Information Notice 1991-13, Inadequate Testing of Emergency Diesel Generators (Edgs)

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Inadequate Testing of Emergency Diesel Generators (Edgs)
ML031190586
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Crane  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/04/1991
From: Rossi C
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
IN-91-013, NUDOCS 9102260165
Download: ML031190586 (10)


UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

March 4, 1991 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE NO. 91-13:

INADEQUATE TESTING OF EMERGENCY

DIESEL GENERATORS (EDGs)

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power

reactors.

Purpose

This information notice is intended to alert addressees to inadequacies in the

testingof emergency diesel generators at'nuclear power plants. Specifically, some EDG testing has not adequately verified the capability of the-EDG to carry

its maximum expected loads and other tests have failed to properly verify the

operation of the load shedding logic for the EDG. These testing deficiencies

indicate that other licensees may have similar deficiencies that have not yet

been detected. It is expected that recipients will review the information for

applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to

avoid similar problems. However, suggestions contained in this information

notice-do-not constitute NRC requirements; therefore no specific action or

written response is required.

Description of Circumstances

Yankee Atomic Electric Company, the licensee'for the Yankee Nuclear Power

Station (Yankee Rowe), recently identified that the EDGs at the Yankee'Rowe

plant were undersized for their maximum accident electrical load demand. The

EDGs failed to reach their technical specification (TS) required loading of

400 kilowatts (kW) while connected in parallel to the electrical grid.' The

licensee then retested the EDGs using a resistor bank in place of the grid.

Using this test configuration, Yankee Atomic determined that the frequency of

the generator dropped to 58 hertz with a maximum electrical output of 385 kW.

The licensee attributed the reduction in power output, in part, to high ambient

air temperatures that reduced engine power and cooling. The licensee had not

considered the effect of ambient air temperature during previous testing.

The

existing air temperature was within design basis limits. Although high

ambient air temperature was the immediate cause of the failure to attain

400 kW, the root cause was the fact that the engines were undersized. The

manufacturer's rating of 400 kW also failed to consider the effects of ambient

air temperature. The licensee calculated that the dependable capacity of these

EDGs was between 359 kW and 399kW. Yankee Atomic eventually replaced all

3 EDGs with models capable of producing 600 kW (450 kW continuous) because the

Q91022 6 0165 Z4&

IN 91-13

-

March 4, 1991 estimated electrical load on the EDGs is very close to 400 kW and modifications

to the original EDGs failed to raise their output capabilities. The Omaha

Public Power District, the licensee for Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1, reported

a similar problem with their EDGs.

At Fort Calhoun, the EDGs could temporarily

achieve their design rating at high ambient temperatures, but they could not

maintain this power level for an extended period of time.

At the Vermont Yankee Generating Station, during a safety system functional

inspection, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff determined that

the surveillance testing of the station EDGs was inadequate.

The staff found

that there was insufficient electrical loading during testing as well as

insufficient compensation for the expected electrical power factor (pf).

Specifically, the plant surveillance test for the EDGs required that the EDGs

maintain a load of 2500 to 2750 kW, which is equivalent to 2500 to 2750

kilovolt-amperes (kMA) at pf-1.0.

The licensee considered this limit suffi- cient to meet the maximum load of 2471 kW specified in the final safety analy- sis report (FSAR).

However, during subsequent analysis-, the licensee

determined that the worst-case EDG loading could actually reach 2751 kW.

In

addition, the EDG would realistically experience an electrical power factor of

0.85 lagging, causing the actual generator output current to be significantly

higher (i.e., assuming generator output voltage is maintained roughly constant, generator output current and kYA at pf=0.85 are approximately 1.18 times the

generator output current and kVA at pf- 1.0.) Therefore, the existing surveil- lance did not adequately demonstrate the capability of the EDG to carry its

accident-kW-and-current loading-.-- As a-result-,-the -licensee-is-modffying -tts--

EDG testing requirements to ensure that both the engine and the generator will

be appropriately tested to demonstrate their capability to produce the accident

electrical load.

At Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, the Northeast Nuclear Energy

Company (the licensee) determined that its testing of the EDG load shedding

circuitry was inadequate. In particular, the surveillance tests did not verify

the load shedding of five nonsafety-related loads and two safety-related loads.

This condition was a violation of TS requirements and had existed from initial

plant operation in April 1986 until January 1990.

Subsequent testing verified

that the load shedding circuits operated properly.

Discussion:

The events at Yankee Rowe, Fort Calhoun, and Vermont Yankee illustrate the

failure of EDG testing to demonstrate properly the capability of the EDGs to

assume the design-basis electrical loading during an accident. The intent of

the required surveillance testing is to assure that the EDG can dependably

carry its accident loads. It is important that the worst-case conditions

(frequency, voltage, electrical power factor, and environment) be considered

when the EDG is tested.

In particular, the effects of the electrical power

factor and the environment may have been overlooked. It is important that

procedures give personnel performing the test sufficient information to allow

them to load the EDG to simulate worst-case conditions. Since the simulation

of environmental conditions is generally impractical, it may be necessary to

use analysis to correct for environmental conditions or to show that the effect

IN 91-13 March 4, 1991 of such conditions Is negligible for the EDG. Information from the vendor may

help in determining what changes, if any, may be necessary. It is also

important for procedures to give adequate guidance to ensure that the EDG is

not inadvertently overloaded during the 'test.

The last event illustrates the failure of EDG testing to verify adequately the

proper operation of all of the logic necessary to support the EDG in an acci- dent.' Millstone Unit 3 was given as an example, but other similar cases have

been reported.

Generic Letter 88-15, OElectric Power Systems -

Inadequate Control Over Design

Processes,' discussed problems similar to those in this information notice.

This information notice requires no specific-action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact one

of the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate NRR project manager.

es

iDirector

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contacts: C. H. Woodard, Region I

(215) 337-5261

A. J. Kugler, NRR

(301) 492-0834 Attachment:

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

I

am

W EI

On

la -

Lo

In (A

mn

2 C

Cn

MI

=2

Attachment I

IN 91-13

March 4, 1991

Page 1 of I

LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

KRC INFORMATION NOTICES

Information

Notice No.

91-12

91-11 Date of

86-99, Supp. 1

89-32, Sapp. 1

91-10

91-09

91-08

90-77, S"u.

1

91-07 Subject

Potential Loss of Net Positive

Suctio

Head (MPSH)

of Standby

Liquid Control System Pumps

Inadequate Physical Separation

ad Electrical Isolation of

Non-safety-related Circuits

from Reactor Protection System

Circuits

Deyradation of Steel Con- t.7_m

ts

Surveillance Testing of Low- Temperature Overpressure-

Protection Systemw

Sumary of Semlaniwal Program

Performance Reports on Fitness- for-Duty (FFD) In the Nuclear

Industry

Counterfeiting of Crane Valves

Medical Examinations for

Licensed Operators

Inadvertent Reaoval of Fuel

Ass clies from the Reactor Core

Maintenance Deficiency Assoc- iated with General Electric

Horizontal Custom 8000

Induction Motors

Issuance

Issued to

02/15/91

All holders of OLs

or CPs for boiling

water reactors (BWRs).

02/20/91

All holders of OLs

or CPs for W-designed

nuclear power reactors.

02/14/91

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power

reactors.

02/12/91

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power

reactors.

02/12/91

All holders of OLs or

Cps for nuclear power

reactors.

02/05/91

All holders of OLs or 4

Cps for nuclear power

reactors.

02/05/91

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power, test and research

reactors.

02/04/91

All holders of OLs or

CPs for pressurized- water reactors (PiRs).

02/04/91

All holders of OLs or

Cps for nuclear power

reactors.

K

r"

(

X

11 O

a

OL : Operating License

CU Connstruction Permit

IN 91-13 March 4, 1991 of such conditions is negligible for the EDG.

Information from the vendor may

help in determining what changes, if any, may be necessary.

It is also

important for procedures to give adequate guidance to ensure that the EDG is

not inadvertently overloaded during the test.

