IR 05000313/1989030
| ML20247L191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1989 |
| From: | Chamberlain D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247L158 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-313-89-30, 50-368-89-30, NUDOCS 8909220149 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML20247L191 (11) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:y - y r.
- 7
, , ., ., ,
,'J" 'l
' $
_.
y g - -< e , i , - , , e, ,; - + . .,., > ,;
- l w
w, .; , , W O }44 ' ' ' % - < , , ~; .. ' . r- , g;s . , ..., ,, < a
. . 'i
- -
. q.
' APPENDIX Bl , % , (U.S.N0CLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION: '4i ' '
7
REGION'IV ' ' , , N.m-D - IInshection' Report: 50-313/89-30 Licenses: "DPR-51' , h l 50-368/89-30-NPF-6- - ' . . ]J
~i - . Dockets: 150-313 ' 50-368L ' f m, Licensee: - Arkansas' Power &' Light Company (AP&L) ! ' P.O.' Box 551 j ' '
- Little~ Rock, Arkansas 72203
'! ! Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear'One (AND), Units'1:and 2 ! g
1< -Inspection At: ANO Siteh Russellville, Arkansas i! a q
1 Inspection Conducted: ' July 1 through August 15, 1989 ' Inspectors: ;W.' D. Johnson,JSenior Resident Inspector j Project Section A,; Division of Reactor Projects j . . l r R. C. Haag, Resident Inspector, Project Section A . Division.of.Re' actor Projects l ' < ' n b Ap' proved: ' t
. .D. D.0 Chamberlain, Chief, Project Section A. Date
Division of Reactor Projects
l . Inspection Summary-Inspection Conducted July I through August 15, 1989 (Report 50-313/89-30; 50-368/89-30) Areas Inspected: Routine unannounced inspection including plant status, followup of events, followup on previously identified items, operational safety'
verification, surveillance, and maintenance.
Results: One violation (paragraph. 7 - failure to include instructions for the use of externdl cooling during the'"run-in" of the service water pump packing)
'and no: deviations were identified.
Further review and evaluation of the Unit 2 "B" emergency diesel generator room exhaust fan,and air louvers is needed to resolve the cycling-operation of the components.and the system actuation setpoints that were ob' served:during recent surveillance (paragraph 6).
89092201 h,h:13 PDR ADO - FDC O _ - _ _ _ _ _ ~
uc -,. ,s, w,' GJ;l! ' ',.,'Uy i @,1:
~. ,, . - - ,,
,,- , [";< ' ' ,. . ,Ti ... U siy@:n
q , , - " , o.:
,.,.. (Rd,n;G :h ' ' q' i P.[]}.j.-. ;i, -:g.' ' ' r , . <a ,, ,
. _(. [ ?,I' - '
) i!k L..., :it. , pp ; w, . , - . .. ... ~ . ,o gh ' i.Durin~g work onLUnit 1 spent' fuel pool cooling valves.' thelnspector ob' served: . ,
g 'i:f, Lfinadequate: attention to detailsLwhen establishing'a radiological' controlled '
- w. : area and a lack of engineering involvement for-a deficiency identified bya
' maintenance. This;was the'second recent observation'of a problem involving: C_.
maintenance and engineering. interface. Management-attention to this.important t ,e , : i fplant support: interface was~needed to' assure plant: configuration" control.
e y . .,. t .
I.l I
- -; -
'9"' -! > , c< 3.
- t -
.. '
a'
- w e.U Y b. n
' ,_ g n [., . ;, pg - ,' % ' c ' ., - at_,l.
. y y , , ..? , ,, , , {' ' ' ' l '.) '
- l s
e ., s , , g d', '., .g. f, .a . {.
. - _ i s' ' t , f t- - e., g,.. % ' , / '., ' - (i , i ' i/[i 'a'. ,i- + i k g ,- if ' i > e S
.)
- {Y
,, f, t.
' H
li, i '.L'. .P if i e i t '
gy yw g , ,3 - - - .h - ' ' > 1.. ,,,; a-3- <
- DETAILS
, ~ '
- 1.
Persons Contacted.
