ML20058F305
| ML20058F305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1993 |
| From: | Falevits Z, Hausman G, Mendez R, Salehi K, Shafer W, Tella T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058F206 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-254-93-24, 50-265-93-24, NUDOCS 9312080066 | |
| Download: ML20058F305 (16) | |
See also: IR 05000254/1993024
Text
.
.
U. S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10!1
REGION Ill
Reports No. 50-254/93024(DRS); No. 50-265/93024(DRS)
Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265
License No. DPR-29; No. DPR-30
Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company
Executive Towers West III
1400 Opus Place, Suite 300
Downers Grove, IL 60515
facility Name:
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At:
Quad Cities Site, Cordova, IL 61241
Inspection Conducted: July 28-30, August 2-4, and August 9-20, 1993
?
I
Inspectors:
$N..~ .hur1W
/2// N 3
G.'Mt?sman, lead Inspector
Date
it,cxs 4a.~ l-
nj, /n
Z. Falevits
Date
n
-
,
- i
?
Al. ,w C x
.O !' W 3
.
R. Mendez
J'
Date
Sc
(y ,
lL fif S b
K. Salehi
Date
-
?) ]{O
I f(fQ)
T. Tella
-
Date
i
b(
I Y-
Approved By:
)
'\\
W. D. Shafer, Chief
Date
'
Maintenance and Outages Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on July 28-30. Auoust 2-4. and Auaust 9-20.1993 (Report Nos.
i
'
50-254/265-93024(DRS)):
Areas Inspected: Special, announced team inspection of licensee activities
. I
associated with an unusual event declared on July 27, 1993, due to a loss of
offsite power (LOOP).
In addition, selected portions of NRC inspection
module 62700 were used to ascertain whether electrical maintenance activities
l
9312080066 931201
$DR
ADOCK 05000254
-
1
.
~-
,
y
,y
ai
- ---
- -
F
-
W
.
-
-. .
_
- . .
. -
- . -
.
.
.- .
.
.
Inspection Summary
2
,
,
on high, medium and low voltage breakers were effectively accomplished and
assessed by the licensee.
Results:
Three violations, some with multiple examples, and one inspection
i
followup item were -identified. The inspectors concluded that the major
'
component failures for the LOOP event were the loss of transmission line 0403
(Section 3.1.1), failure of the nonsafety-related bus 22 main feed breaker to
close on demand (Section 3.1.2) and failure of oil circuit breakers (0CBs)
9-10 and 10-11 (Section 3.1.3).
,
In addition, several built-in design features were not correctly modeled on
the Quad Cities simulator, such as the reserve auxiliary transformer.22
(RAT) to unit auxiliary transformer 21 (UAT) undervoltage time delay (slow
transfer) as discussed in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5.
Failure by plant
personnel to recognize a RAT to UAT slow transfer ' existed per plant design was
seen as a weakness in personnel. training.
Electrical maintenance activities
on the high, medium, and low voltage breakers were adequate with no
!
significant safety issues identified; however, a weakness was identified with
substation construction documentation related to the identification of
-
preventive, predictive and corrective electrical maintenance activities on
OCBs and associated 345kV switchyard equipment.
Weaknesses were also noted
with evaluation of GE Service Information Letter 448 and with some. system
engineers, as discussed in Sections 3.2.6 and 3.3, respectively.
!
,
1
,
1
i
l
1
I
i
I
I
i
.
.
- -.
.
- . - _ .
-
- -
. - . -- -. -
.
.
-
. . _ _ . . - - .
..
.
-
-
_-. --.
1
'
-
.
DETAILS
l
i
1.0
Principal Persons Contacted
Commonwealth Edison Company
- R. Pleniewicz, Site Vice President
- D. Bax, Station Manager
- J. Burkhead, Quality Verification Superintendent
- D. Craddick, Maintenance Superintendent
- R. Dralle, Electrical Maintenance
- H. Hentschel, Operations Manager
D. Kanakares, Regulatory Assurance NRC Coordinator
- J. Leider, Technical Service Superintendent
- A. Misak, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor
'
- M. Pacilo, Master Electrical Maintenance
l
i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- R. Gardner, Chief, Plant Systems Section
- P. Hiland, Chief, . Reactor Projects Section IB
- T. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector
i
,
!
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting on August 20, 1993.
J
Other persons were contacted as a matter of course during the inspection.
2.0
Licensee's Actions Regarding Previousiv . identified NRC Fir dinos
(Closed) Unresolved Item (254/88027-01(DRS):265/88028-Ol(DRS)): Neutron flux
i
monitoring instrumentation did not meet Regulatory Guide (RG) 1~.97, Category 1
,
requirements.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) completed an
evaluation of the boiling water reactor (BWR) ' owners group report, NED3-31558,
'
" Position on NRC Regulatory Guide l' 97, Revision 3, Requirements for
.
