ML20079P573

ECCS Repts (F-47) TMI Action Plan Requirements,Ar Nuclear One Unit 1, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20079P573
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	03/21/1983
From:	Carfagno S, Overbeck G, Vosbury F FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Chow E NRC
Shared Package
ML20079P577	List: ML20079P573
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-C5506-266, NUDOCS 8303240417
Download: ML20079P573 (16)

Text

_ _

a . . ,

• • ,  ?.. . , . .

. ); . ,, = ,.,/,.A. .

g -.s a. ...,,.a. . .- 4

/ ~.. . .% j. . . , , . .

. s ?. .

~ .m.

. . .'Ql&

,E ;' Y ' ?&

'. ,W

. .. ; . u ,. ,*,5 y .,s._.:.u,,v n.y. ... .. . . .:.  ;, <-/,t

• . ;',. . . ,.. ("j~r  ;.#.&*  ?'.*N:h -u

.,R..  :.Qh, ,,.k;$ . . .s "b  : hj.y'. ?jo -

~.y'. .Y. . $%Y:,'

M.m , . : ' .p. y' ; .v; ;.Rg ..;5}." : % ;,'. : .<

• 2

. ,b.,1; a . S ;m,.y:.;: .

• L ee h"

. . 3w.3: ~ .,,l

.WL ;:-:,. ;M; .*. . . ., _p.n., .y; .~. *O p.. ~:

• 4 A e> S9::'.. :

• l *.

s- .

-L .:: ' . ~ . - .5.:.

.< . .s 'a.x. ' - s ..- ,Q .'* .

2..f. b. s u.m.m.. . i y%.. . .W,:.sw .aw* 'rt.wy* *.*?.,.

.m..z :u .. H.f aS.O. . .,d*G .' ',. *Z' , .- ^l

,, ...,, g. x

%. .3.>n.

g L

. . ~m . . . ' o '. .

.W . -1 u . o..  :. . .

==

< - , .a - , y -

J;,ff:Ml4 i.\.. g,,i ,..,%;,Ql:.~? EVdj.UATION REPbRT p'2D.f '. - 2. (

~~

%. gig.[ECHNICAL

• ; m . u~ 4. .. c,%. ,%. e.n M:r. e. 2: . e~

m: ' m. w. %.:=- n.n.g m n w .

i A M E. .,.n . m.- ~ y : .. n

. .e, B .

E ECCS REPOR.TS U[D,,m.n .

%a. TMI

2. n u.n. w.  :.

A.CTION PCAN[a .,(.F.a.y. .n}f*a.~n&w.wm. fNQy g e.c. x m . m.u.n. _G[gg. _jQ. WG gg6 y . %.u.e AR.KANSASgPOWER':AND.

NDMIMMEEEEU U GH fCONPAlf ,f M F

e . 4=s'0 y J

4 ~vmwom.

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR

0NE.

wmn:m UNIT @y,g.d. M.. , m..Y.k. .E~.M,.

p .

. M.m f. 7 -

." * . - b E M.,,

.. 1 p ..

M W

l ..a..

.,~.C****...p. t. .

& & c . S.MM,.. . . . . .b.'l ,i .

g 1

{

NRC CCCKET NO: 50-313

.. W - racenosscTcssoe

. ~; ;

-. q. , ,, ..* t }

. 4 ap % 6.w.g  : ". :. .. . .x. ,:.w. Y ?Mh".p.54k =:n' ' ' .* ' f: s s# } .'* t .

er

~.:. +

':e..,s.(*.. ,

= , * +.Q,.'.- . ~ *:*' , ..

l m I

.* s ' , . 'i n v

,#~%'s..,* 4, j,. hy.,.q;,-fg .;."Mg 0,-;$ Q:FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 -.

b=

- . e..: ; < .; .2,:. . c. *, *

\

' w. C .,N1 RACT NO. NRC-C3 81 130 . '.c.

- s. . ..

.fR 266 . , _; '[. ..

?. , ..

..%. % . is .M...