- N. Carns,' Director, Nuclear Gperations D...Bennett, Mechanical Engineer
' K. Coates, Unit 1 Maintenance Manager ' ce A. Cox, Unit 1 Operations Manager- ,' '
- R. Fenech, Unit 2 Plant Manager J. Gobell, Mechanical. Engineer'
H. Green, Quality Assurance Superintendent , L. Gulick,' Unit 2 Operations Manager -
- J. Jacks, Nuclear Safety and Licensing ~ Specialist G. Jones, Engineering General Manager:
J. Kowalewski, Mechanical Engineer ' ' R. Lane, Engineering Manager
- D. Lomax, Plant Licensing Supervisor -
A. McGregor, Engineering Superintendent ~ B. Michalk, Mechanical Engineer . '
- P.~ Michalk, Nuclear Safety and Licensing Specialist
- J. _Mueller,' Central Support Manager
, iV. Pettus,. Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent . F. Philpot, Nuclear Engineering Superintendent R. 'Rispol.li, Fire' Protection Engineering Supervisor ,.
- A.1 Sessions, Central Plant. Manager
- J.' Taylor-Brown, Quality Control Superintendent
'L. Taylor,. Nuclear Safety and Licensing Specialist-R. Tucker, Electrical Maintenance Superintendent y ^J. Vandergrif t, Unit 1 Plant Manager J. Waxenfelter, Unit 2 Maintenance Manager
- Present at exit interview.
The inspectors also-contacted other piant personnel, including operators, technicians, and administrative personnel.
2.
plant Status (Units 1 and 2) Unit 1 operated at 80 percer.t power until July 19, 1989, when power was reduced to 74 percent to allow securing of the "0" reactor coolant pump due to leakage of the upper motor bearing tube oil.
On August 5, 1989, j power was reduced to O percent to allow draining a lube oil drain tank located in the reactor building. The unit reached 74 percent power on August 7, 1989, and remained at that power through the end of the inspection. period.
! Unit 2 remained shut down for repair of a previously identified reactor coolant system leak and additional carrective maintenance until the unit . was returned to critica'i operation on July 3,1989.
The unit reached l t I
. _ _ _ _ _
q mcw , , ..n e, m I ! ,, 5' g T g
' k . p " L100 percent power operation on July'6, 1989, and: remained at that power , through;the end.of theLinspection period.
J '3.
F>llowup of Events (Units l'and 2) (93702) ~~ + a.
Securing of '"D" Reactor Co~olant Pump On July. '17L 1989, the shaft vibration readings forf"D" reactor - -coolant pump (.RCP.) w re observed to be trending upward.
The vibration readings stabilized the following day.
On July 19, 1989, , the "D" RCP was secured due to high temperature and low lube.oll flow " 'i indications ~for the upper motor' bearing.
The licensee had.added 25 , gallons of lube oil. to the upper bearing reservoir on the previous ' day in response to the same temperature and flow. indications..While reviewing ~de data,'the licensee postulated that the oil leak and the associated higher bearing. temperature caused the increase in the-shaft vibration. 'During the reactor building entry to add oil and-the subsequent entries, the licensee'was unable'to identify the location.of the oil. leak.
Since the cause of the RCP_ problems sere not' established, the licensee decided to continue with three-RC'P operation until the midcycle outage scheduled for December 1989. The , licensee' also considered the current 80 percent power limitation in making this decision.
The licensee has maintained' power level at 74 percent during the ~ three pump. operation to ensure that steam ge'nerator feedwater flows are maintained.within their normal range.and to provide operating margin from the reactor protection system trip setpoints..The inspector reviewed the Unit 1 Technical Specification to ensure that the applicable precautions and setpoint change were made for three RCP operations.
The inspector also reviewed the correspondence .between Babcock & Wilcox-(B&W) and the licensee concerning the effect that extended three pump operations would have on the Fuel Cycle 9 reload analysis.
B&W's evaluation con:luded that Fuel Cycle 9 limiting conditions for operation would remain valid during and after the proposed period of low power (three-RCPs) operation.
Calculations based on lube oil additions and the amount of oil leakage from the "D" RCP concluded that the RCP oil collection system tank was nearly full.
On August 5, 1989, the licensee reduced power on Unit 1 and drained the "C" and "D" RCP oil collection system tank.
b.
Faiiure of a Stop Check Valve to Reseat During a monthly surveillance test of the "C" high pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump,'the discharge pressure was observed to be low.
Further investigation revealed that the "B" HPSI pump was rotating backwards, which indicated that Valve 251-10B (the discharge stop check valve) hr.d not seated.
