ML20076B645

ECCS Repts (F-47) TMI Action Plan Requirements,North Anna Unit 1, Technical Evaluation Rept

ML20076B645
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	09/27/1982
From:	Vosbury F FRANKLIN INSTITUTE
To:	Chow E NRC
Shared Package
ML20076B647	List: ML20076B645
References
CON-NRC-03-81-130, CON-NRC-3-81-130, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737 TER-C5506-283, NUDOCS 8209290095
Download: ML20076B645 (15)

Text

1 . '

y'. L . . , , ., , . .

d's)"'

.y ..;;' q , ' ,

. 7.,. . ; .; q3 _

.V. s *

.t'2 *

.....,e.".

v .

c. ~ , .,1.o D ~. l-

> ',- .s,,. A v ' t..~'

• * . . . ' , %c l* .'%

-<; . . - i %. .-,

,.(.. .N. 2 . >.** -

.,- q .. . .

n-

. .s , ~ ,

l4' .* . ...

', . ~ a 3 .s '.; ;

. :.n N. . '~ . . . ' . . W 9.. ;- . .

y. . g . w . . .: . ,. .. ._ ~ , . . ~ .

X ,[ '

'V . N'-

.s :5 . , ..,T ECHNICAL .

..' ' EV. LUATION REPORT.

w .. . ..

, . s

• n , ..a

. ,. .* 2-

,, ,.. ~. ~- =*-..

. nt~_ _. n.m. - . . . .

.c .

i );

n.;1 .hr / .e

~

ECCS REP. -w ORTS w.(F-47)e.m% M .,w. z.&.. 2.gw.1:.v:...y 3 y?

.. . 1 .. . . , .

.. v xw;;.  ; .

.W.. .r

.n . . f.n,ev4 n ..w:

/ J.:_ Wr

.a- TMI, ACTION ..PLAN  : 2. m- REQUIREMENTS

, ,: . . m. +..

.. 1 - _ s. .  :.J.,.? . .,..,-. * ~ ,. .s ~..a. .<.. . :.n, . e ., !c. ' . . p. ;;;~;m. -%  ; .: c

.V.IRGINI'A ELECTRI.C. : ANIi.TPOWER. E

. . . .t

~

.r . e s4

,4 W. ;U, - .

c W #

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION (JNIT 1 'W. N<M 4." w' ? '

/ ar.= . .

NAC DCCKETNO. 50-273 -

.. FRC PROJECT C55C6 1 .. ,

I~ #

FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03-81 130 FRC TASK 283

.*s *

.[,

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

n

. < Preparedby . x:

Wr., ^7. p .Y.

- ~

. s. :~ d .:ii L: y .:.'.:.;7 + t.m 2r.l."*MQl%...

f .

. ., , - e . :. .: w 3 .n'n.. . -

.c . . f, ~ y yosyur'y'

.~. Jranklin . Research Center ; ;s:s .... -: v,. .. ,. . N.p.w. t ..n. W..m*, th.or: Au.; .C.7.J.: - Overbeck ' " ~-

f

/,~? . ,

y a

..k ,J,.T.120th and Bace Streets .y E-se'.T I'M;, .OMi. S,9:W? . :

d ' . v.& u.v.iir.c,.F ,, B, .uW. . Ludingt.on

.o .  : Philadelphia, PA 19103 ~ M G:3 ._ . .. ,.):e. Q.1f' FRC Group Leader: ' G. J'. ' Overbeck

c. . ...v.,--

s

~,. , w.. . . , .. ... - + ,m .a. .,e ,.

.:....my, e.. . . . . . . . -

. . e. .

, Prepared for , Tk.~ . .*:-%. . .*. 9,x. - f.,eT.. f.. ., . , ~.,.nQ t

• E Nuclear Regulatory Commission Q.s . . ,

. ,. . L *.

.f. . .

t '

< y!).r.y Lead NRC Engineer: E.; Chow ' ...

h , . Washington D.C. 20555.'. : . ~. "W, . . '. '2:::n. .:- .