Post-Accident Neutron Monitoring System," and concluded that for curre ,t BWR
license holders the NE00-31558 criteria was an-acceptable alternative :o the
recommendations of RG 1.97.
NRR requested the licensee to review their
neutron flux monitoring instrumentation against the NEDO criteria and submit
the results of that review to NRR. On August 17, 1993, the licensee p ovided
,
some of the requested information; however, the licensee' stated that further
'
review would be required to assess the actions necessary to comply witr. those
,
NEDO. recommendations not currently addressed by system design.
The'li:ensee
stated that this information would be submitted to NRR in 90 days
a
(November 15, 1993). No further Region 111 action is required. Therefore,
J
this item is closed.
I
,
1
1
1
1
,.
- -
_
. - - . .
.
-
. .
.
.
.
.
.
_ _
_
.
_ _ _
_ _ _.
1
.
3.0
Introduction
The purpose of the inspection was to review licensee activities associated
t
with an unusual event declared on July 27, 1993, due to a loss of offsite
power (LOOP).
Both units were affected by the LOOP, declared an unusual
-
,
event, and entered the appropriate limiting conditions for operation (LCOs).
Attachment A contains a chronology of activities that occurred prior to and
during the July 26-27 LOOP event.
!
The inspection also assessed / evaluated the quality and effectiveness of
i
electrical maintenance activities associated with high, medium and low voltage
breakers. The inspectors conducted personnel interviews, performed walkdowns,
reviewed past operating experience, evaluated angineering and technical-
'
support, reviewed licensee assessments of electrical. breaker maintenance, and
i
reviewed related corrective, preventive, and predictive maintenance-
activities.
i
3.1
Loss of Offsite Power Event
'
On July 27, 1993, a fault occurred on the offsite transmission line 0403.
This caused an auto trip of oil circuit breakers (0CBs) 7-8 and 8-9.
Operations personnel had previously tripped open OCBs 9-10 and 10-11 due to
smoke and boiling noises observed coming from these OCBs. The combination of
the tripped OCBs resulted in a LOOP to the Unit 2 reserve auxiliary
transformer (RAT). By design, bus 22 should have transferred from the RAT to
the unit auxiliary transformer (UAT); however, the nonsafety-related bus 22
'I
main feed breaker did not close on demand due to a faulty position switch.
!
3.1.1
Loss of Transmission Line 0403
Loss of transmission line 0403 from the Nelson transmission substation (TSS)
resulted in the LOOP and de-energization of the Unit 2 RAT.
Prior to the LOOP
1
event, a f ault was sensed on line 0403 near the TSS; however, a type G
reclosing relay failed to reclose the breakers af ter the fault was cleared.
j
Consequently, the Quad Cities relaying scheme sensed a loss of voltage and
)
tripped OCBs 7-8 and 8-9, which resulted in the de-energization of the RAT.
The licensee stated that there were approximately 600 type G relays throughout
the Commonwealth Edison Company system and that only 25 failures had been
'
experienced in the last 5 years.
3.1.2
Loss of BOP Bus 22
The loss of Bus 22 (feed to 2B and 2C reactor feed pumps and 2B recirculation
pump) was directly attributable to a faulty position switch which prevented
closure of the main feed breaker. When the loss of voltage condition.
occurred, the bus should have transferred from the RAT to the VAT (after a 1.2-
second time delay). Adequacy of maintenance of- nonsafety-related breakers,
including the main feed breaker to bus 22, is discussed in Section 3.2.3.
'l
2
4
U
.
~.
.
-.
.
,
l
.
-
,
3.1.3-
Oil Circuit Breaker 9-10 and 10-11 Failures
'
In preparing to synchronize the Unit 2 generator to the grid, an equipment
l
operator (E0) performing a routine surveillance in the 345kV switchyard
'
noticed smoke and heard boiling noise coming from OCB 9-10, B phase. When
OCB 9-10 was tripped open, the boiling noise stopped. To synchronize the
Unit 2 generator to the grid with OCB 9-10 open, OCB 10-11 was tripped open.
j
This caused a partial loss of the station ring bus.
After Unit 2 was synchronized to the grid through OCB 1-11, the control room
operators were unable to close OCB 10-11. Operations personnel called the
I
Operational Analysis Department (OAD) to assist in closing OCB 10-11. 0AD
notified the operators that the HACR synchronization relay would not allow an
)
OCB to close on a dead bus. 0AD placed a jumper across the HACR relay
allowing closure of OCB 10-11. Operators later tripped OCB 10-11 open when a
'
substation construction (SSC) worker, performing corrective maintenance (CM)
l
on OCB 9-10, heard boiling noise coming from OCB 10-11, C phase.
