ML20150F245
| ML20150F245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1988 |
| From: | Craig Harbuck Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807180195 | |
| Download: ML20150F245 (35) | |
Text
6
' [" %
\\
UNITED STATES F
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
2
/
June 29,1988 Docket No. 50-313 LICENSEE: Arkansas Power & Light Company i
FACILITY: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING REGARDING THE B&WOG SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AT ANO-1 A meeting was held on June 7, 1988 at the Arkansas Power & Light Company corporate office in Little Rock, Arkansas to discuss the Babcock & Wilcox Owners Group (B&WOG) Safety and Perfomance Improvement Program (SPIP).
Attendees at the meeting and a copy of the presentation slides are enclosed.
Key points presented were:
SPIP has been incorporated into AP&L's existing Transient Peduction Program (TRP). The TRP appears to have been effective in reducii.g the number of transients and trips since it began in 1985.
The Independent Advisory Board (IAB) composed of B&WOG executives evaluated SPIP as part of an Independent Overview Progran and found SPIP to be on target, but noted that improvements in the specificity of some recommendations and in the means to assure quality in their implementation was needed.
The IAB also noted that Integrated Control System, Non-nuclear Instrumentation, and Feedwater System reliability deserved special attention.
B&WOG SPIP programatic evaluations at each utility for recomendation implementation have been completed. A sumary report on their con-clusions was provided to the NRC on March 28, 1988.
Technical evaluations of SPIP at each utility, focusing on 4 of 13 "key recomendations" have begun; the report for AN0's evaluation is expected soon.
The mechanism for NRR Project Managers to monitor the progress of utility implementation of the SPIP recomendations is the RTS -
Recomendation Tracking System, to be updated quarterly.
AP&L has completed their evaluation of the applicability of all recomendations to date. There remains 15-20 recomendations awaiting approYal by the B&WOG steering comittees.
AP&L has already implemented 53.6% of all recomendations to date.
I DCD
'/t
.L f
i to
, Now that most applicability reviews have been completed, SPIP will be managed from the ANO site instead of the Little Rock General Office.
The management of SPIP from the site was discussed both in terms of procedure and personnel changes.
It appeared that the program was adequate and would continue to be effective, based on the information discussed at the meeting, l
/s/
C. Craig Harbuck, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i
i DISTRIBUTION Docket File n NRC PDR Local PDR PD4 Reading J. CalVo" C. Harbuck OGC-Rockville E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS (10)
PD4 Plant File Y
gp PD4/PM d PD4/D CHarbuck:sr JCalvo 06/21/88 06/>]/88 fo I t i
m
l s
f 4
Arkansas Power & Light Company g.
June 29,1988 Now that most applicability reviews have been completed, SPIP will be managed from the ANO site instead of the Little Rock General Office.
The manageirent of SPIP from the site was discussed both in terms of procedure and personnel changes.
It appeared that the program was adequate and would continue to be effective, based cn the information discussed at the meeting.
C. Craig ek, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page I
i 1
d
- 714
.i
4 Mr. T. Gene Campbell Arkarsas Power & Light Company Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit I cc:
Mr. Dan R. Howard, Manager Licensing Arkansas Nuclear One P. O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Mr. James M. Levine, Executive Director Nuclear Operations Arkansas Nuclear One P. O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas 7?801 Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502 Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & v!ilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Nuclear Plant Road Russellville, Arkansas 72801 1
Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. Frank Wilson, Director Division of Environmental Health Protection Department of Health Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Honorable William Abernathy County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801
~
1 AP&L SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGER BRIEFING ATTENDEES 1
AP&L Dan Williams Project Manager, Nuclear Industry Support Bill Converse OperationsAssessmentSuperintendent(Site)
John Smith Senior Engineer, Transient Reduction Program Coordinator Bill Kessinger Wais & Associates, Sr. Consultant Royce Reinecke Wats & Associates, Consulting Engineer
. Dale James Licensing Supervisor NRC Craig Harbuck Project Manager, NRR i
1
Enc [osure2 AGENDA JUNE 7,1988 AP&L - NRC ' ANO PROJECT MANAGER B&WOG SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM a INTRODUCTION Dan Williams a AP&L TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM Dan Williams a B&WOG SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Dan Williams a TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION John Smith a B&WOG RECOMMENDATION TRACKING SYSTEM (RTS)
REPORT John Smith I
a TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM STATUS John Smith
~.