- i[NA

% MA.. ~:.f?.W ../C.

nyF.,. .m , .;p a.w 9' ;."?

e r... .

. c c. .-

?h0.&. y.

.,g.$ ;i,'.li,. a . C TASK e .y . . :

,.,.3,,p.:* .,.- : a p,; A 'w...- . ~ . .

.-.....it.x..

.3 ..g. ., , .:n. . a..

. .,m

-~

y : ..

L s ar,v,'r ' g%.*:7.%'. y 1; ' 9.. ~'.s~ 3*- /m C. + u . M9a .'gm me.

w .

.",n.M  %,X: F, ;r.; ....&-? W $. ,ir m.r le- . ..

c., r -,

w~

g ~'.*W Y,.

..~by ,

i Q..qq y.y

.s .p c .~ y:v.- wy .p . *lQ?]yh.m' y,a.  :.ve,.~I;Q..g&g^5C&g,.ml:$

ti f6Mf90 n CI-&R.$Qgs g.Q j g .p;.

y p 7, "franMn Rese4,.,.Y.

arcN C~entete g, R N. .> Q4'-y'4W y'rg @ YS

~

.m% " 3"L M'MY @.5** M-th%.5. .

~

• O h NW 1

'..,e.s..h.,w. k, 9 3..f.y.

- w._ g. . ;m.:w.OB0er*! b h.

N . 5. d. ' .%_&.'.w. ~..e...w.JR$% &m .r;;,lw$h . .$. . ,s,w.. .m ~.a-.. v.,..

. :,W.,3,m ,s.,jA.;,.w. p. h g5 wr .. , e.,. Uw%. e . . . m. . . .

ir

..m.

r m,g 4. g.s.p.

. 4.g; y .., m. . . u S;; . . ,

. g

.p,g. . y,pm,. g::ym .

f .4..gNuc!aarRegulatory$Cornmissic'ri

~

' WNyNNNMD h ad NRC Engineer: . J. ' Chow %. .. g;n R he .

' pg,,p' *T,.; N M'TM o - . y. . ...

.p f a. ,

E Ri.Mf"W.t M.,. 4uy,.K< n c .uc

w. y;%;T W

• A 4.S p L-g*. r '.

. ,,. u .. . ..< .

, NP. '- cE'. X N N M e.u.'a f.;'s.,p*h g

.d .-..

a: . L. Washington,0:C id, .,W;e'.Wyg.:./#p

~

• *c.URy;;szt & f d?? .

2*h

=

MNbNN b)QR' o..I 5 Mk's~.

m$g%$*h -$6 INDMM;wn.. . .en.s,,.

w .$[mu.n. .

. .d.....b;kwAr, v.-.

.w.~.

c ,. . m3, ..e9n m..a.,. .n . g. . w . ....v . m.  ;, .

m -

.m

,,,y gz;,

. pen., j ny..J..  :, y . ,. . ..sg .q.~,. a.

. ; . f. . i.s ~~

. , .: . c . ,w .g ..

.. . n., :.::. .3. ; ,

.M. .:w. q; t.h.,yge.y J. . , . . , . ys , gp..n.;,;.,,2 ..t,_.. . .:

, .;:q., .

.v, . . r, . .;. . . . ,. w . -.- ; ....e.

.~.

. .% p. .- m .y c ,,, , .~, ;g .c , .g. .gs

.o.-..

~. , ,..e. , .e,n

.g'.s .: :

.m , w.v.9'. , m. ',.

...t . +- n

,w.

.. . . . qm& . :m .3

'asw

s. c...W.2 n,, $ a:'wHpV%%m #.t '

q. 'u

~ --

• ~f .Mu. 3 ~f .

• C..w .%

I hW4N :"'. &pM *.. ._

^

~' ~.99%.g'***%*:m.,: .' 3 ,,%y?~g. . , . % Ms%Mge,s ~; 5. .rf.

