IR 05000335/1989013

Comments on SALP Repts 50-335/89-13 & 50-389/89-12.Concurs That Overall Performance Excellent.Util Sensitive to NRC Concern About Complacency

ML17223A291
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	08/16/1989
From:	Woody C FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
L-89-303, NUDOCS 8908230141
Download: ML17223A291 (3)

Text

ENCLOSURE 3 8UG I?'89 88146 881 FPL JML 628 P.82 P 0.0oh14000.Jvho S~hch.FL@400 0<20 AuGVKQ i 6 IQ8s L-89 303 U.S~Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mashington, D C.20555 Gentlemen:

Re: St.Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos, 50-335 and 50-389 Inspection Report Nos.50 335/89-13 and S0-389/89-13 s e Florida Power 6 Light company (FPL)has reviewed the systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)report dated Zuly 10, 1989 Ve concur that the overa'performance of the St, Lucie Plan was excel'nt during this assessment period.FPL is sensitive to the NRC concarn about complacency at St.Lucie Plant.Our goal is to continue to improve our performance in all rating areas'e have attached other clarifying comments concerning the de ails of the report for your consideration.

Very truly yours, YcQ Acting Senior Vice President-Nuclear CON/EJN/gp Attachment cc: Stewart D., Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region XZ, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, St.Lucio Plant~h PPL CtOVI'C4IIIMhV I+: 1)ew)0.~1)\t h h, 1~~)A'ac\eW auB lr~Bv Be i ir Be 1 FPL JHl.628 P.B5 ST+LUCIS CHITS FPL concurs with the hRCls acknowledgement of an improving trend in the per formance of the Health Physics Department.

This department will work towards continued improvement.

Se u FPL concurs with the NRC'e identification of several areas for improvement in the area of Security and Safeguardi.

FPL is aggressively pursuing resolution of problems in these areas, e 1 FPL Disagrees with the YRC's statement that"The failure of the simulator staf f to recognize the potential plant operational impact of...(a design de iciency in the Auxiliary Feedwater actuation signal (AFAS)circuit which could result in erroneous isolat;ion o auxiliary feedwa.er)

..indicates a disconnect be"ween the simulator staff and plant operations," FPL feels that, as shown below, this issue was resolved promptly by quick and proper responses from both the Training and Operations Departments.

This design deficiency was identified during the week of September 12, 1988, and highlighted by the NRC in an eXit meeting on Septerher 16.The Septer>er 16 HRC exit meeting followed the HRC written examinations and simulato exercise for operating licenses for st, Lucis conducted during the week of september 12-16 (St.Lucie Examination Report 50-335/OL-88-01)

.Prior to this exit meeting, the simulator ALAS response to a specific steam generato.tube rupture (SGTR)scenario, which occurred the week of September 12, was actively under internal review by St.Lucis Plant staff.This internal review resulted in the.St.Lucia Operations Department issuing six Temporary Changes (TCs)to the affected Emergency Operating Procedures

{EOPs){3 for St.Lucia Unit 1 and 3 for St.Lucis Unit 2)on Septenber 16.These TCa added a caution s"a"B-.e..".

add"essirg the possil.ility of interrupted foes to the available steam generator under natural circulation cooldown with a single steam generator.

On September 22, St.Lucio Unit 2 TCa were approved by the St Lucie Plant Facility Review Group{FRG);the pit, Lucia Unit 1 Tcs were approved by the FRG on september 29, pa"VG 17'SS 88I48 88l FPL-JH 628 P, 8l STe LVCII UNZTB l 7QG)2 (can')Xn parallel to the above, on September 16, Requelt for Engineering Assistance (RZA)88-037,"Isolation of'an-Faulted Steam Generator During Simulated Natural Circulation Cooldown" waa issued by St.Lucia Plant staff to FpL's Nuclear Engineering Department.

On September 21, the St Lucie Plant Training Department met with FPL Nuclear Engineering to diacusI the potential for a simulator anomaly, It was recognized at that meeting that the simulator AFAS setpointi ior rupture identification did not agree with plant/Technical Specification values for AFAS SGTR identification.

Ae a result of that meeting, ard on September 22, the Training Department wrote Discrepancy Report (DR)5425 on the St.Lucio simulator addressing these differences.

Simulator testing with revised aetpoints (matching thoaa of the Technical Specifications)

resulted in no change in simulator response.FPL Nuclear Engineering provided a draft response to RZA 88-037 on November 16, 1988 and a final respons>>on January 27, 1989.The recommendations of this REA response resulted in no plant changes nor additional changes ta procedures other than those implemented in September 1988..FL bolieves that the above rdicates that there has been, and c ntinues to be, a strong link bo".ween the Simulator and Opera='ons staffs,