' V:.::C

. v. .p , . ..: ) . .w . . . y ' .m. . :.....;.n . : ,. ..

s . . .. . . :.,: , v,:ve.~

, #  % .m

w. . ? , m . .e: y ' . w. m:.~. 4..rw e'3., ..  :

r .

- x. ,..

.c:. . .

. -. " w  :,. .w-

. a-o.. . ..g %.;ee. ..w o. m . w.. .. ~ -w".m,~ . -y"v w ~ ~ n . v.

.,. + '.s.-

Ls-n '.n ;.?.-

. .,. .w

.; .y 2 y * . c.w*t w.. i.y .

'o: m-. . ., ;..M .. . . <. m*: ..-r 's ys ~ n.-:-7.

/. 3" . . .

.s r

. r* r ;' '-

w.s -

,i '

J.D. .,./.%.~j M .,?*r.-%.. September . 27,? 1.,. ,. & Q. . fl. . 7E.  :

,. m. .

%a vl9621 g . ~ ,

, . < . .. v. . .. . , . . . . , .

". ;n .

,N . .

p .

,- ,m- . . ,

. 7% ,,.... ,.... q. 3 4 3 .;

, ,. . . , 3

g. 7 . .

f. 1, sn. - . '- <

~

s, .

. . ~ . - . .,;;.

.. 4 , , W- .: - ,1. .  :<.r .

vP .

m: .

.- 4 ' ' ' -

. s ,g 3 . ;- <

' .f .

?, . . -~.

t .

E :t '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

~

k.? .

, f * *.

employees, makes any warranty, expressed or impiled. or assumes any legal liability or +

s responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information. appa.

' 3.# c. -

y. ' :ratus, product or process disclosed in this report.,or represents that,its use by such third, .... .M.,

J*

me, would not infrin S

o. :G .: . , p, L,l,;" , ,; a ; J, - ' . . . :. M i .%;l:' ' Wl .% Q' %.5

,p;.gg9inbhg.

) ,a .

. ;k. :.,. :.~, '.' eparty %G .,.. :l.g.c<.:.;.ge privately own J..f.,- .. g*.,%..x.;,. . ,g. w*Qi.b{,..'G.

~.

. . w. . 3 .

. ~ z; - w. :W w ;"'4' .D. w2. .:. .m

... .yA ~

.s.:;.:.

M:,. ~ .

.y 3 ,1:  : n y, 2 C pMM W 4* % : n ,. : %:::

W

. ,pa. _g. ..,:

. ...a.

gM.  ;

m.. MM..;:,c@<:,.:;r%. --

,gg d,,'*, pq:w;ps-

p. ,m.g: n. n:. y:: . . ; v m g.m . .

.v. .<.....,,.

F v: ' W!"'!<: *P2 d,...,.,.

i y "4 9 ' , . . r,,.:, .,,,e

.gic g:. t.. ;;r:'? , .

- W r'S'~ ~

J ,,

....*  %- . ' .. .,' , r- t*.'.,D 7 4, 4 v . .Fa;.j- % *

• a J, . t..

i

. T. .' '*% '. :** -4. ":-d."  :R.-7 :A. s ..

. ~.. ,',4

,4 ,

. .,f.M, 5 .,[... . . . .

w ,,.' .. '_ _.

., .{ ' ...

..,, h %... f. ..r;-Y.s h.s . h..A s [i, , y[. .. e .. T

.. u,. ,. .%.

y

. os o .

_..,..o._....

. . ,u. ,

. . .;. ww:ms.- .

Se % _,p g i ;;va.:.x ,..%]}$'..,I

, . . .. ~.e .

U .g (W

~

" 8 Neen}....,... ' ' ' '

Q n..'

..e' ,".' * .,.

• • ,. p

]g . .

[.4' '3

=

, .% - r

. . .. .. m

' _i j .1 1 ' W.#. -.. '%. .

Franklin Research Center

' ~

! - ' 'A Division of The Frankhn Institute

. 1 .