,
The licensee disassembled and inspected all three phases of each OCB.
Internal arcing occurred in the B and C phase interrupters of OCBs 9-10 and
,
10-11, respectively.
In each instance, one of the four movable silver tipped
contacts had disintegrated. Damage was also visible to the interrupter
i
stationary assembly, where a portion of the stationary contacts melted away.
,
for OCB 9-10, te 'icensee discovered that the cotter pins used to secure the
movable contact anembly to the ladder assembly had f allen out on one side.
i
The two cotter pins had either been bent the same way or not bent at all
during installation. The absent cotter pins eventually caused an improper
!
'
movable contact to stationary contact alignment. This produced a high
!
resistance path, which resulted in the internal arcing noticed on July 26,
4
1993.
The licensee concluded that the colter pins had been incorrectly
)
installed during assembly (about 1969) at the f actory.
!
For 008 10-11, the licensee discovered two loose bolts which held the
crossover arm in place. The licensee stated that improper movable contact to
stationary contact alignment was again the cause.
One bolt was found to be
'
about a half flat loose and the other was loose by about one flat of the nut.
The loose bolts prevented proper penetration of the movable contacts into the
,
stationary contacts, which resulted in a high resistance path.
4
3.1.4
l
A; a result of the LOOP event, the licensee determined that fast transfers
I
from the Unit 2 RAT to UAT were not possible due to an UV time delay (TD)
.
relay installed on the low side (4kV) of the RAT with a 1.2 second time delay.
j
Under nominal conditions a RAI to UAT transfer (fast transfer) would occur in
about six cycles (= 0.1 seconds). The TD was installeo to prevent a fast
transfer from the RAT to the UAT during voltage fluctuations on the system
i
grid.
t
The transfer delay caused a very low voltage condition on 4kV safety-related
[
bus 23 and the associated feeds to 480V buses 25 and 28 resulting in the drop
out of some motor contactors and relays. The following is a partial list of
,
equipment tripped from the normal power source because of the delay.
l
0
The 2B feedwater regulating valve locked up due to loss of the power to
hydraulic pu o (normal feed bus 25).
,
3
'
.
._
._
_ __ ._
_
_
..
.-..
_ . _ _ .
.
.
..
,
j
-
,
o
The SPING terminal in the control room, which provided control room -
'!
indication of. the stack discharge concentrations, was lost- (fed from bus
28).
'l
o
The essential service system uninterruptible power supply (UPS) switched
to its alternate power source (UPS fed from bu; 28).
'
o
The operators received area radiation monitor (ARM) downscale alarms and
were unclear as to how to clear the alarms (ARMS fed from bus 28).
o
The reactor building sump pumps tripped (sumps fed from bus 28).
.l
.
o
The drywell cooler tripped (fed from bus 28).
!
o
The emergency core cooling system fill pump (jockey pump) tripped (fed
'
from bus 28).'
o
There was a momentary loss of reactor protection system (RPS) "A" (fed
l
from bus 28).
i
!
O
The diesel cooling water pump started due to loss of voltage on the
i
4kV bus.
In addition the diesel run light was lit due to pickup of the
I
associated control relays, although the diesel generator did not start.
!
Both of these events occurred per design but were not expected
i
occurrences by plant personnel.
i
!
The licensee stated that a similar TD relay was previously installed at the
Dresden station but was removed in 1973 at the recommendation of Sargent and
l
Lundy (S&L). A similar recommendation was made by S&L to remove the TD relay
l
. at Quad Cities; however, the licensee could not explain why the recommendation
,
was not ' implemented. The licensee stated that this issue would be reviewed
!
further.
Therefore, this issue is considered an inspection followup item
l
(25 /265-93024-01(DRS)).
,
3.1.5
Simulator Modelina/ Operator Trainina
i
l
As a result of the LOOP event, the licensed operators became aware of certain
,
design features that were not covered in operator training and were not
,
modeled on the Quad Cities simulator. The following is a list of the design
!
features not modeled on the simulator.
j
o
Undervoltaae Time Delav Relay
I
i
The FSAR and the operations training manual stated that the RAT to UAT
,
transfer would occur with no inherent time delay.
Furthermore, the
j
normal and abnormal operating procedures did not address loss of
- j
equipment due to a time delay.
The response observed during the event
was not expected.
l
f
o
HACR Relays
3
i
The operators were not aware that the HACR relays did not allow the OCBs
!
to be closed in on a dead bus due to improper simulator modeling and a
l
I
4
-f
-
-
,.
