ML19263C431

Monthly Operating Rept for Jan 1979

ML19263C431
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	02/13/1979
From:	Shively C ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19263C408	List: ML19263C407 ML19263C431
References
NUDOCS 7902220107
Download: ML19263C431 (5)

Text

.

AVER AGE D AILY UNIT P0hER LEVEL 9

DOCKEI NO.10-368 I! Nil ANO-2 DATE 02:13-79 CO\1PLETED BY C._N. Shivein TELEPilONE SQL-96& ?919 MONTil Jamay DAY AVERAGE DAILY POWER LEVEL DAY AVER AGE DAILY POWER LEVEL

(\lWe-Net ) ( MWe-Net )

I 87 17 86 2 '7 is 90 3 0 39 51 4 3 20 91 5 56 21 95 6 Il 22 91 7 5 ._

23 92 8 82 24 93 9 R1 25 93 10 Ga 26 92 11 50 2' 93 12 83 33 93 13 85 _ 29 92 14 On 93 30 15 91 31 41 16 89 INSTRUCTIONS On this f ormat.htt the au ge daily unit power laelin \lwe Net for each day in the reporting month. Compute to the nearest whole nwgawut.

01/771 7902220/67

OPERATING DATA REPORT DOCKE c NO. 50-368 DATE D2-13-79 COMPLETED BY C. N. Shively TELEPliONE 501-968-2519 OPERATING STATUS Notes

1. Unit Name: Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2

2. Reporting Period: January 1-31, 1979

3. Licensed Thennal Powei (Mh t): 2815

4. Nameplate Rating (Gross MWe): 959

5. Dedgn Electrical Rating (Net MWe,: 0t'

6. Maximum Dependable Capacity (' Gross MWe): NA

7. Maxinurr Dependable Capacity (Net MWe): N\ -

M. If Changes Occur in Capacity Ratings (Items Number 3 Through 7)Since Last Report.Gise Reasons:

Nonn

9. Power Lesel To Which Restricted. If Any (Net MWe): Nonc

10. Reasons For Restrictions,if Any. NA This Month Yr..to.Date Cumulative i1. Ilours in Reporting Pe-iod 744.0 744.0 1488.0

12. Number Of flours Res. tor Was Critical 679 R 679.8 1114.7

13. Reactor Resene Shutdc,wn flours 2.7 2.7 144.9

14. Ilours Generator On-Line 602.0 602.0 654.8

15. Unit Resene Shutdown flours 1.1 1.1 1.1

16. Gross Thermal Energy Generated (MWll) 321275.0 321275.0 365853.0 17 Gross Electrical Energy Generated (MWll) 7 0 0 ?1..Q. __ , 70021.0 _ 75588.0

18. Net Electrical Energy Generated (MWil) 52357.0 52357.0 56341.0

19. Unit Service Factor  %

20. Unit Asailability Factor )

21. Unit Capacity Factor (Using MDC Net) / O tint U_Commnrcin1 Oneration

22. Unit Capacity Factor (Using DER Net) b

23. Unit Forced Outage Rate _l

24. Shutdowns Scheduled Oser Next 6 Months (T)pe, Date,and Duration of Eacht:

NA

25. If Shut Down At End Of Report Period Estimated Date of Startup: J

26. Units in Test Status (Prior to Commercial Operation): Forecast Achiesed INITIA L CRITICALITY 12- 5-78 INIII A L ELECTRICITY -

12-26-78 COMMERCI AL OPER AllON 4-5-79 -

N/77 )

DOCKET NO. 50-368 ,

UNIT SHUTDOWNS AND POWER REDUCTIONS UNIT NAME ANO-2 DATE 02-13-79 COMPLETED BY E N- Snivnly REDORT MONTH Jannsrv TELEPHONE ;ni _uq_xig_ _

Na Dat e 3

5?

3g 3 -

jq5 I Licensee Event h! k g? E '?

Cause & Corrective Action to fE s 3g; e  ;

Report a mL u

E' Prevent Recurrence d,

79-1 790102 F 57.7 A 1 NA 1I11 Turbin blain Feedwater Pump Trip 79-2 790104 F 7.7 A 1 NA IIA Turbin Main Turbine liigh Bearing Vibration 79-3 790105 F 42.4 A 3 NA IA Instru Irratic CPC Operation 79-4 790110 F 12.9 A 1 NA IIA Turbin Main Turbim liigh Bearing Vibration 79-5 790119 F 10.4 A 3 NA lill NA Low SG Level due to Feedwater Pump Trip 79-6 790131 S 1.1 B NA NA IIA NA Turbine Overspeed Testing 79-7 790131 F 9.8 A 3 NA IIII NA liigh SG Level Received While Pla.-ing Feedwater Regulation Valve in Service 1 3 4 F: Fo r.e J Reason : Method: Exhibir G - Inst ructions S: Sc ht d .iie d A Equipment Failure (Explain) 1 -Man ual for Preparation of Data B-Maintenance of Test 2-Manual Scram- Entry Sheets for Licensee C Refueling 3 Automatic Stram- Event Report (LE R) File (NtiRI G.

D-Regulatory Restriction 4-Other ( Explam) 0161) 1.-Operator Training & Ucense Examination F- Ad minist ra t ive 5 G-Operat onal Error (Explaia) Exhibit I - Sam: Source (9/77) 11-01her ( Explain )

_ REFUELING INFORMATION

1. Name of facility. Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2

2. Scheduled date for next refueling shutdown. 03_o1_g0

3. Scheduled date for restart following refueling. 06-01-80

4. Will refueling or resumption of operation thereafter require a technical specification change or other license amendment?

If answer is yes, what, in general, will these be?

If answer is no, has the reload fuel design and core cc7 figuration been reviewed by your Plant Safety Review Committee to determine whether any unreviewed safety questions are ascociated with the core reload (Ref. 10 CFR Section 50.59)?

/rs nescrintion of effects of new core loading.

(

5. Scheduled date(s) for submitting proposed licensing action and supporting information. 01-01-hu

6. Important licensing considerations associated with refueling, e.g.,

new or different fuel design or supplier, unreviewed design or performance analysis methods, significant changes in fuel design, new operating procedures.

None 7.

The number of fuel assemblics (a) in the core and (b) in the spent fuel storage pool, a) 177 b) 0

8. The present licensed spent fuel pool storage capacity and tLa size 2 of any increase in licensed storage capacity that has been requested or is planned, in number of fuel assemblies, present 486 increase size by 0

9. The projected date of the last refueling that can be discharged '

to the opent fuel pool assuming the present licenced capacity.

DATE: March. 1988

k NCR MONTilLY OPERATING REPORT Operating Summary - January, 1979 Unit II The Unit continued with the 20% reactor power test plateau throughout the month with numerous unplanned trips. None of the outages resulted in excessive downtimes. No significant deficiencies were identified with respect to the Power Escalation Test Program.

There were fifteen occurrences during the month of . January. Three of the occurrences were due to a frozen Reactor Makeup Water Tank Level Transmitter. Six occurrences were related to Core Protection Calculator problems requiring plant operation with the CPC's in bypass for short periods of time. Plant Protection System instrumentation failures caused two occurrences. The four remaining occurrences involved the CEA Calculators, Reactor Protection System, Sodium flydroxide System and the Safety Injection Tanks. In all cases, the requirements of the Technical Specification Action Statements were met.

e