ML20151X287
| ML20151X287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1988 |
| From: | SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151V543 | List: |
| References | |
| SYSTEM-009, SYSTEM-9, NUDOCS 8805040102 | |
| Download: ML20151X287 (14) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.. Action Item Number SYSTEM ENGINEERING ACTION PLAN FOR RANCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT REPORT No. SYSTEM-009 REVISION No. O DATE 3- 2 %B 8
SUBJECT:
LETDOWN COOLER THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC SHOCK PREVENTION l ( sd ' Syste/ Engineer 4M - Lead System n neer , 1 Dr.A
// I
- _-) ;f System Engineering l Superintendent l l
! ] /
afager,FlantPerfprmence i Distribution: Scheduling Outage Management J. McColligan RIC Files Nuclear Engineering Operations i 8905040102 880418 PDR ADOCK 05000312-O PDR
\
4
- . 4 e _ iL--- E -.a.. .ga... a g- .A__
h LETDOWN COOLERS RELIEF VALVE ACTUATION ACTIDM PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION SUBSECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 2.0 ACTION PLAN 1 3.0 SCHEDULE 3 4.0 RESOURCES 4 5.0 APPENDIX 5 i
- . ~s - ';.
LETDOWN COOLER THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC SHOCK PREVENTI0lf-1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1.1 PURPOSE l
- To minimize letdown cooler thermal _and hydraulic shock.
- To eliminate letdown cooler relief valve lifts, i
1.2 SCOPE j i Incident analysis j Design changes i Testing Operating changes . Letdown System design evaluation l Root cause investigation 2.0 ACTION PLAN , 2.1 Background l 4 Two recent incidents have occurred; each was initiated by stroking a letdown valve and resulted in a thermal hydraulic shock to a letdown cooler, followed by the cooler relief valve lifting.
- March 15, 1988: While performing a movats test on the 'A' Letdown Cooler Inlet Valve (SFV-22005), the ,
cooler relief valve lifted, discharging approximately l 700 gallons to the reactor building. March 22, 1988: While stroking the common letdown isolation valve (SFV-22025), after resetting its i torque switch, the 'C' Letdown Cooler Relief Valve lifted. This incident resulted in discharging approximately 100 gallons to the reactor building. Both of these incidents are covered in greater detail in the incident analysis report generated as part of this action plan. 2.2 INCIDENT ANALYSIS The incident analysis will be accomplished by the Independent Investigation / Review Group (IIRG). The IIRG has conducted in-depth interviews with key personnel involved with both incidents and participates in all meetings germane to these 4 incidents. li.o .. The IIRG report (Incident-Analysis 88-03)Ltitled Thermal Hydraulic Shock of Letdown Coolers will. provide a detailed
- account of the incidents in the following format
- ,
* . Description'of the event Detailed chronology Conclusions
- Underlying causes 2.3 DESIGN CHANGES 2.3.1 Short term - These changes, along with administrative procedural control, will resolve the difficulties associated with cycling letdown flow and swapping coolers; they will be completed prior to criticality. ,
SFV-22025 - The letdown. isolation valve control circuit will be modified to allow the operator to "jog" the ' valve open. This will facilitate filling and pressurizing - the piping up to the letdown cooler inlet isole, ion valves (SFV-22005 & SFV-22006). SFV-22006 - The 'B/C' Letdown Cooler Inlet Isolation ! Valve control circuit will be modified to allow the : operator to "jog" the valve open. This will allow the 3 operator to fill / pressurize the letdown coolers and D l establish' letdown flow in a controlled manner. I PLS-131 & PLS-132 - The 'A' and '8/C' letdown cooler outlet check valve internals will be removed. This will ensure that an 'out of service' cooler remains filled i and pressurized; this also allows an_ isolated cooler to be returned to service by back filling / pressurizing i using cooled letdown fluid. 2.3.2 Long term - The ultimate design changes, to address the , letdown system thermal hydraulic concerns, will be determined during a detailed system design evaluation j by Nuclear Engineering. 2.4 TESTING The design changes (Section 2.3.1) and the operating philosophy , (Section 2.5) will be' tested by performing a special test procedure (STP.1156). This test will demonstrate the following: , The ability to restore the letdown system in service, following a safety features actuation, without imposing l