This allowed a portion of the flow from the "C" pump to be bypassed back through the check valve and the "B" pump.
The "C" pump ran approximately 5 minutes with partial flow
__ -
_ -
4 . .. , -5- , r _being directed through "B" pump. The B" HPSI pump was subsequently started and normal discharge pressure was developed.
Valve 251-108 was then manually closed and the monthly surveillance test was . satisfactorily completed for the "C" HPSI pump.
The licensee found there was a long lead time for obtaining parts for Valve 2SI-10B and, therefore, elected to maintain the valve shut until the upcoming outage in September 1989. With Valve 2SI-10B shut, the "B" HPSI pump is iaoperable, however, Technical Specification compliance is maintained with the operable "A" and "C" HPSI pumps. The licensee has assigned action items from the condition reporting system to disassemble and repair Valve 2SI-10B and to determine the root cause of the valve failing to seat. The ' inspector was unable to-identify any additional action that the - licensee had initiated to verify that' the "B" HPSI pump was not damaged while. rotating backwards. The inspector questioned whether the surveillance run of the pump after the check valve leakage above was adequate to evaluate the long term operability of the pump.
Engineering involvement was believed needed to resolve this question.
, The licensee's mcnagement notified the inspector that the issue of ' "B" HPSI.,. amp backward rotation will receive additional review and appropriate. corrective action. The inspector will monitor the ' license's. repair of Valve 2SI-10B, including the failure root cause determination and the licensee's resolution of tre "B" HPSI pump operability issue. This will be tracked as Inspection Followup Item (368/8930-01).
No violations or deviations were identified.
4.
Foilowup on Previously Identified Items'(Units 1 and 2) (92701 and 92702) (Closed) Open Item 313/8918-03: -Reviewofdesignchangepackage(DCP)for _ the installation of snall bore snubbers.
' The licensee has completed the review of the Unit 1 DCP which was similar to a Unit 2 DCP that replaced small bore snubbers. No design or postinstallation inspection errors similar to those associated with the Unit 2 DCP were identified during the Ur4it I review. This item is closed.
(Closed) Violation 313;368/8820-01: Failure to promptly identify and correct deficiencies ano evaluate their safety significance.
For the two examples cited in the violation, the licensee corrected one deficiency and reevaluated the safety concern of the other. The handle operating mechanisms were replaced on Breakers 0123 ar.d 0124. The current setpoint for the Unit 2 emergency diesel generator fuel oil relief valves has been verified acceptable and the associated operator logs have been changed to reflect a tore realistic renge.
The current condition report (CR) system has been effective in identifying problems similar to those in this violation. Action item assignments of n - _ _ _ _ ,
mw w gge _, ag .., . ,- , - ' ,. g , [' [J ' ,f &w y,y
' "
i
, q.
,. f
1 we. u , gy; . . , , - , , " -v
. m c +: A% '
kc ( - ? , ,. y , &W [f ' ' ' i- ' v ~ ' ' , u " ' > v4 6-: ' ,e <-
, , , v,, O ,s . .', A.
l< M' ~ ' "p " ' ' ' n .. '
-
- @-
, ( . s: su ... .7 . , . .'
1 s $$
- -d.,f. m - J. * the CR systim and f thef trackihg of(these; items,'should minimize ' prob 1' ems.
. p y
" b
1with/ identification and correction.'of: deficiencies.
This' violation is : ' ' .., T+ f,? Tclosed.1 " ,
> ,y, , , -.. r m.
s f.jz W 4 (S) _; 0peratio' aNSafety Verification (U' nits'1 and 2) L (71707)' ' i n , , , m J% .
X x.
, >lTherinspectors observed contboliroom operations, reviewed' applicable logs,. J ' and conducted; discussions with control: room, operators.' 1The inspectors ~ y %a
x e ' ' " < verified theioperabilityjof selected emergency' systems,' reviewed tag-out . , f ' Trecords, verified proper return to. service'of affected components, and: x c '.varified'that maintenance requests had been initiated;for equipm'ent in? $ >y' , X ineedLof-maintenance. TheLinspectors made spot checks toiverify; that'the N v physical security' plan was:being implemented in accordance with the; L ' 1 station: security plan. The-inspectors verified; implementation ofi . L .. , A ra'diation protection controls during observation of plant activitie's; M ' ^ g, ,.m , , 'The' inspectors toured accessible areas of the units'to observe' plant: ' ,, M . equipment conditions, including.potentialffire hazards, fluid leaks, and , ' excessive, equipment l vibration. ~The inspectors also observed plant-
+ ,
.. housekeeping and cleanlinessLcond.itions during the tours.
