Advertisement

Pumps On vs. Pumps Off during Recovery

  • Ausaf Husain
  • L. Schor
  • J. Ghaus

Abstract

The subject of Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) operation during a small break loss-of-coolant accident has been the topic of considerable discussion in the nuclear industry. NRC bulletins issued in April, 1979 required at least one Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) per loop to remain in operation. Subsequent bulletins issued in July, 1979 required immediate tripping of all RCPs upon reactor trip and Safety Injection Actuation Signals (SIAS). The NRC reinforced this tripping criteria by requiring licensees to install equipment that automatically trips the RCPs on SIAS. However, more recently, the NRC has eliminated the automatic trip criteria due to the concerns raised by the nuclear industry and the ACRS. At present, the NRC’s position is that the need for pump trips following a transient or accident should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The ultimate safety of the plant, the staff, and protection of the surrounding environment should be paramount in determining whether RCPs should continue to operate or be shutdown. Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) is performing plant-specific pump trip studies for the Yankee Plant at Rowe and the Maine Yankee Plant. This paper presents the primary objectives and strategy for these studies and a brief discussion of Yankee Atomic’s overall involvement in the pump trip area.

Keywords

Small Break Primary System Break Flow Pressurize Water Reactor Reactor Coolant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    “Generic Assessment of Delayed Reactor Coolant Pump Trip During Small Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accidents in Pressurized Water Reactors”, NUREG-0623, November 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Letter, Paul S. Check, USNRC to W. P. Johnson, YAEC, “Prediction Requirements for LOFT Test L3-6”, dated June 26, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. T. L. Dao and J. M. Carpenter, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Nuclear Small Break Experiment L3-5/L3-5A”, NUREG/CR-1695, EGG-2060, November 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. D. Bayless and J. M. Carpenter, “Experiment Data Report for LOFT Nuclear Small Break Experiment L3-6 and Severe Core Transient Experiment L8-1”, NUREG/CR-1868, EGG-2075, January 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keith G. Condie, et al., “Four-Inch Equivalent Break Loss-Of-Coolant Experiments: Post-Test Analysis of LOFT Experiments L3-1, L3-5 (Pumps Off) and L3-6 (Pumps On)”, EGG-LOFT-5480, October 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. L. Elliott, “Effects of the Reactor Coolant Pumps After a Small Break in a Westinghouse Reactor”, Proceedings on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics, Volume 1, American Nuclear Society, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Safety Code Development Group, “TRAC-PD2: An Advanced Best-Estimate Computer Program for Pressurized Water Reactor Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analysis”, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-8709-MS, May 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. T. Fernandez, et al., “RELAP5YA: A Computer Program for Light Water Reactor System Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis”, YAEC-1300P, October 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Resolution of TMI Action Item U.K. 3.5, “Automatic Trip of Reactor Coolant Pumps” (USNRC Generic Letter No. 83-10a).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ausaf Husain
    • 1
  • L. Schor
    • 1
  • J. Ghaus
    • 1
  1. 1.Yankee Atomic Electric CompanyFraminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations