05000397/LER-1990-001, :on 900103,diesel Generator Sys Declared Inoperable Due to Failed Diesel Fuel Tech Spec Surveillance. Caused by Fuel Oil Sampling Method.Independent Consultant Hired to Assess Diesel Fuel Program
| ML17285B002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1990 |
| From: | Powers C, Washington S WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LER-90-001, LER-90-1, NUDOCS 9002130069 | |
| Download: ML17285B002 (13) | |
| Event date: | |
|---|---|
| Report date: | |
| 3971990001R00 - NRC Website | |
text
,ACCELERATED D>STRIBUTION DEMONS/ATION SYSTEM REGULATORY XNFORMATXON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
CESSION NBR 9002130069 DOC.DATE: 90/02/01 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-397 WPPSS Nuclear Project, Unit 2, Washington Public Powe 05000397 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILXATION
,WASHINGTON,S.L.
Washington Public Power Supply System POWERS,C.M.
Washington Public Power Supply System RECXP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION
SUBJECT:
LER 90-001-00:on 900103,entry into Tech Spec 3.0.3 action due to failed diesel fuel Tech Spec surveillance.
W/8 ltr.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: IE22T COPIES RECEIVED:LTR I
ENCL J SIZE:
TITLE: 50.73/50.9 Licensee Event Report (LER), Incident Rpt, etc.
NOTES:
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA SAMWORTH,R INTERNAL'CRS MICHELSON ACRS, WYLIE AEOD/DSP/TPAB DEDRO NRR/DET/EMEB9H3 NRR/DLPQ/LHFB11 NRR/DOEA/OEABll NRR/DST/SELB 8D SPY<&
B8D1 EG F L 02 RG FILE 01 EXTERNAL: EG&G WXLLIAMS,S LPDR NSIC MAYS,G NUDOCS FULL TXT COPIES LTTR ENCL' 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
4 4
1 1
1 1
1 1
RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD ACRS MOELLER AEOD/DOA AEOD/ROAB/DSP NRR/DET/ECMB 9H NRR/DET/ESGB 8D NRR/DLPQ/LPEB10 NRR/DREP/PRPB11 NRR/DST/SICB 7E NRR/DST/SRXB 8E RES/DSIR/EIB L ST LOBBY WARD NRC PDR NSIC MURPHY,G.A COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 2
2 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE KVASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
FULL TEXT CONVERSION REQUIRED TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 37 ENCL 37
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P.O. Box 96B
~ 3000 George Washington Way
~ Richland, Washington 99352 February 1,
1990 Docket No.
50-397 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, O.C.
20555
Subject:
NUCLEAR PLANT NO.
2 LICENSEE EVENT REPORT NO.90-001
Dear Sir:
Transmitted herewith is Licensee Event Report No.90-001 for the WNP-2 Plant.
This report is submitted in response to the report requirements of 10CFR50.73
.and discusses the items of reportabi lity, corrective action taken, and action taken to preclude recurrence.
Very truly yours, C.
H.
Powers (H/0 927H)
WNP-2 Plant Hanager SLW;lr
Enclosure:
Licensee Event Report No.90-001 cc:
Hr. John B. Hartin, NRC Region V
Hr.
C. J.
- Bosted, NRC Site (H/D 901A)
INPO Records Center Atlanta, GA Hs. Dottie Sherman, ANI Hr.
D, L. Williams, BPA (H/0 399)
NRC FOAM 366 (64)9)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
APPROV ED OMB NO. 31500104 EXPIRES: 4(30l92 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER
RESPONSE
TO COMPLY WTH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REOVESTI 50.0 HRS. FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENTBRANCH (P630). U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. WASHINGTON. DC 20555, AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (31500104), OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTANO BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC 20503, FACILITYNAME (II Washington Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 TITLE (4)
FUEL - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SURVEILLANCE DOCKET NUMBER (2)
PAGE 3
0 s
0 0
0 39 i
oF 06 A
ENT DUE TO FAILED DIESEL EVENT DATE (5)
LER NUMBER (6)
RFPORT DATE (7)
OTHER FACILITIES INVOLVED(SI MONTH DAY YEAR YEAR X SEQUENTIAL NUMBER REVISION NUMBER MONTH OAY YEAR FACILITYNAMES DOCKET NUMBER(SI 0
5 0
0 0
0 1
3 9
0 90 00 1
0 0 0 2 01 90 0
5 0
0 0
OPERATING MODE (9)
POWER LEYEL 1
0 0
(10) 20.402 (5I 20.405( ~ )(I)(II 20.405(e) (I)(ii) 20.406( ~ ) II )liBI 20 405(e)(I)(iv) 20.405( ~l(1)(vl 20.405(cl 50.36 Ic I (1I
'0.36(cl(2) 60.73(el(2)(l) 50.73( ~)(2)lli) 50.73(el(2) Iiill 60,73( ~l(2)liv) 50.73(el(2)(v) 50,73(e l(2)(viiI 60.73(e)(2)(viii)(AI 50.73( ~l(2)(vill)(B) 60,73( ~ ) (2)iil 0 THE RLQU(AEMENTs oF 10 cF R ()I (corer one or more of tnr fopowinll (11l THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED PURSUANT T 73.71(5) 73.71(c)
DTHEA lsprcily in Aosrrecr OeiOW rnd in Trit, Nf(C FOrm 86@A)
NAME LICENSEE CONTACT FOR THIS LER (12)
S. L. Washington, Compliance Supervisor TELEPHONE NUMBER AREA CODE 5 093 77 COMPLETE ONE LINE FOR EACH COMPONENT FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT (13I
CAUSE
SYSTEM COMPONENT MANVFAC TVRER REPORTABLE TO NPROS
.4FIIIIdyjj(a'
cause
SYSTEM COMPONENT MANVFAC TVAER TO NPRDS:true). )agPss(P SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT EXPECTED (14)
X NO YES illyrs, complete EXPECTED 3(/BertSStON OATEI ABSTAACTILimirro t400 sprcrL i ~., rpproximrtrty Alrren tinpir spree typrwrinrn linnl (16)
EXPECTED SV 8 MISS I0 N DATE (15l MONTH OAY YEAR At 1545 hours0.0179 days <br />0.429 hours <br />0.00255 weeks <br />5.878725e-4 months <br /> on January 3, 1990 all three Diesel/Generator (DG) Systems were declared inoperable due to failed diesel fuel Technical Specification Surveillances and Technical Specification 3. 0.3 was entered.
On January 2, 1990 a review of the diesel fuel test results by Plant personnel determined that fuel in all (three)
DG storage tanks did not meet the oxygen accelerated stability test requirements of Technical Specification Surveillance 4.8. 1.1.2.d.2.
Past surveillance results were reviewed and the results were typically half the surveillance allowable value and there were no discernible trends.
Two diesel fuel experts were consulted.
Both experts stated that without a trend there was no plausible reason to expect a step jump in the test results.
Both recommended that new samples be taken and the tests repeated.
A Plant Operations Committee (POC
) Immediate Disposition was approved on the.basis that the test results were questionable because no verification of the original test had been performed, there was no previous adverse trend, and in the opinion of the experts a step jump without a previous trend was unusual.
The POC Immediate Disposition also stated that future operability assessments of the Diesel/Generator Systems would be based on a verification test of the original samples and the test results of a new set of fuel samples obtained on January 2,
1990.
On January 3,
- 1990, the first test results were verified and Plant IIanagement reevaluated the situation and determined that the Plant was not in compliance with NRC Form 366 (64)9)(689)
Y NAME (1)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
TEXT CONTINUATION DOCKET NUMBER (2(
.~R SEOVENTIAL gP NVMSER REVISION NVMSER QF 0 t
APPROVED OMB NO. 31500104 EXPIRES: 4/30/92 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER
RESPONSE
TO COMPLY WTH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REOUESTI 50J) HRS. FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENTBRANCH (P4)30). U.S. NUCLEAR AEGULATORYCOMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555, AND TO 1HE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (31500104). OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC 20503.
PAGE (3)
LER NUMBER (6)
Washin ton Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 TEXT /IImoro epooe /4 rer)ur'red, uee oddr'ooool NRC Form 366AB/ (12) 0 5
0 0
0 3 9 7 9 0 0 01 00 02 the Plant Technical Specifications.
The NRC was formally contacted to request tem-porary relief from Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.2, and at 1834 hours0.0212 days <br />0.509 hours <br />0.00303 weeks <br />6.97837e-4 months <br /> the NRC granted discretionary enforcement.
At 1840 hours0.0213 days <br />0.511 hours <br />0.00304 weeks <br />7.0012e-4 months <br /> the Plant exited Technical Specification 3.0.3.
The Supply System submitted an Emer-gency Amendment to the Technical Specifications for Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2.d.2 to substitute a filter cleanliness test for the oxygen accelerated stability test.
On January 5,
1990 at 1402 hours0.0162 days <br />0.389 hours <br />0.00232 weeks <br />5.33461e-4 months <br /> the NRC issued a temporary waiver of compliance from Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.d.2.