,.Q;

• 5(*00'Na* preparetaa aWecobu$&r,. . "*

f.=*.At.,#*t . Q .. %r $ **,C . ... .n ~

• . m,*b WnM!o%.6.. . %? FWW~  :,C,: .a. :l..

' ' "h?:hemment. NeAhor the Ur9ted Sta!cs Government Gen y f the.UMted /N anY oMheir Staies';NNMENGD.*

s. C.F.l;70sponsibility employees. makes.anp for any tNrtparty's warranty expressed M N m ~#r i 11 . or assumes any lagna ll4Nilty or b TN'M

. p,$t,fmus product or h "#95.0f inY informstiog appa m/Qlfo ..

, M4. u ulsno neepmme "g **n9 % = g y.

Vg 5?hh="vg!QW@ $ "q. process'disefoied Q% n.ddam,$Q. in this 'reK.*

W&$?

- !. c T.@g.gnXA Copy Has_Been_Sent s: 3;2M n.:2.?; to PDR. w

%:: .f..~ . m&y;,g&:.tk. 4.Q.e g..:wl:mn.e.m;.n w .. u

w m:v.u.e.;

3. . .

..pw

.c a p+.

..:: . .. -r

+ 2.2, w%.., u ,u :. w, m.

.s

, ;, w,.f.c

.. q.. - ,, c = . .w.. , ,-*a w.g- .,. .. ,.. .x,w.,:sn;w r

. . c. .

.y

^

, AU .

a,s.;,?,eQ.,

.._.,- ~. ~f .

.. . .%. fm' -w a.. 3. ,, _ . r .' .'. . .. Q * 'D, .

., C

. . .~ 'y..f. ..A., y,Fran_ ws . klin Research Cenie~r '

_ 3 F $ % .,_ Q W \ Y. . ..

w. .

MNN.m.q.,.n,,,$"ghThe 7 . n.g .g, Po,t,*F. Frangn . insStute-.-N 8.I930312:5)448.tooo

~.

- ,' c ^

< .> _;,Q. - Q ;t.;.g;.; (.,.. , q . . , , 3

. '. .'% qp w - -

a; . , &. ,.c. .

- -.w..

u s a .c, . .cy. . u. **... ,. . . ~ .

.c. x. .y.. s. .t... . .. p-:a S. v.

. .,. a- .- n . . ..

r... y- ac.s , . . .

. x. m ~

m. .

. .~ . .

I TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ECCS REPORTS (F-47)

TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS

. ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY l ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET NO. 50-313 FRC PROJECT C5506 i

j FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 l NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81-130 FRC TASK 266 Prepared by Franklin ResearOf1 Center Author: ?. W.'vosbury 20th and Race Streets G. J. Overbeck Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: G. J. Overbeck Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Ccrnmission Lead NRC Engineer: E. Chow Washington, D.C. 20555 i-March 21, 1983 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 llability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, appa-ratus, 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:

P'incipal r

cb w Author

, xY kh Group f ea' der

.W d" Department Direpor V

. Date: i Date- 3 '~

3 Date: b 21 - O l

l ah Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin Institute The Benismen Franksn Parkway. PMa, Pa. 19103 (215) 448 1000

TER-C550 6-26 6 COICENTS

, Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Background. . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Plant-Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 2 2 REVIEW CRITERIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Review of Completeness of the Licensee's Report . . . 4 3.2 Comparison of ECC System Outages with Those of Other Plants. . . . . . . . . 4 3.3 Review of Proposed Changes to Improve the Availability of ECC Muipment . . . . . . . . 8 4 COICLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 e

4 ranidin Research Center A Chaman of The Mesueninmunas

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

TER-C550 6-266 FOREWORD

. This Technical Evaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Off, ice of-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 and Mr. F. W. Vosbury contributed to the technical preparation of this report through a subcontract with WESTEC Services, Inc.

1 l

t l

v l 0 Fran Re Acm.klin,n.

