TIME 

FIGURE 9 

20

•/ 

.. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ... 

°/ ...... .. .... . . . . .... .. ... ............ ...... .. 

/1oA 

/ 

. .................. ... 

/ / 

/ 

* / 

*/ 

/

/ 

/ 

I-

/ 

/ 

• / ///

"/ A

"/ 

.. . . . .. . . . . . . 

. .. . . . .

-Anl

II t t i I i I t

9;n

11 ~ ~~~ I I t
4.3 Failure Characteristics and Their Causes

Methodology 

The TDP assembly failures and causes were identified at the subcomponent 

level in the NPRDS database. LER reported failures in the SCSS database 

provided sufficient information to identify failed subcomponents and causes 

within the LER narrative and to group these failures using the NPRDS cause 

categories. The apportionments were determined to provide insights into the 

predominant subcomponent failures and their causes by reactor type (PWR 

and BWR). 

The subcomponent parts were also grouped by PWR and BWR, with the 

percentage of failure causes for the subcomponent calculated. The cause 

categories of failure used are similar to those defined in NPRDS. 

The failure cause categories used in this study were as follows: 

-Age/Wear (AW) -Dirt/Contamination/Corrosion (DC) 

-Design Deficiency (DD) -Manufacturing Defect (MF) 

-Unknown (UK) -Debris/Foreign Material (DF) 

-Out-of-Adjustment (OA) -Setpoint Drift (SD) 

-Other Devices (OD) -Maintenance/Procedural Deficiencies (MP) 

Results 

Figure 10 shows the TDP subcomponent failure apportionment for the PWR 

AFW system and the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems. For BWRs, the 

evaluation of TDP subcomponent failure patterns determined that governor 

failures (70%) were predominant in the RCIC system, while turbine failures 

(53%) and governor failures (47%) were approximately equal for the HPCI 

system. Pump subcomponent failures were relatively insignificant (3% for 

RCIC and no failures for HPCI). For PWRs, the evaluation of AFW system 

subcomponent failure patterns determined that governor failures (50%) and 

turbine failures (42%) were predominant, with few pump failures (8%). 

Failure causes for all TDP assemblies are shown in Figures 11,12,and 13. 

For the PWR AFW system, the causes were mainly age/wear (26%) and 

maintenance/procedural deficiencies(24%). For the BWR RCIC system, the 

causes were also mainly age/wear (30%) and maintenance/procedural 

deficiencies (27%), while for the HPCI system the cause was predominantly 

maintenance/procedural deficiencies (45%).

21
PWR AFW SYSTEM TDPs

Turbines 

42%

Pumps 8%

Governors 50%

No. failures: 101 

BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDPs BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDPs

Turbines 53%

Turbines 

27%

Governors 

70%

No. Failures: 30

Governors 47%

No. failure: 62

TDP SUBCOMPONENT FAILURE APPORTIONMENT 

FIGURE 10

22
PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES 

ALL SUBCOMPONENTS GOVERNOR SUBCOMPONENT

Maint/Proc. 

24% 

Unknown 

19%

Dirt/Contm. 

8%

Age/Wear 26%

Other 15%

Maint/Proc. 24%

Age/Wear 20%

Unknown 24%

Design Def. 8% Dirt/Contm. 10%

Other 11%

Design Def. 11%

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDPs PWR AFW SYSTEM TDPs 

TURBINE SUBCOMPONENT PUMP SUBCOMPONENT 

Age/Wear Maint/Proc. 

a 13%Age/Wear 

es Def. Unkflow 

2% 25% 

2iin Def.

Unknown 

12% ' =" '°Dirt/Contm. Dirt/Contm. 25% 

2%

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP FAILURE CAUSES FIGURE 11

23
BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES 

ALL SUBCOMPONENTS

Age/Wear 30%

Other 

3%

ign Def. 

10%

23%

BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDPs BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDPs 

GOVERNOR SUBCOMPONENT TURBINE SUBCOMPONENT 

Age/Wear Age/Wear 

28%.. 

Maint/Proc. 25% 

2 4 % :::.. .. .......

Unknown Design Def. 

33% 25%

BWR RCIC SYSTEM TDP FAILURE CAUSES 

FIGURE 12

24
BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES 

ALL SUBCOMPONENTS

Maint/Proc. 

45%

Age/Wear 

14% 

SOther 

10%

Unknown 

1 0/birt/Contm. 

5%

'Design Def. 

16%

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDPs 

GOVERNOR SUBCOMPONENT

Maint/Proc. 

35%

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDPs 

TURBINE SUBCOMPONENT

Maint/Proc. 

55%

Dirt/Contm. 

10%

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDP FAILURE CAUSES 

FIGURE 13

25

Unknown 

17%
4.4 Related Issues - Information Notices

The review of NRC regulatory initiatives related to TDP assemblies and their 

subcomponents included Generic Letters, Circulars, Bulletins, and Information 

Notices (INs). This review determined that no regulatory initiatives, other than 

the 12 INs (some with supplements) listed in Table C, were applicable to TDP 

assemblies and their subcomponents during the 1987-1998 period. IN 86

14 and its supplements were included in the review, since they were issued 

near the beginning of the study period and addressed overspeed trips in the 

AFW, RCIC, and HPCI systems. Other than overspeed trips, the INs were 

generally concerned with potential problems, rather than complete (i.e., 

catastrophic) failures that were a basis for this study. One complete failure, 

reported in LER 278-90010, was directly related to the overspeed trip failure 

described in IN 88-67. As a potential generic issue, IN 97-65 addressed 

preconditioning of PWR AFW system TDPs. However, no evidence of 

preconditioning was found in the LERs reviewed within the scope of this 

study. 

TABLE C 

NRC INFORMATION NOTICES (INs) CONCERNING TDP ASSEMBLIES (1986-1998)

IN 86-14 

IN 86-14 (Supp. 1) 

IN 86-14 (Supp. 2) 

IN 88-09 

IN 88-67 

IN 89-14 

IN 89-58 

IN 90-45 

IN 90-51 

IN 90-51 (Supp. 1) 

IN 90-76 

IN 93-51 

IN 94-66 

IN 96-66 (Supp. 1) 

IN 94-84 

IN 97-16 

IN 98-24

PWR Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine Control Problems 

Overspeed Trips of AFW, HPCI, and RCIC Turbines 

Overspeed Trips of AFW, HPCI, and RCIC Turbines 

Instability of Woodward PG-PL Type Governors 

PWR Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine Overspeed Trip Failure 

Inadequate Dedication Process for Commercial Grade Components Which Lead to 

Common Mode Failure of a Safety System 

Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Disablement from Closure of One Parallel 

Steam Supply Valve 

Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine Overspeed and System Overpressurization 

EGM Governor Voltage Dropping Resistor Failures 

EGM Governor Voltage Dropping Resistor Failures 

Failure of Turbine Overspeed Trip Mechanism Because of Inadequate Spring 

Tension 

Repetitive Overspeed Tripping of Turbine-Driven Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps 

Overspeed of Turbine-Driven Pumps Caused By Governor Valve Stem Binding 

Overspeed of Turbine-Driven Pumps Caused By Governor Valve Stem Binding 

Air Entrainment in Terry Turbine Lubricating System 

Preconditioning of Plant Structures, Systems, and Components Before ASME Code 

Inservice Testing or Technical Specification Surveillance Testing 

Stem Binding in Turbine Governor Valves in Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) 

and Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) Systems

26
5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS

5.1 Failure Probabilities 

For the PWR AFW system, the TDP probability of failure on demand 

estimate was based on ESF failure and demand data from LERs for the 

period 1987-1998. The resulting mean probability estimate was 1.6E

2. This value is generally consistent with the generic mean value for 

TDPs (13E-2) from NUREG/CR-4550, which was the input to NUREG

1150. 

For the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems, the TDP probability of failure on 

demand estimates were based on the combined ESF and surveillance 

test data for failures and demands from LER and NPRDS data sources. 

The ESF data (reported by LERs) was from the 1987-1998 period, and 

the surveillance test data (NPRDS) was from the 1987-1995 period. 

The resulting mean probability estimates for RCIC and HPCI systems 

TDPs were 2.2E-2 and 3.3E-2, respectively. These mean values were 

consistent with the generic mean value for TDPs (3E-2) from 

NUREG/CR-4550. For the BWR HPCI system, the probability of failure 

on demand over the 1987-1995 period showed a decreasing trend. 

However, data over the entire period (1987-1998) was evaluated as 

more meaningful and is consistent with the NUREG/CR-4550 generic 

mean value for TDPs (3E-3). 

The TDP mean probabilities of failure on demand used in plant-specific 

IPE studies were compared with the results of this study. For the BWR 

RCIC and HPCI systems, all of the IPE mean values for the TDP failure 

on demand probability were within the range of this study and 

NUREG/CR-4550. For the AFW system, 90% of the IPE mean values 

were also within the probability of failure on demand range estimated in 

this study and NUREG/CR-4550. 

5.2 Engineering Insights 

The engineering insights gained from this study are as follows: 

Failure trends for the PWR AFW system during the 1987-1995 

period were relatively constant, except for an upward peak in 

1989 and 1990. For BWRs (RCIC and HPCI systems 

combined), there was a marked decreasing trend after 1991.

27
Failure rates, as a function of component-years, varied among 

the PWR and BWR plant age groups (three groups, of 

approximately equal size, from older to newer plants by 

commercial operation date). For both PWRs and BWRs, the 

review of plant age groups did not show evidence of an increase 

in failure rates for any of the plant age groups due to "aging" 

mechanisms. 

The evaluation of TDP subcomponent failure patterns 

demonstrated that failures of governor subcomponents were 

significant contributors to the TDP failures in the BWR RCIC 

system, whereas both turbine and governor subcomponent 

failures were significant contributors to TDP failures in the PWR 

AFW system and BWR HPCI system. Pump subcomponent 

failures were relatively insignificant. 

Failures of TDP assemblies in AFW and RCIC systems were 

mainly due to age/wear and maintenance/procedural 

deficiencies causes, while the maintenance/procedural 

deficiencies cause was singularly predominant for the HPCI 

system. 

6. REFERENCES 

1 . NUREG-1275, "Operating Experience Feedback Report - Reliability of 

Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Pumps," Vol. 10, October 1994. 

2. NUREG/CR-5500, "Reliability Study: High-Pressure Coolant Injection 

(HPCI) System, 1987-1993, Vol.4," September 1999. 

3. NUREG/CR-5500, "Reliability Study: Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 

System, 1987-1993," Vol. 7, September 1999. 

4. NUREG/CR-5500, "Reliability Study: Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 

System, 1987-1995," Vol. 1, August 1998. 

5. NUREG/CR-4550, SAND86-2084, "Analysis of Core Damage 

Frequency: Internal Events Methodology," Vol. 1, Rev. 1, January 

1990. 

6. Martz, Harry F., and Ray A. Waller, "Bayesian Reliability Analysis," 

Malabar, FL, Krieger, Section 7.6, 1991.

28
APPENDIX I 

FAILURE PROBABILITIES 

TDP ASSEMBLY
TABLE NO. 

I 

IlI

APPENDIX I - TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURE PROBABILITIES 

DESCRIPTION PAGE 

AFW System TDP Assemblies - Probability of 

Failure on Dem and ........................................ 1-2 

RCIC System TDP Assemblies - Probability of 

Failure on Dem and ........................................ 1-3 

HPCI System TDP Assemblies - Probability of 

Failure on Dem and ........................................ 1-4

I-1
APPENDIX I - TABLE I 

AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

NO. NO. 90% CONFID. INTERVALS BAYES 90% INTERVALS 

FAIL. DEMANDS PLCB PHAT PUCB PLO MEAN PUP 

I. 1987-1995 

PERIOD 

ESF + SURV. 101 6751 1.2E-2 1.5E-2 1.7E-2 1.3E-3 1.6E-2 4.4E-2 

TEST 

2.1987-1998 106 6881 1.3E-2 1.5E-2 1.8E-2 1.3E-3 1.6E-2 4.6E-2 

PERIOD (APRIOR = 1.19688; 

ESF + SURV. BPRIOR = 71.2030) 

TEST (ITEM 1.) 

+ ESF (1996-1998) 

NOTES: 

1. No. of PWR plants with AFW system TDP assemblies: 69. 

2. In calculating the statistics for the table of outcome by plant, 65% for ESFs (1987-1998) and 50% 

for Surveillance Tests (1987-1995) of the cells had expected counts of less than 5. Therefore, 

the Chi-Square may not be a valid test for either of these populations.. 

3. For the 1987-1995 period, the contingency test rejected the hypothesis that the ESF failures and 

demands were in the same population as the Surveillance Test failures and demands. 

However, the ESF and Surveillance Test probability of failure on demand ranges overlapped, 

and the combination of data (ESF + Surveillance Test) was evaluated as acceptable for use as 

"pooled data." 

4. Ave. Standby Failure Rate (A), failures per comp.-hour: AL = 1.4E-51hour; A = 1.8E-51hour and 

Au = 2.1 E-5/hour (Based on 1987-1995 failure data for combined ESF and surveillance tests).

1-2
APPENDIX I - TABLE II 

RCIC SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

NO. NO. 90% CONFID. INTERVALS BAYES 90% INTERVALS 

FAIL. DEMANDS PLCB PHAT PUCB PLO MEAN PUP 

I. 1987-1995 

PERIOD 

ESF + SURV. 30 1937 1.1E-2 1.6E-2 2.1E-2 9.7E-6 2.OE-2 8.6E-2 

TEST 

2.1987-1998 30 1955 1.1E-2 1.6E-2 2.1E-2 9.1E-6 2.OE-2 8.7E-2 

PERIOD (APRIOR = 0.354231; 

ESF + SURV. BPRIOR = 17.2357) 

TEST (ITEM 1.) 

+ ESF (1996-1998) 

NOTES: 

1. No. BWR plants with RCIC system TDP assemblies: 31. 

2. In calculating the statistics for the table of outcome by plant, 50% of the cells had expected 

counts of less than 5. Therefore, the Chi-Square may not be a valid test. 

3. The contingency test did not reject the hypothesis that the ESF failures and demands were in 

the same population as the surveillance test failures and demands (1987-1995 data). In 

addition, another contingency test that compared the combined 1987-1995 data with the later 

ESF data (1996-1998) also did not reject the hypothesis that this data was in the same 

population. Therefore, the Bayes 90% intervals for ESF + Surveillance Test (1987-1995) + ESF 

(1996-1998) probability of failure on demand is recommended as the more useful values as 

"pooled data.". 

4. Ave. Standby Failure Rate (h), failures per comp.-hour: AL = 9.1 E-61hour; A =- 1.3E-51hour and 

Au = 1.7E-5/hour.

1-3
APPENDIX I - TABLE III 

HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLIES 

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND

NO. NO. 

FAIL. DEMANDS 

1. 1987-1995 

PERIOD 

ESF + SURV. 62 2191 

TEST 

2. 1987-1998 62 2209 

PERIOD 

ESF + SURV. 

TEST (ITEM 1.) 