.
.
_
_
.
- . _ - -
_
_
.
.
4
g
!
!
-
I
lack of training. These relays were installed as part of modifications
in 1990 and 1991 for Units I and 2, respectively.
In a memo dated-
r
May 23,1990, the cognizant engineer stated that no operator training
'
would be ' required as part of the HACR relay modification.
The simulator-
1
allowed closure of the relays on a dead bus.
I
o
ARM Downscale Alarms
'
During the momentary loss of power, control room operators did not know
.I
how to reset the alarms. The control room annunciator _ window procedure
l
did not address resetting the ARMS.
In addition, on a momentary loss of
,
power, the simulator did not duplicate the ARM alarms.
i
,
--
o
Rod Permissive Licht
j
The operators were not aware that a rod permissive light could be
i
received at less than 30% power even though a rod was not selected.
The
.
simulator did not model this event.
-i
o
EDG Run Indicator Liaht and Coolina Pump Start
I
During the recent transfer of power from the RAT to the VAT, the
!
licenses noticed that the EDG run indicator light was illuminated but
l
that the EDG had not started.
In addition, the EDG cooling water pump
1
started.
Both events occurred per plant design; however, the events
{
were unexpected since operators were trained not-to expect such an
l
occurrence and the simulator was not modeled to duplicate the event.
'
The licensee found that due to the EDG control circuit design, a.
'
momentary loss of voltage on the 4kV buses can result in the
illumination of the EDG run light and the start of the cooling water
'
pumps.
The licensee indicated that time delays may be placed in__the
circuits to prevent inadvertent starting of components. A similar' event
~!
occurred in 1989 when the UAT transferred to the RAT.
Although the'
'l
licensee performed an analysis of the~ event, no action was taken to
j
notify operations personnel.
l
3.2
Electrical Breaker Maintenance
i
The inspectors performed system walkdowns, reviewed corrective, prevent'.ve, .
and predictive maintenance activities, evaluated engineering and technical
j
support and licensee assessments of maintenance activities, reviewed licensee
!
maintenance improvement programs, and reviewed.past operating experience
j
associated with high, medium and low voltage breakers. Selection of licensee
!
documents were based on component / equipment safety significance.
!
3.2.1
System Walkdowns
,
The high, medium, and low voltage breakers, as well as adjacent areas, were -
observed for proper identification, accessibility, installed scaffolding,
radiological controls, housekeeping and unusual conditions.
Unusual
y -
conditions included, but were not limited to, water, oil or other liquids on
>
R
s
-)
u
. -
- .
..
.
.
.-
.
_
-
-
-
!
-
.
)
i
the floor or equipment; equipment in need of repair or out-of-service;
indications of leakage through the ceiling, walls, or floors; loose
!
insulation; corrosion; excessive noise or vibration; and abnormal
!
temperatures, ventilation or lighting. The inspectors verified that work
i
requests had been initiated for broken or defective equipment.
1
The material condition of the electrical areas, such as, 4kV and 480 Volt
I
switchgear, station batteries, battery chargers, main power transformers, unit
!
,
auxiliary and reserve auxiliary transformers was adequate.
l
system areas were generally clean. The out-of-service equipment was tagged.
l
Six cubicles in the IB motor control center (250 Volt DC) were tagged to
1
indicate that parts from these cubicles were taken out and used in other
cubicles.
Licensee personnel mentioned that the original equipment
!
manufacturer no longer supplied these parts and that alternate sources were
being investigated. The system engineers were knowledgeable of the areas
1
inspected.
}
3.2.2
SSC OCB Maintenance
!
The inspectors concluded that SSC Department CM and Hi record documentation
was not adequate to accurately assess the licensee's OCB maintenance program.
l
Information documenting the scheduled dates for maintenance, the date the
!
maintenance activity was accomplished and the PM due dates were available;
'
however, specific details of the maintenance activities were absent.
The
following concerns were noted by the inspectors:
i
o
CM and PM work history documentation was minimal to non-existent.
This
i
would make trending of important parameters. such as dimensional
tolerances, difficult.
!
O
Although the licensee stated that the latest revision of the vendor
l
manual was being used, there was no record of which revision was used
j
during maintenance.
(
The interface between the SSC crew and the 345kV switchyard system
l
o
engineer was poor. Wnenever work was performed in the switchyard the
system engineer was normally not notified.
Additionally, the inspectors noted problems with the checklist currently being
)
used.
!
Development of the checklist did not require engineering review or
O
~5
approval by an OCB specialist.
- !
!
.
6
l
!
5
'h
~
'I
t
..
