ML20023A533

ECCS Repts (F-47) TMI Action Plan Requirements,Jm Farley Nuclear Plant,Unit 1, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20023A533
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	10/05/1982
From:	Ludington B, Overbeck G, Vosbury F FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Chow E NRC
Shared Package
ML20023A534	List: ML20023A533
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.K.3.17, TASK-TM TER-C5506-274, NUDOCS 8210080200
Download: ML20023A533 (15)

Text

. _ . _ .

• ,. . n . - . _ . .W.~g - " " '

-- .w--

' ' M* N* #* ~* .a ~ , e~.,e-. d n-

' 4. . ?,Wue Vif, gs .,en

_ w. . .w' w.

'c*,.

• ;*I} 3.,?.V sfh'.,Qt 4**s,. .n* **',**.''..4.-.

~1 hib* J,4 m, .M*

e .? t ,*

%f. s. .,*

..f. l jy,4 .. v.yn .' ;, c.'.m .,* W' % M (*;* ? .!&.,. .JC, x.

h; s.'. -,*. y.*f',' > W'i.' .y<.&. ' ? '" u. *.s'D'~ , .. ; . rJo'.

. .' '.o. . },~,*'a ~ 5

.l" * .' ='. ** */ W.,*.ne.

. .". .a.4

'J ; ,

1* < ' '. * ** ' '

. . 4/. :.  :.

als, ;l4 %..w. . e.;, .~@~. yy..w?w, :L'. ,'.;.:

T Dm s c.,.x . e M.a :W*..=.d '~4'%. " ., 3

- A v..s e. '... . .: v,s.'.<?. ~ , . . ..

. 'P .

~ . , . - - t f.  :

,.*.6,-

g. ,'; ...~.

.v . - r>-

. s t* *

. '. e;.-:p} Q.;y,,,.a*.r.L.

d' * .

jg d,j.%! .h'] . ' e .: -:f V- ;~' .*g

. ;.,;;*{';. ,',

f,.f .

7.MGFWdhn,, fpgg . /,'(.q'

.iCANVALd TION REPORT n

a.mm.:W' m. . , ,,.hj. .n. . . -u . .:n n. .

m.

• .x M

&C?a%..,4 *** l

.d.l7.b' W.v.e'? -

u S: Ww.N,m&.;. c.m V?:( 'q* W.".W :i; .N'.h. <.: ~lgl,..

su

. EC CS R EP O RTS (F-47) . .d.w

. . , f .- - ,

M:f 9

.- .m:-w.=.+;a.:www.g . . . < wM 4;s & TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

m - @ % w s. q w

c c m m . / W .W:g G R & : ? MMM@G # .S M f Ml 0 v%g R.y ALABAMA POWER COMPANL .b eiMWRW.be@9'MM M  :%W#UM% GMM.W4%.%kQ.&V@hW k l

M dOSEPH Ei< FARLEYJUCLEAR PLANT lUNLT 1 C'

- s

,s .- L. .s .. 1 NRCDOCKETNO. 50-348 ' FRC PROJECT C5506 7."i c.a. ..;c... 2....' -.t... . :. ' .' e

. s.. .e.,. . r

v. . .

' . ,.. .! ", w J FRC ASSIGNMENT 7

..c...

- NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 .

FRCTASK 274

- m ' ;. , . . ; . t:. ... ; .;v - ' *

.- . > . ~. . . c.n, . .w. .;. .

z-1  ;

+. . .. . . ,

.c- . ' . , .~. a .4, . 4

. QPrepredy .,.a. ,),[-)M .L&%g* y. .[...m:Dh f'ty;['C.Wg . .): c.'

..y,,..+ a- A....

,; c .r. . - . . .. Author:

. 3verb. ec.ir..T. . w: . ',.*?. .; , .-

.l ;g,.! Franklin ReseerettCenter r?J *QWtig$s. v v . .FJ W. Tosbu.ry ' y c;-

W:I .A 3.0ttiand Race.Stfee'ts .. . .

5. .w,W. dN. s'%r 4'W.'J,3,-m.s,h s. .. /'E.d.. if.Sl T.B.?..W' Ludington. ..

