ML20087N357

Final Significant Const Deficiency Rept 92 Re HPSI Sys Performance.Hpsi Pump a Reinstalled & Tested.Test Results Showed Flow Above Manufacturers Pump Curve & Acceptable

ML20087N357
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	03/23/1984
From:	Gerrets T LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
References
92, W3K84-0693, W3K84-693, NUDOCS 8404030367
Download: ML20087N357 (4)

Text

.

t v ~ s

', e f gm 142 DELARONDE STREET POWER & L1GHT R O. BOX 6008 + NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 366-2345 UTtuTIES SY3 TEM March 23, 1984 W3K84-0693 Q-3-A35.07.92 Mr. John T. Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g c \ 3 i

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000  !

o II Arlington, Texas 76012 MAR 3 01984

REFERENCE:

LP&L Letter W3K84-0398 dated February 24, 1984 [ ih

SUBJECT:

Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 Significant Construction Deficiency No. 92 "High Pressure Safety Injection System Performance" Final Report In accordance with the requirement of 10CFR50.55(e), we are hereby providing two copies of the Final Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 92, High Pressure Safety Injection System Performance.

If you have any questions please advise.

Very truly yours,

%/ $ MC T. F. Gerrets Corporate Quality Assurance Manager TFG:CNH:SSTG cc: Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 (15 copies) 8404030367 g 3$82 0 PDR ADOCK pDR 7 S

~[Q"{

l I

I q

b. .. .

~-- - -

Mr. John'T. Collins March'23, 1984

- W3K84-0693

Page.2:

L cc: . Director Office of Management Information~and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, y- Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. E. L. Blake y' Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge

-1800 M. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

. . n.,

' --;b Mr. W. M. Stevenson Monroe & Lemann 1424 Whitney Building New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

.L Racords Center f Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500 X Atlanta, Georgia. 30339

~

Mr. W.-A. Cross

. 7910 Woodmont Avenue

% Suite 1200 Bethelda,Marylahd. 20814

~

as. ,$

~

, - . s p- + .,

4, y w o

~

. [. .'. *

.fn j;';i ,7 yF ' y *-

j. #- .

_j

. r , s. . .

• f  !.

a

+

4-k,

a-,

9

y. ' i p .I , '

- -' M. ,,,

~-'

v. .,

?j^

r i}

l1 - 4

c

. , c  ;

s -, s i FINAL REPORT OF SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 92 "HICH PRESSURE SAFETY INJECTION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE"

?

e INTRODUCTION-

.This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e). It_ describes a deficiency where the performance of the High Pressure Safety Injection System did not meet required performance specifications. This problem is considered

^ reportable ~under.the requirements of.10CFR50.55(e).

~ DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM.

' Combustion Engineering's evaluation of High Pressure Safety Injection (HPSI)

-pump flows measured during Emergency. Core Cooling System.(ECCS) testing.

. indicated the flows were acceptable. The preoperational (pre-op) test for the JHPSI' system was erroneously evaluated against preliminary ECCS analysis flow f assumptions and was judged acceptable.

A re-evaluation of HPSI pump. delivery with the minimum delivery assumed in the

small break LOCA analysis has been made. Using the pre-op test results, HPSI

' delivery falls short of the delivery assumed in the ECCS analysis.

~

SAFETY IMPLICATIONS This problem', .if;1 eft uncorrected, could possibly preclude the ability of the

. -system-to perform its safety related function in an accident situation.

' CORRECTIVE ACTION-

Subsequent to 'the submittal of SCD 92, a retest of HPSI pumps was performed with a CE representative present. .The retest results indicated that HPSI pump "A/B" and "B". performed in accordance with the manufacturer's pump performance curves and were. acceptable. .However, the HPSI "A" pump' delivery did not meet the manufacturer's curve'~ Testing indicated excessive internal' flow past the pumps balancing drum and balancing drum sleeve. Subseonent pump internals.

' disassembly and~ inspection.showed excessive clearance between the balancing drum and balancing drum sleeve. The balancing drum and balancing drum sleeve-

were replaced and-the drum / sleeve clearance reduced within limits.' The J iIngersoll-Rand Representative had difficulty in reinstalling the original

rotor assembly.- A spare rotor assembly was then installed in the "A" pump, s

.b'tLwould:not u rotate. -Following.Ingersoll Rand recommendations, both rotors Land the pump barrel'were sent to their facility.in Baton Rouge for pump. barrel

(

-Leoncentricity. measurements and further inspections.of the spare rotor. -The

' investigation' identified that the 5th, 7th, and 8th stage channel rings of the greplacement; rotor were out of. specification. These-were machined to p' -specifications.-:The pump barrel and both rotors were then sent.to the main-p u Ingersoll-Rand plant in Phillipsburg, New Jersey..to complete the barrel

~ concentricity' checks and-reassemble the pump. .These checks confirmed L.

% -f"' x V '

p -'

. m; '. .

i

.6 . . -l ,

.i.

< SCD 92

+Page'2

'T h

~ =- ?

9 l ,

.The pump was reassembled with the concentricity was within specifications.

spare rotor and the acceptability of the pump confirmed. Upon receipt of the l

"A" HPSI pump'back at Waterford 3, the pump was reinstalled and tested. The test results showed a flow from the "A" HPSI above the manufacturer's pump curve and' acceptable. 'The HPSI system is considered operational and reliable for intended safety functions.

?

5 6 .t 4

' k, k

.~Jn- n j.

-v

~,l-

?.

-~

[

.;,4

, ,