- an unacceptable thermal hydraulic shock on the 3
letdown coolers. l The ability to swap the in-service letdown cooler without imposing an unacceptable thermal hydraulic shock on the letdown coolers, u , l 4
. - - . . . - . . . . - - - . _ _ -__.--.-.--_..L
li . - . . - . 2.5 OPERATING CHANGES The operating procedures will be modified to reflect the design changes (Section 2.3.1) and a new philosophy as follows: The standby letdown cooler will be maintained full and pressurized rather than isolated. This will be accomplisned by maintaining the cooler outlet valve open; removal of the internals of the outlet check valve makes this possible. When establishing or restoring letdown flow thru the letdown coolers; SFV-22006 (B/C cooler inlet valve) will always be used irrespective of which cooler will be placed in service. This is because SFV-22006 is a globe valve and will be modified to have ' jog' capability. 2.6 LETDOWN SYSTEM DESIGN EVALUATION A detailed engineering evaluation of the letdown system has been mandated by senior plant management. This evaluation will be accomplished after criticality and will form the basis for any long term design changes or changes in operating philosophy. This activity will be completed prior to the end of this fuel cycle. 2.7 ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION The[ndependent Investigation / Review Group will perform a rest "rcute cause investigation" (Re: IIRG 188-0155). This investigation will follod the detailed letdown system design evaluation. 3.0 SCHEDULE See Attachment 1 d.0 RESOURCES 4.1 Pl. ant Performance wil' have overall responsibility for implementation of this action plan. The following departments are responsible for completion of their respective actions. 4.1.1 Nuclear Engineering: Issue ECN R-2912 Perform detailed engineering evaluation of the ' letdown system.
4.1.2 Operations
Revise applicable procedures Perform STP.1156 Accept ECN R-2912
/T
;.. ?
~
^
d f 4.1.3 Licensing:. i Issue Incident Analysis 88-03
' Perform root cause investigation 4.1.4 Plant Performance:
j- Implement action plan Develop and perform STP.1156- - ,. Turnover and release ECN R-2912 , Submit ' song range schedule change request ~ '
4.1.5 Maintenance
-Install And turnover ECN R-2912 j Support STP.1156 performance ,
i H 4 I 1 i i' 1-i . i 1 l N 1 i 1 i
~
l a i i
- -4
. /cac L/D-AP d/34 t t 1 I L - __ _ _ _ . _ , . _ . . . . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ - _ _ . . , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . - _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _ . . ,
,,.. ~;. knA< merJT' I - u Oiir _ _ __ , w . . . _ .
. .. L.. L5 .LI
, r .-
.- - . -. l
}03-0 ei DC d3 3
t i s
- n >
i O' O------J--i b M y T eu l , b J .i .
. - eb-td -
jQ h
--~~
g t 0- - - -O Q
^
$_ 6 e
d 6 o{ u 9 3
- _ _ _ o _ _ _, 9
% . 4 r - T - - - ! O-- - l $
I I I 48 l l g 9 %O [ l l I T e 6 $ I . s u g l l 5 9 s~
.l ,I 2> 0- - -o a 9 0 +O $c( .4 1
- - Zo g 8a g ) 'j
{ n ,~ ,d , , 3,5
- y
?
e ,o , h I 10 i O - - - - 4) * $O l t:! Z l at W
]u; ,3
;0
l l CALCULATI@N OHEET l
$SMUD.
1 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTluTY DISTRICT O 6201sstreet.P.O.soniss30.SectementoCA958521830(9161452 32 CALC.NO. l DATE ORIGINATOR [ETDowhi doOLEE SC H EM ATIf- CHFCKED SUBJECT OF Flau2r i SHEET i 3 l 3 4 5 .. __m ...
' esv. atosi I ,
'.. p =
y y. l \ SFV- 22.007 CC.W 8'- - - - - 22005 p a
'C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ._ _.
__ g -. . . . . _ _ _ _ - . . _ . . . _ . . - _ . . . -
", . . . [
Z.T . :. .. U f E2ZOA k tj PL5-l31.