~ QPhiladelphia,

"' . w PA 19103,y,...w'Fj:y.j . pp"M FRCGroup Leader: "G^.'J. Overbeck

.; .%. W 1l~..:2 .wt .- m%.. . , . ~: ;' % f. -'.~J'. '

.(- z.

. "?'*Y

. 9; Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

w.h$?hYS.l~ : #~ ?#M '".~.lE. *'

, ' i

t. sad.NRC

~~

' I L~

Engineer:

E. Chow? L. ..;' ,. .

~ N, O'y.,Wa. = W..:.. Mt' ' r!.- i ' . ?~v. 7-

. Ms..~: hington, > . , . D.CJ 20555.

. . . x . c .- . w .s s:

.~. ;:.g v

s,. -w%.

< , .:. , e ~. z.-  ;> q -.i.:.. .'

m. n..,n.ut.4,, u..,..a u;,. 3 ..s;+.y: v. ;;z..;

e- -,:'.;.J. W.,p:n, . - ,, , ; ' m,, .

.w

• a r .z .n

.- Q.e *....pw .,;s ,.+. w.f;r ,+e,p., g.g;t.

- -;. . .y

..p j.' . ..,.,...m...

,i,:y u :. , .

,.s.

, -m; ,

vw '%a 4 4

., 2 .

s ~ s

- ,r.

- r

- .'. *m...'.

,W,. &@,y. ..

- - ~

f [s.'.- Qt ..%L . f,j ,cy p '.-'.0ctober ~

5;; . .1'982 ,.  ;

7

. 3 ,*

.Rg .

e.

' .<,.. .Q:r..;&. ..

.w' ' f %,

V. y.%g. s,,.4 8

u.

.a Q.....ta..'

.f.4. p ,/,s

h. :

n~ 4'b * * .

,.e.,.

f

_~ .

., p.r ?r. . m. .ny .. s

.w ...-*,;+.,,g. . '.-. , .;g.. - u - ~

. " " . ~, a

.~ -lpy -+; n..~r

. w< 1.- -

m . .- ' . .

, ..P.d Q.~ZRl W ..'

s f % .. ^* W .. .

,'. ,(

- , # * ~ '4 f.'XQ.'Og('5% ~

'\'f -N . / *[ ',, *- 4.* A, .- . . M ,.d

' ,. 9s , * ' ; ~

l'L This report was prepared as an account of.viork sponsored by an agency of the United States f 43'iGovernmentiNnither the United States Government nor M any age

"..'Jemployees, makes any warranty. expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or

-' - ' responsibility for any third party's use or the results of such use of any Infonnation appa

, 7/. +

. .idratus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third . tr

• % party would notinfringe

~ . ,. ,. . . . as,.g . ,~. ., ,,r gs privately owned rights.7 .- .

.s5> .*

, [. h,y f '.,W

. : y g,1,, .

g. . .N.e e.. . g .t . . .-3 . . v, .!,. ;N. ,e ~, . < , '

J.J ..~-3",'.-*,e.*z.

Xp ,,+,f ,,. *%_ t_ ,Ty's%,jaA 9s*-rp4,.s.t. J 6 * -n.; *' ** *'.f.,.e. ..,r'.

.. e, .,. .j as .g.h , We>>

• hch%. ; .

' s -"

• f s- 1 .

. - . ; '.~;.' r'.?g ,.

W 4's. ; .s

'L. p: . i S, .sa: Pr>, " u'w&. qu;;.nO'i G ,&

? "*W S;4*'.  :

?.M. ..$.m.y: t. .pJa ;S R .

ns- .3.A.yl.W.t-

z. c..; 'M..%y:,.'

• O@> . .. m W ef w w.c : ww. . , . x,:y

.m,,. s+.c .m. ,;4.w, .

e 1< ;m..

.y ' < <. .* . et. *w. . c. ..- g.. .. v.s* *.*.g .,c, .;.

, yg,.- M,z . g. . . a,A..h,  ; ,; V,, .~ ,.

l .

,.,,,-- . *s

. v y* . ,-l..-'.

?

'g.,,

• 1 . ,N g4 . n-,.Q q j;...sh">.--.

. ., . - . f l.'.

p...

m c. ~ , ,c . **'. . : ~.