. s,, _
+ 1The/inspectorobservedthe. receipt, inspection,andimovementloftheinew' , fuel'assembliesiforlUnit 2.
Following satisfactory inspection, the' assemblies were movedLinto'.the spent fuel cooling pooU for temporary , ,, , (* storage.,The effort was:well coordinated between the various groups: < > , involved;
,
The inspector discussed with the licensee's management personnel the "
ongoing modifications and improvements of the. perimeter. security system.
. The: major areas of modifications. involve upgrading the existing security.
. fence,: installation of a nuisance fence outside the security. fence,'and ' relocation of*the microwave detection system.
The. inspector observed '4 '
- , a ' portions'of the' modifications-including.the compensatory measures taken byf thetsecurity staff in response to degradations of the security system , , caused by'.the modification work.
' N.
?These reviews and' observations were conducted to verify that facility.
- operations were in conformance with the requirements established under Technical Specifications, 10 CFR, and administrative procedures.
' ' .No violations or deviations were identified in this area' of the ' inspection.
6.
Monthly Surveillance Observation (Units 1 and 2) (61726) y [The' inspector observed the Technical Specification required surveillance testing on the various components listed below and verified that testing ' was performed.i.n accordance with adequate procedures, test instrumentation was calibrated, limiting conditions'for operation were met, removal and ' < restoration of the affected components were accomplished, test results
- conformed with Technical' Specifications and procedure requirements, test
, u
_.f-V > MU 1-- .A-.L---a--l-----------
pn c yv m x ., . ,
d
W M fE yG , p ' ' 4p 54j, "y ' ' < s $$-Q$M[o _ , 3- ,, , L
, w n.
m e . , y w, y .y: s.
, kg; } . (' ' '
' ' ' , , , , e m d :a
[.l v ?, b. F , P{ , Lresulis~wereTreview$d by personne1'other than theaindividualidirecting;the > test,(andiany; deficiencies identified lduring the testing'were properly F
, ~ >gg
- reviewed
- and resolved-by appropriate management personnel.
, , e tA ..w L.
- , .. . " 4r V
- Thetinfpector witnessed portions of.the!following test
- activities:
- , - ,. @, "U 6 Monthly reactoricoolant? system (RCS) calorimetric flowrate
, '#
calibration for. Unit 2r(Procedure '2302.016,7 Job Order 789621).
This s
~ Surveillance: calculated the actual RCS flowrate based'.on:RCS-
- y
, m, Az .. differential! temperature and r'eactor' power.
The actual RCS.flowrate- ' , L, ' was then; verified to.be' greater than the RCS flowrate' calculated by L ' f L theicore operating limit supervisory system (COLSS) and.by the core N ... -
'
- protection. calculators (CPCs).
' ' ' , y" . Monthly ~ calibration of the~ core p'ower distributiori for" Unit 24.
- '
~ n, (Procedure 2301.005, Job Order.790028). 'This surveillance checked-S ' the azimuthal. power tilt; calculation performed by COLSSJand_ the1 planar radial-peaking: factors'used by COLSS and the'CPCs.
< ns . '
Monthlyftestlof Unit'2 Emergency Diesel" Generator (EDG) 2K4B " M - (Procedure 2140.36',LSupplement 2).. The. inspector observed oil and . . exhaust smoke leaking from-several exhaust headerLjoints; similar to c . "
conditions;noted in recent' monthly runs.. No exhaust fires were w noted. LThe111censee'has planned modifications (for the3 upcoming ' 9' refueling outage to reduce the amount of exhaust header 11eakage.
The , l inspector will.monit'or the licensee's' corrective action.
' .During the l-hour run of the EDG;on' July ~18,1989,Lthe' inspector observed that the room air exhaust fan was' cycling on and off and-that'the' air inlet louvers were cycling open and closed'every 10, minutes! The' exhaust fan ' actuation setpointJis :90 F with a 6 F, . band which is' designed to stop the! fan at 84 F. eThe. inlet air ~ , louvers are' interlocked with the. fan actuation so the louvers are' open whenever the fan is operating.
