IR 05000335/1985028
| ML17308A179 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1985 |
| From: | Burnett P, Jape F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17216A410 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-85-28, 50-389-85-28, NUDOCS 8601270465 | |
| Download: ML17308A179 (10) | |
Text
1PS REQy, ~
Mp0 Cy ClO
/g I
+**++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.IN.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-335/85-28 and 50-389/85-28 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-335 and 50-389 Inspection Condu d:
mber 19-22, 1985 Inspector:
.
T. Burnet Approved:
F. Jape, Section C
ef Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety License Nos.:
DPR-67 and NPF~ 16 Date Signed l ~/d'4 ate Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection entailed 24 inspector-hours onsite
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
in the review of surveillance tests and fuel performance.
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
8601270465 860115 I
I PDR ADOCK 05000335 I
I
" 'L
1t
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Person Contacted Licensee Employees
- K. N. Harris, Vice President
- D. A. Sager, Plant Manager
- J. H. Barrow, Operations Superintendent
- M. S. Dryden, Technical Services
- C. A. Pell, Technical Department Supervisor
- E. Wunderlich, Reactor Engineer
- N. T. Weems, guality Assurance
- J. J. Walls, guality Control R. Stevens, Licensing Engineer NRC Inspectors
- R. V. Crlenjak, Senior Resident Inspector H. T. Bibb, Resident Inspector 2.
Exit Interview
~
~
The ins ection p
scope and findings were summarized on November 22, 1985 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector described the areas inspected and detailed the inspections findings including the
nresolved and followup items described below.
Inspector Followup Item 335/85-28-01:
Discuss the monotonic change in Unit 1 reactivity deviation - paragraph 5.a.
Unresolved Item 335/389/85-28-02:
Uncertainties in the time of performance of required, 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> surveillances to be resolved - paragraph 5.b.
Unresolved Item 335/389/85-28-03:
The adequacy of the at-power moderator temperature coefficient procedure as written and approved is in question-paragraph 5.d.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters Inspector Followup Item 335/85-28-04:
The results of the fuel inspection, and experience with the recycled fuel will be reviewed in future inspe'ctions
- paragraph 6.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed during this inspection.
Not addressed in this inspectio ~
I
~
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required to determine whether they are acceptable or may involve violations or deviations.
Two new unresolved items identified during this inspection are discussed in paragraphs 5.b and 5.d.
5.
Surveillance Tests a ~
Shutdown Margin and Reactivity Deviation (61707)
Reactivity deviation was measured using operating procedures OP 0120026 and OP 2-0120026 for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
Completed procedures for Unit 1, cycle 6 were reviewed for the period January 15, 1985 to October 4, 1985.
The frequency of 31 effective full power days (EFPD)
required by Technical Specification 4. 1.1.1.2 was satisfied throughout the period.
The reactivity difference varied monotonically from +691 pcm to -599 pcm, and was within the allowed 1000 pcm band.
Since the appropriate plant personnel were not readily available to discuss the apparent systematic variation in reactivity difference, that subject will be discussed during a later inspection and will be identified as Inspector Followup Item 335/85-28-01.
The measured reactivity differences for Unit 2, cycle 2 were reviewed for the period January 3,
1985 to October 14, 1985.
The frequency of surveillance was acceptable, and the differences varied randomly, with the greatest magnitude being -264 pcm.
Shutdown margin in modes 3, 4, and 5 was surveilled using OPs 1-0110056 (Revision 14)
and 2-0110056 (revision 4) for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The procedures have some very good features:
Step 4.4 emphasizes that compliance with shutdown margin requirements does not assure compliance with the mode requirements for k-effective, and steps 8. 1.2. 1 (Unit 1) and 8.2.28 (Unit 2) require consideration of the reactivity deviation in calculating the margin.
For Unit 1, eleven completed procedures were reviewed for the period March 7, 1985 to October 30, 1985.
For Unit 2, 45 procedures were reviewed spanning the period August 8, 1985 to September 12, 1985.
In at least two cases, the incorrect RCS temperature was input into ',the calculation yielding answers that were wrong but conservative.