. - _ - - _
-
F
9
o
There was no. information as to the revision of the vendor manual used to
develop the checklist.
o
There .was no method for incorporating future recommendations into the
checklist.
O
There were no references in the checklist to a specific section in the
vendor manual.
o
There were no torque values or torquing of bolts included in the
checklist. This was significant since the licensee's investigative team.
l
concluded that the probable cause of the 10-11 OCB failure was loose
,
bolts on the crossover arm.
Furthermore, the SSC crew. failed to
document the discovery of loose bolts in OCB 10-11 on the checklist or
in the comment section.
o
During recent maintenance on OCB 9-10, work was started without the use
of the checklist. As a result, some of the steps requiring as-found and
l
as-left values were left blank.
O
A number of dimensional measurements made during maintenance were found
i
out-of-tolerance without an immediate disposition.
The licensee's 0CB
')
specialist later reviewed the out-of-tolerance values and found that
none would affect'the operation of the OCBs.
The_ inspectors concluded that the licensee's OCB PM program needed significant
attention and review by Quad Cities management.
The licensee planned to
i
fccmalize history record keeping and develop.a trending program for switchyard
l
OCB breaker problems.
3.2.3
4kV Breaker Maintenante
The inspectors reviewed the recent maiatenance nistory of the main feed
breaker to bus 22 and the other nonsafety-related breakers on buses 11, 12, 21
and 22.
The inspectors found that maintenance performed during the last
Unit 1 outage on buses 11 and 12 was satisfactorily accomplished and
post-maintenance tests (PMTs) were specified. The inspectors noted, however,
that in several instances after maintenance, PMTs were not performed for the
vertical lift breakers on bus 22.
Failure to specify post-maintenance testing
on breakers important to safety, as identified in the following nuclear work
I
requests (f4WRs), -is considered a violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion
XI (254/265-93024-02A(DRS)).
O
NWR 090581 was issued on february 24, 1992, to clean, inspect and repair
all cubicles on bus 22.
The licensee found that the position switch in
the cubicle to the bus 22 main feed breaker was bent or would not-
operate.
The position switch was repaired; however, no PMT was
specified for any of the breakers on the bus.
7
-.
- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - -
.
.
i
!
O
NWR Q99959,was issued on April 26, 1993, to perform the remaining
]
overhaul work on bus 22. Step 22 of the NWR required that the_ position
switch be adjusted, repaired or replaced. . Again, no PMT was 'specified
'
for a single breaker on bus 22, although required by QAP 1500-1_7, ". Post-
Maintenance Testing / Verification Procedure." The licensee had failed to
,
specify the required tests on PMT verification matrix form QAP 1500-538.
.
The inspectors found'that the shift engineur signed the " post test
i
review" section.and denoted the test as " accept" although the PMT
section was lef t blank indicating no test or no test required. The
licensee stated that no tests were specified since normal plant
l
surveillances would prove the breakers functional; however, there was no
t
existing plant surveillance which would have tested the main feed
,
breaker to bus 22.
On July 27, the bus 22 main feed breaker failed to auto-transfer.
The failure
I
of the breaker caused the loss of the 2B reactor feed pump and the 2B
recirculation pump which resulted in single loop operation for the unit.
The
loss of the two pumps was a significant plant transient in which reactor. power
dropped from 28% to 17%.
It should be noted that GE had previously identified
'
4
problems with the position switch and documented the problem in a service
advice letter (SAL) dated May 23, 1978. The SAL applied to vertical lift 4kV
!'
breakers used at Quad Cities. The licensee had not taken any corrective
action to address this vendor identified problem.
The inspectors observed maintenance work performed August 11, 1993, on a 4kV
,
breaker in cubicle 2 on 4kV bus 31, Safe Shutdown Feed to MCC 30 and concluded
1
that the maintenance work was satisfactorily performed and the technicians
were competent and knowledgeable. Thi
work was performed acccrding to
procedures, QEPM 200-6, " Inspection r
Maintenance of 4kV Switchgear
~'
Cubicles", Revision 2, and QCEPM 200- a , " Inspection and Maintenance of 4kV
Vertical Circuit Breakers Type 4.16-250-9", Revision 0.
The inspectors
{
observed that the maintenance work was adequately supervised and that
applicable procedures were followed.
i
!
3.2.4
Undervoltaae Relays
l
The inspectors reviewed calibration data sheets for the RAT safety-related 4kV
bus and the 4kV Technical Specification (TS) type IAV69A undervoltage (UV)
relays.
The inspectors found that Unit I had a 1.7 second time delay for a
1
transfer from the RAI to the UAT and Unit 2 had a 1.2 second time delay.
By
i
station procedures the tolerances on these relays were plus or minus 10
!
'
percent.