The last event illustrates the failure of EVG testing to verify adequately the

proper operation of all of the logic necessary to support the EDG in an acci- dent. Millstone Unit 3 was given as an example, but other similar cases have

been reported.

Generic Letter 88-15, OElectric Power Systems -

Inadequate Control Over Design

Processes," discussed problems similar to those in this information notice.

This Information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact one

of the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate NRR project manager.

Original Signed by

Charles E Rossi

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contacts:

C. H. Woodard, Region I

(215) 337-5261 A. J.

(301)

Kugler, NRR

492-0834 Attachment:

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES

BDLPEiAgPt'7>C/OGCB:DOEA:NRR*RPB:ADM

CHBerlinger

TechEd

lk&/91 Q/21/91

12/27/90

  • OGCB:DOEA:NRR*OTSB:DOEA:NRR *SPLB:DST:NRR

AJKugler

EBTomlinson

REArchitzel

12/20/90

01/29/91

01/29/91

  • RI
  • RI

CWoodard

TKoshy

01/14/91

12/21/90

  • C/SPLB:DST:NRR*C/SELB:DST:NRR

CEMcCracken

FRosa

01/30/91

01/31/91 DOCUMENT NAME: IN 91-13

IN 91-XX

February xx, 1991 what changes, if any, may be necessary. Procedures should also give adequate

guidance to ensure that the EDG is not inadvertently overloaded during the

test.

The last event illustrates the failure of EDG testing to verify adequately the

proper operation of all of the logic necessary to support the EDG in an acci- dent. Millstone Unit 3, was given as an example, but other similar cases have

been reported. The TS surveillance tests should verify that logic, such as the

load shedding logic, which supports the accident response of the EDGs, will

perform its intended function.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact one

of the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate NRR project manager.

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contacts:

C. H. Woodard, Region I

(215) 337-5261 A. J.

(301)

Kugler, NRR

492-0834 Attachment:

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

Document Name: EDGIN

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURREIqQO

D/DOEA:NRR

C/QJ;

tA

NRR*RPB:ADM

CERossi

CH

i ger

TechEd

02/

/91

020t /91

12/27/90

  • OGCB:DOEA:NRR*OT

DOEA:NRR

  • SPLB:DST:NRR

AJKugler

EBTomlinson

REArchitzel

12/20/90

01/29/91

01/29/91

  • RI
  • RI

CWoodard

TKoshy

01/14/91

12/21/90

  • C/SPLB:DST:NRR*C/SELB:DST:NRR

CEMcCracken

FRosa

01/30/91

01/31/91

IN 91-XX

January xx, 1991 The last event illustrates the failure of EDG testing to verify adequately the

proper operation of all of the logic necessary to support the EDG in an acci- dent. Millstone Unit 3, was given as an example, but other similar cases have

been reported. The TS surveillance tests must verify that the logic associated

with the various sequences (loss of offsite power, loss of coolant accident, load shedding and sequencing, etc.) will perform its intended function.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the Information in this notice, please contact one

of the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate NRR project manager.

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contacts:

C. H. Woodard, Region I

(215) 337-5261 A. J.

(301)

Kugler, NRR

492-0834 Attachment:

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

Document Name:

EDGIN

  • SEE PREVIOUS

D/DOEA:NRR

CERossi

01/

/91

  • OGCB:DOEA:NRf

.AJKugler

12/20/90

CONCURRENCES

C/OGCB:DOEA:NRR*RPB:ADM

I

CHBerlinger

TechEd

01/ /91

12/27/90

t OTSB:DOEA:NRR

SPLB:DST:NRR

EBTomlinsoil"

REArchitzAl .

01Z/191

01/25/91 W

  • RI

CWoodard

01/14/91 C/SPLB:DST:NRF

CEMcCra

01/36/9LYJII

  • RI

.TKoshy (Zi

12/21 "t'

tC/SEL K:DSINRR

FRosa

,01 bL/9 1

IN 90-XX

D

i .,errXX

1990

~Page 4 of

third event illustrates the failure of EDG testing to)

erify th proper operation of edtof the logic necessary to support

At

the ES[)

in an accident.