+ ESF (1996-1998)

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE ON DEMAND 

90% CONFID. INTERVALS BAYES 90% INTERVALS 

PLCB PHAT PUCB PLO MEAN PUP

2.2E-2 2.8E-2 3.5E-2 

2.2E-2 2.8E-2 3.5E-2

1.6E-3 3.3E-2 9.8E-2 

1.6E-3 3.3E-2 9.7E-2 

(APRIOR = 0.975897; 

BPRIOR = 28.9098)

NOTES:

1. No. BWR plants with HPCI system TDP assemblies: 28. 

2. In calculating the statistics for the table of outcome by plant, 50% of the cells had expected 

counts of less than 5. Therefore, the Chi-Square may not be a valid test 

3. The contingency test did not reject the hypothesis that the ESF failures and demands were in 

the same population as the surveillance test failures and demands (1987-1995). In addition, 

another contingency test that compared the combined 1987-1995 data with the later ESF data 

(1996-1998) also did not reject the hypothesis that this data was in the same population. 

Therefore, the Bayes 90% intervals for ESF + Surveillance Test (1987-1995) + ESF (1996-1998) 

probability of failure on demand is recommended as the more useful values as "pooled data.". 

4. Ave. Standby Failure Rate (A), failures per comp.-hour: AL = 2.1 E-5/hour 2.9E-S/hour, and 

A, = 3.8E-5/hour.

1-4
APPENDIX II 

TDP ASSEMBLY 

COMPONENT TRENDS IN TIME
APPENDIX II 

TDP ASSEMBLY COMPONENT TRENDS IN TIME - TDP ASSEMBLIES

TABLE NO.

II 

Ill

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII

DESCRIPTION

PWR AFW System TDP Assembly Failures Versus Component

Years - All Plant Age Groups - ESF and Surveillance Test 

Fa ilures .. .... ... .......... ........ ... ... ... .... ... .. 

PWR AFW System TDP Assembly Failures Versus Component

Years - Plant Age Group "A" - ESF and Surveillance Test 

F a ilu re s . . .. . . .. . . ... . .. . . . .. . . ... . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . 

PWR AFW System TDP Assembly Failures Versus Component

Years - Plant Age Group "B" - ESF and Surveillance Test 

F a ilu re s . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. . ... .. ... . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . ..

PWR AFW System TDP Assembly Failures Versus Component

Years - Plant Age Group "C" - ESF and Surveillance Test Failures 

Distribution From 01/01/87 ............................... 

BWR RCIC and HPCI System TDP Assembly Failures 

Versus Component-Years - All Plant Age Groups - ESF and 

Surveillance Test Failures ................................ 

BWR RCIC and HPCI System TDP Assembly Failures 

Versus Component-Years - Plant Age Group "A" -ESF and 

Surveillance Test Failures ................................ 

BWR RCIC and HPCI System TDP Assembly Failures 

Versus Component-Years - Plant Age Group "B" -ESF and 

Surveillance Test Failures ................................ 

BWR RCIC and HPCI System TDP Assembly Failures 

Versus Component-Years - Plant Age Group "C" -ESF and 

Surveillance Test Failures ................................

PAGE 

.... 11-2 

.... 11-3 

.... 11-4

... 11-5

... 11-6 

... 11-7 

... 11-8 

... 11-9

I1-1
APPENDIX II - TABLE I 

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

ALL PLANT AGE GROUPS 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES 

EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS 

1/87 0 6 1/90 1 218 1/93 2 444 

2/87 1 12 2/90 2 224 2/93 2 450 

3/87 0 17 3/90 2 231 3/93 1 456 

4/87 1 23 4/90 0 237 4/93 0 462 

5/87 3 29 5/90 2 243 5/93 1 468 

6/87 1 34 6/90 0 249 6/93 3 474 

7/87 1 40 7/90 2 255 7/93 0 480 

8/87 0 46 8/90 4 261 8/93 0 486 

9/87 0 52 9/90 2 268 9/93 1 492 

10/87 2 58 10/90 1 274 10/93 1 498 

11/87 1 63 11/90 1 280 11/93 1 504 

12/87 1 69 12/90 1 286 12/93 0 510 

1/88 2 75 1/91 3 292 1/94 0 516 

2/88 1 81 2/91 0 299 2/94 0 522 

3/88 0 87 3/91 2 305 3/94 1 528 

4/88 0 93 4/91 1 311 4/94 0 534 

5/88 2 98 5/91 0 318 5/94 1 540 

6/88 0 104 6/91 0 324 6/94 2 546 

7/88 0 110 7/91 0 330 7/94 2 552 

8/88 1 116 8/91 1 337 8/94 1 558 

9/88 1 122 9/91 2 343 9/94 2 564 

10/88 0 128 10/91 0 349 10/94 1 570 

11/88 0 134 11/91 0 356 11/94 1 576 

12/88 0 140 12/91 0 362 12/94 1 582 

1/89 2 146 1/92 1 368 1/95 1 588 

2/89 3 152 2/92 1 375 2/95 0 594 

3/89 1 158 3/92 0 381 3/95 0 600 

4/89 1 164 4/92 0 387 4/95 0 606 

5/89 2 170 5/92 0 394 5/95 1 612 

6/89 1 176 6/92 1 400 6/95 1 618 

7/89 1 182 7/92 1 406 7/95 1 624 

8/89 0 188 8/92 3 413 8/95 1 630 

9/89 0 194 9/92 2 419 9/95 0 636 

10/89 2 200 10/92 1 425 10/95 0 642 

11/89 1 206 11/92 0 432 11/95 2 648 

12/89 0 212 12/92 0 438 12/95 1 654 

TotaLs: 101 

NOTES: 

1. XA E = 101 = 0.154 failures per component-year (1987-1995). 

654 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.154 = 6.5 component-years. 

3. This combined data is for information only. Tables II, Il, and IV are used for evaluation.

11-2
APPENDIX I1 - TABLE II 

PUR AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

PLANT AGE GROUPS "All 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES

EVENT NO. 

DATE FAIL. 

1/87 0 

2/87 0 

3/87 0 

4/87 0 

5/87 0 

6/87 0 

7/87 0 

8/87 0 

9/87 0 

10/87 0 

11/87 1 

12/87 0 

1/88 0 

2/88 0 

3/88 0 

4/88 0 

5/88 1 

6/88 0 

7/88 0 

8/88 1 

9/88 0 

10/88 0 

11/88 0 

12/88 0 

1/89 0 

2/89 0 

3/89 0 

4/89 0 

5/89 0 

6/89 0 

7/89 0 

8/89 0 

9/89 0 

10/89 0 

11/89 0 

12/89 0 

Totals:

CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. 

TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL.

2 

4 

7 

9 

11 

14 

16 

18 

20 

22 

25 

27 

29 

32 

34 

36 

38 

41 

43 

45 

47 

50 

52 

54 

56 

58 

61 

63 

65 

68 

70 

72 

74 

76 

79 

81

1/90 

2/90 

3/90 

4/90 

5/90 

6/90 

7/90 

8/90 

9/90 

10/90 

11/90 

12/90 

1/91 

2/91 

3/91 

4/91 

5/91 

6/91 

7/91 

8/91 

9/91 

10/91 

11/91 

12/91 

1/92 

2/92 

3/92 

4/92 

5/92 

6/92 

7/92 

8/92 

9/92 

10/92 

11/92 

12/92

CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

83 

86 

88 

90 

92 

94 

97 

99 

101 

104 

106 

108 

110 

112 

115 

117 

119 

122 - L/2 

124 

126 

128 

131 

133 

135 

137 

140 

142 

144 

146 

148 

151 

153 

155 

158 

160 

162

1193 0 

2/93 0 

3/93 0 

4/93 0 

5/93 1 

6/93 2 

7/93 0 

8/93 0 

9/93 1 

10/93 0 

11/93 0 

12/93 0 

1/94 0 

2/94 0 

3/94 1 

4/94 0 

5/94 0 

6/94 2 

7/94 1 

8/94 1 

9/94 0 

10/94 1 

11/94 0 

12/94 0 

1/95 1 

2/95 0 

3/95 0 

4/95 0 

5/95 0 

6/95 0 

7/95 0 

8/95 0 

9/95 0 

10/95 0 

11/95 1 

12/95 1 

25

164 

167 

169 

171 

173 

175 

178 

180 

182 

184 

187 

189 

191 

193 

196 

198 

200 

202 

205 

207 

209 

211 

214 

216 

218 

221 

223 

225 

228 

230 

232 

234 

237 

239 

241 

243

NOTES:

1. X\AV = 25 = 0.103 failures per commponent-year (1987-1995). 

243 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.103 = 9.7 component-years. 

3. Failures are for the PWR AFW system only in Plant Age Group "A" (12/31/74 

and older Commercial License dates). 

4. L/2 indicates the midpoint of the cumulative TDP-years, for use in the LaPLace Test (see text). 

5. See Figure 8 in text.

11-3
APPENDIX 11 - TABLE III 

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COM4PONENT-YEARS 

PLANT AGE GROUPS "B" 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES

EVENT NO. 

DATE FAIL. 

1/87 0 

2/87 1 

3/87 0 

4/87 1 

5/87 2 

6/87 0 

7/87 0 

8/87 0 

9/87 0 

10/87 1 

11/87 0 

12/87 1 

1/88 2 

2/88 0 

3/88 0 

4/88 0 

5/88 1 

6/88 0 

7/88 0 

8/88 0 

9/88 1 

10/88 0 

11/88 0 

12/88 0 

1/89 0 

2/89 1 

3/89 1 

4/89 1 

5/89 1 

6/89 0 

7/89 0 

8/89 0 

9/89 0 

10/89 1 

11/89 1 

12/89 0 

Totals:

CUMULATIVE 

TDP-YEARS 

2 

5 

7 

10 

12 

14 

17 

19 

22 

24 

27 

29

31 

34 

36 

39 

41 

44 

46 

48 

51 

53 

56 

58 

60 

63 

65 

68 

70 

72 

75 

77 

80 

82 

85 

87

EVENT NO> CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

1/90 

2/90 

3/90 

4/90 

5/90 

6/90 

7/90 

8/90 

9/90 

10190 

11/90 

12/90 

1/91 

2/91 

3/91 

4/91 

5/91 

6/91 

7/91 

8/91 

9/91 

10/91 

11/91 

12/91 

1/92 

2/92 

3/92 

4/92 

5/92 

6/92 

7/92 

8/92 

9/92 

10/92 

11/92 

12/92

89 

92 

94 

97 

99 

102 

104 

106 

109 

111 

114 

116 

118 

121 

123 

126 

128 - L/2 

131 

133 

135 

138 

140 

143 

145 

147 

150 

152 

155 

157 

160 

162 

164 

167 

169 

172 

174

EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

1/93 0 

2/93 0 

3/93 0 

4/93 0 

5/93 0 

6/93 0 

7/93 0 

8/93 0 

9/93 0 

10/93 0 

11/93 0 

12/93 0 

1/94 0 

2/94 0 

3/94 0 

4/94 0 

5/94 1 

6/94 0 

7/94 1 

8/94 0 

9/94 1 

10/94 0 

11/94 0 

12/94 0 

1/95 0 

2/95 0 

3/95 0 

4/95 0 

5/95 0 

6/95 0 

7/95 0 

8/95 1 

9/95 0 

10/95 0 

11/95 0 

12/95 0 

39

176 

179 

181 

183 

186 

188 

190 

193 

195 

197 

200 

202 

204 

207 

209 

211 

214 

216 

218 

221 

223 

225 

228 

230 

232 

235 

237 

239 

242 

244 

246 

249 

251 

253 

256 

258

NOTES:

1. XA. = 39 = 0.151 failures per comnponent-year (1987-1995). 

258 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.151 = 6.6 component-years. 

3. Failures are for the PWR AFW system only in Plant Age Group "B" (1/1/75 

through 3/31/84 Commercial License dates). 

4. L/2 indicates the midpoint of the cumulative TDP-years, for use in the LaPLace Test (see text). 

5. See Figure 8 in text.

11-4
APPENDIX II - TABLE IV 

FUR AFW SYSTEM TOP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

PLANT AGE GROUPS "C" 

ESF and SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES

EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

1/87 0 

2/87 0 

3/87 0 

4/87 0 

5/87 0 

6/87 1 

7/87 1 

8/87 0 

9/87 0 

10/87 1 

11/87 1 

12/87 0 

1/88 0 

2/88 1 

3/88 0 

4/88 0 

5/88 0 

6/88 0 

7/88 0 

8/88 0 

9/88 0 

10/88 0 

11/88 0 

12/88 0 

1/89 2 

2/89 2 

3/89 0 

4/89 0 

5/89 1 

6/89 1 

7/89 1 

8/89 0 

9/89 0 

10/89 1 

11/89 0 

12/89 0 

Totals:

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

29 

31 

32 

33 

35 

36 

37 

39 

40 

41 

43 

44

EVENT NO. 

DATE FAIL.

1/90 

2/90 

3/90 

4/90 

5/90 

6/90 

7/90 

8/90 

9/90 

10/90 

11/90 

12/90 

1/91 

2/91 

3/91 

4/91 

5/91 

6/91 

7/91 

8/91 

9/91 

10/91 

11/91 

12/91 

1/92 

2/92 

3/92 

4/92 

5/92 

6/92 

7/92 

8/92 

9/92 

10/92 

11/92 

12/92

CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. 

TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL.

46 

47 

48 

50 

52 

53 

54 

56 

58 

59 

61 

62

64 

65 

67 

69 

70 

72 

74 

75 

77 

79 

80 - L/2 

82

84 

85 

87 

89 

90 

92 

94 

95 

97 

99 

100 

102

1/93 2 

2/93 2 

3/93 1 

4/93 0 

5/93 0 

6/93 1 

7/93 0 

8/93 0 

9/93 0 

10/93 1 

11/93 1 

12/93 0 

1/94 0 

2/94 0 

3/94 0 

4/94 0 

5/94 0 

6/94 0 

7/94 0 

8/94 0 

9/94 1 

10/94 0 

11/94 1 

12/94 1 

1/95 0 

2/95 0 

3/95 0 

4/95 0 

5/95 1 

6/95 1 

7/95 1 

8/95 0 

9/95 0 

10/95 0 

11/95 1 

12/95 0 

37

NOTES: 

1. XAVE. = 37 = 0.228 failures per commponent-year 1987-1995). 

162 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.228 = 4.4 component-years. 

3. Failures are for the PWR AFW system only in Plant Age Group "C" (4/1/84 

and later Commercial License dates). 