' ' 4 1 l.
~_ .
'-" g g, SF.Y.- ..S F.Y_.
, ._g ,,,,
" "- 320E3 22009 1
l AA-db _r_._ . . . .VN.
. ccW. '
" , )., _ _ . YN VN "
RCS.. _. 2: --- - -. !
,,w_ f(sas.os)i 8'
f MV-SFV-22
' fi_T3 0 C ~._ . '
Z2.co8lI 22006 22
~
TZ '." l
' N
' g. l 8' ~
-~ ~~
~' ~'
W . . . _. i 'i
~ v3 '
9LS -l 5 2.'. 3' .2.
~
' ' . . . __. T.
_. .2. P5v'12034 : l 3,
- M, " l gg . - -
1,
- s Q= y.gz,o C )
a S
"' BLDG 33 Z. ..
34 . . - - . . 35 . . 36 -- . SWD 1420e 13 84
aa .. ; l ATTACHMENT IV GCA 88-258 NRC Letdown Cooler Modifications: Operations Observation: commitment to issue e.ppropriate instructions to plant operators regarding lineup of letdown coolers in a timely manner was not implemented. Rancho Seco The Director, Nuclear Operations & Maintenance was Response: tasked by the AGM-Nuclear Power Production to investigate why Operations personnel were not made aware of the new letdown cooler philosophy. Specifically, he is to determine the cause of the breakdown D communication which resulted in the failure to an?e a shift order indicating that only one coolar shou?.d be in service and installing labels indicating the same. This investigation revealed that the failure to meet the commitment was caused by a momentary breakdown in routine management short term job assignment and followup. Contributing factors were the high level of activities associated with reactor startup, the change in shift schedule to the night shift for the assigned individual, and the lack of a specific due date. This breakdown is not indicative of a programmatic failure within the department as indicated by the timely
- completion of all other letdown cooler modification tasks, including six procedure changes.
Corrective actions included a review of the incident with Operations' management staff stressing the need to establish firm due dates for all activities. The Director, Nuclear Operations and Maintenance discussed this issue in detail with J. Crews, NRC Team Leader, and resolve all concerns. This issue is considered closed.
, , . .. l 5 i ATTACHMENT V GCA 88-258 NRC Work Planning / Work Control Packages / Independent Observation: Verification.
Rancho Seco Work planning - the NRC witnessed a maintenance Response: activity, removal of insulation on the Terry turbine governor. During the work a spark was drawn when a work-knife penetrated a heat trace circuit. The Maintenance department conducted a root cause investigation of this incident in accordance with MAP-0017. The report of that investigation, Root Cause Evaluation No. 88-022, has been approved and is attached. NRC also observed evidence that in some instances Work Control Packages had not been walked down prior to issuance to the field. An Action Plan is being developed by the Maintenance Department to address several areas of concern identified in work planning activities. This Action Plan is currently in the review cycle and scheduled for approval on April 20, 1988. The Action Plan addresses findings of the Rancho Seco Management Observation Program, prior INPO findings as well as the current NRC Team's observations. The NRC Team observed the potential for surveillance test, maintenance or other activities to be conducted on the "wrong train" of redundant systems, and questioned the adequacy of Rancho Seco administrative controls to prevent such circumstances from occurring. All werk packages on plant equipment now includa an independent "verification of proper train" form to be filled out by cognizant personnel conducting the work. In addition, blanket work requests also include a step that requires this independent verification form to be filled out for each "component" worked under that particular blanket work package. i
s.,.. . 4, .
- CAUSE EVALUATION FORM'-
R.OOT N~ 1 ROOT'CAUSE EVAL N O '. . . ASSICNED MAINTENANCE ' iENCINEER/ SUPERVISOR: 1 Dwicht Fannino DATE: 4-7-88 p sq e "
- 'y> N. , ' :: N, C m. 1 l : .s- m: c2 7 m N s, d ) .
