IR 05000254/1990010
| ML20059A180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1990 |
| From: | Danielson D, James Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A179 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-90-10, 50-265-90-10, NUDOCS 9008220153 | |
| Download: ML20059A180 (6) | |
Text
(-
-- m
,
,,
,,
,
,
si
<Ui
._;
,
'
3.;
.
w k
w'
,
l
,
.- *
p V. S.JNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
-
o d
REGION'Ill
.
.
~
,!
Reports No.:
50-254/90010(DRS); 50-265/90010(DRS)
Il Docket Nor.:
50-254; 50-265 Licenses No.: DPR-29;-DPR-30L el Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Opus West 111 3;
1400 Opus Place
>
Downers Grove, IL 60515.
Facility Name:, Quad Cities Station - Units 1 and 2 N
' Inspection At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, IL 61241 f
R Inspection Conducted: June 5 through August 2, 1990 Inspector:
?-/4-96
.
.
'(, F. 3mith Date
'
Approved By:. gd71dbd 8-/d-Fo
'
U. H. Danielson,; Chief Date
.
'
'
Materials and Processes Section Inspection Summary
<
.
Inspection on~ June 5-8, July 31,'and Aurist 1-2,1990(ReportsNo. 50-254/90010(DRS);.
No.--50-265/90010(DR5))
Areas Inspected:.Special inspection in re ponse:to an allegation that the 1/2
. Eiiiergency Diesel Generator.(EDG)ocooling pump could not fulfill the cooling' of
the diesel and the ECCS room coolers and that the Unit 2 EDG cooling-water pump-
~
had been operated beyond the pump curve flow.
Results:
Both parts of the allegation were substantiated. One apparent violation was identif.ied (Failure to Provide Prompt Corrective Action (Paragraph
,
2.b.(1)). ~ Based on the results of the inspection, the NRC inspector noted'the following
,
- The licensee' exhibited a past. weakness in permitting a prior deficiency.
to exist.for=a long period.
~
- The licensee exhibited a current strength in promptly resolving the issue ~
i when it was highlighted.
.90082Nisa poog33 m
.$DR -ADOCK 05000254
'
PDC l
[fMW,';m
'
s mm m m
"3+
r.
=w
- :
~m
-
-
ql+ g
,
'
T
%'
y
'
p
- ' Jb
_
,
o
- e
~
n x
ny v.,
~
.
-
,.
'u,
,
'
fl: Q y h.s y,, [
r
'
'
'
c
>
.
,
,
qy <,..
r..
,
.\\
y;.
>
--
h ?!f
".g._ $'
' l;'
N
.
<
+
'
,'
"
s
!4
@ 41
>
$ypfi"
,
[1 /
'
! DETAILS:
" G w;d
>
,
'
'
b;,
'
-
l~
'
A,m, L1.
iPersons?Contac{ed-
"
l l
+
'
w l0
..
.
.
.
,
CommonwealthEdison-Company'(CECO)
W
&,
I M
r
.
<
a 3*R.1Bax,gStation Manager J
$*
- D. Bucknell, Assistant Technical; Staff Supervisor'
MW GbKnapp,'Technica11Staf f Engineer l.
W (*J.JKopacz, Operating Engineer', Unitl1 b
L*R. M.cGaffigan,' Assistant Superintendent,= Work Planning"aridLStartup-
?
>
gg y,
' *A.LScott, Qua;11ty Nuclear. Programs
,
,
- J. Sirovy, Services. Director-
'
,;
.
u
- G; Spedl, Production Superintendent...
'
'*R..Stols, Nuclear Licensing Administrator
,
-
1*T!'Tamlyn, Engineering Site Supervisor-
W
1 I
U. S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission (NRC)'
.
- T. Taylor,! Senior Resident Inspector J.: Shine, Resident Inspector.
,
n
,
,
e
'
,
M,
- Denotes those present at the exit interview conductedon-August 2, 1990.
g"
'
-2.
f(Closed) Allegation AMS No. RIII-90-A-0053:. Emergency Diesel; Generator -
'
'
ofg 4EDG); Cool.ing Water Pumps.