4. L/2 indicates the midpoint of the cumuLative TDP-years, for use in the LaPLace Test (see text 

5. See Figure 8 in text.

11-5

CUMULATIVE 

TDP-YEARS 

104 

105 

107 

109 

110 

112 

114 

115 

117 

119 

120 

122 

124 

125 

127 

129 

130 

132 

134 

135 

137 

139 

140 

142 

144 

145 

147 

149 

150 

152 

154 

155 

157 

159 

160 

162
APPENDIX II - TABLE V 

BWR RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

ALL PLANT AGE GROUPS 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES

EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

1/87 2 

2/87 2 

3/87 1 

4/87 0 

5/87 1 

6/87 1 

7/87 4 

8/87 0 

9/87 1 

10/87 0 

11/87 2 

12/87 1 

1/88 1 

2/88 0 

3/88 1 

4/88 2 

5/88 0 

6/88 1 

7/88 1 

8/88 1 

9/88 3 

10/88 1 

11/88 0 

12/88 2 

1/89 1 

2/89 1 

3/89 0 

4/89 0 

5/89 1 

6/89 0 

7/89 0 

8/89 0 

9/89 1 

10/89 0 

11/89 0 

12/89 2 

Totals:

4 

8 

12 

17 

21 

25 

29 

33 

38 

42 

46 

50 

54 

59 

64 

68 

73 

78 

82 

87 

91 

96 

101 

105 

110 

114 

119 

123 

128 

132 

137 

142 

146 

151 

156 

160

EVENT NO> CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

1/90 

2/90 

3/90 

4/90 

5/90 

6/90 

7/90 

8/90 

9/90 

10/90 

11/90 

12/90 

1/91 

2/91 

3/91 

4/91 

5/91 

6/91 

7/91 

8/91 

9/91 

10/91 

11/91 

12/91 

1/92 

2/92 

3/92 

4/92 

5/92 

6/92 

7/92 

8/92 

9/92 

10/92 

11/92 

12/92

165 

169 

174 

179 

184 

188 

193 

198 

203 

208 

212 

217 

222 

226 

231 

236 

241 

246 

250 

255 

260 

265 

269 

274 

279 

283 

288 

293 

298 

302 

307 

312 

317 

322 

326 

331

EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS

1/93 2 

2/93 1 

3/93 0 

4/93 0 

5/93 1 

6/93 0 

7/93 1 

8/93 1 

9/93 0 

10/93 1 

11/93 0 

12/93 1 

1/94 2 

2/94 1 

3/94 1 

4/94 0 

5/94 0 

6/94 0 

7/94 0 

8/94 1 

9/94 1 

10/94 0 

11/94 2 

12/94 0 

1/95 1 

2/95 0 

3/95 1 

4/95 0 

5/95 0 

6/95 0 

7/95 0 

8/95 0 

9/95 0 

10/95 0 

11/95 0 

12/95 2 

92

336 

341 

345 

350 

355 

360 

364 

369 

374 

379 

383 

388 

393 

398 

402 

407 

412 

417 

421 

426 

431 

436 

"440 

445 

450 

455 

462 

467 

472 

477 

481 

486 

491 

496 

500 

505

NOTES: 

1. XAVE = 92 = 0.182 failures per component-year 1987-1995). 

505 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.182 = 5.5 component-years. 

3. Thisý combined data is for information only. Tables VI, VII, and VIII are used for evaluation.

11-6
EVENT NO. CU, 

DATE FAIL. TDI 

1/87 2 

2/87 1 

3/87 1 

4/87 0 

5/87 0 

6/87 0 

7/87 0 10 

8/87 0 1 

9/87 0 1 

10/87 0 1' 

11/87 2 1 

12/87 0 1 

1/88 0 1i 

2/88 0 21 

3/88 1 2 

4/88 1 2: 

5/88 0 2' 

6/88 0 2 

7/88 0 2 

8/88 1 21 

9/88 0 31 

10/88 1 3 

11/88 0 3: 

12/88 0 34 

1/89 0 35 

2/89 0 3 

3189 0 31 

4/89 0 41 

5/89 0 4 

6/89 0 4: 

7/89 0 4' 

8/89 0 4 

9/89 1 4 

10/89 0 41 

11/89 0 50 

12/89 0 51 

Totals:

APPENDIX II - TABLE VI 

BWR RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

PLANT AGE GROUP "A" 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES 

MULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

P-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS 

1 1/90 0 52 1/93 1 104 

3 2/90 0 54 2/93 0 105 

4 3/90 0 55 3/93 0 106 

6 4/90 0 57 4/93 0 107 

7 5/90 0 58 5/93 1 108 

8 6/90 0 60 6/93 0 110 

0 7/90 0 61 7/93 1 111 

1 8/90 0 62 8/93 1 112 

3 9/90 0 64 9/93 0 113 

4 10/90 1 65 10/93 0 115 

6 11/90 0 67 11/93 0 116 

7 12/90 0 68 12/93 0 117 

8 1/91 1 69 1/94 1 118 

0 2/91 1 71 2/94 0 119 

1 3/91 0 72 -L/2 3/94 0 121 

3 4/91 0 74 4/94 0 122 

4 5/91 2 75 5/94 0 123 

6 6/91 0 76 6/94 0 124 

7 7191 0 78 7/94 0 125 

8 8/91 1 79 8/94 1 127 

0 9/91 0 81 9/94 0 128 

1 10/91 0 82 10/94 0 129 

3 11/91 0 84 11/94 0 130 

4 12/91 0 85 12/94 0 131

5 

7 

8 

0 1 

3 

4 

5 

7 

8 

0 1

1/92 0 

2/92 1 

3/92 0 

4/92 1 

5/92 0 

6/92 0 

7/92 0 

8/92 1 

9/92 0 

10/92 0 

11/92 0 

12/92 0

86 

88 

89 

91 

92 

94 

95 

96 

98 

99 

101 

102

1/95 1 

2/95 0 

3/95 1 

4/95 0 

5/95 0 

6/95 0 

7/95 0 

8/95 0 

9/95 0 

10/95 0 

11/95 0 

12/95 1 

29

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

145 

146

NOTES: 

1. XAVE = 29 = 0.198 failures per component-year (1987-1995). 

146 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.198 = 5.1 component-year.

3. Failures are for the BWR RCIC and NPCI systems only. 

4. L/2 indicates the midpoint of the cumulative TDP-years, for use in the LaPLace Test (see text) 

5. See Figure 9 in text.

11-7
EVENT NO. CUP 

DATE FAIL. TDP

1/87 0 

2/87 0 

3/87 0 

4/87 0 

5/87 0 

6187 1 

7/87 3 

8/87 0 

9/87 1 

10/87 0 

11187 0 

12/87 0 

1/88 1 

2/88 0 

3/88 0 

4/88 1 

5/88 0 

6/88 1 

7/88 0 

8/88 0 

9/88 3 

10/88 0 

11/88 0 

12/88 1 

1/89 1 

2/89 1 

3/89 0 

4/89 0 

5/89 1 

6189 0 

7/89 0 

8/89 0 

9/89 0 

10/89 0 

11/89 0 

12/89 2 

Totals:

10 

12 

2' 

3 

31 

23 

41 

4 40 

42

48 

50 

5S 

5; 

56 

58 59 

61 

63 65 

67 

69

APPENDIX II - TABLE VII 

BUR RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

PLANT AGE GROUP "B" 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES 

4ULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE EVENT NO. CUMULATIVE 

P-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS DATE FAIL. TDP-YEARS 

2 1/90 1 71 1/93 1 140 

4 2/90 1 73 2/93 0 142 

6 3/90 1 75 3/93 0 144 

8 4/90 0 77 4/93 0 146 

0 5/90 0 79 5/93 0 148 

2 6/90 2 81 6/93 0 150 

S 7/90 1 82 7/93 0 152 

8/90 1 84 8/93 0 154 

7 9/90 2 86 9/93 0 156 

9 10/90 0 88 10/93 1 158 

1 11/90 0 90 11/93 0 160 

12/90 0 92 12/93 0 162 

1/91 1 94 1/94 1 164 

7 2/91 0 96 2/94 1 166 

9 3/91 0 98 3/94 1 168 

1 4/91 1 100 4/94 0 170 

3 5/91 0 102 5/94 0 172 

4 6/91 1 104 6/94 0 174 

6 7/91 1 105 - LI2 7/94 0 176 

8 8/91 1 107 8/94 0 178 

0 9/91 0 109 9/94 0 180 

2 10/91 2 111 10/94 0 182 

4 11/91 1 113 11/94 2 184 

6 12/91 1 115 12/94 0 186 

8 1/92 0 117 1/95 0 188 

0 2/92 0 119 2/95 0 190 

2 3/92 0 121 3/95 0 192 

4 4/92 1 123 4/95 0 194 

6 5/92 0 125 5/95 0 196 

8 6/92 1 126 6/95 0 198 

9 7/92 0 128 7/95 0 200 

1 8/92 1 130 8/95 0 202 

3 9/92 0 132 9/95 0 204 

5 10/92 1 134 10/95 0 206 

7 11/92 0 136 11/95 0 208 

9 12/92 0 138 12/95 1 210 

47

NOTES: 

1. 

2.

XAVE. = 47 = 0.224 failures per component-year (1987-1995). 

210 

The mean time between failures = 1/0.224 = 4.5 component-years.

3. Failures are for the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems only. 

4. L/2 indicates the midpoint of the cumulative TDP-years, for use in the LaPlace Test (see text 

5. See Figure 9 in text.

11-8
EVENT NO. TDF 

DATE FAIL. OF 

1/87 0 

2/87 1 

3/87 0 

4/87 0 

5/87 1 

6/87 0 

7/87 1 

8/87 0 

9/87 0 

10/87 0 

11/87 0 

12/87 1 1l 

1/88 0 1 

2/88 0 12 

3/88 0 1 

4188 0 1' 

5188 0 1 

6188 0 11 

7/88 1 1' 

8/88 0 21 

9/88 0 2 

10/88 0 2 

11/88 0 2 

12188 1 2 

1/89 0 2 

2/89 0 21 

3/89 0 2' 

4/89 0 3C 

5/89 0 3 

6/89 0 3; 

7/89 0 3 

8/89 0 35 

9/89 0 3 

10/89 0 31 

11/89 0 3' 

12/89 0 41 

Totals:

APPENDIX II - TABLE VIII 

BWR RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY FAILURES VERSUS COMPONENT-YEARS 

PLANT AGE GROUP "C" 

ESF AND SURVEILLANCE TEST FAILURES 

P-YRS EVENT TDP-YRS EVENT NO. TDP-YRS 

OPER. DATE FAIL. OF OPER. DATE FAIL. OF OPER. 

1 1/90 0 41 1/93 0 92 

2 2/90 1 43 2/93 1 94 

2 3/90 0 44 3/93 0 95 

3 4/90 0 46 4/93 0 97 

4 5/90 0 47 5/93 0 98 

5 6/90 0 48 6/93 0 100 

6 7/90 0 50 7/93 0 101 

7 8/90 0 51 8/93 0 102 

8 9/90 0 53 9/93 0 104 

8 10/90 0 54 10/93 0 105 

9 11/90 0 56 11/93 0 107 

0 12/90 1 57 12/93 1 108 

1 1/91 0 58 1/94 0 110 

2 2/91 0 60 2/94 0 111 

4 3/91 0 61 3/94 0 112 

5 4/91 0 63 4/94 0 114 

6 5/91 0 64 5/94 0 115 

8 6/91 1 66 6/94 0 116 

9 7/91 0 67 7/94 0 118 

0 8/91 0 68 8/94 0 119 

1 9/91 0 70 9/94 1 121 

2 10/91 0 71 - L12 10/94 0 122 

4 11/91 1 73 11/94 0 124 

5 12/91 0 74 12/94 0 125 

6 1/92 0 75 1/95 0 126 

8 2/92 0 77 2/95 0 128 

9 3/92 0 78 3/95 0 129 

0 4/92 2 80 4/95 0 131 

1 5/92 0 81 5/95 0 132 

2 6/92 0 82 6/95 0 134 

4 7/92 0 84 7/95 0 135 

5 8/92 1 85 8/95 0 136 

6 9/92 0 87 9/95 0 138 

8 10/92 0 88 10/95 0 139 

9 11/92 0 90 11/95 0 141 

0 12/92 0 91 12/95 0 142

NOTES: 

1. \Aw. = 16 = 0.113 failures per component-year (1987-1995). 

142 

2. The mean time between failures = 1/0.113 = 8.8 component-years. 

3. Failures are for the BWR RCIC and HPCI systems only. 

4. L/2 indicates the midpoint of the cumulative TDP-years, for use in the LaPlace Test (see text 

5. See Figure 9 in text.

11-9

16
APPENDIX III 

TDP ASSEMBLY 

ENGINEERING INSIGHTS
APPENDIX III 

TDP ASSEMBLY - ENGINEERING INSIGHTS

TABLE NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 

PWR AFW System - Failures and Failure Fractions For TDP 

Assemblies and Subcomponents ........................ 111-2 

II BWR RCIC, and HPCI Systems - Failures and Failure Fractions 

for TDP Assemblies and Subcomponents .................. 111-3 

III PWR AFW System TDP Assembly and Subcomponents - Failure 

Cause Apportionment ................................. 111-4 

IV BWR RCIC System TDP Assembly and Subcomponents - Failure 

Cause Apportionment ................................. 111-4 

V BWR HPCI System TDP Assembly and Subcomponents - Failure 

Cause Apportionment ................................. 111-4

II1-1
APPENDIX III - TABLE I 

PWR AFW SYSTEM - FAILURES AND FAILURE FRACTIONS 

FOR TDP ASSEMBLIES AND SUBCOMPONENTS 

PLH4PS 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 

No. ESF Failures: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total No. Failures: 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 

No . Pumps : ----------------------------------- 75. 

Failure Fraction 040 0 .013 0 0 .013 0 0 .027 

Ave. Failure Fraction ------------------------------------- -.010 -----------------------

TURBINES 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 3 2 2 4 5 3 7 9 2 37 

No. ESF Failures: 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 

Total No. Failures: 4 2 4 4 5 3 8 9 3 42 

No. Turbines: ---..------. 75--------------------------------

Failure Fraction .053 .027 .053 .053 .067 .040 .107 .120 .040 

Ave. Failure Fraction ------------------------------------ 062 - --. -----------------------

GOVERNORS 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 1 3 6 12 2 4 4 2 2 36 

No. ESF Failures: 3 2 3 2 2 2 0 1 1 16 

Total No. Failures: 4 5 9 14 4 6 4 3 3 52 

No. Governors: ----------------------------------- 75 ................................. 

Failure Fraction .053 .067 .120 .187 .053 .080 .053 .040 .040 

Ave. Failure Fraction ----------------------------------.077 ------------------------........ 

TDP ASSY 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

(Includes above subcomponents) 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 7 5 9 16 7 8 11 11 6 80 

No. ESF Failures: 4 2 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 21 

Total No. Failures: 11 7 14. 18 9 10 12 12 8 101 

No . TDP Assys : ----------------------------------- 75 --------------------------------

Failure Fraction .147 .093 .187 .240 .120 .133 .160 .160 .107 

Ave. Failure Fraction ...............................- 150 . .----------------------------------. 

Note: See Figure 7 in text

111-2
APPENDIX III - TABLE II 

BWR RCIC AND HPCI SYSTEMS - FAILURES AND FAILURE FRACTION 

FOR TDP ASSEMBLIES AND SUBCOMPONENTS 

PIN4PS 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv.Test Failures: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

No. ESF Failures: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total No. Failures: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

No. Pumps: ------------------------------------------ -59 - -----------------------

Failure Fraction: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .017 0 

Ave. Failure Fraction: ............................... . 002 0 .--------------------------------.

TURBINES 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 8 7 1 6 5 5 1 4 2 39 

No. ESF Failures: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 

Total No. Failures: 8 8 1 6 5 5 1 5 2 41 

No. Turbine Drivers: ----------------------------------- 59 --------------------------------

Failure Fraction: .136 .136 .017 .102 .085 .085 .017 .085 .034 

Ave. Failure Fraction: ............................. . .077 0 .----------------------------------.