O CONTRIBS 6/6/88 ANO PLANT TRIP CONTRIBUTORS 1981-1986 45.3%
6.1 %
I 39.4%
6.1 %
i 36.4%
x 19.8%
l ANO-1 ANO-2 A
ANO CAPACITY FACTORS
--MAJOR IMPACTS--
i 120 M
Trips 100 M
Equipment l
4-5.3 j
[
//
'3'
.~ / /
13.8 l
O x 7',
,N
\\ {
< [%',>
p
'g y 24.7 VN
'92
@ Capactity Factor
(,
x
{v y
(_)
O-g,,
N".
Y sadgj<}
n*
40 g
ihw v
.sl 57.5
..y 61.5 20 7
>p'3 w
x, O
ANO-1 AN O--2 1
CAPACITY 6/6/88
AP&L TRIP REDUCTION & TRANSIENT o
RESPONSE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1
NRC TRIP AND EXPERIENCE TRANSIENT
]
FEEDBACK EVALUATIONS j
CEOG B&WOG TRIP INPO SPIP REDUCTION INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE
^
FEEDBACK i f j
- EVALUATE APPLICABILITY
- SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE
- VALUE IMPACT
- PRIORITIZE
- SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION O
PERFORMANCE MONITORING m
g p-
-s-,4, m.
s t
Z O
O H
C F-=
b r1 IL U tr O<
v1 CD to ID CD O
U lD O
C/) IM ee 2
CD H e2 O >-
MM D
C5 O
n U3 M C3 HH C W C
CD C
U3 e CD MM
.c1
.e4 2
H< i--
U D. C.
O O
.C C C.
U) ID EE O
CD a
UM E G3 C
O O C
C C
(D H CC C.
OO O
w O
.H <
Uw I
O O
CO 6--
O4 LL aM E
C CC O
>=
U art ID eM C
1--
E to C
>E L to o
H ID C.
m ID ED 3>
r1 O
M 3 C U3 ID >
V #3 4
4 03 V WM M Q ID ED D.
A tD M C.
U) C.
O O Q
U) U C ID C:L QC r1 O
C r1 D.
CD E C.
r1 M
4 H C.
mN
>H D. C.
to Z
Q CL 2 CD C Q.
W Q
ID O
2 C. N ID CD cD 4 >
l O
M Dm D C
.r1 H
m C.
m.e4 C
U3 H
C C ID ED 3 53 U)
M st3 (D C H
t-=
F G =rt D
>D (D
CD b-=
0 0
C U CW Q ID o C.,
ID C C.
r1 C.
C.
O G3
> Q ID Q.
O 2 m ta
- c. o 2 M
so U V2 m
Z U)
ED C. Q.
E C.
ID ED C.
D o CD C
H ZHD H O. Z 2
D. U) 2Z D
C O
IL b.
v v.
N O
cry "3
0 4
M.
N N
nl N
nl w
Z ri
)
i 1
O
\\
Z l
l 4
g,,
.r1 03 m
M n
C to C. ~
P W
4 c1 to N
C E
2 in O
e m
O O
J m
C
- 80 I
to O
O.
H H
n E
e as e
.r1 g
3 ID
.C C.
G D.
U)
ED 3
l --
n 2
J H
a W
Z 1
e a
F LL.
O CD CD C.