~
w^
i An anonymouseallegation was:madeLto thelNRC concerningc the flow capacity-
'
e/
- of; the 1/2-(or:" swing") EDG' cooling. water pump:at the Quad Cities' Station
Eand? testing _o.f the Unit.2 EDG' cooling; water pump. The Unit l1:and' Unit 2
'
/
'
,
N,'
EDG: cooling water: pumps provide ~ cooling.waterito their respective! diesels 5 3,
o Land ECCS4 cooler; rooms when in serviceL The 1/2iEDG cooling water pump;is
'
>
-
",
,'
-intended to? provide fcoolir.g to the 1/2 EDG' and :either units'L ECCS.roomL
'
<,
%'
=. Coolers. '
' '
-
,
,
b'
- a.
Backgroun'd v
M The,NRC1 inspector _ reviewed records per+.inent to the equipment involved f-in theia11egation'andTidentified a number of..significant milestones-:
%
'intthe~11censee's. changing perception-:of'the. operational characteristics" k
of:the EDG cooling water pumps.
n-IY (1), In Revision 1 of abnormal operating procedur'e=Q0A-5750-14,..
,
" Loss-of ECCS Room" Coolers" dated September 1978, the operation-p3
,
j'e of the 1/2'EDG cooling water pump was? indicated to'be capable
?
of providing~ cooling water to both the 1/2 EDG and the ECCS~~ room'
,
coolers.
,
q s
- )
[
y i
!
+
.:
'
i
>
<
'
'
!
>$
.
.:
i
.t
- .
Y.d L. -h
'
h,s,
.
-
_
-j
- ~ '
-
r
-
- >
-
-
' q
,
y w:
m
.
,
,
,
j;
'
'
,
L(2): -Routine;s~u veillance of the 1/2 EDG cool _ing_ water pump flow.__
[
.
.
.
,
rate. testing _ performed-on March 17,'1986', showed measurediflowi
^
h
< !to'the system urder the.following-conditions::
u
.
.(a) Flow to the 1/2 EDG when supplying only the 1/2,EDG=
d was 1,150 gpm.-
]
['
.(b) ~ Flow to the 1/2 EDG'when also supplying the Unit 11 ECCS1 F
~
room coolers was-730'gpm; flow to the'the ECCS room coolers'
-
was 415 gpm'.
.
t o
.
s (c) Flow to the-1/2 EDG when also supplying the Unit'2 ECCS'
room coolers was 750 gpm;. flow to the ECCS room coolers:
was 410 gpm.1
'
<
The minimumtflow required to cool the 1/2 diesel-is 900.gpmL
-
Because the addition of the_ECCS rooms dropped the flow to:the-J
-
,
diesel below this" level, the pump was perceived to be ircapable.
J
'
of supplying cooling water.to both the diesel and the ECCS room?
d
- ,' ',
coolers'at=the same time.
However, the reduced flow was at d" 6 least partially the. result of throttling;to reach-the arbitrary
.
y 80!psid test pressure,
'
p
.'j (3) : Revision 3'of prccedure Q0A 5750-14, " Loss of ECCS Room' Coolers" l
'
dated July-~1987, stated that use of'theg1/2.EDG cooling water
-
,
pump;to cool the ECCS room coolers would make the 1/2 EDG'
Further, the procedure directed the operatorsLnot
'
'
"
4*
to supply' cooling water to the ECCS room coolers -ifithe 1/2 '
+
'
- [{
<
EDG was running or to not run the 1/2 EDG if'the ECCS: room'
coolers were-on line.
'
-
n W^
.N0TE: At-this point, assuming a loss,of offsite-power 3and_-the single : failure of one unit-EDG_ cooling pump,7thi_s :" redundant" ~
.#1 cooling supply was perceived to be. incapable of cooling'the 1/21
_
J
,p EDG and ECCS room coolers at-the-same time.
u
,.
n
,
-(4) During-1989, an internal-Sofety System Functiorial' inspection'
'
s
,
(SSF1) which covered the 1/2:EDG,-disclosed several problems
"# '
which, if pursued, could have hastened resolution.of the 1/2 E 4G cooling' water' pump flow problem. These included:
(a) Deficiency' No.13:
Corrective actions';
.