. J -.,: , . . 1 **3.-  : . *'4

• r

.  ; . ,- . ,~

.f, -

. s. f .. ;.. ~ .w. . . .

. . /. t ,

~

'm---

+ -

3-ar- ..

.o

2. _.

_ . m. . m.

c Franklin Research Center vA A r7

. ".. ... . s . A Division of The Fran} din Institute

, , . . ,-p-f- .

_g, e - f;;

.. . _, ;The Benestem Frannsn Pensway. PMs Pa. 19103 (21S) 448.t 000 t Copyfia,sBeen;Sent tp PDD.w.f f .. ,.gp, m-] g.-

Y.

...,w. . . . , . .

.,_w .. m ____- _1 1 1 * - ' d a #-- e <~ ' -'*"- -

--'.>_- w=.-'--

m _- -

1

. . 1 l

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ECCS REPORTS (F-47)

TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS ALABAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH E. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-348 FRC PROJECT C5506 FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC43-81 130 FRC TASK 274 .

Prepared by a, y, o,,,yeeg Franklin Research Center Author: F. W. Vosbury 20th and Race Streets 3. ~4. Ludington Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: G. J. Overbeck Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Comrnission Lead NRC Engineer: E. Chow Washington. D.C. 20555 October 5, 1982 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof. or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied. or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's usa, or the results of such use, of any information. appa-racus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by:

. ,h .

Principal Aufhor

/

Group ~ Le'ader

~

Wh nv = l oepartment Dire / tor j Date lD"f~ U Date' D~SU Date: '*~ M L 4

Franklin Research Center A Division of The Frar.klin Institute The Bemermn Frarven Panevey, Ptula. Pa. 19103(215)448 1000 l

TER-C550 6-274 CotrN NTS l

Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Cenecic Background. .. . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 2 2 REVIEW CRITERI A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 'ITCHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Iteview of Completeness cf the Licensee's Report . . . 4 3.2 Comparison of ECC System cutages with '! hose of Other Plants. . . . . . . . . 4 3.3 Review of Proposed Changes to Improve the Availability of ECC Equipment . . . #. . . . . 6 4 CONCLUSICNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 iii 8,Gb JUJ Franklin Research Center 4 % or ne rrmea -

I l

TER-C5506-274 FOREWORD l

his 'Mchnical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. mclear Regulatory Commission (Office of 4

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assistance in support of NBC operating reactor licensing actions. Se technical evaluation was conducted *in accordance with criteria established by the NBC.

Mr. G. J. Overbeck, Mr. F. W. Vosbury, and Mr. B. W. Ludington contributed to the technical preparation of this report through a subcontract with WESTEC Services, Inc.

i l

l I

v l W-m l

l ddud 4 mFranklin Research C. enter ee Th. F mn

N TER-C5506-274 i

1. INTRODUCTION l.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEN This technical evaluation report (TER) documents an independent review of

', the outages of the emergency core cooling (ECC) systems at Alabama Power f- Company's (AP) Farley Nucleat Plant Unit 1. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if the Licensee has subastted a report that is complete and satisfies the requirements of 1MI Action Item II.K.3.17, " Report on Outages of i

l anergency Core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes.*

1.2 GENERIC BACKGROUND Fellowing the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident, the Bulletins and Orders i Task Force reviewed nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendors' small break loss-of-coolant accident (IDCA) analyses to ensure that an adequate basis existed for developing guidelines for small break IDCA emergency procedures.

During these reviews, a concern developed about the assumption of the worst single failure. Typically, the small break ICCA analysis for boiling water reactors (BWRs) assumed a loss of the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system as the worst single failure. However, the technical specifications permitted plant operation for substantial periods with the HPCI system out of service with no limit on the accumulated outage time. There is concern not only about the HPCI system, but also about all ECC systems for which substantial outages might occur within the limits of the present technical specification. Therefore, to ensure that the small break IDCA analyses are consistent with the actual plant response, the Bulletin and Orders Task Force I recommended in NUREG-0626 [1], " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break Ioss-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Thra Operating License Applications," that licensees of General Electric (GE)-designed NSSSs do the following: .