. sea.rch r,. . C. enter I

I

i

r. .

l TER-C550 6-266 i

l. INTRODUCTION l

1.1 PURPOSE OF REVIEW This technical evaluation report (TER) documents an independent review of

! the outages of the emergency core cooling (ECC) systems at Arkansas Power and I

Light Company's (APL) Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1. The purpose of this j evaluation is to determine if the Licensee has submitted a report that is l

! complete and satisfies the requirements of TMI Action Item II.K.3.17, " Report

! on Outages of Emergency Core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed 1

! Technical Specification Changes."

1.2 GENERIC BACKGROUND fol. lowing the 2ree Mile.Im1=ad Unit 2 accident, the Bulletins and orders Task Force reviewed nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) vendors' small break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analyses to ensure that an adequate basis i existed for developing guidelines for small break LOCA emergency procedures.

} During these reviews, a concern developed about the assumption of the worst single failure. Typically, the small break LOCA analysis for boiling water i reactors (BWRs) assumed a loss of the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI)

! system as the worst single failure. However, the technical specifications i

l 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 f only about the HPCI system, but also about all ECC systems where substantial

! outages might occur within the limits of the present technical specification.

Therefore, to ensure that the small break LOCA analyses are consistent with l the actual plant response, the Bulletin and Orders Task Force recommended in NUREG-0626 [1] , " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break rass-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Term Operating License Applications," that licensees of General Electric (GE)Mesigned 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 l

_ranidin Rese_ arch._

. Center

l l

j TER-C5506-266

ECC components should include all outages for the last five years of i operation. The end result should be the quantification of historical

unreliability due to test and maintenance outages. This will establish j if a need exists for cumulative outage requirements in technical specificaticas."

4 l ,

Later the recommendation was incorporated into NUREG-0660 (2], "NRC Action l Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident," for GE-designed NSSSs as j . TMI Action Item II.K.3.17. In NUREG-0737 [3] , " Clarification of TMI Action

1

! Plan Requirements," the NRC staff expanded the Action Item to include alg, 1

i light water reactor plants 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

"The report should contain (1) outage dates and duration of outages; i .(2) cause of the outager (3) 2CC systans or en=pnnants involved in

! the outager and (4) corrective action taken."

l l

1.3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND d

on February 27, 1981 (4], APL submitted a report in response to

, NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17, " Report on Outages of Emergency Core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes." The report submitted by APL covered the period from January 1,1976 to December

) 31, 1980 for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1. On July 26, 1982 [51, APL submitted i

a second report in response to an NBC request for additional information on ECC systems outages. The second report covered the same period described in l the first report. On Pobruary 15, 1983 (6], APL stated that no outages have occurred relating to core flood tank problems. APL did not provide any recommendations to improve and control availability of ECC systems.

4 i .

4 i

l l

r l

+.2_

Franklin Research C enter 4 ommen w n. n.mm

! l

- _ _ - - . ._- . . . - . -- ___ _ , - , - ..- = - - _ , - - .

> TER-CS 50 6-266

2. REVIEW CP TERIA The Licensee's response to NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17, was evaluated against criteria provided by the NBC in a letter dated July 21, 1981 [7]

outlining Tentative Work Assignment F. Provided as review criteria in Reference 7, the NBC stated that the Licansee's response should contain the following information:

1. A report detailing outage dates, causes of outages, and lengths af outages for all ECC systers for the last 5 years of operation. This report was to include the ECC systems or components involved and corrective actions taken. Test and maintenance outages were to be included. ~

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

3. Proposed changes to improve the availability of ECC nystems, if necessary. .

The type of information required to satisfy the review criteria was clarified by the NBC on August 12, 1981 [8]. Auxiliary systems such as component cooling water and plant service water systems were not to be considered in determining the unavailability of DCC systems. Only the outages of the diesel generators were to be included along with the primary ECC system outages. Finally, the "last five years of operation" was to be loosely interpreted as a continuous 5-year period of recent operation.