(j evaluations; and
'
J (b) Deficiency No.18: Temporary alterations without safety.
>
,s
,
!
,,
"
- (c) Concern-No. 14:
Inadequate 1/2 EDG cooling water pump
'
-flow.
.
!
(5) On June 6,1990, af ter discussing the matter with NRC, the
' '
licensee submitted a courtesy notification on NRC Form 361, j!
" Event Notification Worksheet." This document identified the i
,
,
Y
I
';
C,',".
-
w
_
,
,,
.
,.
M L;
.y b./
~
'
'
,
n-
,
.;
-
=:,
,+
cy
, 'N
,
Rg
. problem, initiated a 7Eday.LCO', and; indicated that more testing d
'
W n
-
-
was planned; Thats testing,xwhich was cocpleted on June 1,1990; y
demonstrated that the pump wasicapable_of-performing:as; initially d
p.
y intended-(providing required flow to:both the' diesel and the
'~
-
Unit 4 1' or, Unit 2 ECCS cooler rooms). : This:. test was witnessed
~
'
by the NRC inspector.
]
>
(6)/ In June 1990,. Revision 4 of procedure Q0A 5750-14, " Loss.of ECCS'
,
.
j
m' '
- Room Coolers" was approved.. This procedure reflected the. data
':j accumulated.in the1 latest' test of the 1/2EE0r hoo_ ling water pump'
'
,
by. directing the operator to throttle approp. m te valves;to i
r q
'
J achieve required flowifrom the 1/2 EDG cooli Q water pump to both.the 1/2 EDG and the ECCS cooler rooms being~ served.H'At this point, the question of-adequatenflow from the 1/2 EDG1 H
cooling water pump was considered to be resolved.
g
,
,
[
(7)
In June 19N, the NRC-inspector reviewed the Inservice Test
'
^
'
Records of the Unit 2 EDG cooling water pump and confirmed that :
.,
R'
it.had been operated ~at flows up to 6% greater than those shown-
-
on'the manufacturer's pump performance curve on fiveLoccasions.
.The: licensee revised the testing procedure to preclude furtherL
'j testing in this range, evaluated the possibili_ty of-pump _
..
i deteriorution from previous: testing (as discusted in the following y
sectio!..).and confirmed that similar. testing was not used in
!
,
inservice testing of other pumps.. Correction of the problem of pump testing at excessive flow is considered to be complete.
g b.
Concerns N
(1) Allegation ~(Part1).
,
- i
'The 1/2tEDG cooling pump.could not supply adequate cooling water
-
to the'ECCS room coolers of either Unit 1 or Unit:2~in additionL u
w
-
~
to cooling the 1/2 EDG.
q NRC Review-n i
The licensee's. records indicate that for the period of. March-17,~
- 1986, until" June 8,1990, the pump was. unable.to: supply the-
.
q diesel and the ECCS rooms. On June 8, 1990, tests' demonstrated
-
that proper flow could be achieved when the system-was properly
'
,
throttled.
Conclusion'
This part of the allegation was substantiated.
Prior to this
~
l inspection, both the licensee and the alleger believed that the u
cooling pump was not capable of providing the required flow to
the systems'. Evidence to the contrary was nm discovered until
!
&
'
additional testing was stimulated by the NRC inspection.
<
)
>
1
'
.
<
9-
'
$:/(!jF y
.#-
+
yy
,
F y j 1C n'
,g j m y
- p J
'
,
, :' 3 ' '
_wj
+--
jN Q
.
>
n
.
.
.
A, +.
, = Requirements" for cooling water: are provided in 10 CFR 50,
,
Ti
>Appendik A L Criterion 44,.which-states, in part; that " Suitable?
,54 _
- redundancy in components and features 1....
- sha11Lbe provided to;
' *_
assure that for onsite electric' power systems operation.
_,v.
.,
the system' safety function ean be accomplished, assuming at
'
.
,
.
single-failure."
,o
.
