Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4


OIC-VP, Mindanao Generation Fact Finding Report Re Agus 6 HEP Sump Pit Flooding


Administrative Basis: A. Memo Order 20121-0029 dated 23 August 2011 B. Memo for Mr. A. F. SUEZO, JR. Dated 23 & 26 September 2011-10-11 C. Memo for Mr. J. S. PATES, Jr. Dated 03 October 2011

Executive Brief: I. Background: On the basis of the spot report dated August 21, 2011 received at the Office of the VP regarding the plant shutdown of Agus 6 units 3, 4 and 5 due to excessive flooding at the sump pit area, the OIC VP created a Task Force through Memo Order No, 2011-0029 dated August 23, 2011 with a mandate to: a. Determine the root cause of the flooding at the sump pit at Agus 6 HEP; b. Determine the administrative liability of anyone, if there is any; and c. Submit report and recommend corrective action on the incident to then OIC VP Atty. E. L. Ramirez.


Factual Findings: An ocular inspection was conducted by the task force at the Agus 6 sump pit for units 3, 4 & 5 last September 23, 2011. The inspection disclosed the following: 1. Water seepages from turbine pits/shaft seals of units 3, 4 & 5 were noted. Units 3 & 4 discharges were observed to be strong while unit no. 5 was moderate. Other sources of seepages were also noted coming from the draft tubes of units 3, 4,& 5 and the upstream side wall of the basement floor. 2. One (1) out of the three (3) sump pumps were found without electric motor. 3. The centrifugal pump was also without electric motor. 4. One (1) unit submersible pump which was reported to be coming from Agus 2 HEP was still inplace at sump pit and operating. 5. The two (2) regularly installed submersible pumps at the sump pit were not in-place. 6. One (1) sump pump was operating. 7. The two (2) jet pumps at the jet pit were operational at the time of the inspection. An Interview with the operations personnel (Mr. Macario M. Zabate, Equipment Operator D, Rogelio M. Ambito, Equipment Operator C and was conducted last September 26, 2011 at Agus 7 HEP conference room. The interview disclosed the following: 1. At the main sump pit there were three (3) sump pumps (2 units at 300 GPM and 1 unit at 600 GPM); one (1) unit centrifugal pump at 40 GPM; two (2) submersible pumps ( 1 unit at 112GPM and the other is 160 GPM). 2. At the jet pit, there were installed two (2) jet pumps at 300 GPM each. 3. Of the three sump pumps one unit was pulled out before the incident and of the remaining two units, one that was supposedly functioning but found later had defective impeller and the other unit was not functioning. 4. The centrifugal pump was functional but the capacity was not sufficient to control the water level at the sump pit. But according to Messrs. Ambito and Sinal, they suspected that this pump was defective even before the incident.

5. Of the two submersible pumps,One unit was defective and the other unit was operational but can not be used due to detached discharge hose. According to Mr. Sinal he operated the operational submersible pump but it failed to actuate/ operate. 6. Of the two jet pumps, one was operational according to Mr. Zabate and the other one was not operational. However, the operational one was later found out to have clogged suction pipe.Mr. Zabate attempted to manipulate the control valve of Jet Pump No. 2 to no avail. An interview on October 5, 2011 at OVP conference room with Mr. Alfredo Q. Andaloc, Operations Superintendent-on-duty at the time of incident disclosed the conditions of the water pumps before the incident were as follows: 1. Weeks before the incident, there was already an observation wherein the sump pit had an abnormal rising of water level. 2. The discharge hose of the submersible pump that was operational was detached from the unit for reason that it had traversed through the turbine floor to the tailrace area and it did not look good during the conduct of IMS audit by TUV SUD auditors. The said hose was not reinstalled back to the unit making the unit inutile after it was removed on August 6, 2011. 3. He noted that during his conduct of the patrol check at 3 PM of August 20, 2011, the centrifugal pump was operational. 4. Jet pump no. 1 was operational but with leakage making it ineffective to be relied with. The other pump was operational but later bogged down due to clogging. 5. The centrifugal pump was functional but the suction pipe was damaged. Mr. Andaloc suspected that when the pump was operated the gate valve was probably at closed position which resulted to that damage. 6. The condition of the two (2) submersible pumps were such that one unit was defective and the other unit was operational but can not be used for dewatering due to detached discharge hose. 7. The defects noted on the condition of the water pumps were not recorded nor reported in the Patrol Check List and likewise were not issued with Corrective Maintenance Work Order (CMWO) for appropriate corrective action. The recorded issuance of CMWO were last December 2010 yet (CIP: CMWO No. AG63-10-0051 for sump pump no. 3 and CMWO No. AG63-10-0049 on jet pump no. 1. To balance the course of the investigation, an interview with the maintenance personnel (Jose S. Pates, Jr., Plant O/M Manager, Manuel A. Manuta, Mechanical Superintendent, Edwin L. Tadulan, I&C Maintenance Superintendent and Abraham C. Acoba, Electrical Maintenance Superintendent ) was also conducted last October 5, 2011 at OVP conference room. The task force was informed of the following: 1. The float switches at the sump pit and jet pit were not operational, including its alarm system. 2. On the status of the water pumps: three (3) sump pumps were all operational. Records show that there were no adverse findings noted in the implementation of PMWO No. AG63-11-0566 that was implemented on July 11, 2011 for sump pump no. 2; PMWO No. AG61-11-0532 for sump pump motor no. 1 that was implemented on July 12, 2011; PMWO No. AG61-11-0527 that was implemented for Portable Dewatering Pump motor on July 12, 2011; PMWO No. AG61-110526 that was implemented on July 11, 2011 for Sump pump motor no. 2; PMWO No. AG63-11-

0397 that was implemented on May 10, 2011 for Sump Pump Motor No. 3 (submersible); PMWO No. AG63-11-390 that was impemented on May 10, 2011 for Sump Pump Motor No. 1 (centrifugal); PMWO No. AG61-11-0004 that was implemented on April 21, 2011 for Sump Pump Motor No. 1; PMWO No. AG61-11-0044 that was implemented on January 17, 2011 for Portable Dewatering Pump Motor; PMWO No. AG61-11-0043 that was implemented January 18, 2011 for Sump Pump Motor No. 2; PMWO No. AG63-11-0041 that was implemented last January 21, 2011 for Sump Pump Motor No. 2. PMWO Nos. AG63-11-0455 and AG63-11-0203 that were implemented on June 6, 2011 and March 7, 2011, respectively for the cleaning of strainer of Jet Pump No. 1.

a. Root Cause b. Administrative Liability III. IV. Recommendations