ML17227A351

LER 92-002-00:on 920219,unit in Condition Prohibited by TS 5.3.1 Due to Design Error.Design Process for Fuel Reloads Will Be Revised to Ensure That All Sections of TSs Are Thoroughly reviewed.W/920320 Ltr

ML17227A351
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/20/1992
From:	Sager D, Sienkiewicz S FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
L-92-7, LER-92-002, LER-92-2, NUDOCS 9203230269
Download: ML17227A351 (7)

Text

ACCELERATED DISTRIBUTION DEMONSTjWTION SYSTEM REGULRT(O INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIONSTEM (RIDE)

ACCESSION NBR:9203230269 DOC.DATE: 92/03/20 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET t

-FACIL:50 335 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, Florida Power & Light Co. 05000335 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION SIENKIEWICZ,S. Florida Power & Light Co.

SAGER,D.A. Florida Power 6 Light Co.

RECIP.NAME "

RECIPIENT AFFILIATION

SUBJECT:

LER 92-002-00:on 920219,unit in condition prohibited by TS 5.3.1 due to design error. Design process for fuel reloads will be revised to ensure that all sections of TSs are thoroughly reviewed.W/920320 ltr.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE22T COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:

TITLE: 50.73/50.9 Licensee Event Report (LER), Incident Rpt, etc.

NOTES:

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PD2-2 LA 1 1 PD2-2 PD 1 1 NORRISFJ 1 =1 INTERNAL: ACNW 2 2 ACRS 2 - 2 AEOD/DOA 1 1 AEOD/DSP/TPAB 1 1 AEOD/ROAB/DSP 2 2 NRR/DET/EMEB 7E 1 -

1 NRR/DLPQ/LHFB10 1 1 NRR/DLPQ/LPEB10 1 1 NRR/DOEA/OEAB 1 1 NRR/DREP/PRPB11 ~

2 2 NRR/DST/SELB 8D 1 1 NRR/DST/SICB8H3 1 . 1 NRR/ STJSPLB8Dl 1 1 NRR/DST/SRXB 8E 1 1 REG E~~~Og 1 1 RES/DSIR/EIB 1 1 RG 2 FI?E 01 1 1 EXTERNAL: EGSG BRYCEFJ.H 3 ' L ST LOBBY WARD 1 1 NRC PDR 1 1 NSIC MURPHYFG A ~ 1 1 NSIC POOREFW. 1 1 NUDOCS FULL TXT 1 1 NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!

FULL TEXT CONVERSION REQUIRED TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 32 ENCL 32

P.O. Box 128, Ft. Pierce, FL 34954-0128 FPL March 20, 1992 L-92-7 1 10 CFR 50.73

'.Attn:

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Re: St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Reportable Event: =92-02 Date of Event: February 19, 1992 Condition Prohibited by Technical Specification Design Features Description Section 5.0 Due to Desi n Error The attached Licensee Event Report is being submitted pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.73 to provide notification of the subject event.

Very truly yours, D. A. ager Vice esident St. Lucie Plant DAS/JJB/kw Attachment cc: Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, USNRC Region Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St. Lucie Plant II DAS/PSL N648-92 9203230269 920320 PDR *DOCK 05000335 S PDR an FPL Group company

l PL FrTcolmlrr ot US. NXXFARREGUlATORY COMMISKN IPIIONm 1%% IIX<< IOOIII NRC Form S68 EPWS 4OOOT IIHsl LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) cor IOOIÃOS ND IOTONIO NN<<OONTIIN<<NCTI TIIT<<<<r,come IT NwcoToNT No

~

Ico IklcxNpoI Icwcxoc ToocoocT Torrl TIw oocTowTION olrcoocw IKOXST:OIO IIWIONIWIOOOWNNIO IEONCNIO IMMIINTO<<TO TO TIC aocoT.~

\IO INC1ENIIC OAATORT XSOSOOOIC TWOOIOICTI, OO IOIOL NA To TIN PAtTIWCTWIOOOCTCTI TIKkCCT oc oooL FACILITYNAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) PAGE 3 St. Wcie Unit 1 050003351 0 4

'~ (4) Condition prohibited by Technical Specification design features description section 5.0 due to design error.

EVENT DATE (5) LER NUMBER (6) REPORT DATE (7) OTHER FACILmES INVOLVED(8)

MONTH DAY YEAR DAY YEAR FACILITYNAMES DOCKET NUMBER(S)

N/A 0 2 1992 9 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 9 2 N/A 5 0 THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR '

OPERATING Check one or more o th followin (11)

MODE (9) 20.402(b) 20.405(c) 50.73(a)(2)(iv) 73.71(b)

POWER LEVEL 20.405(a)(1)(i)- 50.36(c)(1) 50.73(a)(2)(v) 73.71(c)

(10) 1 0 0 20.405(a)(1)(ii)- 50.36(c)(2) 50.73(a) (2)(vii) OTHER (Specifyin Abstract.