, TheTinspector's initial 2 concern dealt with the repeated cycling of the air louvers and exhaustifans and the effects on long term
operationduring an extended diesel 'run.
The operators for the air louver and the' exhaust fan motor are rated for a continuous duty cycle.
The. licensee stated that the operation of the air louvers and the' exhaust fan was acceptable with the cycling pattern based on the design of the system and the individual component specification _.
On August 16,1989, during a monthly surveillance run of_ EDG 2K4B, the licensee. observed and recorded the operational parameters of the EDG room ventilation system., The exhaust fan started and the inlet louvers' opened at a room temperature of 89 F.
The temperature ' decreased to 80*F after the start of the fan, then the temperature stabilized at 90.8 F for the remainder of the run. The exhaust fan , operated continuously during the run.
1, P Y .x_:--.-.__----
w ww@ m%i ', - ' R,'- , ..
. , . %q'.Q ,EdW a, ,w,. ,, ' b ' , g.
> ,
, , .g .; o
3 q.; + - [- .,; . .,. _..., '
7, .p %
y ,y ' 9;; W r , gy -. t=' y ,
,
' , ZfW . < - -8-: A
Le r 4 y a , , ,.x ". _ ,
y . .
- .
, , ,, ., , , flN' 'J' ., .
- ,
l .: . k " , F . i QThellic6ns'ee isjinve'tigating the operation of.the ventilation. system;' s
@ e-i ' ' Sto! determine theireason..why-the' exhaust fan didLnotistop at 84 Fx " 0i during theflast run and the cause of, the cycling operation;during the: . "' iJuly run but'notLduring;the AugustLrun. The licensee didLnot;. @' ' ?The inspector will'monitorf the-licensee's investigation }esults and 4','. w l consider that:these concernsthave an operational? impact on1thetEDG.- , anylcorre'ctive ' actions.
' ,, . y.
, ,
- '
Calibrationof the.four: reactor protection system powerfrang', linear-e ,
- amplifierst for Unit 1 (Procedure 1304.032 3 Job OrderL775072),
$ c" 118-month performanc'e' test of; Battery Charger 2034' J- .R , -4 L (Proc'edure ' 2403. 033, Job Order 791739)1z,Thisisurveillance consisted' c ofLan'8-houri oaditest of the'batt'ery chargerLwith'a simulated load.
l ~ l
,, .Biweek1'. test ofl Unit 01'Re' actor Building Cooling' Units VCC-2C and.
' y ' ,
4 r' 'VCC-20;(Procedure 1104.33)
w ' , wy + y lU ' 1Noviolations1ordeviationswereiidentifiedinthisarea'ofLlinApection.
sY e 7.
'MonthlyiMaintenance Observati6n'(Units 1 and 2)- (62703)" ~ ' , ,
y[ Station maintenance activities for' the safety-related systems.and' M . components?1isted below were observed to ascertain that they-were.
M conductedsin;accordance with approved pro'cedures, regulatory guides, and: > industry codes or standards, and in conformance with the' Technical.
.1 , Specifications.
' > . - . The-followinguitems were considered during this review: the limiting n conditions for operation were. met while components or systems were removed' fromfservice,Lapprovals were obtained prior,to initiating the: work,.
activities were accomplished using approved procedures and were inspected 'as applicable,! functional testing and/or calibrations' were performed' prior.
' , ' ' , .to returning components or systems to service, quality control records were. maintained,factivities were accomplished by qualified personnel.
-parts and materials used were properly certified, radiological controls' were implemented, and fire prevention controls were implemented.
Workfreguests were reviewed to determine the status of outstanding jobs-and to-ensure'that priority is assigned to safety-related equipment maintenance which may affect system performance.
The ;following maintenance activities were observed: , ' a.
Regrouting.the base pads for a service water piping support and for two service water pump discharge strainers (Job Order 790167).
During an engineering inspection, the licensee identified that a gap existed between the above referenced base pads and the strainers and
.. piping support.' In response, the licensee removed the existing pads and installed new grouted pads.
The inspector. reviewed the g> .)l E ? ( , .. m-l.- . - - - - - -
y p @q f F K } ' m[.. / _ ?_ K 5- ~ ' _ p , , . s "_ p A gg go - .o < > m
, , ~ wi; y hhc ' S" - ' sj.