" Submit a report detailing outage dates and lengths of the outages for all ECC systems. The report should also include the cause of the outage (e.g., controller failure or spurious isolation) . The outage data for l

l

_rankan Rese_ arch

. _ Center l .

TER-C5506-274 ECC components should include all outages for the last five years of operation. The end result should be the quantification of historical unreliability due to test and maintenance outages. This will establish if a need exists for cumulative outage requirements in technical specifications."

Later, the recommendation was incorporated into NUREG-0660 (2), "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the MI-2 Accident," for all GE-designed plants as MI Action Item II.K.3.17. In NUREG-0737 [3], " Clarification of TMI betion Plan Requirements," the NRC staff expanded this actior. item to include all PWRs and added a requirement that licensees propose changes that will improve and control availability of ECC systems and components. In addition, the contents of the reports to be submitted by the licensees were further clarified as follows:

"Se . report . sh,m t ri ~= i a (1) outage dates and duration of outages (2) cause of the outages (3) ECC systems or components involved in the outages and (4) corrective action taken."

1.3 PLAN!'-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND on January 14, 1981 [4), AP submitted a report in response to NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17, " Report on* Outages of Snergency Core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes." On August 2, 1982 [5],

AP submitted a second report in response to a request for additional information from the NBC. The reports submitted by AP covered the period from December 1,1977 through December 31, 1980 for Farley -Unit 1. AP did not propose any changes for improving the availability of specific ECC equipment.

SU Franklin Research Center 4 cm .e n. r en == a l

I

, TER-C5506-274

2. REVIDt CRITERIA

(

The I.icensee's response to NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17, was evaluated against criteria provided by the NRC in a letter dated July 21, 1981 [6]

outlining Tentative Work Assignieent F. Provided as review criteria in Paference 5, the NRC stated that the I.icensee's response should contain the following information:

1. A r'eport detailing outage Bates, causes of outages, and lengths of outages for all ECC systems for the last 5 years of operation. This report was to' include the ECC systems or components involved and corrective actions taken. Test and :naintenance outages were to be included.

2. A quantification of the historical unavailability of the ECC systems j and components due-to test and maintenance outages.

3. Proposed changes to improve the availability of ECC systems, if cecessary.

The type of information required to satisfy the review

• criteria was clarified by the NRC on August 12, 1981 (7). Auxiliary systems such as component cooling water and plant service water systems were not to be considered in determining the unavailability of ECC systems. Only the outages of the diesel generators were to be included along with the primary ECC system l outages. Finally, the "last five years of operaticn" was to be loosely l

interpreted as a continuous 5-year period of rece it operation.

l On July 26, 1982 [8], the NRC further clarified that tne purpose of the review was to identify those licensees that have experienced higher ECC system outages than other licensees with similar NSSSs. The need for improved reliability of diesel generators is under review by the NRC. A Diesel Generator Interim Reliability Program has been proposed to effect improved performance at operating plants. As a consequence, a comparison of diesel generator outage information within this review is not required.

l l

ranklin Research Center

-._-_ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ __ . _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

TER-C5506-274

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3.1 REVIEN OF COMPLETENESS OF THE LICENSEE'S REPORT The ECC systems at AP's Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 consist of the following five separate systems:

o safety injection system (SIS) o chemical volume and control system (CVCS) o accumulators o residual heat removal (RER) system o refueling water storage tank (RWST) .

Fue each ECC system outage event, AP provided the outage dates, the duration,. and the cause, plus sufficient description to discern the corrective action taken. Maintenance and surveillance testing activities were included in the ECC system outage data. The results of AP's review were provided for the period from December 1,1977 through December 31, 1980 for Farley Unit 1.

l Based on the preceding discussion, it has been established that AP has .

submitted a report which fulfills the requirements of review criterion 1 without exception.

3.2 COMPARISON OF ECC SYSTDI OUTAGES WITH THOSE OF OTHER PLANTS Se outages of ECC systems can be categorized as ,(1) unplanned outages due to equipment failure or (2) planned outages due to surveillance testing or preventive maintenance. Unplanned outages are reportable as Licensee Event l

! Reports (LERs) under the technical specifications. Planned outages for periodic maintenance and testing are not reportable as LERs. The technical specifications identify the type and quantity of ECC equipment required as well as the maximum allowable outage times. If an outage exceeds the maximum allowable time, then the plant operating mode is altered to a lower status consistent with the available ECC system components still operational. Se purpose of the technical specification maximum allowable outage times is to prevent extended plant operation without sufficient ECC system protection.

l l

l

-4 AL Franklin Research Center A Onneen af The Fearmen kummas er -,-w r - - - - ,w -+-r.