.v
, K-308 Terry Turbine Governor
, - ,.,,P aus . - N: ,
lD~SCRI?TIONCS): Woodward Governor SYSTEM ID( S > /DESC( S ): t WORK 'RECUEST NO( S > : 137966B-0
!DESCR:? TION OF ?ROSLEM:
L. . . . .. . . .. . ... . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . .... .. .... .. . I.
.During . .. . the .remova.l of insulation .on wc ter s a.pp'.y t.o . lube. oi..l co.ol.er, on.e..le.a.d
. o. .n .the .he a t. tra c. i n. .g ....
w a..s d.a.ma. .ge. d. .. .. c- ..,s,
,.. . .sJ u- :>
1
- g. . .. . . .. . . .... . . . ... .. ,
, . .S e. e. . a. .t t. a c.h e. .d . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .... .
1
. n. ; . ;_ .s.e . uA c q ) . .
. See attached i,. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .
I... g
- t. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ....... .. . .
1
!.n.- vv . .: w i IV-: .
n s, i - - t . 0 N s, S ) n 0Un:
, 0 - .i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. I
. See attache.d..
4 f- ^ "
- / ?
4 % a l~* l C0" LET.ED E - m
- -_ ~ TE M/4/ M OR",,VEC E v Fg/ - U D E '- -.
bb,NMLL- . - - i- -i - . \, O-m Moe iav 1
.r. N COMP,.-sin-. ,.i -
t
- i. . . . . . . . . ... . . ..
i
. . . .. l
. . .... . . . . . . . . .... . .. l 9 6 ...b ... . ...... .... . . .. . . .... ... .. . . .. . . 6.. ... .... . . . .. . . . . ..gg. .. . . . .. . .
I l 1 I a ry-osetcri Av. ni'r- 6 9 'P' m t r ' ' ' ' ' ~
'O , I FINDINGS: - . .
I i-
- 1) The work request (1379668-0) did not specifically address the removal
, of insulation.
- 2) The work request did not address'the presence of heat tracing for the cooling water lines. i
-i
- 3) The insulation on the cooling water lines did not have any markings I to indicate that there was heat tracing.
4 l ^
- 4) Upon "nicking" the heat tracing and producing a spark, the mechanics l realized that there was heat tracing involved. - At this point. they -'
, carefully laid back the heat tracing and moved to continue work on the other side of'the lube oil-cooler. At this time, the foreman called the Control Room to advise them of this problem and seek further clear-l ance tags on the heat tracing. Once the work had proceeded as far as ' safely possible, work was suspended in order to rectify the heat tracing
- problem prior to continuing with the work on the Woodward governor.
- 5) The clearance was modified, the work package had a step added to address the removal of the heat tracing and a work request was written to repair '
the damaged heat tracing. # l CONCLUSIONS: I '
- 1) The work package should have addressed the need to remove insulation '
] and subsequently address the fact that there was heat tracing to con-l 4 tend with.
- 2) The outside covering on the insulation should be marked appropriately to indicate the presence of heat tracing. ,
- 3) The mechanics continued work - apparently in a safe manner - while the ,
- foreman followed up on the problem concerning the heat tracing.
r
- 4) The mechanics should have immediately stopped work when the spark .'
i occurred and notified their foreman. t CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED:
- 1) Initiate a work request to appropriately mark all heat traced lines
- for easy identification. j
! 2) Insure that work request problems are being walked down by Planning l in the field so things of this nature are addressed in the work plan. l 1 Additional work items need to be addressed in the work package. l 3 :
- 3) Address the issue of safety with the Mechanical Maintenance Department I i in the proper respect to schedule (I'. this case an LCO. ). )
- 4) Discuss incident .vith the individ>,als involved to insure they understand l
, the importance of safety and que.iity versus schedule. l k, l i
i { '
,. , , - - - , .- - - - - n-.. .
