ML20137N263

Submits Corrections to Unit 2 Interval 2/Period 2/Outage 1 ISI Rept

ML20137N263
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/01/1997
From:	Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9704080311
Download: ML20137N263 (2)

Text

)

Dave Morey Southern Nuclear Vice Presdent Operating Company Farley Prejett P0. Box 1295 Birmmgbam, Alabama 35201 Tel 205 992.5131 April 1, 1997 SOUTHERN COMPANY Enern to Serve Your%rld" Docket No.: 50-364 TOCFR50.55a(g) 10CFR50.36 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 Interval 2/ Period 2/ Outage 1 Inservice Insocction Report Correction Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR$0.55a(g) and 10CFR50.36, Southern Nuclear Operating Company submitted the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Interval 2/ Period 2/ Outage i Inservice Inspection Report on July 17,1995.

Tab B in the inspection Report provided Balance of Plant / Reactor Vessel Examination summary data. The last page of this section provided summarized data results of FNP steam generator eddy current examinations. He page provided in the July 17th submittal contained two errors. The errors have been corrected and a revised page is attached. The corrections are noted by a change bar in the right hand side of the document. Ecse revisions are consistent with information provided to the NRC in LER 96-002-00, Misapplication of Technical Specification 4.4.6 Requirements Regarding F*, dated May 22,1996, and LER 95-001-01, Steam Generator luspection, dated June 14,1996.

This correspondence is provided to formally transmit the corrections to the Unit 2 hiservice inspection Report. If there are any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, n 7Ww l

/ 'f Dave Morev EFB:marisi-corr. doc Enclosure

/

//

cc:

Mr. L. A. Reyes, Region 11 Administrator Mr. J.1. Zimmerman, NRR Project Manager Mr. T. M. Ross, FNP Sr. Resident inspector 9704080311 97040' PDR ADOCK 05000564 l %^' E Q kkkll G

PDR

~.

.~ ~ -.

i g-

.1 Eddy Current Examination 4

During the tenth refueling outage of Farley Unit 2, all non-plugged tubes and unplugged tubes to be returned to service in all three steam generators were examined full length (except for Row I through 4 '

U-bends in SO's 2A and 2C, and the sleeves in SG's 2B and 2C). Plugs were removed from 101 tubes and 90 tubes were successfully returned to service by using current data analysis guidelines. De results are summarized below:

t U2 RF10 S/G STATUS i

S/G - 2A S/G - 2B S/G - 2C Tubes plugged prior to U2RF10 290 181 239 Sleeved tubes in-service prior to U2RF10 78 56 141 Percent plugging equivalent prior to U2RF10 8.68 5.41 7.23 Tubes returned to service during U2RF10 18 1

71

' Total in-service sleeves after U2RF10 112 58 170 Total in-service sleeved tubes after U2RF10 77 56 140 Tubes defective (includes return to service tubes) 41 19 29 during U2RF10 I

Designated F* tubes 27 38 199 Designated L* tubes 0

1 5

Total plugged tubes after U2RF10 314 199 198 Total inservice tubes after U2RF10 3074 3189 3190 j

Cumulative sleeve plugging equivalent 4,04 2.15 5.99 Cumulative % plugging equivalent after U2RF10 9.39 5.94 6.02 i

Average % plug equivalent -

7.12 %

He results of the S/G inspections were determined to be category C-3 and LER 95-001-00 was

?

submitted.

Table 1 (Tab C) identifies the tubes with imperfections by location, percent of wall-thickness thickness j

(where applicabic) and rotating pancake coil (RPC) results (where applicable) for tubes which were in service. Table I also shows which of those tubes were designated F*. The NIS-2 Forms show which tubes were plugged.

]

Tabic 2 (Tab C) lists the degradation for those tubes which were unplugged and returned to service i

l (includes F*). In addition this table lists the unplugged tubes that were replugged.

During a 1996 INPO review of the FNP Steam Generator program, it was identified that FNP had -

]

misapplied the F* criteria during U2R10. The data was re-evaluated and it was determined that 6 tubes.

i

'l in S/G 2B and 5 in S/G 2C, did not meet the F* criteria but would meet a generic L* criteria. ' A

. NOED was granted and a one cycle only Technical Specification change was granted for the L* criteria.

~

More detailed documentation is provided in LER %-002-00. He six tubes which are listed in Table 1 (Tab C) which were reclassified from F* to L' are by S/G, row, and column: 2B R19C45,2C R7C42, 2C R1IC63,2C R10C64,2C R8C65, and 2C R13C65.

1 I

4

~-

, _..