Nl--
H K
CC U)
U)
O i
y __. _
.x.-.-
v.y-
l i
ANO-i MAJOR IMPACTS ON CAPACITY FACTOR (Continued) 1 i
ITEM
%CF SOLUTION STATUS OF
)
CORRECTIVE ACTION I
Extraction Steam Piping 0.8 New Design i
i Complete iR7 RCP Sensing Lines 0.3 Re-Designed Complete iR6 i
i Condenser Chemistry 0.3 8etter Monitoring
_ Complete iR7 Equipment 1
+
/
l l
I.
i 4
i e
J REACTOR TRIPS 1980 through 1988 YTD
,/
22 -
/
20 -o 18 -
16 --
i m
S 14 -
N
/
12 -
/
\\\\
u_o
\\~
10 -
/
g
[d N
2 8J D
\\
\\
\\
\\
/
6-
/
ar,/
'N
/
x
/
\\o E
N
/
x d
'N
/
's 4
2-a 0
i i
r i
i i
1 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 YEAR a
ANO -- 1 O
ANO - 2 TRIPC1R 6/6/85 l
B&W OWNERS GROUP SAFETY AND PERE 0RMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM l
OBJECTIVE IMPROVE SAFETY, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TRIPS AND COMPLEX TRANSIENTS ON B&W OWNERS GROUP PLANTS, AND ENSURE ACCEPTABLE PLANT RESPONSE DURING THOSE TRIPS AND TRANSIENTS WHICH D0 OCCUR.
G0ALS 1.
BY THE END OF 1990 THE AVERAGE PER PLANT TRIP FREQUENCY WILL BE LESS THAN TWO PER YEAR.
2.
BY THE END OF 1990 THE NUMBER OF COMPLEX TRANSIENTS AS CLASSIFIED BY MEASURABLE PARAMETERS (CATEGORY "C") WILL BE REDUCED TO 0.1 PER PLANT PER YEAR BASED ON A MOVING THREE YEAR AVERAGE.
,_,,,._.,..r.___-
y-.,,_,.
INFORMATION GATHERING PROCESS o
OBJECTIVE:
TO DETERMINE AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT o
PERFORMED BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE SEARCH FOR PROBLEMS; BOTH IN NSS AND B0P REVIEWED TRANSIENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DATA REVIEWED SYSTEM AND COMP 0NENT DESIGNS INTERVIEWED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL REVIEWED OTHER PERTINENT DATA o
EMPLOYED OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TO ASSESS RELATIVE B&W PLANT. SENSITIVITY o
PERFORMED A PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT REVIEW D
4 w
--=
___.,_._.._...,._m
____,.,__..,..,__._....,m..,
ELEMENTS COMPRISING THE SPIP 1.
ICS/NNI SYSTEM RE, VIEW 2.
MFW SYSTEM REVIEW 3.
EFW/AFW SYSTEM REVIEW 4.
SECONDARY PLANT RELIEF SYSTEM REVIEW 5.
OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW 6.
REVIEW OF OTHER TRANSIENT INFORMATION 7.
OPERATIONS / MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL INTERVIEWS 8.
SENSITIVITY STUDY 9.
RISK ASSESSMENT 10.
NRC INTERACTION 11.
INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM REVIEW 12.
TRIP INITIATOR REVIEW 13.
OPERATOR BURDEN REVIEW 14.
INDEPENDENT ADVISORY BOARD l
15.
SPRIG (SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE RECOMMENDATION INTEGRATION GROUP)
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING B&W PLANT SAFETY AND DESIGN o
RISK 0F CORE DAMAGE IS COMPARABLE TO OTHER PWR DESIGNS o
AREAS OF SENSITIVITY ARE DIFFERENT THAN OTHER PWRs o
PRESSURIZER SIZE IS ADEQUATE o
OTSG INVENTORY IS ADEQUATE o
OPERATOR BURDEN IS ACCEPTABLE o
INTEGRATION OF CONTROL FUNCTIONS IS APPROPRIATE o
PLANT IS MORE RESPONSIVE TO SECONDARY SIDE CHANGES o
RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION WILL FURTHER IMPROVE SAFETY
,,,__..,.---.__,_.._.y.,,.,
-y
, ~~,.
