ML15224A707
| ML15224A707 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1990 |
| From: | Belisle G, Hallstrom G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15224A706 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-90-23, 50-270-90-23, 50-287-90-23, IEB-88-004, IEB-88-4, NUDOCS 9008210060 | |
| Download: ML15224A707 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1990023
Text
0p
REGU'
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGI
NIl
0
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Report Nos.: 50-269/90-23, 50-270/90-23, and 50-287/90-23
Licensee: Duke Power Company
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC
28242
Docket Nos.: 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287
License Nos.:
and DPR-55
Facility Name:
Oconee 1, 2, and 3
Inspection Condu
d:
July 16 -
19, 1990
Insp~ec tor:_____________________________
G. A. Hallstrom
Date Signed
Accompanying Personnel: G. A. Belisle
Approved by:__
G. A. Belisle, Chief
Date Signed
Test Programs Section
Engineering Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
SUMMARY
Scope:
This routine, unannounced inspection examined Licensee actions in response to
NRC Inspection and Enforcement Bulletin (IEB)
88-04 "Potential Safety-Related
Pump Loss."
The bulletin basically requested the licensees to determine if
any operating safety-related systems would result in dead-heading, to evaluate
safety-related systems for flow division, and to evaluate the minimum flow
bypass lines for safety-related pumps with respect to damage resulting from
operations and testing in the minimum flow mode.
Results:
Completion of all licensee actions in response to the bulletin was scheduled
for September 1990.
However,
actions were mostly completed for all three
units and included both procedural corrections and plant equipment
modifications.
However, "strong" versus "weak" test data
measurements were
2
not taken for the turbine driven and motor driven emergency feedwater pumps
and necessary clarification documents were unobtainable prior to the exit.
Therefore closure of the bulletin was noted as contingent on satisfactory
clarification of the "strong" versus "weak" determination for these pumps.
(This clarification was provided by review of calculation NO.
OSC 2515
and
telephone conversations with site personnel on August 1 and 2, 1990.)
Licensee engineers and operations personnel provided knowledgeable responses
to technical issues raised by the inspector during this inspection.
No violations or deviations were identified.
2
SYSTEM
PUMPS
MANUFACTURER
Low Pressure Injection (LPI)
1 A&B, 2 A&B,
Ingersoll-Rand
3 A&B
High Pressure Injection (HPI)
1 A,B&C; 2 A,B&C;
Ingersoll-Rand
3 A,B&C
Reactor Building Spray (RBS)
1 A&B, 2 A&B, 3 A&B Ingersoll-Rand
Motor Driven Emergency
1 A&B, 2 A&B, 3 A&B Bingham
Feedwater (MDEFDW)
Turbine Driven Emergency
1, 2 & 3A
Bingham
Feedwater (TDEFDW)
Auxiliary Service Water (ASW)
1A
Ingersoll-Rand
Low Pressure Service Water
1 A,B&C 3 A&B
Ingersoll-Rand
(LPSW)
SSF Auxiliary Service Water
P2
Bingham
(SSFASW)
SSF HVAC Cooling Water
1 & 2
Ingersoll-Rand
(SSFHVAC)
SSF Diesel Engine Water
1
Ingersoll-Rand
Jacket (SSFDEWS)
The inspector reviewed the following procedures and calculations to
verify licensee commitments contained in their responses:
PT/3/A/0203/12
"Low
Pressure Injection Pump Low Flow Test" dated
September 1, 1988.
This test established LPI pump long-term low flow
capability for mid-loop operations (400 gpm) without pump damage.
The
test subjected the 3C LPI pump to a 400 gpm (or less ; 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> were at
300 gpm)
minimum flow for 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> with constant vibration and
temperature monitoring. This test was followed by a normal 3000 gpm IWP
surveillance test.
No damage was identified during or following the
tests.
OP/1,2&3/A/1102/15
"Filling and Draining Fuel Transfer Canal"
dated
April
25,
1990.
This OP was revised to require completion of IWP
testing (PT/1,2&3/A/0203/06) of any LPI pump following its use at flows
below manufacturer's recommendations for 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> operation (500 -
800
gpm); i.e., LPI use at 400 gpm during mid-loop operations.
PT/3/A/0203/06
"Low Pressure Injection System Performance Test" dated
December 10, 1989.
This PT re-established operability of LPI pump 3C
after its use below recommended flow during refuel operations.
(The
test also re-established operability of the 3A and 3B pumps after
repairs.)
OP/3/A/1104/04
"Low Pressure Injection System" dated November 28, 1989.
This OP provides limits on minimum allowable LPI flow (800 gpm per
section 2.4) and run time against shut-off head (30 minutes per section
2.5) assuming new miniflow recirculation of 60 gpm. The OP also includes
a caution (Note 2.8) intended to prevent excess cavitation during RCS
depressurization and draining.
3
EP/3A/18000/01
"Emergency Operating Procedure" dated February 22, 1990.
This EP was revised to alert Operators and Station Response personnel of
the LPI minimum flow concerns for continuous operation during the
HPI/LPI piggyback mode of operation.
Calculation No.
OSC - 3077
"Low Pressure Injection Pump Minimum Flow
Verification ", Revision 1, dated February 5, 1990. This calculation is
conservative in verifying a 7/16
inch flow orifice for the
manufacturer's recommmended 60 gpm start/stop recirculation flow.
Calculation No.
OSC - 2515 " Verification of Emergency Feedwater System
Flow Utilizing MFW System Bypass", Revision 4, dated September 15, 1989.
This calculation provides the verification of "strong"
versus "weak"
emergency feedwater pumps as well as assurance of minimum flow under
worst case deadhead conditions for all pumps.
The inspector examined the following exempt change packages:
OE number
LPI number
3047
iC
3049
3C
3176
3A
3177
3B
3165
lB
3166
1A
The above exempt change (OE) documentation packages for installation of
7/16 inch flow orifices in LPI pump miniflow lines included work
requests, installation procedures,
PMT plans,
flowrate test results,
50.59 evaluations,
QC sign off sheets,
etc.
Verification of
installation of the above flow orifices was completed through field
examinations.
Unit 2 orifices are scheduled for installation by
September 1990.
After examination of the above documentation and field verifications,
the inspector concluded that licensee actions in response to IEB 88-04
had been satisfactory.
The inspector informed cognizant licensee
personnel that IEB 88-04 was closed for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3.
3.
Exit Interview
The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 19,
1990,
with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector
described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection
findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
Proprietary information was reviewed in the course of this inspection,