The root cause,.of this event is believed to be the fuel oil sampling method.
As a further corrective action the Supply System hired an independent consultant to assess the diesel fuel program at WNP-2.
There is no safety significance associated with this event since the diesel fuel was found to be acceptable by followup testing.
Plant Conditions
a)
Plant Ilode -
1 (Power Operation) b)
Power Level - lOOX Event Descri tion At 1545 hours0.0179 days <br />0.429 hours <br />0.00255 weeks <br />5.878725e-4 months <br /> on January 3,
1990 all three Diesel/Generator(DG)
Systems were declared inoperable due to failed diesel fuel Technical Specification Surveillances and Technical Specification 3.0.3 was entered.
On January 2,
1990 the Supply System received from the diesel fuel testing vendor the results of tests performed on diesel fuel samples (one sample from each of three tanks) taken on December 27, 1989.
A review of the test results by Plant Technical Engineers determined that each diesel fuel sample did not meet the acceptance requirements of Technical Specification Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2.d.2.
Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2.d.2 requires an impurity level of less than 2 milligrams(mg) of insolubles per 100 milliliters(ml) of fuel when tested in accordance with ASTM D2274-70.
The test results reported by the vendor were:
2.0mg/100ml DG-Tank(TK)- lA 5.6mg/10Gml DG-TK-1B 2.6mg/100ml DG-TK-2 The ASTN D2274-70 test, an oxygen accelerated stability test, is an accelerated aging test to demonstrate the propensity of the fuel to form gums, varnishes, and tars during long term storage.
The formation of these products could result in the clogging of fuel filters and injectors.
The test requires 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to perform.
The test is not an indicator that an unacceptable amount of these products currently exists in the fuel.
The fuel samples are obtained from the bottom of the tanks as specified in the WNP-2 FSAR.(689) r NAME (1)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
TEXT CONTINUATION DOCKET NUMBER (2)
APPROVED OMB NO,31500104 E XP IR ES; 4/30/92 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER
RESPONSE
TO COMPLY WTH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50gl HRS. FOAWARD COMMENTS AEGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENTBRANCH (P4)30), U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555, ANDTO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (31500104), OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET.WASHINGTON,DC 20503.
PAGE (3)
LEA NUMBER (6)
Washin ton Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 TEXT /lfmore epeoe le required, uee eddi)iorur/ HRC Form 3664'4/ (17)
YEAR Z~ SEQUENTIAL RC4 NUMBER 0
5 0
0 0
3 9
7 9 0 0
0 1
Oj>>" REVISION
+>S NUM O 6 R 0 0 0
OF At WNP-2 there arethree Diesel/Generator Systems designated Divisions 1,2, and 3.
DG Divisions 1
and 2 are redundant 4400kW systems, and Division 3 is a 2600kW system dedicated to the High Pressure Core Spray System (HPCS).
Each of the three DG Divi-sions has its own separate 7 day storage tank.
DG-TK-lA and DG-TK-1B',,Divisions 1
and 2, each has a 63,500 gallon capacity and DG-TK-2, Division 3, has.a 50,000 gal-lon capacity.
Fuel from each DG storage tank is pumped to a smaller Hday" tank, which supplies fuel to its associated DG.
Immediately upon determining that the surveillance requirements were not met, the fuel testing vendor was requested to retest, per ASTM D2274-70, each of the December 27, 1989 samples to verify the test results.
Also, on January 2,
1990 the previous two years of ASTM D2274-70 test results were reviewed and all previous test results were between 0.6 and 1.0 mg/100ml and there were no discernible trends.
Two independent diesel fuel experts were consulted.
Both experts said that without an
'adverse trend there was no plausible reason to expect a step jump of the magnitude found in the December 27, 1989 sample test results.
Both experts also recommended that new samples be taken and that the tests be repeated.
New fuel samples were obtained from each tank and sent to the fuel testing vendor.
Following discussions with the consultants, a Plant Operations Committee (POC)
Immedia'te Disposition was prepared and approved to allow continued operation.
The Disposition stated that the test results were questionable because the results were based on a single test of each
- sample, there was a lack of a trend from previous surveillance test results, and the opinion of both experts was that, in the absence of an adverse
- trend, the step jump in the test results was unusual.
The POC Immediate Disposition also stated that future operability assessments would be based on verification of the original test results and the test results of the second set of fuel samples.
- Also, there was still time to complete the additional tests within the 92 day surveillance window.
This Disposition was approved by the Plant Technical Manager and Plant
()uality Assurance Manager as per the Plant Problem Procedure.
