ML20136A675

Partially Withheld Memo Discussing Directors Decision 96-19 Under 10CFR2.206 Re Steam Generator Issued at St Lucie

ML20136A675
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	12/09/1996
From:	Ogle C NRC
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20136A623	List: ML20136A618 ML20136A675 ML20136A681 ML20136A718 ML20136A740 ML20136A787 ML20136A845 ML20136A861 ML20136A891 ML20136A898 ML20136A910 ML20136A924 ML20136A928
References
FOIA-96-485 2.206, DD-96-19, NUDOCS 9703100028
Download: ML20136A675 (6)

Text

b //W l i

.s.

December 9, 1996 NOTE TO:

Chairman Jackson FROM:

Chuck Ogle Brian /Kar()la/An p4

(,

COORDINATED WITH:

tte/Marylee

SUBJECT:

Director's Decision Under 10 CFR Part 2.206 Regarding Steam Generator (SG) Issues At St. Lucie (00-96-19)

SUMMARY

The attached NRR director's decision denies a petitioner's request for the NRC to take action against Florida Power and Light (FPL) in response to steam generator tube degradation at St. Lucie Unit 1.

The petitioner requested three actions of the NRC:

(a) issue an order prohibiting operation of Unit 1 to less than 50%.

(b) require the licensee to identify the root cause of the premature tube failures.

(c) require the licensee to specifically identify the corrective actions which will be taken to prevent recurrence of SG tube failures.

The petitioner's request is apparently based on his concern that in excess of 2.500 Unit 1 SG tubes are plugged: his belief that the root cause has not been determined and that similar degradation may be likely; and that contrary to the FSAR, this may impact primary system integrity.

In response to the first recuest, the staff notes that in June 1996, the licensee eddy current testec all active tubes in SGs 1 and 2 of Unit 1.

All defective tubes were plugged.

Of 8.519 tubes in each SG. 2.159 (25.3%) of the tubes in SG1 and 1.834 (21.5%) of those in SG2 have been plugged.

The NRC staff has reviewed and found acceptable. the licensee's evaluation of continued operation at 100% with this number of tubes plugged.

The licensee has estimated that follow-on tube inspections will be necessary by October 1997. On October 24. 1996 the licensee submitted a run-time analysis to the staff which formally documents this position.

The staff has indicated that a review of this analysis will be completed in approximately 4-6 weeks. The staff indicates in the 2.206 response and in discussions with me that in-situ pressure tests (in excess of accident pressures) of several tubes during the last outage provides adequate assurance of continued SG tube integrity pending the stafps formal review of the run-time analysis.

The staff indicated to melthat they also draw comfort from the r' ins ctions er licens uri the last outa i

_J

..n,,

,: m: MM 0

.j ;;i;0fm3l50fT

4,

, i. nuiS 0'

W YFJ cm.

9703100028 970228 PDR FOIA BINDER 96-485 PDR

I l

dontheseitemsthestaffcBnclgdes Based on previous licensee submittals and industry information on SG tube degradation, the staff concludes that FPL is aware of and understands the root cause of the tube degradation in the St. Lucie SGs.

Therefore, the staff finds that action per item (b) is not warranted.

In response to action (c), the staff concludes that licensee limits on primary and secondary chemistry parameters, the planned replacement of the Unit 1 SGs in the next outage and Tech Spec required inspections, all re) resent a)propriate corrective action.

The staff also notes that there lave not Jeen any tube ruptures at St. Lucie.

Overall. the staff concludes that the licensee's actions provide reasonable assurance of continued SG tube integrity at the St. Lucie units.

Recommend take no action.

Director's decision issued as written.

O 1

t E.

G \\0GLE\\5TL,202 OGL

N ll i

lf j

i-4 l

St. Lucie St. Lucie's performance is not so positive: Operations and Maintenance

{

e are 2s. Engineering and Plant Support are 1s. This is a decline from all is in the previous SALP.

Historically. St. Lucie has been a highly j

rated plant with long operating runs.

n e

The SALP for St. Lucie specifically notes'sianificant declines in

/

e Operations and Maintenance.