. , . . . .c

- The Benparnn Freren Parway. Phila Pa 19103(215) 448 1000

.. l'.; .*'- 2.1

...p m* ..e. ., ,.

? rg 3. , .,- '. *-

% '. < s ... . - - , = - ' ~"'!' .-<

.,... .w.. _'., . 9

.,.m .. . -

O. . _

N

^*

.s.,, -

[ .b

k 1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT ECCS REPORTS (F-47)

TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORIHANNAPOWERSTATIONUNIT1 I

i NRC DOCKETNO. 50-273 FRC PROJECT CS506 FRC ASSIGNMENT 7 NRC CONTRACT NO. NRC-03 81 130 FRC TASK 283 Prepared by y, y, ye,y Franklin Research Center Author: G. J. Overbeck 20th and Race Streets B. W. Ludington Philadelphia, PA 19103 FRC Group Leader: G. J. Overbeck Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lead NRC Engineer: E. Chow Washington, D.C. 20555 September 27, 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 imp!!ed, or assumes any legal liability 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:

I cA 7tM,

\ hm k V Mu Principal AuthoQ Group L'edder Department Dire / tor /

Date

YN Date: 7.24 % Date: - 2 )- 9 L

. 4 Franklin Research Center A Division of The Franklin institute The Bengrnn Frankhn Parkway. PNia . Pa 19103(215)448-1000

I TER-C550 6-29 3 CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Purpose of Review . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Generic Background. . . . . . . . . . . 3 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 3eview of Proposed Changes to Improve the Availability of ECC Equipment . . . . . . . . 8 4 CO NCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 iii M-Ji) Franklin Research Center 4 cm or in. r, u. m no.

. . . . . - - _ . . _ , . . . _ . _ . . - . . _ _ . - . . , _ . _ . - . - _ _ _ . . . . . . , , . _ - . , . , _ _ , _ , . , . . . . - _ . . ..-,e . . . . - _ , . _ . . -

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

u ._ _

p. s, .-- s.

,., ];-

.A 6 .

~

~-

4 , ,

A

, g.

., '. Ys a

( L g*

s ',,,-

s

\ '4' TER-C5506-283

\

l 3

1 r' N ._.g 4

%. ,w

,s

(. b - % u.

~,-

FOREWORD - 4 j w 4 - 3 This Technical IEvaluation Report was prepared by Franklin Research Center under^ a contract with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com:sission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Operating Reactors) for technical assi, stance in support of,NR} operating reactor licensing actions. The tectinical' evaluation was conducted in accordance with criteria established by the NRC. \ '-

'^

x -

'-y ., , ..%

/

.s s Mr. G. J. Overbeck; Mr. F. W. Vosbury, and Mr. 3. W. Ludington

s. , .

contributed to the ' technical preparation of this report throughg a wubcontract with WESTEC Services, Inc. ,

s V .

i '

w * * -

s 3 #

~

s s ,_ ,

~

. s -

- ~ .a

/

a V

q

') d Franklin Research Center 4 cm on as n r,.non m.u.

sc - ,

~s .

1 . R

+ s ss

- - TER-C5506-283

1. INTRODUDTION 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 Virginia Electric and Power Company's (VEPCO) North Anna Power Station Unit 1. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if the Licensee has submitted a report that is

[ 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 Technical Specification Changes."

1.2 GENERIC BACKGROUND Po11owing the Three Mile Island Unie. 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 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 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 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 the actual plant response, the Bulletin and Orders Task Force recommended in NUREG-0626 [1], " Generic Evaluation of Feedwater Transients and Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accidents in GE-Designed Operating Plants and Near-Term Opersting 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 4

20U Franklin Research Center a ca ca m. Fr.n.u.a m.ou.

TER-C5506-283 CCC 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."