, _,.,., _ - - -.. -,-,,., _,., _ -, _- -,.,g.-vr-,9
r Ih0EPENDENT OVERVIEW 0F PROGRAM o
B&WOG EXECUTIVES ESTABLISHED AN INDEPENDENT ADVISORY BOARD, o
MISSION OF ADVISORY BOARD EVALUATE PROGRAM COMPREHENSIVENESS AND SAFETY EMPHASIS EVALUATE ABILITY OF PROGRAM FOR ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES o
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS:
W. H. LAYMAN (EPRI)
S. LEVY (S. LEVY ASSOC., INC.)
N. E. TODREAS (MIT)
R. S. BR0DSKY (BETA) o INVOLVEMENT:
SEVEN, 2-3 DAY MEETINGS e
l i
. - - -,. _ _ _... _ _. _ _. _...... ~. _ _.. _.. _.
._m._,,-___._,.
=
FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT ADVISORY BOARD o
SPIP WAS EFFECTIVE IN IDENTIFYING AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT o
SPIP EXAMINED ALL FACTORS INVOLVED IN PAST COMPLEX TRANSIENTS o
TAP DATABASE EXTENSIVE AND VALUABLE o
DEFINED ACTIONS SHOULD REDUCE TRANSIENT FREQUENCY AND IMPROVE SAFETY o
CONCURRED WITH PROCESS AND BASIS OF PRIORITIZATION SPIP GOALS ACHIEVABLE, BUT SCHEDULE IS AMBITIOUS; o
MANAGEMENT ATTENTION REQUIRED o
SOME RECOMMENDATIONS LACK SPECIFICITY o
MEANS TO ASSURE ACTION QUALITY NEEDED ICS/NNI AND FEEDWATER RELIABILITY DESERVE SPECIAL o
ATTENTION e
9 x
- w w= w e--'.-----wre-w-.---wwe.w-e-'--w==-
--ew.
- 'r"
PROGRAMMATIC EVALUATION OF SPIP RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION o
EXECUTIVES CONVENED EVALUATION TEAMS TO CONDUCT EVALUATIONS AT EACH UTILITY TEAM TYPICALLY CONSISTED OF EIGHT INDIVIDUALS EVALUATION PLAN DEVELOPED EVALUATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AT ALL UTILITIES REPORT ISSUED TO EACH UTILITY 1
l o
EXECUTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN EACH EVALUATION o
ONE MANYEAR OF TEAM EFFORT (EXCLUDING TRAVEL) o ONE HUNDRED FORTY OWNERS GROUP PERSONNEL WERE INVOLVED o
SUMMARY
REPORT ENDORSED BY B&WOG EXECUTIVES AND PROVIDED TO NRC l
l l
90 l
l TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF SPIP RECOMMENDATION IMPLEMENTATION o
TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS STARTED
- FOUR-MAN TEAM FORMED TO CONDUCT EVALUATION
- FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING ICS (KNOWN SAFE STATE) SELECTED FOR INITIAL EVALUATION
- EVALUATIONS COMPLETED AT GPUN AND DPC
- OTHER PLANTS SCHEDULED o
DETAILED EVALUATION PLANS AND CHECKLISTS UTILIZED o
STEERING COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED RESULTS OF FIRST TWO EVALUATIONS o
TECHNICAL. EVALUATIONS OF ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS WILL CONTINUE 92 1
P
~
7 m PRIOR TO 1986--TRIP REDUCTION AND TRANSIENT RESPONSE IMPROVEMENT PART OF AVAILABILITY IMPROVEMENT GOALS a FEBRUARY 1986-,A'P&L INITIATES ALTRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR BOTH UNITS m NOVEMBER 1986--AP&L INTEGRATES THE B&WOG SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WITH THE TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM m NOVEMBER 1987--AP&L TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM FORMALIZED AND RENAMED TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO EXPANDED SCOPE s JANUARY 1988--FINAL REVISIONS TO TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM ISSUED l
a 9
e
-.. e a e
4 -e-9
,.n.-
- - -..-.w
-,-,- -, - ~. - - -.-
,e,.. ---,
O NUCLEAR OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT VICE PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR Gene Campbell l
PROJECT MANAGER, GENERAL MANAGER.