The SALP attrt5utes this to declines in humallnerfnmance and the goor quality of proceduces. The SALP also goes on to express concern that a significant performance decline i

occurred prior to the trend being identified by the licensee's self-l assessment organizations.

As part of the fallout from this decline, eight managers have been f

1' s

replaced at St. Lucie in the last year. (Not all were terminations:

)

retirements, etc.)

esumuseummut Renlacement of the Unit 1 steam generators is planned for October 1997.

e the Unit 2 steam generators are not planned for replacement since they are in better material condition.

Initial word is that this will be done under a 5.0.59 analysis, St. Lucie 1 was one of the plants initially caught up in the recent e

SIEMENS Large Break LOCA analysis problems.

'fhough they were able to f

demonstrate compliance, the PM stated that some miri-level managers in the FPL organization were sl_ow to respond to initial NRC concerns in this area. The PM further stated that tnis was quicKiy resolved when senior FPL managers were informed.

~..

During the summer, the licensee detected several cases of tamnering with e

equipment. Specifically, someone placed a glue-like substance in several padlocks, doorlocks. and keyswitches.

Safety systems were not rendered inoperable, but the tamnering was detected within vital areas of the plant. The licensee was unable to Jositively determine the

[

identity of the responsible individual altlough one individual was yJ terminated for " performance problems" detected as part of their investigation of the issue.

e site is n h ea. The exact Ine site a so has had three esca a ed enforcement vio ations, int'he last t

15 months.

with the licensee include the recent 50.54(f) e etter le reso es it will require) and the number of recent inspections at the site (tampering follow-up. A/E inspection, and a maintenance team inspectioni.

\\\\

c wouunmein!ait.

,.: r

'.- % :s c,

A0 D3 tion f-

..h/[_

IM

l 4

1 i

~

V 4.I is e ing os s an area of focus by Mr. Plunkett and drawn some

, ~~ s a

s i

3 recent Region II attention.

i l

i l

i l

3 l

l i

i 1

1 t

a

\\

l 1

~

• i G \\0GLE\\f PLORPIN OGL

s j

QUESTIONS:

i The last SALP," Report for St. Lucie dated February 8,1996, l

identifies a

... disturbing performance _ trend in the areas _of i

l qperations_and Jnaintenance.,

Performance declined from superior

~

to go6d in these areas.

Additionally, Region II also highlighted i

that your corrective action programs failed to detect this decline in a timely fashion.

What do you see as the problem and I

what steps have you taken to reverse these trends?

I am particularly concerned that your snif-assessmants did not pickuponthesedeclinesearlier.

Have you figured out why your i

self-identification was not more timely?

Have you come to closure on the tampering events at St Iociel This was a fairly unique occurrence, have you passed on the lessons learned from the issue to your peers in the industry?

In light of your recent experience with the SIFMENS Lar_gejlregk LOC /Lanalysis-and the industry lessons learned from the Maine i

Yankee RELAP 5 computer code problem, have you made any effort to j

ensure that oroblems do not exist with other comouter codes you; routinely use?

i What is the status of._the4)ESAR_at both of your facilities?

Do you have any effort underway to verify the adequacy of the information contained therein?

What has been the_j_mpact on your company nf__the recent NRC 10CFR C0.54Part(f) letter requesting information on the adequacy of your design basis information?

Employee turnovat has been ioentified as a concern at Turkey Point.

Is this a recent problem or a continuation of a long standing problem?

Why is this such a problem at this facility?

i ST What do you see as the long-term resolution to the Thermo]ag 4

issue at Turkey Point?

When will this fix be in place?

I understand that there were some performance problems on a G \\0GLE\\fPLDRP!N OGL

recent licgensed operator examination. (1 failure and 6 marginal performance ~5iit_ot79TandidatE5~T What did your examination of this issue reveal?

V,A

'3 M6 M

U~

poR f (.9 nrrs h CA : r/v/9r) k Cid.l h r~~c (g p>(4 c ?

~

• $~A')J Sv.s~7 f ad A~ (7 // Y@.)

G:\\0GLE\\fPLORP!N OGL

.