,
., e$hW 7 ' w ' < g c wy y
,
I ' ' Y ' ' + , r'M -,. ' s,... s , % > ,' t
% f -
' p ' * p: hf M " doc 6inentation which the'licenseefused to verifyioperabilitfof'the . df ,,c C q
4 , ., , , , (f h.
4 system until the(repairLcould.be completed.
' <' 4g $Qf C, i l LRep1Acementlof. the body-to-bonnet gaskets 'for Spent Fue1 @ool' Cooling: 'd ' tValves: SF-6 'and SF-9L(Job Order 1766744).
A newLst'yle' gasket wasi ' 'mc ?
-,, insta11edLin each valve to repair 1eaks_ that were unsuccessfully' m-s jgp H',, repaired in~ April 1989.' The:inspectorLidentified the following " ' ' ' J'. ' observations and concerns-to theilicensee: c, .
mig y ' ' '
< i , m _ , s , w 4-g - g-Thiradiological areas [ established for the repair work were too A
t' sy e 3, smalleto' adequately support the work. This'resulted in a1 ? - , ,. s,s
- mechanicLsitting partia11yfin a' clean areaLwhile performing worki
~ p , p$ j ig* i on.the' valve. 'Alsol the location of the " step-off.". pad requiredL , _ pepsonnel to' bend over while removing their antiscontamination-
' ' .c - , clothing.
a M, ',",, '
' .
- The; tor.quingLpattern;used to~ tighten the body-to-bonnet joint:
' ' ' ' was different from the pattern given in the engineering c c instruction. ;When-questione'd by the inspector,' the mechanics stiated that a. rectangular torquing pattern compatible with, the ' 7' . . ' rectangular bolting pattern of: the valves should be used in lieu ' '
, s of: the circular' torquing pattern given in Plant Engineering ' ' A . Action Request (PEAR) 87-3138. The licensee's engineer agreed + ' . , _. ithatithe circular pattern given in the PEAR was not the ' " ' ' , l; preferred pattern for the valve joint design.
Since'both valves a ' 4" y.; s 'were : repaired in April 1989,'and thej same PEAR was.used, the ' r ' . - W licen'see 'had' the opportunity -to' resolve the ' issue 'of the corre'ct '
- torquing pattern prior to performing this work, but:did not.
[' IWhile these: observations did ~not adversely affect the valve repair ' , Jeffort, they did indicate inadequate' attention-to detail when setting . (up'and approving the radiological work areas 6and a lack of, engineering and maintenance interface when resolving'a' discrepancy.
, -The mechanics should have contacted engineering to' ensure,the issue" > > _ of'the correct torquing. pattern was resolved prior to. proceeding with ' , the work.
Based on the spent fuel pool cooling: system notlbeing a safety-related system, the licensee's.. failure to' follow instructions will not.be cited as a violation.
However, the concern exists that the maintenance' organization was not obtaining engineering - involvement when problems were-identified. 'NRC Inspection Report 50-313/89-28; 50-368/89-28, paragraph 3.a. ' contained a V similar. example of the maintenance organization's failure to obtain timely; engineering involvement when engineering discrepancies were ' observed.during the' performance of corrective maintenance.
<9
?"As-found" MOVATS test of the Containment Spray Header Isolation ' Valve 2CV-5612 (Procedure 1403.169, Job Order 789603) ,. m W ' Repair of air release vent valve for the~"B" service water pump (Job Order 788633)
. . ' $ { a- ,f<\\ g ' ,. ?'.:.. _ 's _ ' ' Y
f%51"N j f Q ( ;~, ,' ' ~ ~ d[ f
+ ' - kW/gy a ,;
- ,,-
., s , c, l w w? w;My, mg : gx .,% .;i? -4 ,* ' e ' y 7 ;.- m + , .. jp .& l '* : # q ' h: ""- . ., x, . hk, O 4,., ' '
' i
.. .y h,+h [ k,~\\ N %a . -104 ' ' M y m ' , ' - q , s%e s - , s' W' 4L' Q l&l ' ~ , (; G (. l3 , , a , , 'bW ' f W .( .p ; \\ j > ,, , g '# 9 ' io> LR'epairToff the["C"lservice water pumpidischargeMeckivalveL and'- [ "" ' W> ~ ' ", the! discharge manual isolation valve'.'(Job-Order 7930414 ands i ' e
- c-o 793042). 2TheLlicenseelidentified leakage fromiboth of*the? y.