The recommendation was'later incorporated into NUREG-0660 (2), "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident," for GE-designed NSSSs as TMI Action Item II.K.3.17. In NUREG-0737 (3), " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," the NRC staff expanded the Action Item to include all light water reactors and added a requirement that. licensees propose changes that would 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; (2) cause of the outage; (3) ECC systems or components involved in the outage; and (4) corrective action taken."

1.3 PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKGROUND ,

On December 9, 1981 (4), VEPCO submitted a report in response to NUREG-073 7, Item II.K.3.17, " Report on Outages of Emergency Core-Cooling Systems Licensee Report and Proposed Technical Specification Changes." The report submitted by VEPCO covered the period from June 6,1978 to December 31, 1980 for North Anna Power Station Unit 1. VEPCO did not propose any changes to improve or centrol availability of ECC systems.

j d d Franklin Research Center 4c~ aa m rw e .

, .. l l

TER-C5506-283

2. REVIEW CRITERIA The Licensee'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 (5]

outlining Tentative Work Assignment F. Provided as review criteria in Reference 5, the NRC stated that the Licensee's response should contain the following information:

1. A report detailing outage dates, 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 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 systems, if necessary.

The type of information required to satisfy the review criteria was clarified by the NRC on August 12, 1981 (6]. Auxiliary systems such as compsnent cooling water and plant service water systems were not to be considered in determining the unavailabi).ity of ECC 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 (7], the NRC 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 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.

4 $U0 Franidin Research Center ao-wawn.nm amuu.

TER-C5506-283

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION 3.1 RE7IEW OF COMPLETENESS OF THE LICENSEE'S REPORT The ECC systems at VEPCO's North Anna Power Station Unit 1 consist of the following five separate systems:

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

In Reference 4, VEPCO also included systems and components that support the ECC systems in carrying out their design functions under various accident conditions. The support systems are:

o service water system o emergency diesel generators o recirculation spray system.

For each ECC system outage event, VEPCO 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 VEPCO's review were provided '

for the period from June 6,1978 to December 31, 1980 for North Anna Power Station Unit 1.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, VEPCO's report fulfills the requirements of review criterion 1 without excepUon.

3.2 COMPARISON OF ECC SYSTm 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 i preventive maintenance. Unplanned outages are reportable as Licensee Event 6

M

'S9) Franklin Research Center a om.on et th. Fr.a.ma in u.

4 TER-C550 6-283 1

Reports (LERs) under the technical specifications. Planned outages for periodic maintenance and testing are not reportable as LERs. The. technical specifications identiry 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 it. 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 J

extensive ECC system downtime.

Unavailability, as defined in general terms in WASH-1400 (8], 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 five years. To simplify the tabulation of operating time, only the period that the plant was in operational-Mode 1 was considered. This simplifying assumption is reasonable given that the 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.

1 It should be noted that the ratio calculated in this manner is not a true I

measure of the ECC system unavailability, since outage events are included that appea'r to compromise system perf ormance when, in f act, partial or full function of the system would be expected. 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 requirements, then an outage of a single pump would not prevent the Pn -S-b Franklin Research Center a m a om. Fr.n.n m.u.

_,_ _ . . . . . . . . - . _ . . . _ . - -- _-- . , -- --~_ --, _ - , - -

TER-C5506-283 system from performing its safety function. In addition, the actual ECC system unavailability 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 cutages associated with primary ECC system components and emergency diesel generators are considered in this review. The t

inclusion of all outage events assumed to be true ECC system outages tends to overestimate the unavailability, while the exclusion of support systen outages tends tc underestimate the unavailability, of ECC systens 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 thu five ECC systems (accumulators, CVCS, SIS, RHR, RNST) and the emergency diesel generators were identified from the outage information in Reference 4 and are shown in number of days and as a percentage of plant operating time per year in Table 1 for North Anna Power Station Unit 1. Outages that occurred during nonoperational 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 Pcwer Plant Operating Experience" (9-12], and from monthly reports, " Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report" (13 ] . The remaining outages were segregated into planned and unplanned outages based on VEPCO's description of the causes. The outage periods for each category were calculated by summing the individual outage durations.