Therefore, the RAT UV relays could be set with a time delay- as high
as 1.87 seconds while the TS relays could be set as low as -1.8 seconds.
This
j
has the potential to result in improper coordination between the RAT and the
TS UV relays.
In addition, the ins:ectors identified the UV tolerance setpoint on
l
calibration data sheets, OADMP-B1, was 83 volts e 5% (79 to 87 volts) for TS-
't
relays on buses 23-1 and 24-1.
However, TS Table 3.2-2, an OAD relay setting
order, and procedure QC0 ADS 100-1, " Rock River Division OAD Undervoltage Relay
Calibration," Revisico 0, required a setting of 87 volts
5% (82.65 to 91.35
,
1
8
'
6
$
E
-.,
,
-
-
.- .
- -,
. -
- . -
-
, . -
.
~
q
..:
-
7
!
>
volts) for the 4kV emergency bus UV relays. 'Although these relays were
l
fortuitously set within the TS limits on March 18, 1993, the licensee ~had not
used the latest calibration procedure revision which was issued in February
i
1993. The latest procedure revision incorporated the appropriate design
!
requirements and acceptance limits associated with 4kV bus 23-1 and 24-1 UV
relays into the calibration data sheets. Failure to implement appropriate
,
design requirements and acceptance limits into procedures used during testing
T
is considered a violation of 10 CfR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI
!
(254/26593024-02B(DRS)).
l
>
3.2.5
D.C. Grounds Proaram
l
1
As a result of previous inspections 254/88011 and 265/88012, a violation and
civil penalty was issued on the 1/2 Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG).
The EDG
j
was determined inoperable in excess of five months due to a hard ground that
'
was installed in the EDG during modification. The licensee implemented
i
several corrective actions, including the development of a corporate policy on
DC grounds and the revision of four plant procedures. The corporate policy
t
was issued as Nuclear Operations Directive, N00-0P.16, "DC Ground Action.
I
Requirements," on October 1, 1989. The inspectors noted that several N0D
i
items were not adequately addressed in the implementing procedures as noted
i
below
o
The NOD defined three levels of DC grounds (Level 1, II, and III), as
I
stated in the licensee's original commitment. However, the plant
!
procedures did not refer to the levels of DC grounds and which operator
,
,
actions were required.
l
c
Some items in N0D paragraphs 5.3.3, 5.3.4, and 5.4 were not addressed in
the plant DC ground procedures.
These paragraphs referred to
_.
identification of new grounds masked by other grounds and preparation of
!
a "DC System Ground Report".
- '
o
The NOD included a table indicating voltage / resistance correlations and
response actions at different Ceco nuclear power plants. The contents
)
of the table were not included in the plant procedures.
-l
r
The NOD directed that a "DC System Ground Report", be prepared for each
o
level II or III ground, and that this report must be filed at the
station.
The plant procedures did not include this requirement. Tne
!
ground reports were not being issued or filed. As all the grounds data
,
was not being compiled in one file, it was difficult to trend the DC
grounds and to evaluate the root causes.
I
o
The "DC System Ground Report" form in.the N0D stated that, "If the
'
ground is a level Ill and cannot be corrected within three days of its
!
occurrence, a copy of this data form must be sent to the general office
]
(Nuclear Engineering and the appropriate Nuclear Operations General
Manager) within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />." -lhis requirement was not included in the
plant procedures.
i
9
i
I
-.
.
. -.
-.
..-
- .
.
.-
.-~
..
=
i
I
.
.
i
.i
i
At the exit meeting, the licensee stated that f40D-0P.16 was canceled on
l
~
' April 28, 1993.
The cancellation letter stated that the f40D was canceled
since the station had implemented most of the f400 functions by station
I
procedures. The licensee's failure to implement procedures to adequately
l
address the requirements of fl00-0P.16, a licensee's commitment to a previous
i
escalated enforcement action, is considered a violation of- 10 CFR 50,
i
Appendix B, Criterion V (254/265-93024-03(DRS)).
!
3.2.6
Followup of Industry Experience on Breaker Maintenance
j
i
The inspectors determined that the licensee was not reviewing industry
'
initiatives for applicability on a timely basis.
Procedure QCAP 2300-6,
" Station Commitment and Action Item Tracking," Revision 0, required-that-
t
vendor items, such as, General Electric (GE) service information letters
(Sils) be reviewed within 90 days.
The inspectors requested the licensee to
perform a review of Sils received during the past year and identify those SIls
that did not meet the QCAP 2300-6 requirement.
The review showed that for
most of the SILs timely evaluations were not performed.
For example, three
!
Sils flos. 548, 550, and 551 were not reviewed within the specified 90 day-
!
period.