The POC Immediate Disposition was reviewed by the Plant Management on the morning of January 3, 1990.
Later on January 3,
- 1990, the diesel fuel testing vendor called with the results of the verification tests of the December 27, 1989 samples.
Two of the three DG Stor-age Tank samples again exceeded the Technical Specification Surveillance Limit.
See Table 1 for these results.
With verification of the first test results, Plant Management reevaluated the situa-tion and determined that the Plant was not in literal compliance with the Plant Technical Specifications.
At 1545 hours0.0179 days <br />0.429 hours <br />0.00255 weeks <br />5.878725e-4 months <br /> all Diesel/Generator Systems were declared inoperable, and since the requirements of Technical Specification 3.8.1.1 for at least two of three Diesel/Generator Systems to be operable could not be met, the Plant entered into Technical Specification 3.0.3.
Technical Specification 3.0.3 requires resolution of the problem in one hou'r or be in Plant Mode 2 (Startup) within the next six hours.(64)9)
Y NAME ())
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION t
LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
TEXT CONTINUATION DOCKET NUMBER (2) t APPROVF D 0MB NO. 31500104.
EXPIRES: 4/30/92 ESTIMATED'BURDEN PER
RESPONSE
TO COMPLY WTH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUESTI 508) HRS. FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENTBRANCH (P4)30). U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, OC 20555, ANO TO 1HE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (3)504)104). OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET, WASHINGTON,DC 20503.
PAGE (3)
LER NUMBER LS)
YEAR saaUaNTIAL oy;.:
NUMBER Srr.
REVISION NUMSER Washin ton Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 <<<<
o 3
9 7
TEXT /ifrrrors 4/rooo/4 mr/virod, v44 oddiriono/HRC Frvrrr 35643/(12) 9 0 0
1 00 04 oF0 The NRC was formally contacted to request temporary relief from Technical Specifica-tion Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.2.
The basis for the request was that the oxygen. accelerated stability test results were not an indication of the current con-dition of the fuel.
Filter cleanliness test results, an NRC approved alternative test to the oxygen accelerated stability test, of the December 27, 1989 fuel samples showed the fuel to be acceptable (See Table 1).
The filter cleanliness test (ASTM D2276-78 Method A) had previously. been approved by the NRC for Limerick-1/2,'olf
- Creek, and McGuire-1/2 Plants; and where the filter cleanliness test is utilized, no requirement to meet oxygen accelerated stability test is imposed.
At 1834 hours0.0212 days <br />0.509 hours <br />0.00303 weeks <br />6.97837e-4 months <br />, NRC Region V called and stated that discretionary enforcement was being granted until 1200 hours0.0139 days <br />0.333 hours <br />0.00198 weeks <br />4.566e-4 months <br /> on January 4, 1990.
At 1840 hours0.0213 days <br />0.511 hours <br />0.00304 weeks <br />7.0012e-4 months <br />, the Plant exited Technical Specification 3.0.3.
On January 4,
1990 this discretionary enforcement was extended to 1800 hours0.0208 days <br />0.5 hours <br />0.00298 weeks <br />6.849e-4 months <br /> on January 5, 1990, and the Supply System was requested to submit an Emergency Amend-ment to Technical Specification Surveillance 4.8.1.1.2.d.2 to.delete the ASTM D2274-70 test and substitute the ASTM D2276-78 test.
The amendment request was submitted on January 4,
1990.
On January 5,
1990 at 1402 hours0.0162 days <br />0.389 hours <br />0.00232 weeks <br />5.33461e-4 months <br /> the NRC issued a temporary waiver of compliance from Technical Specification Surveillance
- 4. 8.1.1.2.d.2.
The waiver is to remain in effect until the NRC has completed its review of the January 4,
1990 amendment request.
Immediate Corrective Actions
All immediate corrective actions are described in the event description above.
Further Anal sis and Corrective Action Further Analysis This event is reportable because Section 3.0.3 of the Plant Technical Specifications was entered.
NUREG 1022, Supplement 1 (guestion 2.4),
says Plant events which require entry into Technical Specification Section 3.0.3 are to be reported (by LER) because the Plant is operating with a condition prohibited by the Plant's Technical Specifications.
There were no structures,
- systems, or components inoperable prior to this event which affected this event.
The root cause of this event is believed to be a sampling problem.