GOVERNORS 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 6 5 5 6 10 5 7 2 2 48 

No. ESF Failures: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 

Total No. Failures: 7 5 5 6 11 5 7 2 2 50 

No . Governors : ---------------------------------- 59 ---------------------------------

Failure Fraction: .119 .085 .085 .102 .180 .085 .119 .034 .034 

Ave. Failure Fraction: .............................. . .094 .----------------------------------. 

TlP ASSYs 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total 

No. Surv. Test Failures: 14 12 6 12 15 10 8 7 4 88 

No. ESF Failures: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 

Total No. Failures: 15 13 6 12 16 10 8 8 4 92 

No . TD PAssys : ---------------------------------- 59 ----------------------------------

Failure Fraction: .254 .228 .102 .203 .221 .169 .136 .136 .068 

Ave. Failure Fraction: .............................. . 173 1 .----------------------------------.

NOTE: See Figure 7 in text.

111-3
APPENDIX III - TABLE III 

PWR AFW SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY AND SUBCOMPONENTS 

FAILURE CAUSE APPORTIONMENT

FAILURE CAUSE 

Age/Wear/Fat. 

Maint./Proc. 

Unknown 

Dirt/Contam. 

Design Defic. 

Other

Totals: 

NOTE: See Figures 10 an

GOVERNORS 

No. 

Fail. % 

10 20 

12 24 

12 24 

5 10 

6 11 

6 11 

51 50

TURB. DRIVERS 

No. 

Fail. % 

14 34 

11 26 

5 12 

1 2 

1 2 

10 24 

42 42

PUMPS 

No. 

Fail. % 

2 25 

1 13 

2 25 

2 25 

1 12 

0 0 

8 8

TDP ASSEMBLIES 

Fail. % 

26 26 

24 24 

19 19 

8 8 

8 8 

16 15 

101 100

BWR RC

GOVERNORS 

No. 

FAILURE CAUSE Fail. % 

Age/Wear/Fat. 6 28 

Maint./Proc. 5 24 

Unknown 7 33 

Dirt/Contam. 2 10 

Design Defic. 1 5 

Other 0 0 

Totals: 21 70 

NOTE: See Figures 10 and 12.

APPENDIX III - TABLE IV 

IC SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY AND SUBCOMPONENTS 

FAILURE CAUSE APPORTIONMENT 

TURB. DRIVERS PUMPS TDP 

No. No. 

FaiL. % Fail. % Fai 

2 25 1 100 9 

3 38 0 0 8 

O 0 0 0 7 

0 0 0 0 2 

2 25 0 0 3 

1 12 0 0 1 

8 27 1 3 30

ASSEMBLIES 

il. % 

P 30 

27 

23 

7 

10 

3 

100

APPENDIX III - TABLE V 

BWR HPCI SYSTEM TDP ASSEMBLY AND SUBCOMPONENTS 

FAILURE CAUSE APPORTIONMENT

GOVERNORS TURB. DRIVERS PUMPS TDP ASSEMBLIES 

No. No. No. 

FAILURE CAUSE Fail. % Fail. % Fail. % Fail. % 

Age/Wear/Fat. 5 17 4 12 0 0 9 14 

Maint./Proc. 10 35 18 55 0 0 28 45 

Unknown 5 17 1 3 0 0 6 10 

Dirt/Contam. 3 10 0 0 0 0 3 5 

Design Defic. 5 17 5 15 0 0 10 16 

Other 1 4 5 15 0 0 6 10 

Totals: 29 47 33 53 0 0 62 100 

NOTE: See Figures 10 and 132.

111-4

dW 11.
APPENDIX IV 

DATA SOURCE INPUTS FOR REPORTED FAILURES AND ESTIMATED DEMANDS 

TDP ASSEMBLIES
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN APPENDIX IV - TABLES I THROUGH IV

APPL CODE 

PLT ID NO. 

DATA SRC 

PLT AGE -

Application Coded (YES. All TDP Assys used in study are 

Application Coded) 

Numerical identifier assigned to each selected plant used with 

NPRDS failure histories. When source is from LERs, a 3-digit 

docket number is used. 

Data Source, either as NPRDS failure history (FHIS) or as a 5

digit LER number, as applicable. 

Plant Age Group (A, B, or C) that indicates the plant 

commercial license date as follows:

A - 12131174 and earlier.

PLT SYS 

NO. FAIL

DISC DATE 

SUB COMP

ESF/SURV. 

FAIL MODE 

FAIL CAUS -

B - 111175 through 3131186 C - 411186 and later

The AFW, RCIC, or HPCI that has TDPs. 

Number of same subcomponents failed with same failure 

mode, system, date, etc. 

For NPRDS failures, this'is the discovery date and for LERs, 

this is the event date, shown by month and year only (i.e., 0189 

is January 1989). 

Subcomponent of the TDP Assembly (PMP- Pump; TUB 

Turbine Driver, and GOV- Governor) 

Engineered Safety Features Demand or Surveillance Test 

Demand 

Failure Modes used are as follows: 

Failure to Start (FS) -Pump; Turbine Driver, and Governor 

Failure to Run (FR) - Pump; Turbine Driver; and Governor 

Failure to Control (FC) - Governor 

Failure causes are as follows: 

Age/Wear (AW) DirtlContamination/Corrosion (DC) 

Design Deficiency (DD) Manufacturing Defect (MF) 

Unknown (UK) Debris/Foreign Material (DF) 

Out-of-Adjustment (OA) Setpoint Drift (SD) 

Other Devices (OD) Maint./Proced. Deficiencies (MP)

IV-1
TABLE 

I 

IA 

III 

IV 

IVA 

V 

VA 

VI 

VIA 

VII 

VIII 

IX

IV-2

APPENDIX IV 

TDP ASSEMBLY - DATA SOURCE INPUT FOR REPORTED FAILURES 

AND ESTIMATED DEMANDS 

E NO. DESCRIPTION 

PWR TDP Assemblies - AFW System Data Source Inputs 

F a ilu re s . . . ... . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .... . ... . .. . .. . .. ... . .... . 

PWR TDP Assemblies - AFW System Data Source Inputs 

ESF Failures (1996-1998) ................................. 

BWR TDP Assemblies - RCIC System Data Source Inputs 

F a ilu re s . .. . ... . .. . .. .. .. .. . . .... . ... . .. . . .. .. ... . ... . . 

BWR TDP Assemblies - HPCI System Data Source Inputs 

F a ilure s . .. . .. . . .. . ... . . .. . . .. ... .. .. . . . . ... . ... . . .. . .. 

PWR TDP Assemblies - AFW System Data Sources - ESF 

D em ands .............................................. 

PWR TDP Assemblies - AFW System Data Sources - ESF 

Demands (19961998) .................................... 

BWR TDP Assemblies - RCIC System Data Sources - ESF 

D em ands .............................................. 

BWR TDP Assemblies - RCIC System Data Sources - ESF 

Demands (1996-1998) .................................. 

BWR TDP Assemblies - HPCI System Data Sources - ESF 

D em ands .............................................. 

BWR TDP Assemblies - HPCI System Data Sources - ESF 

Dem ands (1996-1998) ................................... 

PWR TDP Asemblies - AFW System Data Source Inputs 

Estimated Surveillance Test Demands ...................... 

BWR TDP Assemblies - RCIC System Data Source Inputs 

Estimated Surveillance Test Demands ...................... 

BWR TDP Assemblies - HPCI System Data Source Inputs 

Estimated Surveillance Test Demands ......................

PAGE 

IV-3 

. IV-6 

. IV-7 

. IV-9 

IV-12 

IV-21 

IV-24 

IV-26 

IV-27 

IV-29 

IV-30 

IV-32 

IV-33
APPENDIX IV - TABLE I 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESF/ FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

I YES 48 FHIS B AFW 1 0287 TUB SURV. FS AW 

2 YES 389 87003 B AFW 1 0487 GOV ESF FR MP 

3 YES 282 87007 A AFW 1 0587 PMP SURV. FR DC 

4 YES 72 FHIS B AFW 1 0587 PMP SURV. FR AW 

5 YES 48 FHIS B AFW 1 0587 GOV SURV. FR AW 

6 YES 400 87035 C AFW 1 0687 TUB SURV. FR MP 

7 YES 382 87020 C AFW 1 0787 GOV ESF FR UK 

8 YES 414 87026 C AFW 1 1087 PMP SURV. FR AW 

9 YES 74 FHIS B AFW 1 1087 TUB SURV. FR AW 

10 YES 414 87029 C AFW 1 1187 GOV ESF FR MP 

11 YES 344 87037 B AFW 1 1287 TUB ESF FS MP 

12 YES 302 88002 B AFW 1 0188 GOV ESF FC MP 

13 YES 338 88002 B AFW 1 0188 GOV ESF FR DD 

14 YES 89 FHIS C AFW 1 0288 GOV SURV. FR UK 

15 YES 369 88008 B AFW 1 0588 TUB SURV. FR MP 

16 YES 28 FHIS A AFW 1 0588 TUB SURV. FR UK 

17 YES 8 FHIS A AFW 1 0888 GOV SURV. FR AW 

18 YES 58 FHIS B AFW 1 0988 GOV SURV. FC DC 

19 YES 413 89007 C AFW 1 0189 PMP SURV. FS DC 

20 YES 400 89001 C AFW 1 0189 TUB ESF FR MP 

21 YES 424 89005 C AFW 1 0289 GOV ESF FR DC 

22 YES 49 FHIS B AFW 1 0289 TUB SURV. FS AW 

23 YES 87 FHIS C AFW 1 0289 GOV SURV. FC UK 

24 YES 48 FHIS B AFW 1 0389 GOV SURV. FC AW 

25 YES 368 89006 B AFW 1 0489 GOV ESF FR SD 

26 YES 368 89008 B AFW 1 0589 GOV ESF FR SD 

27 YES 412 89015 C AFW 1 0589 GOV SURV. FC MP 

28 YES 85 FHIS C AFW 1 0689 GOV SURV. FC AW 

29 YES 414 89017 C AFW 1 0789 GOV SURV. FR DC

IV-3
APPENDIX IV - TABLE I (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESF/ FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

30 YES 400 89017 C AFW 1 1089 TUB ESF FR UK 

31 YES 64 FHIS B AFW 1 1089 TUB SURV. FR AW 

32 YES 60 FHIS B AFW 1 1189 GOV SURV. FC SD 

33 YES 389 90001 B AFW 1 0190 GOV ESF FR DC 

34 YES 35 FHIS A AFW 1 0290 GOV SURV. FC MP 

35 YES 40 FHIS A AFW 1 0290 GOV SURV. FC MP 

36 YES 40 FHIS A AFW 1 0390 GOV SURV. FR DD 

37 YES 82 FHIS B AFW 1 0390 GOV SURV. FC DC 

38 YES 70 FHIS B AFW 1 0590 GOV SURV. FC MP 

39 YES 76 FHIS B AFW 1 0590 PMP SURV. FR UK 

40 YES 412 90008 C AFW 1 0790 GOV ESF FR MP 

41 YES 103 FHIS C AFW 1 0790 GOV SURV. FR DD 

42 YES 44 FHIS B AFW 1 0890 GOV SURV. FC AW 

43 YES 83 FHIS B AFW 1 0890 GOV SURV. FC MP 

44 YES 361 90012 B AFW 2 0890 TUB SURV. FR MP 

45 YES 2 FHIS A AFW 1 0990 TUB SURV. FR AW 

46 YES 48 FHIS B AFW 1 0990 TUB SURV. FS AW 

47 YES 70 FHIS B AFW 1 1090 GOV SURV. FR AW 

48 YES 59 FHIS B AFW 1 1190 GOV SURV. FC UK 

49 YES 368 90024 B AFW 1 1290 GOV SURV. FR MP 

50 YES 2 FHIS A AFW 1 0191 TUB SURV. FS OA 

51 YES 58 FHIS B AFW 1 0191 TUB SURV. FR MP 

52 YES 96 FHIS C AFW 1 0191 TUB SURV. FR AW 

53 YES 49 FHIS B AFW 1 0391 TUB SURV. FR UK 

54 YES 316 91004 B AFW 1 0391 GOV ESF FC UK 

55 YES 103 FHIS C AFW 1 0491 GOV SURV. FR DD 

56 YES 316 91006 B AFW 1 0891 GOV ESF FR UK 

57 YES 106 FHIS C AFW 1 0991 TUB SURV. FS MF 

58 YES 40 FHIS A AFW 1 0991 GOV SURV. FR OD

IV-4
AFiPENDIX IV - TABLE I (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESF/ FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

59 YES 103 FHIS C AFW 1 0192 GOV SURV. FS AW 

60 YES 361 92008 B AFW 1 0292 TUB SURV. FR MP 

61 YES 87 FHIS C AFW 1 0692 GOV SURV. FC AW 

62 YES 344 92020 B AFW 1 0792 GOV ESF FR UK 

63 YES 35 FHIS A AFW 1 0892 PMP SURV. FS UK 

64 YES 272 92019 B AFW 1 0892 GOV ESF FC DD 

65 YES 424 92007 C AFW 1 0892 GOV SURV. FR UK 

66 YES 32 FHIS A AFW 1 0992 TUB SURV. FR MP 

67 YES 87 FHIS C AFW 1 0992 GOV SURV. FC MP 

68 YES 32 FHIS A AFW 1 1092 TUB SURV. FR DF 

69 YES 103 FHIS C AFW 1 0193 GOV SUR. FR AW 

70 YES 105 FHIS C AFW 1 0193 TUB SURV. FR DD 

71 YES 498 93007 C AFW 1 0293 TUB SURV. FR OD 

72 YES 499 93004 C AFW 1 0293 TUB ESF FR OD 

73 YES 85 FHIS C AFW 1 0393 TUB SURV. FS AW 

74 YES 35 FHIS A AFW 1 0593 GOV SURV. FR MP 

75 YES 103 FHIS C AFW 1 0693 TUB SURV. FS UK 

76 YES 41 FHIS A AFW 1 0693 GOV SURV. FR MP 

77 YES 35 FHIS A AFW 1 0693 TUB SURV. FR OD 

78 YES 40 FHIS A AFW 1 0993 TUB SURV. FR OD 

79 YES 425 93007 C AFW 1 1093 GOV SURV. FC DD 

80 YES 93 FHIS C AFW 1 1193 TUB SURV. FS MP 

81 YES 304 94002 A AFW 1 0394 TUB SURV. FR OD 

82 YES 49 FHIS B AFW 1 0594 TUB SURV. FR AW 

83 YES 27 FHIS A AFW 1 0694 TUB SURV. FR AW 

84 YES 89 FHIS A AFW 1 0694 GOV SURV. FR AW 

85 YES 28 FHIS A AFW 1 0794 TUB SURV. FS AW 

86 YES 62 FHIS B AFW 1 0794 TUB SURV. FR AW

IV-5
APPENDIX IV - TABLE I (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESFI FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