Observed cutage times of various ECC systems at North Anna Power Stations Unit 1 were compared with those of other PWRs. Based on this comparison, it was concluded that the historical unavailability of the accumulators, CVCS, j SIS, RWST, and RER system has been consistent with the performance of those l systems throughout the industry. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean for all ECC systems, assuming that the underlying udd Franklin Research Center m .e e nev m .au,

- - - _ _ - , , , _ _ ,_r _,. - , ,- _ _ , , , - - __-

Y+; >

>n,W

• VB 3a i'

$E ta i

' 2df

?

3

[X

'S 2

l <3 b" Table 1. Planned and Unplanned (Porced)Nsutage Times for North Anna Unit 18 Accumulators CVCS SIS RIIR RWST Diesel Generator Days of Plant Outage in Days 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 Forced Planned 3*70 193.On 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.54 1.04 0.0 0.0 0.52 0.0 0.0 0.83 0.54 (1.834) (0.546) (0.274) (0.436) (0.286) 1 1979 225.1 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 6.25 i

0.0 0.06 0.06 4.27 (0.018%) (0.114) (0.034) 4

! %J 1

(0.03%) (1.95) 1980 325.3 'O.94 0.0 0.0 0.92 0.40 0.0 1.02

• 0.06 0.0 0.0 2.52 a.23 (0.294) (0.284) (0.128) (0.314) (0.024) l (0.774) (2.53t)

Total 744.2 0.98 0.0 0.0 4.46 1.44 0.0 1.02 0.t:3 0.0 0.06 3.41 13.04 (0.134) (0.604) (0.194) (0.144) (0.114) (1.014) (0.464) (1.754) i

a. Commercial operation 6/6/78.

)

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

63 LG l LR O

i

,o CD Gb 4

l N

TER-C5506-283 unavailability is distributed lognormally. The outage times were also consistent with existing technical specifications.

. 3.3 REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES 'IO . IMPROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF ECC EQUIPMENT In Reference 4, VEPCO d!d not propose any changes to improve the availability of ECC systems and ccmponents.

l 1

p _g_

bbb Franklin Research Center A t>m.on or n. r,.n.an in.aa .

TER-C5506-283

4. CONCLUSIONS Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) has submitted a report for North Anna Power Station Unit 1 that contains (1) outage dates and duration of outages,' (2) causes of the outages, (3) emergency core cooling (ECC) systems or components involved in the outages, and (4) corrective actions taken. It is concluded that VEPCO has fulfilled the requirements of NUREG-0737, Item II.K.3.17. In addition, the historical unavailability of the ECC systems has

. been consistent with the performance of those systems throughout the industry. The observed unavailability was less than the industrial mean for all ECC systems. 'Ihe outage times were also consistent with existing technical specifications.

dj Franklin Research Center a won # n. n.non m.ou.

TER-C5506-233

5. REFERENCES

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" NRC, January 1980

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

3. NUREG-0737

" Clarification of 'IMI Action Plan Requirements" NRC, October 1980

4. R. H. Leasburg (VEPCO)

Letter to H. R. Denton (Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC)

Subject:

Revision 2 to NUREG-0737 Response December 9,1981

5. J. N. Donchew, 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

6. NRC Meeting between NRC and FRC.

Subject:

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

7. NRC Meeting between NRC and FRC.

Subject:

Resolution of Review Criteria and Scope of Work July 26, 1982 8 WASH-1400

" Reactor Safety Study" NRC, October 1975

9. NUREG-0366

" Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experience 1976" NRC, December 1977

10. NUREG-0483

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

.' .UU Franklin Research Center A Oms.on of The Fraanka msatwe

TER-C5 50 6-28 3

11. NUREG-0 613

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

12. NUREG/CR-1496

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

13. NUREG-0020

" Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report" Volume 4, Ibs.1 through 12, and Volume 5, No.1 NRC, December 1980 through January 1981 l

l l'

l t

l t

l NMU Frark!'n Researen Center A Dmmon of The Frannha inschte