GENERAL MANAGER, MANAGER NUCLEAR NUC. INDUSTRY SUPP.
NUCLEAR QUALITY DESIGN ENGINEERING OVERSIGHT Dan Williams
- Larry Humphrey
- George Jones.
Bill Craddock EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSIENT REDUCTION NUCLEAR OPERATIONS PROGRAM COORDINATOR j
Jim Lev.ine MGR. PLANT GEN. MGR. PLANT PLANT GEN.
- MANAGER, MGR. NUC. BUDGETS ENGitIEERING SUPPORT MANAGER LICENSING
& PLAtlNING Rici: Lone Early Ewing Steve Ouennoz Dan Howard Henry Jones 5
I ON-SITE COORDINATOR mANSIENT REDUCTION ROGRAM RESPONSIBluTIES for Transient Reduction Program TR.JtESP S/18/88
...~
~
~
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT TRANSIENT REDUCTION-PROGRAM Vice President, Nuclear Operations
- responsible for overall program issue policy statement
- ' issue program' document
- trip reduction & transient reduction goals Monogement %iew Croup periodic reviews of program status Executive Director.
General Manager, activity closeout Site Operations Nuclear Quality
, Project Mgr, Nuclear industry Support reviens & approval
- responsible for responsible for
- responsible for
- clarifications and on-site program saml-onnuoi overall program monogement administration audits of administration involvement program
- designetes
- chairman of MRC on-site coordinator
- responsible for progrom procedure
- designates progrom coordinator r
On-Site.
l Superintendent, Transient Reduction Coordinator Operations Assessement Program Coordinator Group
- coordinate all
- Implementation and on-site program
- responsible for providin9' revision of program activity trip and trontient reduction procedure & document recommendations from coordination of ANO maintoin en-site industry and plant dato action tracking reviews and Little Rock activity system maintoln recommendation tracking system maintain transient database review recommendations for intent and opplicability molntoin program files e
v
y p
e.
.---__,.3
..y,.,.y,,,
r 9,.
9
-%my.
.%mwm,y, e %.w, q y-s-3..
g---
-r.
,99
TRIP OR TRANSIENT REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIOL TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGPAM m
COORDINATOR LOGS AND REV.EWS FOR APPUCAB UTY/ INTENT APPUCABLE NOT APPUCABLE REVIEW RESU SUPERSEDED l f OR DELITED
) f TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM TRANS!ENT REDUCTION PROGRAM COORDINATOR ASS GNS INDMOUAL COORDINATOR ASS GNS INDMOUAL OR ORGANIZATION TO PRO /IDE OR ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE ANALYS:S AND JUSTlRCATION EVALUATION AND RESOLUTION l f
) f ANALYS;S AND EVALUATION AND JUSTlRCATION RESOLUTION y
, r TRANS1ENT REDUCTION PROGRAM COORDINATOR r
REVIEW CONCURRD4CE
?
TRANS1NT REDUCDON PROGRAM COORDINATOR PREPARES FORMAL CLOSE-OUT MEMORANDUu CLOSE-OUT MEMORN1DVM f
1 I MANAGEMENT REVIEW GROUP REVIEW AND APPRO/AL 9
NO APPRO/ED
?