87 YES 28 FHIS A AFW 1 0894 TUB SURV. FR AW 

88 YES 423 94011 C AFW 1 0994 GOV ESF FR UK 

89 YES 49 FHIS B AFW 1 0994 TUB SURV. FR DC 

90 YES 10 FHIS A AFW 1 1094 TUB SURV. FR MP 

91 YES 423 94014 C AFW 1 1194 TUB SURV. FR MP 

92 YES 106 FHIS C AFW 1 1294 GOV SURV. FC DD 

93 YES 280 95001 A AFW 1 0195 GOV SURV. FC MF 

94 YES 107 FHIS C AFW 1 0595 TUB ESF FR MP 

95 YES 445 95004 C AFW 1 0695 TUB ESF. FR' OD 

96 YES 423 95014 C AFW 1 0795 TUB SURV FS OD 

97 YES 49 FHIS B AFW 1 0895 PMP SURV. FS MP 

98 YES 305 95001 C AFW 1 1195 PMP SURV. FS MP 

99 YES 305 95007 A AFW 1 1195 PMP SURV. FS DD 

100 YES 35 FHIS A AFW 1 1295 GOV SURV. FC DF 

Total No. Failures: 101 

APPENDIX IV - TABLE IA 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS - ESF FAILURES (1996-1998) 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESFI FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS. FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

1 YES 482 96001 C AFW 1 0196 PMP ESF FR AW 

2 YES 250 96002 A AFW 1 0296 GOV ESF FC AW 

3 YES 389 96002 B AFW 1 0696 TUB ESF FS OD 

4 YES 281 97001 A AFW 1 0297 GOV ESF FC DD 

5 YES 250 97007 A AFW 1 0797 TUB ESF FS DD

Total No. Additional ESF Failures (1996-1998): 5

IV-6
APPENDIX IV - TABLE II 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - RCIC SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESF/ FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

1 YES 265 87002 A RCIC 1 0187 TUB SURV. FR DD 

2 YES 321 87011 B RCIC 1 0787 GOV ESF FC MP 

3 YES 271 87018 A RCIC 1 1187 TUB SURV. FR AW 

4 YES 265 88003 A RCIC 1 0388 GOV SURV. FC UK 

5 YES 17 FHIS A RCIC 1 0488 TUB SURV. FR DD 

6 YES 325 88020 B RCIC 1 0988 GOV SURV. FC MP 

7 YES 101 FHIS C RCIC 1 1288 TUB SURV. FR DD 

8 YES 373 90007 B RCIC 1 0690 GOV SURV. FC DC 

9 YES 77 FHIS B RCIC 1 0690 GOV SURV. FC DC 

10 YES 293 81001 A RCIC 1 0190 GOV SURV. FC AW 

11 YES 254 91009 A RCIC 1 0491 GOV SURV. FC MP 

12 YES 53 FHIS B RCIC 1 0691 TUB SURV. FS MP 

13 YES 81 FHIS C RCIC 1 0691 TUB SURV. FR MP 

14 YES 373 91012 B RCIC 1 0791 GOV SURV. FC UK 

15 YES 293 91020 A RCIC 1 0891 GOV SURV. FC UK 

16 YES 331 91007 B RCIC 1 0891 GOV SURV. FC MP 

17 YES 373 91017 B RCIC 1 1091 GOV SURV. FC UK 

18 YES 77 FHIS B RCIC 1 1091 GOV SURV. FC DD 

19 YES 373 92005 B RCIC 1 0492 GOV SURV. FC UK 

20 YES 78 FHIS C RCIC 1 0492 GOV SURV FC AW 

21 YES 265 92020 A RCIC 1 0892 GOV SURV FC UK 

22 YES 57 FHIS B RCIC 1 0193 GOV SURV. FC MP 

23 YES 374 93002 C RCIC 1 0293 GOV SURV. FC UK 

24 YES 293 93013 A RCIC 1 0593 GOV SURV. FC AW 

25 YES 373 93016 B RCIC 1 0893 GOV SURV. FC AW 

26 YES 374 93010 C RCiC 1 1293 GOV SURV. FC AW 

27 YES 265 94001 A RCIC 1 0194 PMP SURV. FR AW 

28 YES 458 94023 C RCIC 1 0994 TUB ESF FR AW

IV-7
APPENDIX IV - TABLE II (CONTINUED) 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - RCI C SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS - FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC -SUB ESFI FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

29 YES 373 94013 B RCIC 1 1194 GOV SURV. FR OD 

30 YES 254 95001 A RCIC 1 0195 TUB SURV. FR OD

Total No. of RCIC Failures: 30

NOTE: There are no RCIC TDP Assembly failures associated with ESF actuations for the 1996-1998 

period.

IV-8
APPENDIX IV - TABLE III 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESF/ FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

1 YES 265 87003 A HPCI 1 0187 GOV SURV. FC UK 

2 YES 63 FHIS C HPCI 1 0287 TUB SURV. FR MP 

3 YES 249 87002 A HPCI 1 0287 TUB SURV. FR SD 

4 YES 265 87006 A HPCI 1 0387 GOV SURV. FC DC 

5 YES 352 87015 C HPCI 1 0587 GOV SURV. FC DC 

6 YES 366 87004 B HPCI 1 0687 GOV SURV. FC DD 

7 YES 331 87023 B HPCI 1 0787 TUB SURV. FR MP 

8 YES 333 87010 B HPCI 1 0787 TUB SURV. FS MP 

9 YES 341 87030 C HPCI 1 0787 GOV SURV. FC DD 

10 YES 277 87020 B HPCI 1 0987 GOV SURV. FC UK 

11 YES 298 87024 A HPCI 1 1187 TUB SURV. FR DD 

12 YES 352 87066 C HPCI 1 1287 TUB SURV. FR MP 

13 YES 366 88001 B HPCI 1 0188 TUB SURV. FS MP 

14 YES 331 88002 B HPCI 1 0488 TUB SURV. FC MP 

15 YES 331 88004 B HPCI 1 0688 GOV SURV. FC MP 

16 YES 69 FHIS C HPCI 1 0788 TUB SURV. FR MP 

17 YES 298 88022 A HPCI 1 0888 GOV SURV. FC AW 

18 YES 73 FHIS B HPCI 1 0988 TUB SURV. FR MP 

19 YES 321 88013 B HPCI 1 0988 TUB ESF FC DD 

20 YES 237 88017 A HPCI 1 1088 TUB SURV. FC AW 

21 YES 321 88017 B HPIC 1 1288 GOV SURV. FC MP 

22 YES 331 89002 B HPCI 1 0189 GOV SURV. FC AW 

23 YES 331 89007 B HPCI 1 0289 GOV SURV. FC AW 

24 YES 277 89009 B HPCI 1 0589 GOV SURV. FC MP 

25 YES 293 89028 A HPCI 1 0989 GOV SURV. FC UK 

26 YES 331 89016 B HPCI 1 1289 GOV SURV. FC DD 

27 YES 278 89009 B HPCI 1 1289 TUB SURV. FS MP 

28 YES 321 90001 B HPCI 1 0190 GOV SURV. FC AW

IV-9
APPENDIX IV - TABLE III (CONTINUED) 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESFI FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

29 YES 388 90001 C HPCI 1 0290 GOV SURV. FC MP 

30 YES 387 90007 B HPCI 1 0290 TUB SURV. FS DD 

31 YES 333 90010 B HPCI 1 0390 GOV SURV. FC MP 

32 YES 73 FHIS B HPCI 1 0790 TUB SURV. FS AW 

33 YES 278 90010 B HPCI 1 0890 TUB SURV. FR DD 

34 YES 324 90013 B HPCI 1 0990 GOV SURV. FC MP 

35 YES 278 90011 B HPCI 1 0990 TUB SURV. FS MP 

36 YES 293 90017 A HPCI 1 1090 TUB SURV. FS MP 

37 YES 68 FHIS C HPCI 1 1290 TUB SURV. FR AW 

38 YES 321 91001 B HPCI 1 0191 GOV ESF. FC UK 

39 YES 265 91003 A HPCI 1 0191 GOV SURV. FC DD 

40 YES 278 91005 B HPCI 1 0491 TUB SURV. FS OD 

41 YES 254 91012 A HPCI 1 0591 TUB SURV. FS MP 

42 YES 341 91020 C HPCI 1 1191 GOV SURV. FC MP 

43 YES 387 91015 B HPCI 1 1191 TUB SURV. FC UK 

44 YES 324 91020 B HPCI 1 1191 GOV SURV. FC MP 

45 YES 254 92002 A HPCI 1 0292 TUB SURV. FC MP 

46 YES 249 92011 A HPCI 1 0492 TUB SURV. FC MP 

47 YES 388 92002 C HPCI 1 0492 TUB SURV. FC DD 

48 YES 278 92004 B HPCI 1 0692 TUB SURV. FR AW 

49 YES 352 92015 C HPCI 1 0792 TUB SURV. FC MP 

50 YES 26 FHIS B HPCI 1 0892 GOV SURV. FC MP 

51 YES 26 FHIS B HPCI 1 1092 GOV SURV. FC DD 

52 YES 265 93002 A HPCI 1 0193 GOV SURV. FC DC 

53 YES 254 93010 A HPCI 1 0793 GOV SURV. FC MP 

54 YES 237 93016 A HPCI 1 0893 TUB SURV. FR MP 

55 YES 278 94001 B HPCI 1 0194 GOV SURV. FC AW 

56 YES 333 94001 B HPCI 1 0294 TUB SURV. FR OD 

57 YES 366 94002 B HPCI 1 0394 TUB SURV. FR MF

IV-10
APPENDIX IV - TABLE III (CONTINUED) 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS- FAILURES 

ITEM APPL PLT DATA PLT PLT NO. DISC SUB ESFI FAIL FAIL 

NO. CODE ID SRC. AGE SYS FAIL DATE COMP SURV. MODE CAUS 

58 YES 237 94021 A HPCI 1 0894 TUB SURV. FR OD 

59 YES 321 94013 B HPCI 1 1194 TUB SURV. FR MP 

60 YES 254 95004 A HPCI 1 0395 GOV - FS MF 

61 YES 254 95008 A HPCI 1 1295 TUB FS MP 

62 YES 331 95012 B HPCI 1 1295 GOV FC UK 

Total No. HPCI TDP Assembly Failures: 62 

NOTE: There were no HPCI TDP Assembly failures associated with ESF actuations for the 1996-1998 

period.