> - , , N' -
- *. '
ivalves when transferringcservice' water'loadsffrom1the "C" to"the '. W-
- "B" pump. lAlT ofsthe2internaliparts with
- the~'exceptionfof; thel
" L , , . jCf.
Edisc were replaced in Check Valve SW-1Ce tThe. damaged:r'ubber' '
- m
, ,r L, seat waspreplacedtinilsolation Valve SW-20. ! Based'on the m% , numerous ~ problems recently; encountered;with the(threeTsimilar y.s gp
, @^ , X ' ' service water pump: discharge check ~ valves and the" amount o'f wear
< ,,, , ,,1 ,'
" experienced with. thel valve since.theyzwere replaced.in 1985,' the' $ g.g '
., W b licenseeLwas3 planning tosinstall new check? valves during:the gW J, g.,n - , >' next refveling. outage.
' , , , ' ' ' , . ~
,m- . , p (M f r co '. Install' tion of the Unit 1 "B" 'sArvice water pump motior
a s , ^ following pump overhaul (Job Order.788923)' ,< f + -, .. . g
- W3.
Reassembly of thE, Unit 1 Service Water Pump P-4B "
W '"' '(Procedure 1402.061FJob Order 788633).
After approximately o < , ' ' ' 4 302 minutes?of running the rebuilt pump, flow was" lost when the=
" < .y motor-to pump. shaft sheared off.
Following disassembly;ithe VL ' licenseeLidentified that overheating.of the shaftThe cau.n the^ area.ofy
< i l the: stuffing. box < caused the shaft failure.
se offthe: , shaft overheating ~ was attributed to insufficient' cooling waterf . ~ ' ,o~ , y for the packing during the packing "run-in" period.~ , , . o W, The licensee informe'd the' inspector.that external cooling of-the" stuffing box is a normal practice during'the' packing,"run-in" > /u.
~ period. However, the instructions for applying the external '!' cooling. water were' not included'in Procedure 11402.061, s
- J Revision 5, " Disassembly Inspection and Reassembly"of Unit l'
o - ' ' ,, y f~ Service Water Pumps'(P4A, B,.and C)."
Durin'g the packing, p "run-in," external csoling'was' applied for-'the.first 10 minutes ,
.. then the; pump was stopped to replace a grease. fitting...The pump t was--restarted, but~ external cooling was not used.
Approxim'ately 20' minutes later;-the shaft failure occurred. The licensee should reviewf this event for' generic deficiencies with other
, safety-related equipment repair = instr.uctions.
d , l It,was this second run of the pump when external cooling was not'
b
- used that the licensee believes caused the shaft failure.
While i a < b the operation of P-4B during the packing "run-in" was within the, postmaintenance time period, the potential existed:for the pump
.to be declared operable but still susceptible to shaft failure.
' ' This'could occur if the pump was operated long enough 'to be declared operable but. the packing "run-in" had not been.
completed. The failure' to include in Procedure 1402.061.the use a of external cooling and the details of the cooling water E application for the""run-in" of the packing is an apparent ^ violation.
(313/8930-01) L , d .b.' , U __.l_.__-__._._ .k '
[.[k. S.',' 'WY.'[.' ' q; N^ '"jg. j,; ' - T b i.;;ry,, 'l Q ' ' ' ~ +> _s , _,
l' b ' l r t i r,..y, ,q., . '3 dijJ ~ .,;,,'. '. f e h. 'if'; '., , " . _.
' [.. ,.' 1. i ,o
_
- p
' s , l' l [J:;3;s;N;],l , _ '
' ,, \\n x.. y,'- ',. :
. h' '?- I ' _ .?? ' ' s-:. ':f ' ^ s
.. - y (.
_11_ h..,h.
f:
v 3; . j'.' ! (.. F 8... Exit Interview: ' The inspectors met with Mr.: N..' S'. Carns, Director, Nuclear Operations, and, , other membersLof the. AP&L staff at the end of the inspe: tion.1. At. this. meeting..the; inspectors summarized the scopa of the inspection and the findings. :The. licensee did not identify as' proprietary any of the: imaterial, provided to, or reviewed by, the inspectors during' this ,, s.
y inspection.: s
't.
-{
' i - _ - _ - - - _ - --- }}