YES
(
)
CLOSED
, gg
5.1.1 T
TRPC REC! EVES RECOMMENDATION
)
AND STATUS IS ASSIGNED
^
EVALUATION FOR APPUCABluTY 5.2.2.2 l f l
MRG REMEWS CLOSE OUT MEMO I
7 AND WRITTEN JUST1FICAT10N 5.1.2 FOR APPROVAL l
TRPC ENTNS RECOMMENDATION EVALUATION FOR APPUCABlUT(
INTO TRACKING SYSTEM l
] f EVALUATION FOR APPUCASIUTY
{
5.2.2.2.2
) f
(
MRG NO APPROVES l
CLOSE OUT MEMO 5.1.3 TRPC OPENS RECOMMENDATION DOCUMENTATION FILE l
5.2.2.2.1 1
2 YES EVALUATION FOR APPUCAB!UTY m
PAGE 2 Y
5.2.3.2 5.2 MRG REVIEWS AND DECIDES TRPC PERFORMS AN INITML m
RECOMMENDATION INTENT /
EVALUAT10N TO DETERM'NE POSITION APPUCAB!UTY EVALUATION FOR APPUCABILTIY EVALUATION FOR.'PPUCABilfTY A
u 5.2.3.1 5.2.3 CLARIFICATION
'2' TRPC PERFORMS EVALUATION REQUIRED
/
. INITML APPUCABLE 3
JTluZlNG AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND 2
/
- TION I PAGE 17
/
MAKES RECOMMENDATION TO MRG RESULie EVALUATION FOR APPUCABILTTY 5.2.2 NOT APPUCABLE, SUPERSEDED, OR REJECTED 5.2.2.1 TRPC PREPARES CLOSE OUT MEMO m
WITH WRITTEN JUSTiflCAT10N TO SUPPORT EVALUATION RESULTS EVALUATION FOR APPUCABlUT(
PAGE 10 of 26 Rev 0
T 5.2.1.1 e
TRPC ASSIGHS PRIORITY I
TO RECOMMENDATION m
EVALUATION FOR APPUCABluTY l f 5.3 TRPC IDENTIFIES ORGANrZATION 6
TO RESOLVE RECOMMENDATION EVALUATION FOR APPUCASIUTY l f ON-SITE ASSIGNED COORDINATOR TRPC ORGANIZATION/
/
GENERAL OFFICE ENGINEERING Y
Y Y
5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 TRPC PROMDES IMPLEMENTATION TRPO WRITES E.A.R. TO G.O.
TRPC ISSUES ACTION TO ON-SITE EVALUATION AND UPDATES STATUS ENGINEERING TO GENERATE COORDINATOR TO RESOLVE TO EVALUAT10N FOR RESOLUTION & UPDATES STATUS TO RECOMMENDATION AND UPDATES IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION STATUS TO EVALUATION FOR IMPL EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMEhTATION EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION l I l f I f 1
3 4
5 PAGE 21 PAGE 1 PAGE 20 l
PAGE 17 of 26 REV 0
5.4 TRPC RECE!VES RESOLUTION AND 10 REVIEWS FOR APPROVAL 8
EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION 4
I I 5.4.2.1 5.4.2 5.4.1 MANAGER. NUCLEAR SUPPORT NO APPROVE YES 7
REVIEWS AND ASSIGNS TRPC RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE
?
EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTAT'ON l f 5.4.1.2 RESOLUTION NO ADDRESSES FULL T
INTENT OF
^
PAGE 17 5.4.1.1 YES I f l I 5.4.1.2.1 5.4.1.1.1 MRG REV!EWS RESO'I. MON FOR APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATION ASSIGNS ACCEPTABILTTY OF ACTloit 7
ACTION TO IMPLEMENT RESOLUllON TO MEET RECOMMENDATION AND TRPC UPOATE5* STATUS TO IMPLEMENT 1NG EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTING Y
5.4.1.2.1.2 7
NO RESOLUTION PAGE 19
)
ACTION IS ACCEPTABLE 7
l 5.4.1.2.1.1 1 f 5.4.1.2.1.1.1 I
l MARAGER. NUCLEAR SUPPORT NOTIF1ES V.P., NUCLEAR OPERATIONS AND AUT}iORIZES IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FOR.!MPLEMENTATION PAGE 18 cf 26 RW O
i 7
I f s
5.4.1.1.2 RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION NOTIFIES TRPC OF RESOLUTION NPLEMENTATION COMPLIT10N IMPLEMENTING I f 5.4.1.1.3 MANAGER, NUCLEMt SUPPORT REVEWS IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENTATION FOR
&Q,qEMABtU1Y -
IMPLEMENTING l f
/
RESOLUTION 5.4.1.1.3.1 j / ACC M ABLE
\\
us 5.4.1.1.3.2 NO FOR TRANSIENT REDUCTION PRCM 7
l 1 f 8
8 PACE 1 PACE 2 1
1 PACE 19 of 28 RCi 0 I
.........-+----:
l 5.3.3.1 ON-SITE COORDINATOR IDENTIFIES m
3 ORGANIZATION TO RESOLVE l
RECOMMENDATION NiD ISSUE
)
7 1 RACKING FORM EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTABON I
l f l
ON-SITE ON-SITE COORDINATOR ASSIGNED ORGAN!ZATION ORG#41ZATION l I
.l f 5.3.3.1.1 5.3.3.1.2 ON-SITE C00RDIMTOR ASSIGNED ON-SITE PROVIDES IMPLEMENTATION ORGANIZATION PROVIDES EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION l f 5.3.3.1.3 ON-SITE COORDINATOR REVIEWS IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION
.I f 5.3.3.1.3.1.1 OSC ON-STTE COORDINATOR 10 ACCEFTS m
TRANSMITTS EVALUATION RESULTS s
/
EVALUATION PAGE 1 TO TRPC 9
5.3.3.1.3.1 EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTADON YES 5.3.3.1.3.2 NO
'5.3.3.1.3.2.1 GENERAL lAAMGER. PLANT SUPPORT REVIEWS AND ASSIGNS ON-SITE COORDINATOR TO RESOLVE EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION PAGE 20 of 26 RW O
~
5.5 5.5 TRPC PREPARES CLOSE OUT TRPC PREPARES CLOSE OUT 3
m m
9 MEMO AND TRANSMITS TO MRG MEMO AND TRANSMfTS TO WRG i
I IMPEMENTING EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION l I l f 5.6 5.6 MRG REVIEWS CLOSE OUT MEMO MRG REN1EWS CLOSE OUT MEMO FOR APPROVAL FOR APPROVAL IMPLEMENTING EVALUATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION I f l f 1 f 552 36 yyo 8
APPROVES m
PAGE 18,
CLOSE OUT MEMO 7
5.6.1 YES Y
5.7 2
MRG TRANSMITS CLOSE-0UT MEMO TO TRPC CLOSED /0PERABLE HOT APPUCABLE REJECTED SUPERSEDED l I 5.7.1 TRPC INCLUDES CLOSE OUT MEMO IN TR FILES, NOTirlES ORIGiMATOR, 7(
STOP AND UPDATES STATUS k
CLOSED /CPERABLE NOT APPUCABLE REJECTED SUPERSEDED PAGE 21 of 26 RN O
'9I e e
\\
Oee w
- e=
een " * -
-m-e*
I e
g an
=>
6
e S ATUS CA~EGOR ES m EVALUATING for APPLICABILITY (EFA) m EVALUATING for IMPLEMENTATION (EFI) m IMPLEMENTING (l) e CLOSED
- OPERABLE (C/0)
- NOT APPLICABLE (C/NA)
- REJECTED (C/R)
- SUPERCEDED (C/S)
- DELETED (C/D)
I I
j
'W Date: 6-87 l
Rev. 01
' N
' Recomendation Wo: TR-015 MN (Key)
B&V0G Procram: TR/ TRIP - SP!P L"i.