20.405(a)(1)(iii) 50.73(a)(2)(i) 50.73(a)(2)(vlii)(A) below andin Text 20.405(a)(1)(iv) 50.73(a)(2)(ii) 50.73(a)(2)(viII)(B) NRC Form 366A) 20.405(a)(1)(v) 50.73(a)(2)(iii) 50.73(a)(2)(x):

LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER 12 NAME 'TELEP ONE NUMBER AREA CODE Scott W. Sienkiewicz, ShiftTechnical Advisor 4 0 7 465 -3550 COMPLETE ONE LINE FOR EACH COMPONENT FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT 13 CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT REPORTABLE MANUFAG- REPORTABLE TURER TO NPRDS CAUSE SYSTEM COMPONENT TURER TO NPRDS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED 14 EXPFCTED MONTH DAY YEAR SUBMISSION YES (Ifyes, complete EXPECTED SUBMISSION DATE) DATE (15)

ABSTRACT (Limit to 1400 spaces. I.e. approximately fifteen single-space typewritten lines) (16)

On February 19, 1992, at 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br />, FPL Nuclear Engineering verified that St. Lucie Unit 1 was in a condition prohibited by Technical Specification section 5.3.1 (Fuel Assemblies Design Features). Technical Specification section 5.3.1 specifies a maximium total weight of 2250 grams of uranium per fuel rod, when the actual nominal maximium weight per fuel rod was 2273 grams. However, the fuel load safety analyses considered the increased uranium mass in the fuel rods and were determined to be acceptable. The reason for this condition was that the design process failed to identify Technical Specification section 5.3.1 as needing a revision.

The root cause of this event was design error, in that the engineering review for the cycle ff11 fuel reload process dkl not Include a comprehensive review of sections 5 and 6 of the Plant Technical Specifications. A contributing factor to this event was that these sections were considered descriptive and typically not subject to change.'orrective actions for this event: 1) Nuclear Engineering will revise the design process to ensure that all sections of the Technical Specifications are thoroughly reviewed. 2) A Technical Specification change package has been submitted to the NRC. 3)Training will be administered to Nuclear Engineering Fuel personnel on the review of engineering packages for'fuel reload.

FPL Facsimile of NRG Form 366 (6-89)

PL Facellllle Ol Ua. NUOLEAR REGULATORY COMMSSION AWNCYTOa>> NIT 01>>0100 rSLC FNTTT 36 C>>NNN 0000I

~ (MQl UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) 00lWATTO NCNNN IC0 INWYNNNTO OCINI YINlNTI>> 0CCIWATNW NNICCTNW INTANCN>> 0 10>> ICWNNElOONNNTC INONYWO>>IYNNTCIWATCTO TIN INOOIRS TEXT CONTINUATlON ND I%TONICNANAKINNT IWWCWIN0>>C NN IUCICANINICAATTWYOOI400>>ON WNCMOlTW.OC NNIC, JNl TO TIN CJVTTNNTN INSVCIYWt&lNCTTI1>>01>>A CTNCE CI'NACIMWTANT ILINNT.WANONTITCAOC>>>>L FACILITYNAME (1 ) DOCKET NUMBER (2) "

LER NUMBER (6) PAGE (3)

EQUENTIAL REVISIO St. Lucie Unit 1 NUMBER NUMBER 0 5 0 0 0335 9 2 0 0 '2 0 0 0 2 0 4 TEXT (Ifmore space is required, use add5onaINRC Form 366A's) (17)

OnFebruary18,1992, St. Lucie Unit1 was infuelcycle¹11 andinmode1 at100%power. Onthis.

date, an FPL Nuclear Fuel Engineer performing a review of the St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specifications determined that the design features section limited the weight of uranium in the fuel rods to a value below that loaded in cycle ¹11. At 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br /> on February 19, 1992, FPL verified that Unit 1 was in a condition prohibited by Technical Specification section 5.3.1 (Fuel Assemblies Design Features). Technical Specification section 5.3.1 specifies a maximium total weight of 2250 grams of uranium per fuel rod, when the actual nominal maximium weight per fuel rod was 2273 grams. However, the fuel rods loaded in cycle ¹11 (approximately 1/3 of the core) were designed and manufactured to contain a slightly larger mass of uranium to increase fuel efficiency. All fuel reload safety analyses were performed considering the increased uranium mass in the fuel rod and . =

were determined to meet all design and safety criteria for cycle ¹11. Cycle ¹11 began on December

¹ 20, 1991. Additional review of this event identified that batch A fuel from Cycle 1 (approximately 1/

3 of the initial core) also had a fuel rod uranium weight in excess of 2250 grams (2265 grams).