3 -. --4 -

f--- ,,- +- - ..'T* '

e- * - - - = -* W * *-T'

--"w--" N-'----N'

5 j TER-C5506-274 4

The maximum allowable outage time, specified per event, tends to limit the )

1 q

unavailability of an ECC system. However, there is no cumulative outage time j limitation to prevent repeated planned and unplanned outages from accumulating l 1

extensive ECC system downtime.

3 O Unavailability, as defined in general terms in WASH-1400 (9} , is the probability of a system being in a failed state when required. However, for f

this review, a detailed unavailability analysis was not required. Instead, a preliminary estimate of the unavailability of an ECC system was made by calculating the ratio of the ECC system downtime to the number of days that 4

the plant was in operation during the last 5 years. Tu simplify the tabula-tion of operating time, only the period when the plant was in operational Mode

, I was considered. This simplifying assumption is reasonable given that the j period of time that a plant is starting up, shutting down, and cooling down is small compared to the time it is operating at power. In addition, an ECC system was considered down whenever an ECC system component was unavailable due to any cause.

It should be noted that the ratio calculated in this manner is not a true reasure of the ECC system unavailability, since outage events are included that appear to compromise system performance when, in fact, partial or full function of the system would be espected. Full function of an ECC system would be expected if the design capability of the system exceeded the capacity required for the system to fulfill its safety function. For example, if an ECC system consisting of two loops with multiple pumps in each loop is designed so that only one pump in each loop is required to satisfy core cooling require-ments, then an outage of a single pump would not prevent the system from performing its safety function. In addition, the actual ECC system unavaila-bility is a function of planned and unplanned outages of essential support

, systems as well as of planned and unplanned outages of primary ECC system components. In accordance with the clarification discussed in Section 2, only

) the effects of outages associated with primary ECC system components and i

emergency diesel generators are considered in this review. The inclusion of all outage events assumed to be true ECC system outages tends to overestimate i

4 Md Franklin 4cm= .: Reseen:h, w en mum Center

. -- - , ,w ,v-m .- ,. -- - c r- --m., , , _ , . , . . , , . - - , - - - - - - - , _ r,- .,,,. ., - , - ,.

TER-C5506-274 the unavailability, while the exclusion of support system outages tends to underestimate the unavailability,~of ECC systems and components. Only a detailed analysis of each ECC system for each plant could improve the confidence in the calculated result. Such an analysis is beyond the intended scope of this report.

The planned and unplanned (forced) outage times for the five ECC systems (accumulators, SIS, CVCS, RER, and RWST) were identified from the outage information in References 4 and 5 and are shown in numbers of days and as percentages of plant operating time per year in Table 1 for Farley Unit 1.

Outages that occurred during nonoperational periods were eliminated, as well as those caused by failures or by test and maintenance of support systems.

Data on plant operating conditions were obtained from the annual reports,

• maclear vower Plant Operating trperience' (10-131, and from monthly reports,

" Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report" (14). The remaini.99 outages were segregated into planned and unplanned outages based on AP's description of the causes. The outage periods for each category were calculated by summing the individual outage durations.

Observed outage times of various ECC systems at Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 were compared with those of other IWRs. Based on this comparison, it was concluded that the historical unavailability of the accumulators, CVCS, SI, RHR, and RWST systems has been consistent with the performance of those systems throughout the industry. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean for the accumulators, SI, and RWST systems, and less than about one standard deviation above the industrial mean for the CVQi and RER systems, assuming that the underlying unavailability is distributed lognormally. The outage times were also consistent with existing technical specifications.

3.3 REVI2N OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF ECC EQUIIMENT In Reference 4, AP did not propose any changes to improve the availability of ECC systems and components.