IV-11
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

1 206 87003 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

2 206 89012 AFW 0589 1 1 1 

3 206 89019 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

4 206 89023 AFW 0989 1 1 1 

5 206 91010 AFW 0591 1 1 1 

6 206 91017 AFW 1091 1 1 1 

7 213 90017 AFW 0990 1 2 2 

8 213 90018 AFW 0990 1 2 2 

9 213 95016 AFW 0795 1 2 2 

10 244 88005 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

11 244 89004 AFW 0689 1 1 1 

12 244 90012 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

13 244 92002 AFW 0292 1 1 1 

14 244 92003 AFW 0292 1 2 2 

15 244 93006 AFW 1193 1 1 1 

16 244 94007 AFW 0494 1 1 1 

17 244 95008 AFW 0895 1 1 1 

18 247 91001 AFW 0191 1 1 1 

19 250 87001 AFW 0187 1 3 3 

20 250 88004 AFW 0388 1 3 3 

21 250 89005 AFW 0289 1 3 3 

22 250 89020 AFW 1289 1 3 3 

23 250 90011 AFW 0690 1 3 3 

24 250 95007 AFW 1095 1 3 3 

25 251 87001 AFW 0187 1 2 2 

26 251 88009 AFW 0888 1 2 2 

27 251 88010 AFW 0888 1 3 3 

28 251 89011 AFW 0989 1 3 3 

29 251 90003 AFW 0490 1 3 3 

30 251 90008 AFW 0890 1 3 3 

31 251 91006 AFW 1091 1 3 3 

32 251 92007 AFW 0992 1 3 3 

33 255 87009 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

34 261 88001 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

35 269 88009 AFW 0788 1 1 1 

36 269 89001 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

37 269 89002 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

38 269 91011 AFW 1091 1 1 1 

39 269 94002 AFW 0294 1 1 1 

40 270 87004 AFW 0487 1 1 1 

41 270 89004 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

42 270 92004 AFW 1092 1 1 1 

43 270 93001 AFW 0493 1 1 1 

44 270 94002 AFW 0494 1 1 1 

45 270 94005 AFW 1294 1 1 1 

46 272 90030 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

47 272 94011 AFW 0794 1 1 1 

48 275 91002 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

49 275 91007 AFW 0491 1 1 1 

50 275 93011 AFW 1293 1 1 1

IV-12
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

51 275 

52 275 

53 280 

54 280 

55 280 

56 280 

57 280 

58 280 

59 281 

60 281 

61 281 

62 281 

63 281 

64 281 

65 281 

66 281 

67 282 

68 282 

69 285 

70 285 

71 285 

72 286 

73 286 

74 286 

75 286 

76 286 

77 286 

78 287 

79 287 

80 287 

81 287 

82 287 

83 287 

84 289 

85 289 

86 289 

87 295 

88 302 

89 302 

90 302 

91 302 

92 302 

93 302 

94 302 

95 302 

96 302 

97 302 

98 302 

99 302 

100 302

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

94020 AFW 1294 1 1 1 

95009 AFW 0995 1 1 1 

92001 AFW 0192 1 1 1 

93001 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

93002 AFW 0293 1 1 1 

94006 AFW 0594 1 1 1 

95001 AFW 0195 1 1 1 

95003 AFW 0495 1 1 1 

88010 AFW 0588 1 1 1 

89010 AFW 0989 1 1 1 

92010 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

93003 AFW 0893 1 1 1 

93004 AFW 0893 1 1 1 

93005 AFW 0893 1 1 1 

95004 AFW 0595 1 1 1 

95005 AFW 0595 1 1 1 

89010 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

93005 AFW 0293 1 1 1 

87036 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

92023 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

94001 AFW 0294 1 1 1 

88006 AFW 1088 1 1 1 

89015 AFW 1089 1 1 1 

90002 AFW 0290 1 1 1 

90004 AFW 0690 1 1 1 

91004 AFW 0391 1 1 1 

92015 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

91007 AFW 0791 1 1 1 

92001 AFW 0192 1 1 1 

92003 AFW 0692 1 1 1 

93001 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

94002 AFW 0894 1 1 1 

94003 AFW 0894 1 1 1 

89004 AFW 0889 1 1 1 

91003 AFW 0991 1 1 1 

92001 AFW 0192 1 1 1 

94005 AFW 0494 1 1 1 

88001 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

88002 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

88006 AFW 0288 1 1 1 

89003 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

89022 AFW 0689 1 1 1 

89023 AFW 0689 1 1 1 

90016 AFW 1090 1 1 1 

91003 AFW 0491 1 1 1 

91014 AFW 1191 1 1 1 

91016 AFW 1191 1 1 1 

91018 AFW 1291 1 1 1 

92015 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

92027 AFW 1292 1 1 1

IV-13
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

101 304 88014 AFW 1288 1 1 1 

102 305 91010 AFW 1091 1 1 1 

103 305 92017 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

104 305 93001 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

105 305 93018 AFW 1093 1 1 1 

106 306 90004 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

107 306 90005 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

108 306 94002 AFW 0794 1 1 1 

109 306 95003 AFW 0695 1 1 1 

110 311 90029 AFW 0690 1 1 1 

111 311 93002 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

112 311 93005 AFW 0393 1 1 1 

113 311 94008 AFW 0694 1 1 1 

114 313 87002 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

115 313 87003 AFW 0887 1 1 1 

116 313 87004 AFW 0887 1 1 1 

117 313 87005 AFW 0887 1 1 1 

118 313 88003 AFW 0288 1 1 1 

119 313 89002 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

120 313 89041 AFW 1289 1 1 1 

121 313 89048 AFW 1289 1 1 1 

122 313 91003 AFW 0491 1 1 1 

123 313 91005 AFW 0591 1 1 1 

124 313 92003 AFW 0492 1 1 1 

125 313 94002 AFW 0494 1 1 1 

126 313 95004 AFW 0495 1 1 1 

127 315 87008 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

128 315 87021 AFW 1087 1 1 1 

129 315 88001 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

130 315 89001 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

131 315 91004 AFW 0591 1 1 1 

132 316 87004 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

133 316 87007 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

134 316 87008 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

135 316 90012 AFW 1290 1 1 1 

136 316 90013 AFW 1290 1 1 1 

137 316 91004 AFW 0391 1 1 1 

138 316 91006 AFW 0891 1 1 1 

139 316 91010 AFW 1191 1 1 1 

140 316 93007 AFW 0893 1 1 1 

141 316 95005 AFW 0895 1 1 1 

141 317 87012 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

142 317 91003 AFW 1091 1 1 1 

143 317 91008 AFW 1291 1 1 1 

144 317 92008 AFW 1192 1 1 1 

145 317 94001 AFW 0194 1 2 2 

146 317 94006 AFW 0694 1 2 2 

147 317 94007 AFW 0794 1 2 2 

148 317 95002 AFW 0695 1 1 1 

149 317 95005 AFW 1195 1 2 2 

150 317 95006 AFW 1195 1 1 1

1V-14
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

151 318 

152 318 

153 318 

154 318 

155 318 

156 318 

157 318 

158 318 

159 318 

160 318 

161 318 

162 327 

163 327 

164 327 

165 327 

166 327 

167 327 

168 327 

169 327 

170 327 

171 327 

172 327 

173 327 

174 328 

175 328 

176 328 

177 328 

178 328 

179 328 

180 328 

181 328 

182 328 

183 328 

184 328 

185 334 

186 334 

187 334 

188 334 

189 334 

190 334 

191 334 

192 334 

193 334 

194 334 

195 334 

196 334 

197 334 

198 334 

199 335 

200 335

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

87002 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

87007 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

87008 AFW 1287 1 1 1 

88002 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

88002 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

88004 AFW 0488 1 1 1 

92005 AFW 0891 1 1 1 

93002 AFW 0693 1 2 2 

94001 AFW 0194 1 1 1 

94007 AFW 0994 1 1 1 

95002 AFW 0195 1 2 2 

88044 AFW 1188 1 1 1 

88045 AFW 1188 1 1 1 

88047 AFW 1288 1 1 1 

89005 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

90009 AFW 0590 1 1 1 

90012 AFW 0690 1 1 1 

90022 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

90030 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

92027 AFW 1292 1 1 1 

94011 AFW 0794 1 1 1 

94014 AFW 1194 1 1 1 

95008 AFW 0695 1 1 1 

88014 AFW 0388 1 1 1 

88023 AFW 0588 1 1 1 

88024 AFW 0588 1 1 1 

88027 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88028 AFW 0688 2 1 2 

89008 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

91001 AFW 0191 1 1 1 

91006 AFW 1191 2 1 2 

92001 AFW 0292 1 1 1 

92012 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

95007 AFW 1295 1 1 1 

88007 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88008 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88009 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88014 AFW 0988 1 1 1 

89001 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

89002 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

90007 AFW 0390 1 1 1 

91006 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

91022 AFW 0791 1 1 1 

91023 AFW 0791 1 1 1 

91029 AFW 1191 1 .1 1 

92009 AFW 1092 1 1 1 

93013 AFW 1093 1 1 1 

94005 AFW 0694 1 1 1 

87011 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

87017 AFW 1287 1 1 1

1V-15
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

201 335 

202 335 

203 335 

204 335 

205 335 

206 338 

207 338 

208 338 

209 338 

210 338 

211 338 

212 339 

213 339 

214 339 

215 339 

216 344 

217 344 

218 344 

219 344 

220 344 

221 344 

222 344 

223 344 

224 344 

225 344 

226 344 

227 344 

228 344 

229 344 

230 346 

231 346 

232 346 

233 346 

234 348 

235 348 

236 361 

237 361 

238 361 

239 362 

240 362 

241 362 

242 362 

243 362 

244 362 

245 368 

246 368 

247 368 

248 368 

249 368 

250 368

IV-16

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

88003 AFW 0388 1 1 1 

90007 AFW 0590 1 1 1 

91002 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

91005 AFW 0791 1 1 1 

91006 AFW 0991 1 1 1 

87017 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

87020 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

88002 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

88005 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

89005 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

94005 AFW 0994 1 1 1 

88001 AFW 1188 1 1 1 

90003 AFW 0890 1 1 1 

90010 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

93002 AFW 0493 1 1 1 

87001 AFW 0187 1 1 1 

87024 AFW 0887 1 2 2 

87037 AFW 1287 1 1 1 

88026 AFW 0888 1 2 2 

88028 AFW 0988 1 2 2 

88044 AFW 1188 1 2 2 

89010 AFW 0989 1 2 2 

89017 AFW 0889 1 2 2 

90033 AFW 0790 1 2 2 

90034 AFW 0890 1 2 2 

91004 AFW 0291 1 2 2 

92020 AFW 0792 1 2 2 

92027 AFW 0992 1 2 2 

92028 AFW 0992 1 2 2 

87001 AFW 0187 1 2 2 

87006 AFW 0387 1 2 2 

91008 AFW 1291 1 2 2 

93005 AFW 1093 1 2 2 

87003 AFW 0187 1 1 1 

89007 AFW 1189 1 1 1 

87031 AFW 1287 1 1 1 

90016 AFW 1290 1 1 1 

92012 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

87011 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

89011 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

89006 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

90002 AFW 0290 1 1 1 

92004 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

93004 AFW 0793 1 1 1 

87007 AFW 0987 1 1 1 

87008 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

88011 AFW 0888 1 1 1 

88020 AFW 1288 2 1 2 

89006 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

89019 AFW 0889 1 1 1
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

251 368 89020 AFW 0989 1 1 1 

252 368 89024 AFW 1289 1 1 1 

253 368 91005 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

254 369 87017 AFW 0887 1 1 1 

255 369 88008 AFW 0588 1 1 1 

256 369 88021 AFW 0888 1 1 1 

257 369 89025 AFW 0989 1 1 1 

258 369 91001 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

260 369 92009 AFW 0692 1 1 1 

261 369 92008 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

262 369 93012 AFW 1293 1 1 1 

263 369 95005 AFW 0995 1 1 1 

264 370 87019 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

265 370 89002 AFW 0389 1 1 1 

266 370 92006 AFW 0492 1 1 1 

267 370 93008 AFW 1293 1 1 1 

268 382 87008 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

269 382 87012 AFW 0487 1 1 1 

270 382 87016 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

271 382 87020 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

272 382 88016 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

273 382 88033 AFW 1288 1 1 1 

274 382 89013 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

275 382 89024 AFW 1289 1 1 1 

276 382 90002 AFW 0390 1 1 1 

277 382 91019 AFW 0890 1 1 1 

278 382 91022 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

279 382 93001 AFW 0393 1 1 1 

280 389 87001 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

281 389 89007 AFW 0989 1 1 1 

282 389 90001 AFW 0190 1 1 1 

283 389 90006 AFW 1290 1 1 1 

284 389 91001 AFW 0391 1 1 1 

285 395 87015 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

286 395 87027 AFW 1087 1 1 1 

287 395 88002 AFW 0288 1 1 1 

288 395 88006 AFW 0588 1 1 1 

290 395 88007 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

291 395 88009 AFW 0788 1 1 1 

292 395 89020 AFW 1289 1 1 1 

293 400 87017 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

294 400 87035 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

295 400 87042 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

296 400 87062 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

297 400 89001 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

298 400 89003 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

299 400 89005 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

300 400 89019 AFW 1289 1 1 1

IV-17
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

301 400 

302 400 

303 400 

304 400 

305 400 

306 400 

307 412 

308 412 

309 412 

310 412 

311 412 

312 412 

313 412 

314 412 

315 412 

316 412 

317 412 

318 412 

319 412 

320 412 

321 413 

322 413 

323 413 

324 414 

325 414 

326 414 

327 414 

328 414 

329 414 

330 414 

331 414 

332 414 

333 414 

334 414 

335 414 

336 414 

337 414 

338 414 

339 414 

340 414 

341 414 

342 414 

343 414 

344 414 

345 414 

346 414 

347 414 

348 414 

349 414 

350 414

1V-18

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

89021 AFW 1289 1 1 1 

91010 AFW 0691 1 1 1 

92009 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

92010 AFW 0792 1 1 1 

93007 AFW 0593 1 1 1 

95007 AFW 0995 1 1 1 

87005 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

87020 AFW 0987 1 1 1 

87023 AFW 0987 1 1 1 

87026 AFW 1087 1 1 1 

87028 AFW 1087 1 1 1 

87032 AFW 1087 1 1 1 

87035 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

89003 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

89019 AFW 0689 1 1 1 

90008 AFW 0790 1 1 1 

91005 AFW 1191 1 1 1 

93002 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

94006 AFW 0694 1 1 1 

95006 AFW 0895 1 1 1 

87026 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

87027 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

91018 AFW 0991 1 1 1 

87002 AFW 0187 1 1 1 

87003 AFW 0187 1 1 1 

87007 AFW 0287 1 1 1 

87010 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

87018 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

87019 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

87025 AFW 0987 1 1 1 

87027 AFW 0987 1 1 1 

87029 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

88012 AFW 0388 1 1 1 

88019 AFW 0588 1 1 1 

88021 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88022 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88023 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88024 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88025 AFW 0688 1 1 1 

88031 AFW 1188 1 1 1 

89001 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

89002 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

89003 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

90013 AFW 1090 1 1 1 

91008 AFW 0591 1 1 1 

92001 AFW 0192 1 1 1 

92006 AFW 1292 1 1 1 

93003 AFW 0993 1 1 1 

94006 AFW 0994 1 1 1 

94007 AFW 1094 1 1 1
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

351 414 95001 AFW 0295 1 1 1 

352 414 95004 AFW 0495 1 1 1 

353 423 87026 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

354 423 87027 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

355 423 87031 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

356 423 90003 AFW 1290 1 1 1 

357 423 93004 AFW 0393 1 1 1 

358 423 94011 AFW 0994 1 1 1 

359 424 87009 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

360 424 87010 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

361 424 87011 AFW 0387 1 1 1 

362 424 87014 AFW 0487 1 1 1 

363 424 87018 AFW 0487 1 1 1 

364 424 87025 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

365 424 87041 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

366 424 87050 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

367 424 87063 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

368 424 87066 AFW 1187 1 1 1 

369 424 88001 AFW 0188 1 1 1 

370 424 88006 AFW 0288 1 1 1 

371 424 89005 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

372 424 90016 AFW 0790 1 1 1 

373 424 91002 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

374 424 92006 AFW 0692 1 1 1 

375 424 92008 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

376 424 93009 AFW 0793 1 1 1 

377 424 95002 AFW 0795 1 1 1 

378 425 89018 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

379 425 89020 AFW 0589 1 1 1 

380 425 89021 AFW 0589 1 1 1 

381 425 89023 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

382 425 89024 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

383 425 89027 AFW 1089 1 1 1 

384 425 90016 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

385 425 91005 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

386 425 92002 AFW 0392 1 1 1 

387 425 93006 AFW 0993 1 1 1 

388 425 94001 AFW 0194 1 1 1 

389 425 94002 AFW 0194 1 1 1 

390 443 90015 AFW 0690 1 1 1 

391 443 90025 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

392 443 91001 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

393 443 91002 AFW 0391 1 1 1 

394 443 91008 AFW 0691 1 1 1 

395 443 91009 AFW 0791 1 1 1 

396 443 92017 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

397 443 92024 AFW 1192 1 1 1 

398 443 92025 AFW 1292 1 1 1 

399 443 93003 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

400 443 93009 AFW 0593 1 1 1

IV-19
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

401 443 

402 443 

403 445 

404 445 

405 445 

406 445 

407 445 

408 482 

409 482 

410 482 

411 482 

412 482 

413 482 

414 482 

415 482 

416 483 

417 483 

418 483 

419 498 

420 498 

421 498 

422 498 

423 498 

424 498 

425 498 

426 498 

427 498 

428 498 

429 498 

430 498 

431 498 

432 498 

433 498 

434 498 

435 498 

436 498 

437 498 

438 499 

439 499 

440 499 

441 499 

442 499 

443 499 

444 499 

445 499 

446 499 

447 499 

448 499 

449 499 

450 499

IV-20

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

93012 AFW 0793 1 1 1 

93018 AFW 0993 1 1 1 

90013 AFW 0590 1 1 1 

91005 AFW 0291 1 1 1 

92014 AFW 0692 1 1 1 

95003 AFW 0695 1 1 1 

95004 AFW 0695 1 1 1 

87022 AFW 0587 1 1 1 

87027 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

87030 AFW 0787 1 1 1 

87037 AFW 0987 1 1 1 

90023 AFW 1090 1 1 1 

91006 AFW 0591 1 1 1 

92016 AFW 0992 1 1 1 

95006 AFW 1195 1 1 1 

88011 AFW 0988 1 1 1 

89008 AFW 0689 1 1 1 

90015 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

88022 AFW 0288 1 1 1 

89001 AFW 0189 1 1 1 

89015 AFW 0789 1 1 1 

90006 AFW 0690 1 1 1 

90014 AFW 0690 1 1 1 

90015 AFW 0790 1 1 1 

90016 AFW 0790 1 1 1 

90020 AFW 0790 1 1 1 

90023 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

90025 AFW 1190 1 1 1 

91012 AFW 0491 1 1 1 

91021 AFW 1091 1 1 1 

91022 AFW 1091 1 1 1 

92003 AFW 0392 1 1 1 

94009 AFW 0294 1 1 1 

94015 AFW 0994 1 1 1 

95001 AFW 0195 1 1 1 

95009 AFW 0895 1 1 1 

95013 AFW 1295 1 1 1 

88022 AFW 0288 1 1 1 

89009 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

89011 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

89013 AFW 0489 1 1 1 

89016 AFW 0689 1 1 1 

90002 AFW 0290 1 1 1 

90004 AFW 0390 1 1 1 

90005 AFW 0490 1 1 1 

90013 AFW 0990 1 1 1 

91001 AFW 0191 1 1 1 

91003 AFW 0391 1 1 1 

91004 AFW 0391 1 1 1 

92001 AFW 0192 1 1 1
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IV (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

