L-83-264, Forwards Plant Recovery Plan Presented at 830425 Meeting Re Reactor Vessel Internals & Thermal Shield,In Response to Item C of .Plan Will Be Revised Daily W/Updates Provided Upon Availability
| ML17213B312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1983 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-83-264, NUDOCS 8305020168 | |
| Download: ML17213B312 (6) | |
Text
a REGULA Y INFORMATION -DISTRIBUTI SYSTEM (RIDS)
A ACCBSSION NBR:8305020168 DOC,DATE: 83/00/27 NOTARIZED; NO FACIL;50,"335 St+ Lucie Plant~
Uni~t 1g Florida Powei
& Light Co, AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGg R ~ E, Florida Power 8 Light Co,
<<RBC IP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CLA'RKiR+As Operating Reactors Branch 3
SUBJECT:
Forwards plant recovery,plan presented -at 830025 meeting re reactor vessel internals
& thermal <<shiel:drain response to Item C of 830019 ltr,Plan will be revised daily,w/updates provided upon availability, DI'STRIBUTION CODE:
A049S COPIES <<RECEI VED g LTR.
ENCL SIZE:,
TITLE:
OR Submi ttal: Thermal 'Shock
. to Reactor Vessel NOTES:
DOCKET 05000335 EG F
RE A
05 REC IP IENT ID CODE/NAME NRR ORB3 BC 01=
INTERNAL; ELD/HDS2 12 NRR DIR NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DL DIR NRR/DSI DIR COPIES LTTR ENCL 7
7 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME MURLEYgT NRR VISS ING e G04 NRR/DHFS DIR NRR/DL/ORAB 11 NRR/DS I/RSB NRR/DST/GIB RES/DET RGN2
- COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1i 1
1 EXT<<ERNAL; ACRS NRC PDR NTIS 10 02 6
6 1
1 1
1 LPDR NSIC 03 06 1
1 1
1
- TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED
LTTR 33 ENCL
'31
R R
l f>>
f~jl
)>> Tt)'
FLORIDA POWER II'IGHTCOMPANY April 27,,
I 983 L-83-264 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 7/3 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Clark:
Re:
St. Lucie Unit I Docket No. 50-335 Reactor Vessel Internals and Thermal Shield; Plant Recover Pro ram In a meeting on April 25, I 983, Florida Power and Light Company provided you with a presentation detailing the present St. Lucie Unit I Plant Recovery Plan.
Although this Plan will be revised on nominally a daily basis, with updates provided to you as they become available, we have enclosed the Plan presented to you on April 25th, in satisfaction of item C. in our letter of April I 9, I 983 (L-83-230).
Should any questions arise, please contact us immediately.
Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems 6 Technology REU/DAC/cab cc: Harold F. Reis, Esquire Enclosure 8305020ih8 830427 l
PDR ADOCK 05000335 p
PDR EDPLE... SFRVING PEDPLE
ATTACHMENT ST. LUCIE UNIT I EFFECT ON FUEL PERFORMANCE Results from neutronics measurements and mechanical observation indicative of fuel integrity or the presence of loose debris in the active core region substantiate that no abnnormal fuel failure has precipitated from the thermal shield failure.
Neutronics parameters and fuel observations demonstrate no abnormal behavior which can be attributed to a change in fuel performance as a result of thermal shield failure.
For full power equilibrium conditions following Cycle I, neutronics parameters which would be sensitive to debris related fuel failure have been nominal.
Both total unrodded planar radial peaking factor and asimuthal power tilt measurements have been' in continuous agreement with expected values.
Full core power distribution measurements have been consistently in good agreement with design predictions both on a.local as well as an overall basis.
Fixed incore detector signals have been as expected.
The measured DEQ I-l3I values have been assessed and determined to be equivalent to other plants of this vintage.
The estimated number of perforated fuel rods.has been small (always less than l5). All CEA worth, boron and core reactivity measurements have been in agreement with design prediction for each. reload.
In general, core performance has been as expected since Cycle I.
Mechanical observations have not supported the presence of thermal shield debris in or on any fuel assemblies.
During this refueling outage a core scan was performed prior to fuel movement.
This inspection, via an underwater TV camera of the top of the fuel, demonstrated that no metallic debris was present.
This is also true for the previous refueling outage core scans.
The lower end fitting of 90 Cycle 5 fuel assemblies were inspected for debris during the fuel offload in support of the plant recovery plan.
No debris was discovered in this inspection.
Unit I has no instances of CEA's either failing the CEA drop time requirement or becoming. immovable or untrippable as a result of excessive friction or mechanical interference.
In summary, there is no objective evidence to date which is indicative of fuel failure resulting from the thermal shield failure.
I'n addition, there are no indications to date of anomalous fuel failure or fuel problems since Cycle I.
i.
4'