_klin Res,earch._

__ Center

. _ . . _ . . _ _ _ ________________________.__J

. 't

^ ,

u=

EF .-

Table 1. Planned and Unplanned (Ibreed) Outage Times for Farley Unit la E

cs Accumulatota CVCS SI RHR IWST f" Outage in Days Outage in Days Days of Plant Outage in Days Outage in Days (Attage in Days Year Operation Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Plan Q Forced Planned l h -

lQ i

0.0 0.0 0.69 c.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.31 0.0 0.01 la 1977 31.0**

(2.224) (0.424) (l.C06) (0.034) 1978 315.6 0.0 0.54 0.45 5.53 0.0 0.0 0.35 4.91 0.0 0.18 (0.176) (0.144) (1.754) (0.114) (1.564) (0.06%)

4 l

l 1979 104.3 0.0 0.0 1.19 1,69 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.36 , 0.0 0.53 I 4 (1.144) (1.624) (1.30%) \' (0.514)

' (

1980 260.3 0.0 0.0 0.93 1.58 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.31 0.0 0.18 <

(0.364) (0.614) (0.194) (0.114) (0.074), .

. _ f,

. ~ ,

/ i j

+

Total 711.2 '0 . 0 0.54 ,

3.26 8.93 0.0 0.0 0.40, # 6'.89 O.0 0.90 (0.08%) (0.464) (1.264) (0.0 6's ) (0.971) (0.134)

~

• 14 umbers in parentheses indicate system outage tan.e as a percentage of total plant operating time.

• • Commercial operation began 12/1/77. f N

=

2

_. N f ,

n

, 'O

fas I *

• TER-C5506-274

4. CDNCLUSIONS Alahema Power Company (AP) has submitted a report for Farley Unit 1 that contains (1) ou', age dates and durations, (2) causes of the outages, (3) ECC systems or components involved in the outages, and (4) corrective actions ItiskconcludedthatAPhasfulfilledtherequirementsofNUREG-0737,

~

take n.

Item II.K.3.17. In addition, the historical unavailability of the accumulators, chemical and, volume control, safety injection, residual heat removal, and refueling water storage tank systems has been consistent with the performance of those systems throughout the industry. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean for the accumulators, safety injection, and refueling water storage tank systems, and less than about one standard deviation above the industrial mean for the chemical and volume control and residual heat removal systems. The outage times were also consistent with existing technical specifications.

t.

t s.

L

'l bu 4FrenWin on a er N r. anResea.rch wann. Center f

~

TER-C550 6-274 l

5. REFERENCES

1. NUREG-0626

" Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break toss-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants. and Near-Tern Operating License Applications" NBC, January 1980

2. NUREG-0660 "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident" NRC, Marca 1980 ,

3. NUREG-0737 "Clarificatilon of TMI Action Plan Requirements" NRC, October 1980

4. F. L. Clayton, Jr. (AP)

JAtter P.O Director of MGClear BeactQr Regulation

Subject:

NUREG-0737 Response January 14, 1981

5. F. L. Clayton, Jr. (AP)

Letter to S. A. Varga (Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation)

Subject:

Report on Outages of ECCS Raquest for Information August 2,1982 6.. J. N. Donohew, Jr. (NRC)

Letter to Dr. S. P. Carf agno (FRC) .

Subject:

Contract No.

NRC-0 3-81-13 0, Tentative Assignment F July 21,1981

7. NRC Meeting between NRC and FRC.

Subject:

C5506 Tentative Work Assignment F, Operating Reactor PORV and ECCS Ourage Reports August 12, 1981

8. NRC Meeting between NRC and FRC.

Subject:

Resolution of Review Criteria and Scope of Work July 26,1982

./ 9 WASH-1400

" Reactor Safety Study" NRC, October 1975

10. NUREG-0366

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1976" NRC, December 1977 30hu Franklin Research Center I A Cataman of The Fransen enseeuse

TE R-C5506-274

11. N0M G-0483 "mclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1977" NBC, February 1979

12. NUMG-0618

. "mclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1978" NA', December 1979 i

13. NUE G/CR-1496 "mclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1979" NRC, May 1981

14. NUREG-0020

" Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report" Volume 4, Nos.1 through 12, and volume 5, No.1 NBC, December 1980 through January 1981 j'Jiid%Franklin Research..

w Theer.a.en C.e.nter

.