IR 05000335/1993011
| ML17228A165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1993 |
| From: | Crlenjak R, King L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17228A164 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-335-93-11, 50-389-93-11, NUDOCS 9305250120 | |
| Download: ML17228A165 (6) | |
Text
go,8 R<GII~
(4
Cy Ith
- e
r~
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-335/93-11 and 50-389/93-11 Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-335 and 50-389 Facility Name:
St.
Lucie 1 and
Inspection Conducted:
April 8-12, 1993 License Nos,:
DPR-67 and NPF-.16 Inspector:
L. P.
K ng, Reactor Inspector spaz 9~
Date Signed Approved by:
R.
V. Cr enja
, Chief Operat'ional Programs Section Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety 5rz y>
Dat Signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection was conducted in the areas of Complex Surveillances.
Results:
The inspection included observing the Unit 1 safeguards full flow tests.
The inspector witnessed full flow testing of the IA and 1B Low Pressure Safety Injection pumps, the 1B High Pressure Safety Injection pump, and the 1B Containment Spray pump.
The inspector reviewed documentation and determined that the tests were bounded by the design basis analysis.
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
9305250120 9305i2 PDR ADOCK 05000335
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted 2.
- G. Boissy', Plant General Manager
- J. Connor, Test and Code Lead Engineer
- J. Hallem, S. I. Systems Engineer J.
LaDuca, Mechanical Engineer
- S. Hohn, Technical Staff Engineer
- D. Sager, Vice President St. Lucie Plant
- R. Winnard, Supervisor Nuclear
- D. Wolf, Site Engineering Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included operators, and office personnel.
NRC Representatives
- S. Elrod, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended Exit-Interview A listing of abbreviations used in this report is contained in Appendix A.
Complex Surveillance Testing (61701)
The inspector reviewed the following information to determine if the safeguards pumps'erformance was bounded by the design base analysis:
LPSI pump curves LPSI baseline data HPSI, LPSI, and CS last two surveillances dated October 24, 1991, and September 16, 1992 LPSI, HPSI, and CS surveillance procedures 1-0410050, HPSI/LPSI Periodic Test, Rev.
37 dated April 2, 1993 HPSI pump curves n
HPSI baseline data CS pump curves CS baseline data FPL'etter NF-92-733, St.
Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 12 ground rules dated October 16, 1992 The inspector also reviewed interoffice correspondence JPN-PSL-90-0611, St.
Lucie Unit 1 Follow-Up to NCR Pl-387 HPSI,Issues, dated April 13, 1990.
The interoffice correspondence stated that the HPSI flow delivery curve was regenerated to be consistent with the modified HPSI system configuration (wide open discharge valves)
and degraded pump performance consistent with TS 4.5.2.f. 1 which requires a quarterly surveillance of greater than or equal to 2571 feet of head at minimum recirculation flow.
The St. Lucie Unit
SBLOCA was re-analyzed based on the HPSI system delivery curve to demonstrate compliance to 10CFR50.46 requirements.
The inspector found that the new SBLOCA analysis was bounded by the SBLOCA analysis of recor Report Details The inspector witnessed the testing of the 18 HPSI pump using operations procedure 1-1600024, Rev.
26, Appendix A Safeguards Full Flow Test.
Step 15 of the procedure requires opening any two HPSI B Header Injection Valves to establish a total HPSI flow of 350 gpm.
The 1AI and 1A2 header flows did not reach 325 gpm.
The licensee wrote a work request to determine why there was a 25 gpm,decrease in flow.
The flow measuring devices were tested and ruled out as a problem.
The licensee was troubleshooting at the close of the inspection to determine the cause of the discrepancy.
The reduction in flow is bounded by the safety analysis and does not represent a safety concern.
I I-Step,17 of the procedure requires opening all A HPSI Injection Valves to establish a total HPSI flow greater than or equal to 647 gpm.
This flow was achieved during the test and is consistent with the value of 647 gpm at zero RCS pressure used in the accident analysis.
The inspector witnessed the test and determined that the proper value was"obtained.
The licensee evaluated the postulated impact of LPSI pump performance degraded by 15 percent on the limiting 'accident analysis.
The rationale for evaluating the design basis using a
15 percent degradation of the pumps was to ensure that any future degradation of the'umps would be covered by the design basis.
The value of 15 percent is the difference between the certified pump curve and the TS required curve.
Prior to 'this revaluation, it would have been possible to meet the TS requirements and be outside of the design basis.
The 15 percent degradation envelopes the existing TS requirement 4.5.2.f.2 which requires a quarterly surveillance of greater than or equal to 350 feet of head at minimum recirculation flow.
The LBLOCA was determined by the licensee as the only event which takes credit for LPSI flow.
The LBLOCA analysis showed that LPSI pump performance degraded by 15 percent had no impact on the resultant PCT obtained in the LBLOCA analysis of record.
The inspector witnessed the testing of the 1A and 1B LPSI pumps using operations procedure 1-0410050, Rev.37, HPSI/LPSI Periodic Test.
On data sheet H,
1B LPSI Pump Substantial Flow Test, Step 2 requires establishing a 3200 gpm flowrate and Step 3 requires calculating the pump head.
Pump head was determined to be 324.4 feet which was within the acceptance criteria and within the analyzed degraded value of 15 percent.
On data sheet G,
1A LPSI'Substantial Flow Test, the head was 336. 1 feet at 3200 gpm.
This also was within the acceptance criteria and within the degraded value of 15 percent.
The inspector also witnessed the conduct of operations procedure.1-1600024, Rev.26, Appendix A, Safeguards Full Flow Test for the 1B LPSI pump.
Step 6 requires verification that a total flow rate of greater than or equal to 4500 gpm be reached.
The maximum obtained was 4420 gpm.
The licensee is"revising the procedure to show a
lower value which is within the design basis analysis.
The inspector concluded that the LPSI pump flows as tested were bounded by the accident analysi Report Details The containment peak pressure analysis and Containment Spray System analysis were reviewed by EBASCO to assess the impact of degraded containment spray pump performance consistent with the TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2. l.b which requires a quarterly surveillance verification that pump pressure is greater than or equal to 200 psig when tested on recirculation flow.
The licensee evaluated the impact of a postulated degraded 25 percent containment spray pump on the containment backpressure during a
LBLCOA event.
This evaluation showed a lower PCT result due to
. the increased back pressure.
The inspector also wi'tnessed the conduct of operations procedure 1-1600024, Rev.
26, 'Appendix A Safeguards Full Flow Test.for the
CS pump.
Steps 14 and 15 require verification that a total flow of 2000 gpm be obtained and pump head data be recor'ded.
The total head data 'recorded was 496.5 feet which was within the acceptable'range and was enveloped by the accident analysis.
The inspector concluded that the CS pump flow as tested was bounded by the accident analysis.
3.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 12, 1993.with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The NRC described the are'as inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No proprietary material is contained in this report.
No dissenting comments were received from the license Report Details CS HPSI IFI LBLOCA LPSI NCR PCT RWT SBLOCA SI TS APPENDIX A Abbreviations Containment Spray High Pressure Safety Injection Inspector Follow-up Item Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident Low Pressure Safety Injection Non Conformance Report Peak Clad Temperature Refueling Water Tank Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident Safety Injection Technical Specifications