IR 05000254/1990010

Insp Repts 50-254/90-10 & 50-265/90-10 on 900605-0802. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Allegation That 1/2 Emergency Diesel Generator Cooling Pump Could Not Fulfill Cooling of Diesel & ECCS Room Coolers

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: IR 05000254/1990010 ML20059A177
References
50-254-90-10, 50-265-90-10, NUDOCS 9008220153
Download: ML20059A180 (6)

Text

(- -- m ,, ,

,

,

,,

._;

si , <Ui

'

3.; . w k w'

,

,

l p .- *

'

-

o V. S.JNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 R

' Inspection At: Quad Cities Site, Cordova, IL 61241 f 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);. 3 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 flo 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 deficienc to exist.for=a long perio ~

- The licensee exhibited a current strength in promptly resolving the issue ~ i when it was highlighte .90082Nisa poog33 m '

.$DR -ADOCK 05000254 PDC l

mm m '

s -

m ,

"3+ =w - : ~m

[fMW,';m T ql+ g

'

' Jb

'

p o  %' y n ~

ny v ., x ,

_

~

,

. - ,. 'u , ;e r  ;;

'

'

fl: Q y h .s y, , [

' ' c

>

, , .

--

qy < , . . >

4 .\ < +

y;.

' l;' ,'

, .

"

h ?!f ". $' N s

'

4 !

@ 41 >

'

$ypfi" [1 / ' '

>

! DETAILS:

,

,

" G w;d

'

b;, -

l~

'

A,m, "

'

L iPersons?Contac{ed-l l + .

.

,

w l0 W

.. .

&,  ; CommonwealthEdison-Company'(CECO)

M I r . <

a 3*R.1Bax,gStation Manager J

$*

MW

• D. Bucknell, Assistant Technical; Staff Supervisor'

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 . .. ,;

W

- '*R..Stols, Nuclear Licensing Administrator

'

,

1 1*T!'Tamlyn, Engineering Site Supervisor- 1 9 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" ' '

'

o - f(Closed) Allegation AMS No. RIII-90-A-0053: . Emergency Diesel; Generator - ~

fg 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,'

o EDG: cooling water: pumps provide ~ cooling.waterito their respective! diesels 5 3,

>

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' v  : Backgroun'd 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,..

p3 ,

" Loss-of ECCS Room" Coolers" dated September 1978, the operation-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' ,

s cooler ,

q 1  ;)

[ y i  !

+  ;

.: >

'

< 2 i

'

>$ . '

!

.: i Y.d L. -h

'

.t :. .

-

_

h,s, - ~ '

-j

-

-

r

-

- > -

, 'q y w: m , ,

, .

'

'

j; , 6 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'.

-

o

.

. t (c) Flow to the-1/2 EDG when also supplying the Unit'2 ECCS' s room coolers was 750 gpm;. flow to the ECCS room coolers: 0

'

was 410 gp <

4 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 ircapabl 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 y least partially the. result of throttling;to reach-the arbitrary .

'

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 4

,

-

'

pump;to cool the ECCS room coolers would make the 1/2 EDG' *

"

inoperable. 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 lin 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 p u ,

EDG and ECCS room coolers at-the-same tim ,.

Jn; s 9 -(4) During-1989, an internal- Sofety System Functiorial' inspection' ,

'

"# '

(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';

.

>

,s , (b) Deficiency No.18: Temporary alterations without safet J (j evaluations; and

'

!

,,

" '

(c) Concern-No. 14: Inadequate 1/2 EDG cooling water pump-flo .

!

' '

(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 3 ';

I

C,',".

w

_

,

,.

,, .

-

~ ' '

M L; n-

.y b./

.; -

=:,

,

cy ,+

,

,  ;

Rg , 'N W '

-

. problem, initiated a 7Eday.LCO', and; indicated that moren testing

-

d was planned; Thats testing,xwhich was cocpleted on June81,1990; y y demonstrated that the pump wasicapable_of-performing:as; initially d

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 inspecto >

]

m' ' ,

(6)/ In June 1990,. Revision 4 of procedure Q0A 5750-14, " Loss.of ECCS'

.

j

- Room Coolers" was approved.. This procedure reflected the. data ':j accumulated.in the1 latest' test of the 1/2EE0r hoo_ ling water pump'

'

,

r q by. directing the operator to throttle approp. m te valves;to i 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 g ,

, cooling water pump was considered to be resolved.

