ML20055H484
| ML20055H484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1990 |
| From: | Cooper T, Shymlock M, Van Doorn P NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055H482 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-369-90-14, 50-370-90-14, NUDOCS 9007260266 | |
| Download: ML20055H484 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000369/1990014
Text
^
,,
,,
it
t
kr'
. . .
. .
UNITEo STATES
.
' */ M - , /gMooq#g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N
.-
[f
h
.101 MARIETTA STREET.N.W.
<
d
"
REGigN il
g*
e
ATLANYA.GEoROI A 30323
%.....$
4
,
Report Nos.: . 50-369/90-14 and 50-370/90-14
J
1.icensee: Duke Power Company
P. O. Box'1007
p
Charlotte, NC 28201-1007
Facility Name: . McGuire Nuclear Station 1 and 2
Docket'No(s): 50-369.and 50-370
LicenseNo(s):
HPF-9 and NPF-17
Inspection Conducted: June
1990 - July 5,_1990
h--
7
Inspector:
P. K. Van Door
Dat~e 5 gned
Inspector:
7h
O
^
T. Co per-
/
Datt Signed
Approved b '
k
d['
7//J/[o
-(M. B. Shymlock, Section Chief
Dat'e Signed -
Division of Reactor Pr.)jects-
SUMMARY
Scope:
This special resider.t inspection-was conducted on site inspecting ~in the areas
of-licensee identified issues involving Unit I diesel generator inoperability
'
for approximately 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> on June 25-26, 1990.
.
Results:
'
In._the areas inspected, two apparent violations were identified for consideration
'
-
-for escalated enforcement. One violation involved both Unit I diesel generators
.
,
not being able to meet Technical Specification (TS) requirements due to painting
of the fuel racks.
1::e second violation involved nonconservative TS equipment-
-
-
logging of diesel generator inoperability.
e
,
'd'
'1L
i
9007260266 900713
{DR
ADOCK 03000369
i
'
-.
.
- .
^
.
_
_
_
+
s.
'
'
.
.
4
I
i
REPORT DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
i
Licensee Employees
,
- J. Boyle, Superintendent of Integrated Scheduling
,
- D. Bumgardner, Unit 1 Operations Manager
- D. Franks, QA Verification Manager
- C. Hendrix, Maintenance Engineering Services Manager
- F. Krauss QA Audit _ Division
- T. Mathews, Site Design Engineering Manager
'
- T. McConnell, Plant Manager
- T. Pederson, Compliance
- J. Reeside, McGuire Safety Review Group
R. Rider, Mechanical Maintenance Engineer
M. Sample, Superintendent of Maintenance
'
- R. Sharpe, Compliance Manager
,
- J. Silver, Unit 2 Operations Manager
A. Sipe, McGuire Safety Review Group Chairman
- G. Small, McGuire Safety Review Group
- K. Thomas, Design Electrical Division
- B. Travis, Superintendent of Operations
Other licensee _ employees contacted included craftsmen, technicians,
operators, and office personnel.
- Attended exit interview
2.
Unit 1 Diesel Generator Inoperability
a.
Background
The lict.nsee has provided two separate and independent diesel
generators (DGs) to meet 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, Criterion 17 require-
ments for an assured on-site source of electrical power for safe
shutdown of the reactor, containment isolation, containment spray and
s
cooling, and emergency core cooling following an accident.
The DGs
are rated at 4,000 kilowatts (kw) for continuous operation with
capacity to operate at 4,400 kw for a period of two hours out of 24
hours.
The DG design basis is reflected in Technical Specification (TS) 4.8.1.1.2 which requires each DG to be tested on a staggered
'
test basis to verify that the DG starts from ambient condition and
accelerates to at least 488 revolutions per minute (rpm) in less than
or equal to 11 seconds, and that the generator voltage and frequency
are at least 4,160 volts and 57 Uz within 11 seconds.
The TS also
requires the DG to be synchronized and loaded to 3,000 kw in less
than or equal to 60 seconds, and to 4,000 kw within 10 minutes.
Unit 1 DGs 1A and IB were on a monthly testing frequency at the time
of this event.
..
.
.
.
.
A
"
i
,
V
)
a-
,
,
- 1'
-
j
~
.-
.
2
.
b.
Event Description
In an effort to ' upgrade plant housekeeping and appearance, the
licensee has been. repainting various areas and equipment.
On June 22,
1990, the licensee. began painting DG 1A and completed the painting at
approximately 3:00 p.m., on June 23, 1990.- On June 23, 1990 the
licensee began painting on DG 18 and completed at approximately 11:00-
a.m., on June 25, 1990.
Portions of the DG fuel racks were painted
near the end of the painting period.
On June 26, 1990 the routine
periodic test-for DG 1A became due.
The test was initiated at 9:05
a.m.
At this time, the DG attained the required voltage (4160 volts)
';
in 11.35 seconds in lieu of the required 11 seconds.
The DG was
shutdown for troubleshooting.
Some arcing was noted- during the
operation at the exciter commutator rings and upon shutdown the
licensee noted.some paint overspray on the rings. Thiswasoriginal(
thought to have contributed to the problem, however, the majority of
the overspray had been burned off during the diesel start. DG 1A was
declared inoperable at 10:00 a.m.
A second start of DG 1A was
commenced at 10:06 a.m.
During this test, the licensee was only able
to load the DG to 3,200 kw.
Repeated cycling of the engine allowed
loading to a marimum of 3,500 kw.
Further review disclosed that the overspray on the commutator rings
probably had little detrimental effect on the DG, and that the primary
problem was the paint on the fuel racks which prevented proper
,
functioning of linkage and injector pump plungers which operate to
,
vary the amount of fuel being injected into the cylinders.
