ML20198G290

Notice of Violations from Insp on 981019-1106.Violations Noted:As of 980327,performance of Listed Test Procedures Did Not Demonstrate Equipment Could Perform Satisfactorily Under Design Conditions

ML20198G290
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	12/18/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198G287	List: IR 05000254/1998019 ML20198G282 ML20198G290
References
50-254-98-19, 50-265-98-19, NUDOCS 9812290044
Download: ML20198G290 (4)

Text

. - . . ... ., - - - - - - . - . - - - _ - - - _ - . - - - - . -

l l' ,

l =

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265

. Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2 License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30 I

During an NRC inspection conducted on October 19,1998, through November 6,1998, three

. violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations e:re listed l below:

1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, required, in part, that a test program be established to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily in snvice was identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in the applicable design documents.

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Section 9.3.3.4, " Reactor Building Floor Drains and Sumps," required that the reactor building floor drain sump pumps start on a high sump level signal and trip on a low sump level signal.

UFSAR, Table 9.2-1," Residual Heat Removal Service Water Equipment Design Parameters," required the RHR Heat Exchangers to be capable of removing the original design heat removal rate of 105 million Stu/hr.

Contrary to the above, as of March 27,1998, performance of the following test procedures did not demonstrate equipment could perform satisfactorily under design conditions.

A. The Unit 2B reactor building floor drain sump pump was installed as a temporary alteration (TA) 92-2-140 issued on October 23,1992, in accordance with procedure No. QAP 0300-12. " System Temporary Alterations," Revision 33. The TA required veritication that the sump pump start on high sump level and trip on low level, which were specified in UFSAR, Section 9.3.3.4; however, no testing was performed to verify these functions.

4 B. Procedure Nos. QACP 1100-5, "RHR Heat Exchanger 1 A Thermal Performance Test," Revision 4, and QACP 1100-5, "RHR Heat Exchanger 2A Thermal l Performance Test," Revision 5, did not demonstrate that the heat exchangers were capable of the original design heat removal rate of 105 million Btu /hr, which was specified in UFSAR, Table 9.2-1.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1). 50-254;265/98019-01.

l 9812290044 981218 PDR ADOCK 05000254 G PDR

~

, Notice of Violation II. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI required, in part, that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances be promptly identified and corrected.

Contrary to the above, as of March 27,1998, the licensee failed to promptly evaluate and correct a 1993 nonconforming condition that was adverse to quality. Specifically,in 1993 General Electric notified the licensee that the residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchangers were not capable of removing the original design heat removal rate of 105 million Btu /hr with the current design fouling. This condition remained uncorrected until the issue was re-identified by the NRC in March 1998.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1). 50-254;265/98019-04 111. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion ll! required, in part, that measures be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis be correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions; and that the design control measures shall provide for verifying and checking the adequacy of design.

Contrary to the above, as of March 27,1998, A. The design control program did not adequately translate or verify design information into design documents in that, documentation of design bases information was inconsistent with actual plant design. The following are examples:

1. Calculations Nos. CWE097.0200.40, " Base Suppression Pool Level Required for Proper Operation of the RHR/LPCI and Core Spray Pumps during Plant Cold Shutdown and Refueling Conditions," Revision 0, and CWE097.0200.41, " Minimum Suppression Pool Water Level Required during Cold Shutdown and Refueling Conditions," Revision 0, assumed a nonconservative flow rate of 4500 gpm from a single residual heat removal or core spray pump to establish the basis for the seven foot minimum suppression chamber value specified in Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.5.C. Additionally, the net positive suction head calculations in CWE097.0200.40 used an incorrect value for suction strainer head loss (1 ft at 10,000 gpm rather than 5.8 ft at 10,000 gpm).

[ 2. UFSAR Section 9.2.5 indicated that the contour of the river bottom would l trap a large volume of water at elevation 561 feet in the intake fiume which, in conjunction with the discharge fiume, would be used as an  ;

evaporative heat sink with portable pumps of approximately 2000 gpm capacity available on site for makeup requirements. The A/E team i determined that in an evaporative mode, the trapped volume ultimate heat

]

sink (UHS) would increase in temperature and during summer

~

, Notic'eof Violation operation, ::ould be driven well above the 95'F design temperature, specified in UFSAR Table 5.4-6 for the residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchangers and could affect the performance of other safety related equipment including the emergency diesel generator cooling water system, emergency core cooling system room coolers, residual heat removal service water vault coolers, and control room ventilation, all of which receive water from the UHS.

B. The licensee had modified various systems without verifying and checking the

. affected calculations to assure adequacy of the design. The following are examples:

1. Calculation No. MECH - 13, "RHRSW Pum Brake Horsepower (BHP)

Requirements for Various Modes of RHR N Operation," incorrectly calculated a value of 952-961 BHP for recently modified RHRSW pump impellers where a total BHP of over 1000 should have been considered for input into the diesel generator loading calculations.

2. Diesel generator loading calculations Nos. 7318-33-19-1,731843-2, and 7318-33-19-3 were found to be inactive; however, they were shown in the electronic work control system as active. The active calculations for the emergency diesel generator loading were 9390-02-19-1,2, and 3.

3. Breaker settings for 480V switchgear 18,19,28, and 29 were changed without revising or superseding Calculation No. 792342-19-1 to remove obcolete settings.

4. Motor replacements for RHR motor-operated valves 2-1001-4A and 4D l were "like for like" in that each were rated at 60 ft-lb; however, the new l motors had a higher full load current. Thermal overload sizing calculation l No. 004-E-031 and voltage drop calculation No. 004-E-005-1001 were not revised to reflect this higher full load current. Additionally the electrical j load monitoring system (ELMS) data was not updated with correct full l load and locked rotor currents. l l

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1). 50-254;265/98019-05.

The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reasons for the violations, the corrective actions taken and planned to correct the violations and prevent recurrence and the date when full compliance was achieved is already adequately addressed. However, you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, clearly mark your response as a " Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it

l 1- .

Notice of Violation 4-l to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region ill, and a copy to the NRC Resident inspector at the facilitv that is the subject of this Notice, within 30 days of the date of 1 the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).

If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response to the l Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

If you choose to respond, your response will bo placed in the NRC Public Document Room l (PDR). Therefore, to the extent possible, it should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, .

l or safeguards loformation so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.

l In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working days.

Dated this 18th day of December 1998 l

l i

l i

1

- -. .- .. .