,
O>
-Contrary to the above, the licensee;1 earned of a deficiency in, A>
f
.the 1/2 EDG: cooling water pump on March 17, 1986' and'took no
,
'
Leffective action to correct the deficiency.until.. June 1990,
-.
.
after the-issue was raised as a1 result of this inspection..This;
,
is considered to be an apparentsviolation'of?10 CFR 50, J
-
-
>
g
-. Appendix B, Criterion.XVI, Failure to Take Promp't Corrective.
,
Action' (254/90010-01; 265/90010-01).
i c
-
(2)' Allegation'(Part:-2)
'
!
y, j
'
The Unit 2 EDG cooling pump.was tested at flows beyond.the
manufacturers pump curve on five occasions..
.
i
-
.
NRC-Review i
.
o,,
The NRC. inspector confirmed that the Unit'2 EDG was operated atl j
b'
flow rates.. exceeding those.shown on the manufacturer'.s. pump
"
,
L, curve on five occasions during inservice testing. LThe licensee.
contacted the pump' manufacturer and received: written confirmation.~
'
<
that while the operation of. the pump for extended periods l,in the.
-
3.
W zranges stated (up to 6% over maximum flow shown_on.the_ pump
,
,
cur.'e) could cause'. deterioration of the _ pump,;brief )eriods of A
",
.
operation-in' this area would,not' be;likely to harm tle! pump. L.
j x
m The. licensee is satisfied that_no perceptible deterioration of
l1
,:
.the pump has occur. red because'the testing was' performed'onlyLfor.
ml
'
- .
periods of fifteen minutes or.less-and because the pump has bh n-
'
,
regularly' tested for indications-of deterioration :incthe ins'e vice.
,4
,
testing program and none have been detected.
To prevent a recurrence of the problem, the-testing procedure'
Li was revised to' include; precautions intended to preclude testing.
>
beyond the pump flow curve.
In addition, records for each other> pump in the inservice test program was reviewed to assure
!
that no other pump had been tested at flow in excess-of-the pump.
i curves, p,
Conclusion-
<
m:
This part of the allegation was substantiated. ~The licensee's J
-
,"
corrective actions' appear to have eff ectively evaluated the
.
l
",
effect of past testing, investigated the possibility of similar problems with other pumps, and modified procedures to prevent ~~a repetition of the problem.
No further action is considered:
<
necessary in this area.
>
i
.
,, '
y
.
'
,
.l 3-
-
.
.
.
Q.. ll.
.)>
R
.
,
my.g.m
,..: wor :
c
,
m, 3 i';
.;
,
??
' '
j.
- c.
summary
.
.
.
.;
.Both' portions ofythe allegation were substantiated. To the u
.
- .. -
,bestLknowledge of-lthe all_eger and.the licensee. the allegation-
'
_ _..
properly assessed the. conditions perceived toibe;true at the time of c
s
,
the allegation.. *nly when.the resolution of.the; problem was-j
- aggressively approached during the investigation of the allegation,-
a was! the. adequacy of' the existing system confirmed..
]
'
,
.,j The allegation and the actions taken to resolve it r.esulted inithe
'
,
~
' licensee's improved control of the EDG cooling' water system and
f improved procedures for operating the system and for-performing-
' "
,
l
. inservice testing of all pumps in the program. - This allegation.is:-
d
-
,O closed _(AMS No. Rill-90-A-0053).
~
'
'
j te
-
aj D
- 3.1 Exit Meeting s
- TheNRCjinspector_ met.with,licenseerepresentatives(denotedinParagraph.
3.
1) on August 2, 1990, to discuss the scope and findings of-the inspection..
-
The inspector also' discussed the likely_ informational content.of the-d f
inspection report with. regard to documents and' processes reviewed by the~
.
l
'
inspector-during the inspection.- The licensee did_.not-identify any-.such
!!
L documer.ts/ processes as proprietary.
'
l a
l
'
d T{
-s F
I-.
ly j
,
,
,
P r._
'
~ (.
j
'
>
-
<
H h:
q--
g o
>
,
.f 5...
,e
..
<
.
.
.
-