On July 26, 1982 [9], the NBC further clarified that the 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 NBC. 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 UNAesFranklin

.en.r Resear.ch ww Center  :

I I

TER-C550 6-266

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION l

1 3.1 REVIEW OF COMPLETENESS OF THE LICENSEE'S REPORT The ECC systems at APL's Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 consist of the following four systems:

o core flood system (CFS) o high pressure injection system (I 'IS) o low pressure injection system (LPIS) o borated water storage tank (BWST) .

In References 4 and 5, APL also included information on emergency diesel generators, reactor building spray system, and the reactor building emergency cooling system. The reactoe building spray system sprays borated water into the reactor building atmosphere. The spray cools the at:nosphere and reduces the post-accident temperatures and pressure within ths building. It also removes fission products from the building atmosphere. The reactor building emergency cooling system circulates the reactor building air and provides for the removal of heat released during an accident. Because none of these systems are primary ECC systems, they were not considered in this review.

For each ECC system outage, APL provided the date, the duration, a brief description, and the cause, with sufficient details to indicate the c6rrective action taken. Information on routine preventive maintenance and surveillance testing was also included.

APL's review encompassed the period from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1980 for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1.

Based on the preceding discussion, it is concluded that APL has submitted a report which fulfills the requirements of review criterion 1 without exception.

3.2 col @ARISON OF ECC SYSTDt OUTAGES WITH THOSE OF OTHER PLANTS The 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

_ranklin Resear_ch_C.

_ _ enter

I

, TER-CS50 6-26 6 Reports (LERs) under the technical specifications. Planned outages for I 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 :naximum allowable time, then the plant operating mode is altered to a lower status consistent with the available ECC system components still operational. The purpose of the technical specification maximum allowable outage times is to prevent extended plant operation without sufficient ECC system protection.

The maximum allowable outage time, specified per event, tends to limit the unavailability of an ECC system. However, there is no cumulative outage time limitation to prevent repeated planned and unplanned outages from accumulating extensive ECC system downtime.

Unavailability, as defined in general terms in MMH-1400 [10], is the probability of a system being in a failed state when required. However, for 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 the

! plant was in operation during the last 5 years. To simplify the tabulation of operating time, only the: Period when the plant was in operational Mode 1 was

considered. This simplifying assumption is reasonable given that the period j 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 causa.

It should be noted that the ratio calculated in this manner is not a true measure 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 expected. Full function of an ECC system

j. 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 requirements, then an outage of a single pump would not prevent the l Puur.nunne.e.,rhc.,.,

l ~ .a m n -

TER-C550 6-266 system from performing its safety function. In addition, the actual ECC system unavailability is a function of planned and unplannsd 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 emergency diesel generators are considered in this review. Se inclusion of all outage events assumed to be true ECC system outages tends to overestimate 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.

1 2he planned..and ma=1 =aw (forcad) outage times Joe .the JlCC systems (CFS, HPIS, LPIS, and BWST) 7.nd the emergency diesel generators were identified from the outage information in References 4, 5, and 6 and are shown in number of days and as percentage of plant operating time per year in Table 1 for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1. Outages that occurred during non-operational periods were eliminated, as were those caused by failures or test and maintenance of support systems. Data on plant operating conditions were obtained from the annual reports, " Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience"

[11-14], and from monthly reports, " Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Reports" [15]. Se remaining outages were segregated into planned and unplanned outages based on APL's description of the cause. The outage periods

• for each category were calculated by summing the individual outage durations.

1 Observed outage times of various ECC systems at Arkansas Nuclear One Unit I were compared with those of other PWRs. Based on this comparison, it was concluded that the historical unavailability of the CFS, HPIS, LPIS, and BNST bas been consistent with the performance of those systems throughout the industry and consistent with existing technical specifications. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean plus about one standard deviation for all ECC systems, assuming that the underlying unavailability is distributed lognormally. Se outages of the, diesel generators were not included in this comparison.