Reviews for SIls fios. 550 and 551, which were received in March.1993,
i
were not completed until August 20, 1993. The licensee's failure.to perform
q
timely evaluations of SILs in accordance with procedure QCAP 2300-6 is
considered a violation of Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B
(25:/265-93024-04A(DRS)).
.!
!
In addition, a problem involving 4kV breakers was revealed during the review
l
of GE service advice letter (SAL) 205, which concerned the failure of. SBM
control switches manufactured during August through October 1982. The
-
licensee added an inspection requirement to inspection procedure, QEPH 200-1,
.
revision 3, to identify breakers that contained SBM switches and effect
'!
replacement of the defective SBM switch. The licensee completed 35 of the 89
-!
scheduled breaker inspections, but for unknown reasons removed the inspection
i
requirement from the next revision to the procedure.
Consequently, the
!
licensee failed to complete the corrective action inspections to identify and
!
replace, as required, defective SBN switches on 4kV breakers.
The licensee
!
stated that the inspections would be reinstated for the remaining breakers.
l
The failure to complete corrective action inspections is considered a
(
violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI (254/265-93024-04B(00.5)).
j
T
On December 23. 1986, GE issued SIL f40.448, which described the maintenance of
i
GE Type AK Circuit Breakers. The SIL recommendations included performance of
t
preventive maintenance (PM) and inspections at twelve month intervals,
}
complete disassembly / overhaul of the breakers at intervals not exceeding five
years, and the use of a specific grease. The licensee completed the SIL
i
evaluation on February 19, 1987, and took action regarding the grease
recommendations. However, the licensee's review did not address the
recommendations on frequency and type of maintenance recommended for the
breakers.
The inspectors considered this a weakness in the Sll evaluation.
The team noted that 4kV breakers were not being maintained in accordance with
i
vendor recommendations. GE recommended inspection and lubrication of all
!
"
breakers at every scheduled refueling outage and a complete overhaul of
S
i
!
i
.
.-
.-
.
-. - - -
-. -
i
!
1
.
1
I
breakers every five years or earlier if problems were detected.
During 1990,
l
the licensee completed an engineering study and decided that safety related
!
4kV breaker maintenance at Quad Cities would be performed at 36 month
intervals. The licensee stated that this decision was based on Quad Cities
breaker failure history, which was better than the industry average (6.5
l
failures / unit versus 7.7 failures / unit). This decision was made with
!
consideration for a review of failure history after the program was in place
!
for at least one cycle on all breakers. A current review of NPRDS data (past
i
two years) indicated that Quad Cities breaker failure history was 4.38
failures / unit versus 3.11 failures / unit for the industry, placing _ Quad Cities
failure rate in the top 17% of the industry. The licensee stated that 4kV
i
breaker maintenance schedules would be reviewed based on current breaker
l
failure rates.
!
3.2.7
Repeat Breakage of Secondary Disconnects
l
The inspectors noted that there were 11 broken secondary disconnects in 1992
-l
and one in 1993.
In addition, there were eight missing components (such as
I
springs and washers) and eight broken components, other than disconnects. An
l
apparent reason for the repeated damaged to 4kV breaker components was
perceived to be the handling process during racking the breaker and its
!
transport to and from the busses.
e
t
.
There were two specific documented notifications of improper breaker handling.
One was an entry in a system engineer's log book and the other was in a work
!
request, which referenced excessive force was used during breaker handling.
j
The system engineer's log book made a direct reference to improper handling of
'
the 4kV breakers by E0s during racking. However, this notification was
!
neither reviewed by the group leaders and supervisors; nor was it elevated by
1
the system engineer to higher management for consideration and evaluation.
!
The failure to provide appropriate notification to plant management _after
!
identification of improper breaker handling is considered a violation _ of 10
l
CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI (254/265-93-0024-04C(DRS)).
l
e
3.3
System Engineering
System engineers' knowledge about the impact of nonsafety-related high, medium
j
and low voltage breaker failure on safety systems _ revealed some weaknesses.
.!
One system engineer was not aware of the content of the PM procedure for the
f
designated system and did not monitor various surveillance tests' performed on
,
the breakers.
In addition, the system engineer was not aware of the impact of
4 kV breaker failure on the safety related systems. It appeared that, at
times, problems on the breakers could be identified and resolved without the
l
system engineer's awareness and knowledge. These instances of inadequate
communication, inadequate understanding of maintenance and testing, and
)
inadequate awareness of system interaction was considered a weakness..
I
L
4.0
Inspection Followup Items
,a
',
Inspection followup items are matters which have been discussed with the
!
licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspectors, and which involve
I
some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. An inspection
i
followup items disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Section 3.1.4
of this report.
l
11
$
f
-
. . -
.