At
l
approximately 11:00 a.m., the licensee also noted paint on the DG 1B
fuel racks and _ noted that most of one of the two cylinder banks was
sticking upon attempted manual movement.
i
The licensee declared DG IB inoperable at 11:34 a.m. and entered
1
TS 3.8.1.1.f for two DGs inoperable.
This TS requires that the
j
licensee begin shutting down the plant within two hours if one DG
is not returned to operable status.
Tne licensee cleared and freed
fuel racks; on DG 1B, then completed cleaning of DG 1A and began
testing DG 1A at' 11:37 a.m.
DG 1A was declared operable at 1:25
p.m., after a successful test.
The event was reported to the NRC at
- 2:03 p.m.
DG IB was declared operable at 4:00 p.m. after cleaning
and a successful test.
Unit I remained at 100 percent power the
entire time period.
DG 1A
DG 1B
Painting Completed
6/23, 3:00 p.m.
6/25, 11:00 a.m.
Fuel Rack Binding
6/26, 9:20 a.m.
6/26, 11:00 a.m.
Confirmed
.
,
Declared Inoperable
6/26, 10:00 a.m.
6/26, 11:34 a.m.
Returned to Service
6/26, 1:25 p.m.
6/26, 4:00 p.m.
I
>
.
,
'
.
.
3
.-
L
The time wh'ich elapsed from completion of painting both DGs to
declaring DG 1A operable, during which both engines were simultaneously
o
inoperable, was 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> and 25 minutes.
While it would appear
'
appropriate to allow some time to be assumed for paint drying, it
appears that both DGs were unable to meet TS requirements for
operability for a time period in excess of that allowed by TS (i.e.,
,
2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />).without commencing shutting down the plant.
,
Regarding Unit 2, the emergency diesel engines were subsequently
inspected by the residents and verified to not have been painted
recently, and with no detrimental conditions near or on the fuel
racks.
c.
Safety Significance
A preliminary review cf the load sequencing for a station blackout
and LOCA event indicated that Load Group Number Seven requires 3156 kw
within one minute and Load Groups Eight and Nine, which are sequenced
on at 10 minutes and 15 minutes, respectively, would require greater
than 3200 kw.
The licensee's initial judgement was that DG 1A would
have stalled upon an attempt to pick up load groups eight and nine.
Also, it is not certain that DG 1A would have been capable of loading
to 3200 kw upon an initial start attempt since the fuel racks had
already been exercised during the first start at the time 3200 kw was
obtained. DG 1B may have been worse relative to loading capabilities,
and probably would not have operated at full capacity, although the
engine was not tested following the discovery of its painted fuel
racks.
It is noted that the licensee's loading review is based on
conservative analysis and actual load requirements would probably be
less.
The licensee was performing additional analysis of this event
and developing long term corrective actions at the end of the
inspection period.
TS 3.8.1.1 requires two separate and independent diesel generators
to be operable in Modes 1 through 4.
TS 3.8.1.1.f requires that,
with both Unit I diesel' generators inoaerable, the '. ;censee:
(a)
demonstrate the operability of two offsite A.C. circuits by performing
Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.1.a within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and at least once
per 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> thereafter; (b) restore at least one of the inoperable
diesel generators to operable status within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />; or (c) be in at
least Hot Standby (Mode 3) within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and in Cold
Shutdown (Mode 5)withinthefollowing30 hours.
The licensee operated in excess of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> without initiating a
shutdown with two DGs apparently inoperable (i.e., unable to meet TS
operability criteria).
This constitutes an apparent Violation
369/90-14-01: Failure to Follow TS Due to Both Diesel Generators
Being Inoperable.
- ____-
- _
_ - - _ _
__-_____---___--_____---__________I
,
,_.
...'
4
..
d.
- Delayed Logging
The inspector noted that DG 1A was not logged inoperable until
10:00 a.m.,
although control room operators were informed of the
failed test et approximately 9:20 a.m. and f ailure had actually
occurred at 9:06 a.m.
In addition, operations personnel had been
aware of the detrimental conditions on DG 1B at approximately
11:00 a.m.,
but DG 1B was not logged inoperable until 11:34 a.m.
when the control power breaker was opened.
The licensee makes decisions regarding TS actiens >" is ' ability
requirements based on times recorded in the TF 1,
- r o a 1 be
noted that simultaneous inoperability of both
'e
, e 's of
two hours would place Unit 1 in an Unusual Ev 4
m
- V
classification.
The licensee did not appear to
4
-
< m 'ent
.
having to declare a UE, since the emergency class
.
so < Jure-
m
able
was not reviewed until af ter the second DG was det.;n a
m
(at 11:34 a.m. on 6/26).
However, the reasor, for nu s
srvaiive
' logging times was unable to be explained by the licensee other than
the fact that the normal tagout procedure was to declare a DG
inoparable_ when the control power breaker is opened. . As of the end
-of this inspection, the licensee was conducting further investigation
of this problem and verification of the preliminary sequence of
events.
This is an apparent violation of Operations Management Procedure 2-5,
Technical Specifications Action item Logbook, which requires in
paragraph 6.5 that "All entries should be made in chronological
order at the time of occurrence or when knowledge of the occurrence
is first obtained."
This is an apparent Violation 369/90-14-02:
Failure to Follow Operations Procedure for TS Logging.
3.
ExitInterview(30703)
The inspection scope and findings identified below were summarized on
July 5,1990, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The
following items were discussed in detail:
Violation 369/90-14-01: Failure to Follow TS Due to Both Diesel
Generators Being Inoperable
Violation 369/90-14-02: Failure to Follow Operations Procedure for
TS Logging
The licensee representatives present offered no dissenting comments, nor
did they identify as proprietary any of the information reviewed by the
inspectors during the course of their inspection,
r