In 17 cases the times entered were ambiguous.
That is civilian time was used without the am or pm appended.
Thus, it could not be confirmed from these records alone that the required 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> surveillance frequency had been satisfie p
~
P
~
r b.
Thermal Power Determination (61706)
The 31 completed procedures, OP 2-3200020 (Revision 6), Primary ISystem Manual Calorimetric, for October 1985 were reviewed.
For two of these procedures the time of performance was not entered at all.
For'isix the time was ambiguous as discussed in paragraph 5.b above.
At the exit interview, the licensee was informed that these uncertainties in the time of performance of required, 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> survei 1-lances would be inspected further and would be tracked as an unr~esolved item (UNR 335/389/85-28-02).
c.
At-Power Measurement of Moderator Temperature Coefficient (61708)
Operating procedure 32DD51 (Revision D), At Power Determination [of Moderator Temperature Coefficient and Power Coefficient, applies'o both units.
The procedure does not address data reduction and calculation of the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC).
Data sheet III captures the raw data from the test.
Data sheet IV compares" the measured MTC with the Technical Specification limits and design, predictions but no data sheet or procedure steps lead from sheet'II to sheet IV.
In reviewing two completed test procedures, Unit 2 at,'88 ppmB on March 5, 1985 and Unit 1 at 281 ppmB on June 11, 1985, the packages were found to contain additional pages of handwritten calculations, a printed data sheet of unknown origin labelled
"Reduction of Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) and Power I
Coefficient (PC) Data,"
and in the latter case a computer printout giving the results of a MTC calculation.
The adequacy of the procedure as written and approved is in question.
Pending the opportunity to discuss the procedure with the engineer responsible for its content and performance, the issue will be tr'acked as Unresolved Item 335, 389/85-'28-03.
Fuel Failures (60710)
R Throughout the inspection, the licensee was engaged in examining the Unit 1 fuel that was to be returned to the reactor for evidence of failure.
Failures were identified 'by fuel sipping.
Failed fuel pins were then',
located optically and replaced with solid, unfueled pins.
In all, the licensee had identified 13 pins to be replaced.
In addition, other fuel pins were removed from the bundles for eddy-current testing (ECT), and then replaced in the bundles if found acceptable.
Some of the damaged pins showed evidence of extensive hydriding, with several inches of cladding missing from the upper section of the pin.,In one or two cases the upper end plug of the pin was missin C l
W H
II
These observations were reminiscent of recent experience at Surry and~ North Anna Nuclear Power Stations in which metallic debris in the reactor coolant system (RCS)
was trapped in the lower grid of the fuel assemblies where it caused fretting failure near the bottom of the fuel cladding.
However, the most visible evidence of the failure was hydriding in the upper cladding and missing upper end plugs.
Since St. Lucie Unit I had undergone extensive rework of the core barrel during the previous outage, and that work had the potential to introduce debris into the system, the inspector recommended to the licensee that they contact VEPCO to obtain the benefit of their inspection and operation experience.
Since some fuel was missing from the pins at St. Lucie I, it was also recommended that they contact the operators of Farley and Trojan, who had experience in removing fuel from the RCS.
By the end of the inspection period, ECT had identified some pins with evidence of fretting below the lower grid, but none of the failures were through the wall.
Preliminary contact had been made with VEPCO, and plans were in progress to examine recycled fuel visually for debris before
~
returning it to the reactor.
It was recognized that not all of a fuel bundle is accessible to visual inspection.
The licensee was also considering methods to quantify the amount of fuel in the RCS by analysis of dissolved actinides.
The results of the fuel inspection, and experience with the recycled fuel will be reviewed in future inspections and will be identified as Inspector Followup Item 335/85-28-04.
7.
Independent Measurements (61706)
Plant-specific data were obtained to customize the personal computer program TPDCER2 (thermal power determination in C-E reactors)
for use with observa-tions of variables obtained from Unit 2 in concert with the daily heat balance on the unit.
However, the actual measurements were deferred to a later inspectio ~
~
o C
t I
II II e