Millstone, Uhit 3, was given as an example, but other similar cases have been reported.

The TS surveillance tests

must verify that the logic associated with the various sequences (loss

of offsite power, loss-of-coolant accident, load shedding and

sequencing, etc.) will perform its

intended function.

This information notice requires no specific action or written

response.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact

one of the technical contacts listed below or the appropriate NRR

project manager.

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contacts: C. H. Wbodard, Region I

(215) =7-5261

T. Koshy, Senior Resident Inspector, Yankee Rowe

(413) 424-5242 Attachment:

1. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Nbtices

OGCB:DOE4:RR

RI

RI

RPB: ADM

C/OGCB:DOEU:ERR

D/DOEA:NRR

AMugler

m

CWoodard

TKoshy

TechEd

ClBerlinger

CERossi

12/20/90

12/

/90

12/

/90 12/vV/90

12/ /90

12/

/90

G NRC

'~.AKEE

ROWE

P02 IN 90-XX

December XX, 1990

P&W 4ocf

The thir event illustrates~ the failure of EDG tes-ting to adequatzlY

verily the- proper oporsatior of all of the logic rowt*sHryY to wUoort, thp ED( in an accident.

Milletcrot Wkit 3, was qivenl as an Qxamplpe, but other similar easm have, bmen reported.

Thm TS Eurei~lfleci

tests

rImit veri+/-fy that the logic asswiated with the various coqueasC9(loss

of of fritc

pavpr-, 105; of coolant accident, loaid shedding and

fWqLanrirx;, ec~t.) will por-forml its intended funiction.a

'This~ informatkio rotice requidres no specific action or wr-itten

rep-n

If yct have any queirtion about this niattar, please contact

one of the technicial centacto listed below or the appropriata NR

project m".ager.

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Divisicn' of Operatimal E>.nts Assesirent

Off ice of Uclak)Nr IL-=tor Regulation

Technical Cnter-teg C. H. tWkiodard, Regian!I

(215) qq7u-MU'

T. mfsthy, Sonior Resident. Inspectors YVnkm, Rc~

(413) 424-5242 I.. List of Rec-ently Issued NC Iinformationi W~tices

OGCMiD0EA1R

RI

~

J

RMADH

ClO=C2DOEAaUMl

DV/OEAIMi

AKtUS1sr

Mo~dard

TKashy

TectilE

Cill

g, Mse

121

/90

II/

190

121z/90 121

/90

it/

/90It

9

-

a

-

IN 9-XX

Decembe

XX,

'9o

t

AWe 4 el

third event i11uStrates thie tailure oC

EG twst.M +aO adequately

ty the prowr operatib of &11 of tho logic nrlpsoty to uPport

the EX In an Oident. fistC2W Uit Zs was given as an example, but other

i- milar eMS have WM reportgd

The TS irul 11

1ff twSts

m.st verify that the logic asuC4AtW

with the variculs Wu3!n

tlos%

of aftsite por, loss zT cmlnt accidonts load shucddinM and

aaquenwti

atc.) will Farform its Intanded fLrlctiu.

This information notice requires no speci'C action or written

respcn3e.

If yu have any qu-st3uns atcut this matter, pleas cotat

ane of tte tectnAcal cantacts lsted tolow or the appropriate Wf(

projet m&oer.

Charles E. *

zzi, Dirwctor

DtiSion

flpf

Operationl Evwte Areswrmnt

Office of tL=lear Reetoir ftgulation

Tchnilcal Cmt.eti Co He 1nerds flgiIn I

(215)

XW7-W

T. IaPhys Einaor Residaft Inapmtor, Yan&Mea Fov

O4M5) 4.4-=42 Attarhmmts

1. List of FRecntly IEszud NKC Informaticn Nbticez

OGCB:D0EAtRR

RI

RI

RPB3AM

C/OGCB:DOEA:UIIRR

WDOEsNRR

Mugler

CMoodard

TKashy

Techtd

CHSerlintger

C$.OS

12/

/90

A1

1.44.

12/

/90 12J

/90

121

/90

12/

/90