[ '

(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 fiveLoccasion .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 complet g b. Concerns N (1) Allegation ~(Part1).

,

i

'The 1/2tEDG cooling pump.could not supply adequate cooling water

-

w~ to the'ECCS room coolers of either Unit 1 or Unit:2~in additionL

-

u to cooling the 1/2 ED 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 throttle Conclusion' 1 This part of the allegation was substantiated. Prior to this

~

u l inspection, both the licensee and the alleger believed that the cooling pump was not capable of providing the required flow to 3

& the systems'. Evidence to the contrary was nm discovered until  !'

additional testing was stimulated by the NRC inspectio <

)

>

4 1

'

.

<'

9-

y +

$:/(!jF yy ,

.#-

F y j 1C 4 n'

,g j m y

, :' 3 +-- ' ' 5 _wj

p ,

J

'

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 . _, .,

. ,

'

the system' safety function ean be accomplished, assuming at .

,o 7 ,

.

single-failure."

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; J >

is considered to be an apparentsviolation'of?10 CFR 50,

-

-

g -. Appendix B, Criterion.XVI, Failure to Take Promp't Correctiv ,

1 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 occasion ,

-

.

. i NRC-Review i o,,

j

.

The NRC. inspector confirmed that the Unit'2 EDG was operated atl b' ,

flow rates.. exceeding those.shown on the manufacturer'.s. pump "

L, curve on five occasions during inservice testing. LThe license contacted the pump' manufacturer and received: written confirmation.~

'

< 4 that while the operation of. the pump for extended periods l,in th 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 x operation-in' this area would,not' be;likely to harm tle! pump. L . j m The. licensee is satisfied that_no perceptible deterioration of  :

l1

'

,: .the pump has occur. red because'the testing was' performed'onlyLfo '

ml

. periods of fifteen minutes or.less-and because the pump has bh n- ,

,4 regularly' tested for indications-of deterioration :incthe ins'e vic ,

testing program and none have been detecte To prevent a recurrence of the problem, the-testing procedure' Li

1. was revised to' include; precautions intended to preclude testin >

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 pum 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 proble No further action is considered:

necessary in this are ;

>

i

.

'

,,'

,

y .

- 3- .l

_ . . .

Q. . l .

.)> ,

R my. . .: wor :

,

c

,

m, 3 i'; .;

• 1

,  ??

' ' summary

.

.

. .;

. .Both' portions ofythe allegation were substantiated. To the *

u

• ..-

,bestLknowledge of-lthe all_eger and.the licensee. the allegation- _ '

c s properly assessed the. conditions perceived toibe;true at the time of j

,

the allegation.. *nly when.the resolution of.the; problem was-

aggressively approached during the investigation of the allegation,- a

,

'

was! the . adequacy of' the existing system confirme ]

.,

The allegation and the actions taken to resolve it r.esulted inithe

~

' ,

j

' licensee's improved control of the EDG cooling' water system and 1 f , improved procedures for operating the system and for-performing- ' "

. inservice testing of all pumps in the program. - This allegation .is:-

-

l

,O ~ '

'

d te closed _(AMS No. Rill-90-A-0053). j j

-

a

Exit MeetingD s

- TheNRCjinspector_ met.with,licenseerepresentatives(denotedinParagrap .

-

1) on August 2, 1990, to discuss the scope and findings of-the inspectio The inspector also' discussed the likely_ informational content.of the- d f inspection report with. regard to documents and' processes reviewed by the~ .

inspector-during the inspection.- The licensee did_.not-identify any-.such

'

l  !!'

L documer.ts/ processes as proprietar a

'

l l

d T{-s F

I-.

ly

,

,

j

,

P

' ~ (.

r ._

<

>

'

-

j4 H h:

q-- g o

,

>

.f 5 . .. 6

,e ..

<

. .