451 499 92003 AFW 0292 1 1 1 

452 499 92010 AFW 1292 1 1 1 

453 499 93001 AFW 0193 1 1 1 

454 499 93004 AFW 0293 1 1 1 

455 499 94007 AFW 0694 1 1 1 

456 499 95003 AFW 0395 1 1 1 

457 499 95008 AFW 1195 1 1 1 

459 529 87010 AFW 0687 1 1 1 

460 529 89003 AFW 0289 1 1 1 

461 529 93004 AFW 1193 1 1 1 

462 529 95005 AFW 0795 1 1 1 

463 530 89001 AFW 0389 1 1 1 

464 530 93001 AFW 0293 1 1 1 

Totals: 624 

APPENDIX IV - TABLE IVA 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES -AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS (1996-1998) 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

1 244 96002 AFW 0396 1 1 1 

2 244 96012 AFW 0896 1 1 1 

3 247 96003 AFW 0396 1 1 1 

4 247 96012 AFW 0596 1 1 1 

5 247 97002 AFW 0197 1 1 1 

6 247 97018 AFW 0797 1 1 1 

7 250 96002 AFW 0296 1 3 3 

8 250 96006 AFW 0396 1 3 3 

9 250 97004 AFW 0497 1 3 3 

10 250 97006 AFW 0797 1 3 3 

11 250 97007 AFW 0797 1 3 3 

12 250 98001 AFW 0298 1 3 3 

13 269 96004 AFW 0296 1 1 1 

14 269 97008 AFW 0797 1 1 1 

15 270 98007 AFW 1198 1 1 1 

16 275 96012 AFW 0896 1 1 1 

17 275 96017 AFW 1196 1 1 1 

18 280 97003 AFW 0297 1 1 1 

19 280 98002 AFW 0298 1 1 1 

20 280 98013 AFW 1198 1 1 1 

21 280 98014 AFW 1198 1 1 1 

22 281 97001 AFW 0297 1 1 1 

23 281 97004 AFW 1297 1 1 1 

24 282 96012 AFW 0696 1 1 1 

25 282 97008 AFW 0697 1 1 1 

26 282 98008 AFW 0698 1 1 1 

27 285 96002 AFW 0396 1 1 1 

28 285 97003 AFW 0497 1 1 1 

29 286 96015 AFW 1096 1 1 1 

30 286 97001 AFW 0197 1 1 1

IV-21
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IVA (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES -AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS(1996-1998)

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

31 286 

32 286 

33 286 

34 286 

35 287 

36 289 

37 302 

38 302 

39 302 

40 305 

41 305 

42 306 

43 306 

44 306 

45 306 

46 313 

47 313 

48 313 

49 315 

50 315 

51 316 

52 317 

53 318 

54 318 

55 318 

56 323 

57 323 

58 323 

59 327 

60 327 

61 327 

62 328 

63 328 

64 328 

65 328 

66 328 

67 334 

68 334 

69 334 

70 338 

71 339 

72 346 

73 346 

74 346 

75 368 

76 369 

77 369 

78 370 

79 370 

80 382 

81 382 

82 389

IV-22

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

97023 AFW 0997 1 1 1 

97025 AFW 0997 1 1 1 

98003 AFW 0598 1 1 1 

98006 AFW 0898 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0396 1 1 1 

97007 AFW 0697 1 1 1 

96017 AFW 0596 1 1 1 

98003 AFW 0298 1 1 1 

98009 AFW 0898 1 1 1 

96003 AFW 0496 1 1 1 

98005 AFW 0298 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0396 1 1 1 

96002 AFW 0496 1 1 1 

97003 AFW 0597 1 1 1 

98005 AFW 1198 1 1 1 

96005 AFW 0596 1 1 1 

96007 AFW 0996 1 1 1 

98005 AFW 1298 1 1 1 

96002 AFW 0396 1 1 1 

96004 AFW 0996 1 1 1 

97001 AFW 0397 2 1 2 

97009 AFW 1097 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0296 1 1 1 

96005 AFW 1196 1 1 1 

98004 AFW 0298 1 1 1 

97002 AFW 0397 1 1 1 

97003 AFW 0797 1 1 1 

97005 AFW 1097 1 1 1 

96010 AFW 1196 1 1 1 

97012 AFW 0897 1 1 1 

98001 AFW 0598 1 1 1 

96005 AFW 1096 1 1 1 

96006 AFW 1296 1 1 1 

96007 AFW 1296 1 1 1 

98001 AFW 0898 1 1 1 

98002 AFW 1098 1 1 1 

96008 AFW 0596 1 1 1 

97005 AFW 0397 1 1 1 

97025 AFW 0897 1 1 1 

96005 AFW 0896 1 1 1 

96003 AFW 1196 1 1 1 

97010 AFW 0597 1 2 2 

98006 AFW 0698 1 2 2 

98011 AFW 1098 1 2 2 

98002 AFW 0598 1 1 1 

97009 AFW 0997 1 1 1 

98002 AFW 0298 1 1 1 

97001 AFW 0597 1 1 1 

98001. AFW 0298 1 1 1 

96006 AFW 0596 1 1 1 

98014 AFW 0798 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0196 1 1 1
APPENDIX IV - TABLE IVA (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS (1996-1998)

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

83 389 

84 389 

85 395 

86 400 

87 400 

88 400 

89 400 

90 400 

91 414 

92 414 

93 414 

94 424 

95 424 

96 425 

97 425 

98 425 

99 425 

100 425 

101 425 

102 443 

103 443 

104 445 

105 482 

106 482 

107 498 

108 499 

109 499 

110 499 

111 499 

112 499 

113 528 

114 529

Totals:

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

96002 AFW 0696 1 1 1 

98006 AFW 0998 1 1 1 

97002 AFW 0497 1 1 1 

96008 AFW 0496 1 1 1 

96018 AFW 0996 1 1 1 

97001 AFW 0197 1 1 1 

97019 AFW 0797 1 1 1 

98007 AFW 1098 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0296 1 1 1 

97005 AFW 0697 1 1 1 

97006 AFW 0798 1 1 1 

96006 AFW 0596 1 1 1 

96012 AFW 1196 1 1 1 

96006 AFW 1096 1 1 1 

96008 AFW 1096 1 1 1 

98003 AFW 0598 1 1 1 

98005 AFW 0698 1 1 1 

98007 AFW 0898 1 1 1 

98008 AFW 0998 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0196 1 1 1 

98014 AFW 1298 1 1 1 

96002 AFW 0196 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0196 1 1 1 

96006 AFW 0696 1 1 1 

97012 AFW 1197 1 1 1 

97004 AFW 0397 1 - 1 1 

97005 AFW 0397 1 1 1 

97006 AFW 0497 1 1 1 

97007 AFW 1197 1 1 1 

98002 AFW 0998 1 1 1 

98002 AFW 0298 1 1 1 

96001 AFW 0196 1 1 1

130

IV-23
APPENDIX IV - TABLE V 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - RCIC SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

1 263 87003 RCIC 0487 1 1 1 

2 263 91019 RCIC 0891 1 1 1 

3 265 87013 RCIC 1087 1 1 1 

4 277 89012 RCIC 0589 1 1 1 

5 277 89033 RCIC 1289 1 1 1 

6 277 92010 RCIC 0792 1 1 1 

7 277 93004 RCIC 0393 1 1 1 

8 278 92008 RCIC 1092 1 1 1 

9 293 91024 RCIC 1091 1 1 1 

10 293 93004 RCIC 0893 1 1 1 

11 293 93022 RCIC 0993 1 1 1 

12 298 87003 RCIC 0187 1 1 1 

13 298 87009 RCIC 0287 1 1 1 

14 298 87011 RCIC 0587 1 1 1 

15 298 88021 RCIC 0888 1 1 1 

16 298 89011 RCIC 1089 1 1 1 

17 298 89026 RCIC 1189 1 1 1 

18 298 89033 RCIC 1289 1 1 1 

19 298 93038 RCIC 1293 1 1 1 

20 298 94004 RCIC 0394 1 1 1 

21 321 87011 RCIC 0787 1 1 1 

22 321 87013 RCIC 0887 1 1 1 

23 321 88013 RCIC 0988 1 1 1 

24 321 88018 RCIC 1288 1 1 1 

25 321 90013 RCIC 0690 1 1 1 

26 321 91001 RCIC 0191 1 1 1 

27 321 91017 RCIC 0991 1 1 1 

28 321 92021 RCIC 0892 1 1 1 

29 321 92024 RCIC 0992 1 1 1 

30 321 93013 RCIC 1093 1 1 1 

31 321 93016 RCIC 1293 1 1 1 

32 324 87001 RCIC 0187 1 1 1 

33 324 87004 RCIC 0387 1 1 1 

34 324 88018 RCIC 1188 1 1 1 

35 324 89009 RCIC 0689 1 1 1 

36 324 90009 RCIC 0890 1 1 1 

37 324 90015 RCIC 0990 4 1 4 

38 324 90016 RCIC 1090 4 1 4 

39 324 91001 RCIC 0191 1 1 1 

40 324 92001 RCIC 0292 1 1 1 

41 325 87019 RCIC 0787 1 1 1 

42 325 91009 RCIC 0391 1 1 1 

43 325 91018 RCIC 0791 1 1 1 

44- 325 92003 RCIC 0192 1 1 1 

45 325 92005 RCIC 0292 1 1 1 

46 325 95015 RCIC 0795 1 1 1 

47 325 95018 RCIC 0995 1 1 1 

48 331 87008 RCIC 0687 1 1 1 

49 331 89003 RCIC 0289 1 1 1 

50 331 89008 RCIC 0389 1 1 1 

51 333 89020 RCIC 1189 1 1 1 

52 333 90009 RCIC 0390 1 1 1

IV-24
APPENDIX IV - TABLE V (CONTINUED) 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - RCIC SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

53 333 93009 RCIC 0493 1 1 1 

54 333 95013 RCIC 0995 1 1 1 

55 341 87017 RCIC 0587 1 1 1 

56 341 87025 RCIC 0687 1 1 1 

57 341 88004 RCIC 0188 1 1 1 

58 341 92012 RCIC 1192 1 1 1 

59 341 93010 RCIC 0893 1 1 1 

60 341 95004 RCIC 0495 1 1 1 

61 352 87048 RCIC 0987 1 1 1 

62 352 91009 RCIC 0491 1 1 1 

63 353 90015 RCIC 0990 1 1 1 

64 353 93001 RCIC 0193 1 1 1 

65 353 94010 RCIC 1094 1 1 1 

66 354 87017 RCIC 0287 1 1 1 

67 354 87034 RCIC 0787 1 1 1 

68 354 87037 RCIC 0887 1 1 1 

69 354 87039 RCIC 0887 1 1 1 

70 354 88012 RCIC 0488 1 1 1 

71 354 88027 RCIC 1088 1 1 1 

72 354 88029 RCIC 1188 1 1 1 

73 354 90003 RCIC 0390 1 1 1 

74 366 87003 RCIC 0187 1 1 1 

75 366 87006 RCIC 0787 1 1 1 

76 366 87007 RCIC 0737 1 1 1 

77 366 87008 RCIC 0887 1 1 1 

78 366 87009 RCIC 0887 1 1 1 

79 366 88011 RCIC 0488 1 1 1 

80 366 88017 RCIC 0588 1 1 1 

81 366 88020 RCIC 0888 1 1 1 

82 366 89005 RCIC 0989 1 1 1 

83 366 92009 RCIC 0692 1 1 1 

84 366 95001 RCIC 0795 1 1 1 

85 373 92003 RCIC 0392 1 1 1 

86 373 92008 RCIC 0692 1 1 1 

87 373 93015 RCIC 0993 1 1 1 

88 374 92005 RCIC 0392 1 1 1 

89 374 92012 RCIC 0892 1 1 1 

90 374 92013 RCIC 0992 1 1 1 

91 374 92016 RCIC 1192 1 1 1 

92 374 94008 RCIC 1094 1 1 1 

93 374 94010 RCIC 1294 1 1 1 

94 374 95001 RCIC 0195 1 -1 1 

95 387 87013 RCIC 0487 1 1 1 

96 387 91008 RCIC 0791 1 1 1 

97 388 87006 RCIC 0487 1 1 1 

98 397 87002 RCIC 0387 1 1 1 

99 397 88003 RCIC 0288 1 1 1 

100 397 89002 RCIC 0189 1 1 1 

101 397 91032 RCIC 11/91 1 1 1 

102 397 93027 RCIC 0893 1 1 1 

103 397 95002 RCIC 0295 1 1 1 

104 410 88001 RCIC 0188 1 1 1

IV-25
APPENDIX IV - TABLE V (CONTINUED) 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - RCIC SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

105 410 88012 RCIC 0388 1 1 1 

106 410 88014 RCIC 0388 1 1 1 

107 410 89014 RCIC 0489 1 1 1 

108 410 91023 RCIC 1291 1 1 1 

109 416 89010 RCIC 0789 1 1 1 

110 416 89016 RCIC 1189 1 1 1 

111 416 90028 RCIC 1290 1 1 1 

112 416 91007 RCIC 0791 1 1 1 

113 416 95007 RCIC 0795 1 1 1 

114 416 95008 RCIC 0795 1 1 1 

115 440 87012 RCIC 0387 1 1 1 

116 440 87064 RCIC 0987 1 1 1 

117 440 87072 RCIC 1087 1 1 1 

118 440 88012 RCIC 0488 1 1 1 

119 440 90001 RCIC 0190 1 1 1 

120 440 92017 RCIC 0992 1 1 1 

121 440 95006 RCIC 0895 1 1 1 

122 440 95006 RCIC 0995 1 1 1 

123 440 95008 RCIC 0995 1 1 1 

124 458 88018 RCIC 0888 1 1 1 

125 458 88021 RCIC 0988 1 1 1 

126 458 89004 RCIC 0289 1 1 1 

127 458 89008 RCIC 0289 1 1 1 

128 461 87001 RCIC 0187 1 1 1

APPENDIX IV - TABLE VA 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - RCIC SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS (1996-1998) 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

1 260 97001 RCIC 0497 1 1 1 

2 271 98016 RCIC 0698 1 1 1 

3 296 96002 RCIC 0496 1 1 1 

4 296 96003 RCIC 0596 1 1 1 

5 333 96003 RCIC 0296 1 1 1 

6 333 99010 RCIC 0996 1 1 1 

7 333 98004 RCIC 0598 1 1 1 

8 333 98008 RCIC 0898 1 1 1 

9 366 97007 RCIC 0497 1 1 1 

10 366 97010 RCIC 1197 1 1 1 

11 388 96004 RCIC 0796 1 1 1 

12 397 98002 RCIC 0398 1 1 1 

13 397 98003 RCIC 0398 1 1 1 

14 416 98001 RCIC 0198 1 3 3 

15 440 97001 RCIC 0197 1 1 1 

16 440 98002 RCIC 0798 1 1 1

IV-26
APPENDIX IV - TABLE VI 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM LER PLANT EVENT NO.

NO. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50

DKT 

NO. 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

220 

237 

249 

260 

260 

263 

263 

265 

265 

265 

271 

277 

277 

277 

278 

278 

293 

293 

293 

293 

298 

298 

298 

298 

298 

298 

298 

321 

321 

321

NO. NO. TDP

NO. SYS. 