Coont rant Comittee: Availability Problem Area: HN Supply System Recomanda t ion:
- Lv fach utility evaluate results in report 47-1159449 00 and determine if a need for low suction pressure trip is needed. Then decide what trip or response to low suction pressure should be implemented.
r*7 w>$
I l
--9 Basis for Recomendation:
l I I
%J The B&V0G Availability Ccmni ttee has obtained data during their prograre that indicates low suction J
pressure trips have accounted for 20% of trips in the data base.
In addition, the predominant cause of these trips were due to hunan error.
)
r~l U
freeeted Beaefit:
a M N related trip reduction, en s {
LJ Source Document:
1.
B&V0G Availability Ccnnittee Repo t, 47-1159449 00 "MN Psg Trip Reduction Program - Final Report,"
transmitted Jan. 1986, pages 87-90.
Imolemeatatien $tatus Cate Information Received
- e. Elk: Impl erf.nti ng. (Ccrnplete by 11/30/88).
11 17 37 (PO2: Evalutting for leplementation.
11 17 87 f.?q:
Evaluating for apolicability (June 88) 3 28-88 SM: Closed / Operable 9-15-87 E@: Closed / Operable. Rancho Seco does r.ot have a icw pressure suction trio.
3-21-88 Tyj:
Hold. Status pending approval of Senior Managernent Review Board.
3-18-88 Y
TLD:
Closed /Not applicable (Davis-Besse has a deaerator which provides the suction head).
'1-14-88 M
(7/85) 1 1
3-15 DM-D M -,,.._ _ _, _ _. -
D-i----
e 3
I TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS STATLIS - JUNE 1,1988 i
I
{
250
- - ~
~~~~ - ~'
i
@ EVAL for APPLICABILITY
@ EVAL for IMPLEMENTATION i
y
'/
200 g
' IMPLEMENTING wp;
. a z
{
(
x.f ;
~
/j-Q CLOSED 2
)
2 150f-
//'/'
l I
L
['
kk m
1 u-x x
100
//
'v O
(
i m
/.
' 4' l
xNNNNNNNN
// /
Qhk s
'6
(
i x-2
\\
a hY $$ht Y
0 JAN 1 MAR 1 JUN 1 TRPSTATS 6/6/88 1
~
TRANSlENT REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS June 6,1988 IMPLEMENTING 53.6%
EVALUATING for IMPL.
10.8%
N g(
/
'/
35.6%
l TRPRECS 6/6/88
' q' LOSED TRANSIENT REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS June 6,1933 Resec7go 21 az J
. & NOT APPLICABLE
,l/
l
\\,
77.3%
E OPERABLE
~
.[<
J xxx 'z _/////
x
/
f
/
/,
/,/
//
/W
/,//,/ /
W
/9 CL' DRECS 6/6/88 S
1
ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT f,,,
TRANSIENT REDUCTION PROGRAM Vice President, Nuc! ace Operations responsible for overall progrom leeus polloy statement leeue program document trip reduction & tronalent reduction geols 4
Uonagerment Review Group pededic reviews of program atome 3
actMty closecut Site Operations Nuclear Quality
. revlawa & approvo!
- responsible for
- responsible for ciodfications and on-site program saml-onnual management administration audits of invoNoment program
- designates on-site coordinator
"~~~~~I I
Supedntendent.
l Operations Assessement 1
l Croup Utt!e Rock Trenaient Reduction I
- responsible for pre ding Program Coordinator d
Coordinator l
tr!p and transient reduction t
coordinate o!!
l recommendations from Imp!amentation and industry and p!arst dato revision of program Uttle Rock prgm g
actMty reviews I
procedure & document
- responsible for coordination of ANO m olnto!n L R.
I overo!! progrom oction trock!ng l
cdministration and Uttle Rock actMty j
system molntotn recommendation i
1
- chattmon of MRG track!ng system
- responsible for molntoln transient I
progrom procedure datoboes
)
Ig o e program review recommendations I
for Intent and 1
opplicobtllty l
1 molntoln program files 6--
)
1 MXTo4 s/s/se i
l
,