'he root cause of this event was design error due to an inadequate Technical Specification review conducted by Nuclear Engineering, which focused on Technical Specification sections 2 through 4.

Minimium margins to the specified acceptable fuel design limits are defined in these sections which support Chapters 4 and 15 of the safety analysis report. However, no actual in-depth review of Technical Specification sections 5 and 6 was performed.

A contributing factor to this event was that Technical Specification section 5.0 was considered descriptive and typically not subject to change.

FPL Facsimite of NRG Form 366 (6-89)

PL FOCClrNlO d US. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMlSS TON NYYIDYIOLOICLCIICCICI NRC FNITT XB CHOCO'COCCI OL49l UCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER) TOTAAATIIECOCN ICII IOOACWKT0 OCCNLYYAlllTIOI~TTCN OCAICCTION IKQKCTINC II%, ICCOTNCI OCOOONTC IEOAWANTACSOI TOTCAATC TO TIN IKOCNAI TEXT CONTINUATION NCI IKYCCIICNANACCIOIIIOOANOI lAONLILO NICLCNTICCAAATCRTOINOOSSOL ANOCTICCI,OC ICNONCITOTINOPtfRIKlW KOLCIITINKICOTTTIICOOALCYNOC CO ANNKANNTNOONCET. ANOKOCCL OO IC5CL FACILITYNAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) LER NUMBER (6) (3)

EQUENTIAL REVISIO NUMBER NUMBER'AGE St. Lucie Unit 1 0 500 0335 9 2- 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 4 TEXT (Ifmore spaceis required, use additional NRC Form 366A's) (1/)

This event is reportable under 10 CFR 50.73.a.2.i. as "any operation or condition prohibited by the Plant Technical Specifications". Although the design of the cycle ¹11 reload was similiar in physical characteristics to that of the fuel previously loaded into the reactor, the changes resulted in an increased fuel uranium weight (a 1% increase in the fuel rod weight for approximately 1/3 of the core).

All fuel reload safety analyses were performed consklering the increased uranium mass in the fuel rod and were determined to be acceptable for cycle ¹11. The following is a general listing of those key design considerations which were reviewed and found acceptable: 1) The increase in the heated length of the fuel rod and its impact on the Minimlum Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio.

2) The impact of the reduction In gap width on the hot rod gap conductance and on LOCA. 3) The Integrity of the new fuel rod design during normal operation and Anticipated Operational Occurrences (AOO) which was confirmed by a detailed mechanical performance analysis. 4) The radiological consequences for each limiting event which were evaluated against 10CFR100 criteria and found to be bounded by the results of previous analysis. Therefore, the he'alth and safety of the public was not affected by this event.

1) An Engineering Justification for Continued Operation analysis was performed by FPL Nuclear Engineering, which concluded that there were no adverse operational or safety implications with the higher weight of the fuel rods.

2) Nuclear Engineering will revise the FPL design process for fuel reloads, to ensure that all sections of the Technical Specifications are throughly reviewed during the fuel reload initialization process and verified throughout the reload process.

3) A Technical Specification change package and associated 10CFR50.92 (No Significant Hazatds Determination) has been developed and submitted to the NRC to revise the requirement regarding fuel rod uranium weight in section 5.3.1 of the St. Lucie Unit 1 'Technical Specifications.

¹

4) All previous Cycle 11 documentation (Plant, Change / Modification Package)will be revised to reflect the need for a Technical Specification change package and a revision to the FSAR associated with the fuel rod uranium weight.

5) Training will be administered to Nuclear Engineering Fuels personnel on the review of engineering packages for fuel reload.

FPL Facsimile of NRC Form 366 (6-89)

L FscslrrNe ol NRC Form S66

($ 89j US. NUCLEAR REGUlATORY COMMSSION LlCENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)

~ CSO Nl SISISI CTSSSW COAST ff csfsfATI DJCDI fell fswcsfN To cxsscTTXTN Tfw ssofslATxw oxlrofxw fsfsxsf: ws tris tcwffffcfcfsNfrrs TKDNsfsfo TAscxw TsrsfATC To Tfc fscofos TEXT CONTINUATION ffffISSOIITS NANACÃIS frrSIIANWISCWS IAS NACCTAIITSCASATCWT SSSXSOIC WDSCRKCITCW. DO 85$ L AN) TO TIC ~ CTTINCTSI STXAOTCW fOSXOT CTISIC lfoOTACS Of WWISASffrAICT TAlXKT.WASOIOICSC DO SCIL FACILITYNAME (1) DOCKET NUMBER (2) LER NUMBER (6) PAGE (3)

EQUENTIAL REVISIO St. Lucie Unit 1 NUMBER NUMBER 0500 0335 9 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 TEXT (if more spaceis reguired, use additional NRC Form 366A's) (17)

NONE 2.

No other LERs pertaining to fuel problems were identified.

FPL Facsimile of NRC Form 366 (6-89)