87014 HPC1 

87015 HPCI 

87016 HPCI 

87024 HPCI 

87028 HPCI 

90015 HPCI 

90017 HPCI 

90020 HPCI 

90026 HPCI 

91002 HPCI 

91012 HPCI 

91014 HPCI 

92003 HPCI 

92004 HPCI 

92008 HPCI 

92009 HPCI 

93002 HPCI 

94002 HPCI 

94005 HPCI 

94007 HPCI 

95002 HPCI 

90002 HPCI 

89001 HPCI 

90005 HPCI 

94004 HPCI 

87009 HPCI 

91009 HPCI 

87013 HPCI 

87017 HPCI 

88027 HPCI 

95009 HPCI 

89012 HPCI 

89033 HPCI 

93004 HPCI 

90008 HPCI 

92008 HPCI 

90013 HPCI 

91024 HPCI 

93004 HPCI 

93022 HPCI 

87003 HPCI 

87009 HPCI 

88021 HPCI 

89026 HPCI 

90011 HPCI 

93038 HPCI 

94004 HPCI 

87011 HPCI 

87013 HPCI 

88018 HPCI

DATE ESFs 

1087 1 

1087 1 

1087 1 

1287 1 

1287 1 

0790 1 

0890 1 

0890 1 

1190 1 

0291 1 

0991 1 

1291 1 

0592 1 

0292 1 

0492 1 

0892 1 

0193 1 

0494 1 

0794 1 

1194 1 

0495 1 

0190 1 

0389 1 

0590 1 

0494 1 

0487 1 

0491 1 

1087 1 

1187 1 

1188 1 

0495 1 

0589 1 

1289 1 

0393 1 

0790 1 

1092 1 

0990 1 

1291 1 

0894 1 

0993 1 

0187 1 

0287 1 

0888 1 

1189 1 

1090 1 

1293 1 

0394 1 

0787 1 

0887 1 

1288 1

IV-27

TDPs 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

DEMANDS 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1
APPENDIX IV - TABLE VI 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

51 321 89013 HPCI 0988 1 1 1 

52 321 90013 HPCI 0690 1 1 1 

53 321 91001 HPCI 0191 1 1 1 

54 321 91007 HPCI 0291 1 1 1 

55 321 91017 HPCI 0991 1 1 1 

56 321 92021 HPCI 0892 1 1 1 

57 321 92024 HPCI 0992 1 1 1 

58 321 93013 HPCI 1093 1 1 1 

59 321 93016 HPCI 1293 1 1 1 

60 324 87001 HPCI 0187 1 1 1 

61 324 87004 HPCI 0387 1 1 1 

62 324 88018 HPCI 1188 1 1 1 

63 324 89001 HPCI 0289 1 1 1 

64 324 89009 HPCI 0689 1 1 1 

65 324 90009 HPCI 0890 1 1 1 

66 324 90015 HPCI 0990 1 1 1 

67 324 90016 HPCI 1090 1 1 1 

68 324 91001 HPCI 0191 1 1 1 

69 324 91017 HPCI 0991 1 1 1 

70 324 91021 HPCI 1291 1 1 1 

71 324 92001 HPCI 0292 1 1 1 

72 325 87017 HPCI 0687 1 1 1 

73 325 87019 HPCI 0787 1 1 1 

74 325 91009 HPCI 0391 1 1 1 

75 325 91018 HPCI 0791 1 1 1 

76 325 92003 HPCI 0192 1 1 1 

77 325 94015 HPCI 1294 1 1 1 

78 325 95015 HPCI 0795 1 1 1 

79 325 95018 HPCI 0995 1 1 1 

80 331 89003 HPCI 0289 1 1 1 

81 331 89011 HPCI 0889 1 1 1 

82 333 90009 HPCI 0390 1 1 1 

83 333 93009 HPCI 0493 1 1 1 

84 333 95013 HPCI 0995 1 1 1 

85 341 88004 HPCI 0188 1 1 1 

86 341 92012 HPCI 1192 1 1 1 

87 341 93010 HPCI 0893 1 1 1 

88 341 95004 HPCI 0495 1 1 1 

89 352 87042 HPCI 0687 1 1 1 

90 352 87048 HPCI 0987 1 1 1 

91 352 91018 HPCI 0791 1 1 1 

92 353 89013 HPCI 1189 1 1 1 

93 353 90006 HPCI 0390 1 1 1 

94 353 93005 HPCI 0393 1 1 1 

95 353 94010 HPCI 1094 1 1 1 

96 353 95006 HPCI 0395 1 1 1 

97 354 87017 HPCI 0287 1 1 1 

98 354 87030 HPCI 0787 1 1 1 

99 354 87034 HPCI 0787 1 1 1 

100 354 87037 HPCI 0887 1 1 1 

101 354 87039 HPCI 0887 1 1 1

IV-28
APPENDIX IV - TABLE VI (CONTINUED) 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS

ITEM DKT 

NO. NO. 

102 354 

103 354 

104 354 

105 354 

106 354 

107 354 

108 354 

109 354 

110 366 

111 366 

112 366 

113 366 

114 366 

115 366 

116 366 

117 366 

118 366 

119 366 

120 366 

121 366 

122 387 

123 388

LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

88012 HPCI 0488 1 1 1 

88022 HPCI 0888 1 1 1 

88027 HPCI 1088 1 1 1 

88029 HPCI 1188 1 1 1 

90003 HPCI 0390 1 1 1 

90029 HPCI 1190 1 1 1 

91008 HPCI 0591 1 1 1 

91017 HPCI 0891 1 1 1 

87003 HPCI 0187 1 1 1 

87006 HPCI 0787 1 1 1 

87008 HPCI 0487 1 1 1 

87009 HPCI 0887 1 1 1 

88011 HPCI 0488 1 1 1 

88017 HPCI 0588 1 1 1 

88020 HPCI 0888 1 1 1 

89005 HPCI 0989 1 1 1 

90001 HPCI 0190 1 1 1 

92009 HPCI 0692 1 1 1 

94007 HPCI 0894 1 1 1 

95001 HPCI 0795 1 1 1 

91008 HPCI 0791 1 1 1 

87006 HPCI 0487 1 1 1

APPENDIX IV - TABLE VIA 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLIES - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCES - ESF DEMANDS (1996-1998) 

ITEM DKT LER PLANT EVENT NO. NO. NO. TDP 

NO. NO. NO. SYS. DATE ESFs TDPs DEMANDS 

1 220 96004 HPCI 0596 1 1 1 

2 220 96011 HPCI 1196 1 1 1 

3 249 96004 HPCI 0596 1 1 1 

4 260 97001 HPCI 0497 1 1 1 

5 265 97001 HPCI 0297 1 1 1 

6 293 96005 HPCI 0496 1 1 1 

7 296 96002 HPCI 0496 1 1 1 

8 296 96003 HPCI 0596 1 1 1 

9 333 96003 HPCI 0296 1 1 1 

10 333 96010 HPCI 0996 1 1 1 

11 333 98004 HPCI 0598 1 1 1 

12 333 98008 HPCI 0898 1 1 1 

13 352 98001 HPCI 0198 1 1 1 

14 366 97007 HPCI 0497 1 3 3 

15 366 97010 HPCI 1197 1 1 1 

16 388 96004 RCIC 0796 1 1 1

IV-29
ITEM 

NO. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50

PLANT PI. 

ID NO. SY, 

I AF 

2 AF/ 

6 AFV 

8 AF

10 AF 

13 AF• 

16 AF 

19 AF• 

20 AF• 

21 AF• 

23 AF• 

24 AF• 

27 AF• 

28 AF 

29 AF 

30 Af 

31 AF 

32 AF 

33 AF• 

35 AP 

38 AF 

39 AF 

40 AP 

41 AP 

42 AP 

43 AF 

44 AP 

45 AP 

46 AF 

47 AF 

48 AP 

49 AF 

51 AF 

54 AF 

55 AF1 

58 AF 

59 AF 

60 AF 

61 AF 

62 AF 

64 AF 

65 AF 

66 AF 

70 AF 

71 AF 

72 AF 

74 AF 

75 AF 

76 AF 

79 AF

IV-30

APPENDIX IV - TABLE VII 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLY - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS 

ESTIMATED SURVEILLANCE TEST DEMANDS 

ANT NO. SURV TST DEMANDS NO. YRS/ 

STEM TDPS FREQ/YR PER YR PERIOD 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 2 4 8 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 4 4 9 

N 3 12 36 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 4 4 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 4 4 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 4 4 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 4 4 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 2 12 24 9 

W 2 12 24 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

N 1 4 4 9 

W 1 4 4 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

N 1 12 12 9 

W 1 4 4 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

N 2 12 24 9 

N 2 4 8 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

V 1 4 4 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9 

W 1 12 12 9

SYS TOTAL 

TDP-DEM. 

108 

72 

108 

36 

324 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

36 

108 

108 

108 

108 

36 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

36 

108 

36 

108 

108 

216 

216 

108 

36 

36 

108 

108 

36 

108 

108 

216 

72 

108 

108 

36 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108
APPENDIX IV - TABLE VII (CONTINUED) 

PWR TDP ASSEMBLY - AFW SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS 

ESTIMATED SURVEILLANCE TEST DEMANDS 

TEM PLANT PLANT NO. SURV TST DEMANDS NO. YRS/ SYS TOTAL 

10. ID NO. SYSTEM TDPS FREQIYR PER YR PERIOD TDP-DEM. 

i1 82 AFW 1 12 12 9 108 

52 83 AFW 1 4 4 9 36

53 85 AFW 

54 87 AFW 

55 88 AFW 

56 89 AFW 

57 91 AFW 

58 92 AFW 

59 93 AFW 

60 95 AFW 

61 96 AFW 

62 103 AFW 

63 104 AFW 

64 105 AFW 

65 106 AFW 

66 107 AFW 

67 108 AFW 

68 109 AFW

Totals:

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1

4 

12 

12 

12 

12 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

12 

4 

4 

4

1 4 

1 4

4 

12 

12 

12 

12 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

12 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4

8.7 

8.1 

9 

9 

9 

8.6 

6.6 

5.3 

5.3 

9 

9 

6.5 

7.7 

9 

9 

8

75

35 

97 

108 

108 

108 

34 

26 

21 

21 

36 

108 

26 

31 

36 

36 

32 

6227

IV-31

I1 _N 

5 

5
APPENDIX IV - TABLE VIII 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLY - RCIC SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS

ITEM PLANT PLANT 

NO. ID NO. SYSTEM 

1 12 RCIC 

2 14 RCIC 

3 15 RCIC 

4 17 RCIC 

5 18 RCIC 

6 22 RCIC 

7 25 RCIC 

8 26 RCIC 

9 34 RCIC 

10 36 RCIC 

11 37 RCIC 

12 50 RCIC 

13 52 RCIC 

14 53 RCIC 

15 56 RCIC 

16 57 RCIC 

17 63 RCIC 

18 67 RCIC 

19 68 RCIC 

20 69 RCIC 

21 73 RCIC 

22 77 RCIC 

23 78 RCIC 

24 80 RCIC 

25 81 RCIC 

26 84 RCIC 

27 86 RCIC 

28 90 RCIC 

29 94 RCIC 

30 101 RCIC 

31 102 RCIC

Totals: 31 1803

IV-32

ESTIMATED SURVEILLANCE TEST DEMANDS 

NO. SURV TST DEMANDS NO. YRS/ SYS TOTAL 

TDPS FREQOYR PER YR PERIOD TDP-DEM 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 4 4 7 28 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 5.9 24 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 12 12 9 108 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 7.7 31 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 8.1 32 

1 4 4 9 36 

1 4 4 8.1 32
ITEM PLANT PLAI 

NO. ID NO. SYSI 

1 3 HPCI 

2 4 HPCI 

3 5 HPCI 

4 7 HPCI 

5 9 HPCI 

6 12 HPCI 

7 14 HPCI 

8 15 HPCI 

9 17 HPC 

10 18 HPC 

11 22 HPC 

12 25 HPC 

13 26 HPC 

14 34 HPC 

15 36 HPC 

16 37 HPC 

17 50 HPC 

18 52 HPC 

19 53 HPC 

20 56 HPC 

21 57 HPC 

22 63 HPC 

23 67 HPC 

24 68 HPC 

25 69 HPC 

26 73 HPC 

27 80 HPC 

28 81 HPC

Totals:

APPENDIX IV - TABLE IX 

BWR TDP ASSEMBLY - HPCI SYSTEM DATA SOURCE INPUTS 

ESTIMATED SURVEILLANCE TEST DEMANDS 

4T NO. SURV TST DEMANDS NO. YRSI 

TEM TDPS FREQ/YR PER YR PERIOD 

1 12 12 9 

1 4 4 9 

1 12 12 9 

1 4 4 9 

1 12 12 9 

1 1 4 4 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 4 4 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 4 4 9 

1 4 4 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

I 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 12 12 9 

1 1 4 4 7 

1 1 4 4 9 

1 1 4 4 5.9 

1 1 4 4 9 

1 1 4 4 9 

1 1 4 4 9

1 4 4 9

28

IV-33

2068

SYS TOTAL 

TDP-DEM 

108 

36 

108 

36 

108 

36 

108 

36 

108 

36 

36 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

28 

36 

24 

36 

36 

36 

36

I
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER 

(2-89) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.. 

NRCM 1102, BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET and Addendum Numbers, if any.) 

3201, 3202 BBIGAHCDT HE 

3201 3202E ANDSUBTITLE(see instructions on the reverse) NUREG-715, Vol. 1 

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Component Performance Study - Turbine-Driven Pumps, 1987-1998 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED 

MONTH F YEAR 

April 2000 

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 

5. AUTHOR(S) 

6. TYPE OF REPORT 

Technical 

J.R. Houghton, H.G. Hamzehee Tcncl 

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates) 

January 1987 - December 1998 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor, 

provide name and mailing address.) 

Division of Risk Analysis and Applicaiton 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above; if contractor, provioe fI4R uivision, fvrine or -Y_", -.o. u y . 

and mailing address.)

Same as above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This report documents an analysis of the performance of safety-related turbine-driven pump assemblies (turbine-driver, pump, 

and governor subcomponents) used in the pressurized water reactor (PWR) auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system and in the 

boiling water reactor (BWR) reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) and high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) systems in U.S. 

commercial power reactor plants. 

A risk-based analysis of operating data and an engineering analysis of trends and patterns was performed to provide insights 

into the performance of turbine-driven pump components on an industry basis and comparison of results with data used by 

plant-specific probabilistic risk assessments. The data used in this report was from the 1987-1995 period for engineering 

analysis of the PWR AFW system and BWR RCIC and HPCl systems. Failure probability estimates used combined 

engineered safety features data (1987-1998) and surveillance test data (1987-1995).

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

unlimited 

Turbine Driven Pump 14 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

Probability of Failure (.is PESe) 

Failure unclassified 

Demand 

Surveillance Test (This Report) 

Licensee Event Report/LER unclassified 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)
Federal Recycling Program
NUREG-1715, Vol. 1 ArtL 2101 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE STUDY - "UKBt4-u1v Lfl ruivtwa, 1?5/-ItW8

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

SPECIAL STANDARD MAIL 

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 

USNRC 

PERMIT NO. G-67