The root cause investigation is continuing and if any significant difference is identified a
revised LER will be submitted.(64)9)
NAME (1)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
TEXT CONTINUATION DOCKET NUMBER (2)
PB> SSOUSNTIAL NUMBER Pg REVISION Yr
~. NUM66R t
APPROVEO 0MB NO. 31600104 EXPIRES: 4/30/92 ESTIMATED BURDEN PER
RESPONSE
TO COMPLY WTH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50.0 HRS. FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATE TO THE RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENTBRANCH (P 530), U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555, AND TO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (31500104I, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET, WASHINGTON,DC 20503.
IIAGE (3)
(,ER NUMBER IS)
Washin ton Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 TEXTillmoro 4P44o /4 rOorr/rod, o44 oddirioool /JRC Form 3MAB/(17) o 5
o o
o 39 790 0 0 1
0 0 0S oF0 In discussions with NRR a question arose as to where the diesel fuel samples should be taken, i.e., at the bottom of the tank as stated in the FSAR or from the Storage Transfer Pump discharge
( to Day Tank).
A set of samples (from each storage tank transfer pump discharge) was taken and tested in accordance with both ASTM test
'ethods by the diesel fuel testing vendor.
The test results showed that both the ASTM D2274-70 and ASTM D2276-78 Method A surveillance requirements were passed.
See Table 1 for the results.
In addition, the Supply System performed an ASTM D2276-78 Method A test on, these "pumped" samples.
These results were also within the accep-tance limits.
See Table 1 for the results.
Further Corrective Action The Supply System has hired an independent consultant, Southwest Research Institute, to assess the diesel fuel program at WNP-2.
Included in this assessment will be assistance in determining the root cause of this event.
Safet Si nificance There is no safety significance associated with this event.
As stated above the oxygen accelerated stability test required by the technical specifications is used to predict the future condition of the fuel and is not an indication of the current condition of the fuel.
The filter cleanliness test is a better indicator of the current condition of the fuel and all three storage tanks passed this test.
There-fore, the fuel in all three tanks was acceptable throughout the event period.
Similar Events
None EIIS Information Text Reference EI IS Reference Diesel/Generator Systems (DGs)
Diesel Storage Tank (DG-TK-lA, DG-TK-1B,
& DG-TK-2)
High Pressure Core Spray System (HPCS)
Storage Transfer Pumps System EB DC BG DC Component DG TK
~
RC FORM 366A 64)9) r U.S, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSEE EVENT REPORT (LER)
TEXT CONTINUATION APPROVED 0MB No. 31500104 EXPIRES: 4/30/92 ES ATED BURDEN PER RESPONSE To COMPLY WTH THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST: 50.0 HRS. FORWARD COMMENTS REGARDING BURDEN ESTIMATETo THE RECORDS AND REPORTS MANAGEMENTBRANCH (P430), U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, DC 20555, ANDTO THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION PROJECT (31504)104), OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET. WASHINGTON,Dc 20503.
Y NAME (1)
DOCKET NUMBER (2)
YEAR LER NUMBER (6).
SEQUENTIAL NUMBER
~ EVISION NUMBER PAGE (3)
Mashin ton Nuclear Plant - Uni't 2 EXT /llmoro 4/>>c<< ir redo/red, Iree eddrliooe/NRC Form 36643/ (12)
~
0 5
0 0
0 3 9 7
9 0 0
OF Diesel Fuel Test Results for sample dates Dec 27, 1989 - Jan 3, 1990 I
Sample Date and Sample Location r
ASTM D2274-70 Oxygen Acccleratcd Stability Total Insolubles mg/100ml ASTM D2276-78 Method AFilter Cleanliness Total Insolubles mg/I Dec 27, 1989 (bottom sample)
DG-TK-1A DG-TK-1B DG-TK-2 2.0 5.6 2.6 4.3 9.8 7.9 Dec 27, 1989 (retest)
DG-TK-1A DG-TK-1B DG-TK-2 1.7 4.7 2.4 Jan 2, 1990 (bottom sample)
DG-TK-1A DG-TK-1B DG-TK-2 0.9 0.9*
1.6 3.1o 0.8 Jan 3, 1990 (xfcr pump discharge sample)
DG-TK-1A DG-TK-1B DG-TK-2 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.2 4.3 5.0 Supply System test results from Jan 3, 1990 xfcr pump sample DG-TK-1A DG-TK-1B DG-TK-2
'G-TK-18 Jan 2, 1990 sample broken in transient.
Results rcportcd are for a Jan 3, 1990 replacement sample.
M D2274-70 Technical Specification Acceptance Criteria <2.0mg/100ml ASTM D227(i-78 Me(hod A Acccptancc Criteria <10mg/l Table 1
<2.3 1.8 0.3 0
~
4