0 Franidin Research Center A Caname e The hessen ansamme

9

> Table 1. Planned and Unplanned (Forced) Outage Times for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1* -

a CFS HPIS LPIS BWST Diesel Generator Days of Plant Outage in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Outage in Days Year Operation Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned Forced Planned

r 1976 207.1 0.0 0.0 0.0- 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 (0.2%) (0.4%)

1977 278.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.n 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 (0.2%)

1978 278.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 (0.6%) (0.1%) I j

1979 177.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 (3.6%)

I 1980 235.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 (0.1%) (0.5%)

Total 1177.1 0.0 0.0' O.3 0.5 0.0 5.3 1.5 0.0 9.1 0.1

(<0.14) (<0.1%) (0.5%) (0.14) (0.8%) (<0.1%)

N

• Numbers in parentheses indicate system outage time as a percentage of total plant operating time. -h i

M m

TER-<5 50 6-26 6 3.3 V IEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO IMPROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF ECC EQUIPMENT PJ.

In References 4 and 5, APL did not propose any changes to improve the availability of ECC systems and components.

4 4

9 l 4

,i l

}

1. 2 i e-TUGG%.

v m ,4,=a gn=

• e,, - ~ - ,

l

l i

. TER-C550 6-266

~

I l

! , 4. CONCLUSIONS n

2 Arkansas Power and Light Company (APL) has submitted a report for Art.ansas Nuclear One Unit 1 that contains (1) outage dates and durations (2) causes of the outages, (3) ECC systems or components involved in the outages, and (4)' corrective actions taken. It is concluded that APL has fulfilled the requirements of NUEG-0737, Item II.K.3.17. In addition, the historical i

unavaila.bility of the core flood, high pressure injection, and low pressu.e injection systems, and of the borated water storage tank has been consist 9nt with the performance of those systems themghout the industry and consistent with existing tecnical specifications. The observed unavailability was .'.ess than thu industrial nean pluu about one standard deviation for all ECC systams.

f i

9 i -

p duuu . % Frankun

.e n. n. Resear.ch Center

l TER-C550 6-26 6

+ .,

5. REFERENCES l

1.

NUREG-0626

" Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break

, Ioss-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Term Operating License Applications" NBC, January 1980

2. NUREG-0660 "NBC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the DiI-2 Accident" a

NRC, March 1980

3. NUREG-073 7

, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" NBC, October 1980

4. D. C. Trimble (APL)

Letter to D. G. Eisenhut (Director, civision of Licensing, NRC)

Subjects Submittal of Information Required by NUREG-0737 APL, February 27, 1981 i

5. J. R. Marshall (APL)

Letter to D. G. Eisenhut (Director, Division of Licensing, NRC)

Subject:

Item II.K.3.17, Request for Additional Infor=ation APL, July 26, 1982

6. J. R. Marshall (APL)

Letter to J. F. Stolz (Chief, ORB $4, Divisio,n of Licensing, NBC)

Subject:

NUREG-0737 Item II.K.3.17 - ECC System Outages Related to Core Flood Tanks l 'APL, February 15, 1982

7. J. N. Donohew, Jr. (NBC)

Letter to Dr. S. P. Carfagno (FPC) .

Subject:

Contract No.

l NBC-03-81-13 0, Tentative Assignment F l NRC, July 21, 1981

8. NBC

, tieeting between NE and Pac.

Subject:

C5506 Tentstive Work L Assignment F, Operating Reactor PORV and KCS Outage Reports August 12, 1981 ,

9. NRC 0 Meeting between NE and FRC.

Subject:

Resolution of Review Criteria and Scope of Work .

July 26,1982 n e A Ohemen W The henseninmunae

l l

l TER-C550 6-26 6

10. WASE-1400

" Reactor Safety Study" NRC, October 1975 i

11. NUREG-0366 i

" Nuclear Power Plant Cperating Experience 1976" l NBC, December 1977

, 12. NUREG-0483

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1977" NRC, February 1979

13. NUREG-0618

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1978" NRC, December 1979

14. NUREG/CR-1496

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1979" NRC, May 1981

15. 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 000 Franidin Research Center A Ohnman of The Fmuen humane

. . , , , , ,. - , , . .- . -