---,-.m,,,-, < , .m - - . , . . , . - - - , - - , - , -_ , , , , . - , , - -, , ,-,m-. -m ,, r-,,,,.---n
~
.o
%e No ti;'6' 'at i ;,GE
.namesaamma4 .4*******+ r ...++******dde*we+. 5. 6 . * . ,** * .* ** +a*-.a* sm.sen. s . .ges WOne REQUEST t 01379661 0 E OU2 PrirN T ID M - 3 0 ", TRAIN SYSTEr: FWS WH LAFETY CLAGS 1 PROJ . . . .'* RESP DCPI .itt UOlm I il L R STEP / HOLD WORK /DC INSPECTOR INSTRUCT 3ONS n
FILL AND VENTING Or THE GOVERNOR WILL Dr PERFORr1FD ON W/R h137966C-0 AFTER THIS WORM RL ,.' .C I S C0hPLE.TED. bTCP OR STEPS tiA1 3 EF:tORMED OUT OF SEQUrNCE WITH THE CONCURRANCE OF , T H F. RESPONSIBLE CNA T OR MAINTENANCE FOREMAN AND SO LONG AS ANY Q/C ItiSPECTION OR HOLD POINTS ARE NOT DYPASSED OR COMPROMISED. 1F A STEP IS NOT P t.R F O R M E. D , AN N/A MUST DE ENTERED IN THE SIGNOFF BLOCK OF THE WORK INSTRUCTIONS OR PROCEDURE, WITH A BRIEF EXPLANATION, INITIALS, AND DATE.
, kOR ANY ADNORMAL CONDITIONS OR NON-COMFORMANCES THAT EXIST, WHICH HAVE Y NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY._A00RESSEP, (IN OR QUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS WORM PLAN) NOTIFY THE FOREe1AN OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND DOCUMENT THEN IN' THE WORM PERFORME! SECTION OF THIS WORK REQUEST.
1 ODTAIN RRP AS RE"U1 RED TO PERFORM THIS WORM PLAN FROM RP'S OFFICE, ' AND HAVE RP'S SUPERVISOR SIGN FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IF REQUIRED, i @' Rruiru H. M O R C, t. . A'T/SS O OO1E REV O i l ALARA REVIEU; G. rEDERSON A/7/SS 0 0 0 J. 5 , REV-O
. F:P UUPERVISOF: . _ _ _ , . , _ _ . . , _ _ . , _ , . _ _ _ , , , , _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ , , _ D A T E _ ,, _ ,, _ _ _ ,, ,, ,, ,, _
PERrOnMED DT ...N.A _.___ ________. /DA,E %{p:.Yc COMMENTS: ,,___,.,_ ..,,_, ___,_ ____,A/o__ h f.,_@p Q,g M __, h. ,,_ _ ,,,,,_ _ _,_ ,,_ _ _ .
~.' OETAIN ELECT. S U P F-]R T FOR DISCCNNECTING GOVERNOR % e. h . O. ~7JJj f 0,. f f 4
- d/LL j d ( L M 0 tEmap. l.A id6 OPrOL dd W 'T)?ACL dh Q)t,*,l*[Y/
/ ' 7t> Mn nt io K IS.hs ta 7h..'. 14r t?e[Qutde*D wuw.funt WW e Y g % M s J m .)
l
\.R
' i ,, '*f '
PCnrORMED DY __..e..-__.. /DATE [ 2._/ E7_' _
, C O M M E N T S : -I :rdr.tec e d.. _ $F4ErdmE. .. .. _ _ _ .. .. .. .. _ _ _ _ .
g__p .- _._ .. __. _ _ _ . - . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . __ .. _ ESTAs.uasctEANt + ss .ocreotS 1. A . u . n . u .. . L c C W-4.-{.66D DNNT A S4E. l Al C 6W #.R.T' 'SbkL[ 66 'I 7/88 l 1 c
e c ,, ATTACHMENT VI GCA 88-258 NRC Need for the incorporation of interim and/or Observation: temporary procedure changes into permanent changes to procedurcs. Rancho Seco A large number of tamporary and interim Response: changes to Station Procedures, made per RSAP-0507, Change Notices to Procedures, have been generated as a result of the recent outage and initial plant operation. In order to preclude confusion in the performance of procedures, management has developed an Action Plan, Procedure Development Project Action Plan for Temporary and Interim Procedure Change Incorporation as Procedure Revision, Revision 1, dated April 6, 1988 (attached). This Action Plan provides the method used to ensure applicable changes to procedures are incorporated as procedure revisions. It should be noted that interim and temporary changes are approved metnods for temporarily changing procedures (for a period up to 90 days prior to incorporation as a revision). i n Y
)}}