.- . _ - -
.-
. - .
--
.
.
5.0
Exit Meetino
-
'
The inspectors met with the licensee's representatives (denoted.in Section 1)
.<
i
during the inspection period and at the conclusion of the-inspection on
August 20, 1993.
The inspectors summarized the scope and results of the
-
!
inspection findings. The inspectors discussed the likely content of the
inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the
!
inspectors.
The licensee acknowledged the information and did not indicate
'
that any of the information disclosed during the inspection could be
considered proprietary in nature.
'l
)
?
i
.!
.
I
!
!
.,
6
,
!
!
I
i
,
t
!
.
.
.
.
.
E
I
L
i
5
I
I
,
'
!
12
.!
!
I
1
1
, _ ,
.
-
_ . . _ . , - -
. _ _ _
,
_
_
_
.
_
.
__
-
i
5
)
!
f
ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 1 0F 2
1
-!
CHRONOLOGY OF ACTIVITIES FOR
.!
QUAD CITIES LOOP EVENT
!;
i
o
JULY-26. 1993
Time Description of Activity
1500 Preparations were being made to synchronize the Unit 2 generator to the
-
grid. Quad Cities Unit 2 mode switch was in the run mode.
{
1948 An E0 noticed smoke and heard boiling noise coming from OCB 9-10,
[
B phase, while performing a routine surveillance in the 345kV
,
!
!
1955 OCB 9-10 was tripped open. The boiling noise stopped.
2025 OCB 10-11 was tripped open in order to synchronize the Unit 2 generator
_
2
to the grid. This caused a partial loss of the station ring bus.
-
1
2043 Unit 2 was synchronized to the grid through OCB l-11; however, the
l
control room operators were unable to close OCB 10-11. Operations _
j
personnel called 0AD to assist in closing OCB 10-11.
jq
2153 The operators received a rod permissive light indication on the rod
{
select matrix although no rod had been selected (this was not related .to-
-i
the LOOP event).
j
o
July 27.1993
!
\\
Tire Description of Activity
i
!
0025 Operators again attempted to close OCB 10-11 without success. 0AD
l
notified the operators that the HACR relays would not allow an OCB to
1
close on a dead bus.
j
!
0233 OAD placed a jumper across the HACR relay allowing closure of-0CB 10-11~ .
J
0252 Operators tripped OCB 10-11 open when a SSC worker performing CM on
)
OCB 9-10 heard boiling noise coming from OCB 10-11, C phase.
0315 A fault was sensed on transmission line 0403 2nd OCBs 7-8 and 8-9
tripped causing de-energization of RAT.
The control room operators expected a fast transfer (approximately
6 cycles) from the RAT to UAT. However, numerous indications of
momentary loss of power and alarms were received, such as the
instrument bus and the essential service (ESS) bus alarms-(loss of 480V
buses 25 and 28) and the associated 2A RPS MG.
In addition, the nonsafety-related bus 22 f ailed to transfer to the UAT.
The operators were unable to manually close the main feed breaker to
bus 22.
lhe failure of the breaker to. close resulted in the loss of the
2B recirculation pump and 2B reactor feed pum;.
Consequently. reactor
_ _._,
.
.
_
.
.
..
-
~-
.. -
-
--
.-
.
_!
4 -
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT A (CHRONOLOGY).
PAGE 2 0F 2
July 27.1993 (Cont.)
i
Time- Description of Activity
l
!
level dropped to 25 inches and reactor power dropped from 28% to 17%.
Peactor level recovered shortly thereafter.
In addition, a Unit 2 LC0
was entered due to loss of the recirculation pump (reactor in single
!
loop operation).
!
0337 An unusual event was declared due to the LOOP. Both units entered into
LCOs.
I
i
0443 Operators attempted to energize bus 22 through the main feed breaker but
[
were not successful.
.
0508 Power was restored through OCB 8-9 and the RAT was re-energized.
This
,
restored offsite power and both units exited their LCOs.
'
i
0536 Bus 22 and safety-related bus 23 were loaded on to the RAT.
- i
!
0547 Operators again attempted to close OCB 7-8 without success.
i
i
0618 The unusual event was terminated.
!
I
0700 Unit 2 was kept at less than 30 percent power until the rod select
l
matrix was repaired,
i
1315 The 2B recirculation pump was started.
The single loop operation LCO
l
was exited.
?
1400 A problem identification form was issued to troubleshoot the rod select
j
matrix.
The rod select matrix was later found to have operated-in
accordance with the vendor instructions'
!
f
!
!
,
.
i
!
-1
l
')
.
!
,
f
'
-
-
- .
.