ML16342B815
| ML16342B815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1991 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109040436 | |
| Download: ML16342B815 (74) | |
Text
>s.
Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 August 23, 1991 LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JULY 15, 1991 MEETING HELD IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND TO'ISCUSS COMMERCIAL DEDICATION OF THE 6TH DIESEL GENERATOR FOR DIABLO CANYON I
On July 15, 1991, the NRC staff met with representatives of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Rockville, Maryland to discuss 12 NRC staff questions (agenda items Ql through Q12) that resulted from a recent inspection of the commercial dedication of the 6th diesel generator at Diablo Canyon.
Attendees at the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
View-graphs presented by PG&E at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
During the meeting, PG&E also presented material to support the responses to the 12 agenda items.
At the conclusion of the meeting PG&E agreed to provide additional material to address agenda item Q2 in September, 1991.
With regard to agenda item Q3, PG&E indicated that the requested information for the 5 existing diesels at Diablo Canyon was available now, and that similar information had been requested from the other 6 licensees having Alco (GE Locomotives) diesel generators.
PG&E agreed to provide the requested information on the 5 Diablo Canyon diesels in the near future, and provide the information from the other licensees when it becomes available.
Original signed by:
9i09040436 9i0823 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
Enclosures:
- 1. Attendees 2.
PG&E View-graphs cc w/enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/VOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NRC
& LPDR FMiraglia JPartlow BBoger MVirgi1 io PDV Reading DRPW/PD5/LA RCesar 08~ 91 JDyer HRood OGC EJordan ACRS (10)
JCaldwell ADummer DRPW/PDPPM HRood P
=08/gg/
1 WHaass SMatthews LNorrholm UPotapovs GZech FRosa JKnight DRPW/PD+/D JDyer 'gH 08/g5/91 AGill KNaidu RZimmerman, RV
- RHuey, RV
- BOlson, RV
- WAng, RV PMorrill, RV
~Fol Ly,l
D<>*<<~
Docket'os.
50-275 and 50-323 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 August 23, 1991 LICENSEE:
FACILITY:
SUBJECT:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGSE)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
SUMMARY
OF JULY 15, 1991 MEETING HELD IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND TO DISCUSS COMMERCIAL DEDICATION OF THE 6TH DIESEL GENERATOR FOR DIABLO CANYON On July 15, 1991, the NRC staff met with representatives of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGSE) in Rockville, Maryland to discuss 12 NRC staff questions (agenda items Ql through Q12) that resulted from a recent inspection of the commercial dedication of the 6th diesel generator at Diablo Canyon.
Attendees at the meeting are listed in Enclosure 1.
View-graphs presented by PGSE at the meeting are given in Enclosure 2.
During the meeting, PGSE also presented material to support the responses to the 12 agenda items.
At the conclusion of the meeting PGSE agreed to provide additional material to address agenda item Q2 in September, 1991.
Mith regard to agenda item Q3, PGKE indicated that the requested information for the 5 existing diesels at Diablo Canyon was available now, and that similar information had been requested from the other 6 licensees having Alco (GE Locomotives) diesel generators.
PGSE agreed to provide the requested information on the 5 Diablo Canyon diesels in the near future, and provide the information from the other licensees when it becomes available.
Enclosures:
- 1. Attendees 2.
PG&E View-graphs cc w/enclosures:
See next page Harry Ro
, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/VOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
4'C:
Reg iona 1 Administr ator, Reg ion V
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Peter H. Kaufman Deputy Attorney General State of California 110 West A Street, Suite 700 San Diego, California 92101 NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. John Hickman Senior Health Physi cist Environmental Radioactive Mgmt. Unit Environmental Management Branch State Department of Health Services 714 P Street, Room 616 Sacramento, California 95814 Michael M. Strumwasser, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General State of California Department of Justice 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 Managing Editor The Count Tele ram Tribune o nson venue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Ms. Sandra A. Silver Mothers for Peace 660 Granite Creek Road Santa Cruz, California 95065 Dr. R. B. Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 6715 Rocky Canyon Creston, California 93432 Ms. Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Ms. Jacquelyn C. Wheeler 3303 Barranca Court San Luis Obispo, California 93401
0
ENCLOSURE 1
Attendees July 15, 1991 Meeting to discuss commercial dedication of 6th diesel NAME Richarrr.'.
Anderson Thomas G. deUriarte Ann Dummer Usama Farradj Hark C. Freund Walter P.
Haass F.
R.
Huey Edwin R. Kahler Steven M. Matthews Leif J.
Norrholm Uldis Potapovs Harry Rood Michael F.
Runyan Ed Walters Gary G.
Zech ORGANIZATION
&&&VI &, &
PGKE/Nuclear Regulatory Affairs NRC/DRPW/PD5 PG5E/Mechanical Engineering PG&E/Procurement QA NRC/DRIS/RVI8 NRC/Region V
PGSE/Replacement Parts Coordinator NRC/DRIS/RVIB NRC/DRIS/RVIB (Chief)
NRC/DR IS/RVIB NRC/DRPW/PD5 NRC/Region IV PGSE/Replacement Parts - Mech.
NRC/DRIS (Deputy Director)
ENCLOSURE 2
View-Graphs presented by PGIIE July 15, 1991 Meeting to discuss commercial dedication of 6th diesel
PRESENTATION AND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO NRC AGENDA ITEMS FOR SIXTH DIESEL MEETING DATE JULY 15, 1991
I 7l
I l
e
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLAHTi UNIT 2 2-3 EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR (EDQ)
Complete an4 evaluate the performance history of licensees vith Model 18-251-F AMOCO engines, N'6 cylinder engines, for the years 198d thru present.
Q2, Evaluate ~ available and relevant history {nuclear and commercial) for long term degradation and fatigue Cycle
~ffects.
The evaluation shall onsider all design changes to the 2
3 RDG {e Q p the radiator),
as compared to DCPPeconciliations for changes that affect pover-train parts
~nd mechanica1 components.
Provide an evaluation of the 2-$ EDG'I design changes, as compared to the existing EOGs>
and reconcile the design changes to the like-ior-like based seismic qualification of the 2-3 EDO.
Confirm that the seismic evaluatian of the 2-3 EDG and its component-parts vill be performed using the same LTSP seismic criteria that govern Dcpp~s existing five EDGs.
l
'I
RCPP2p 2
0 EDO QS.
Determine whether GEL had tracaability, via heat or lot identification, to a material certification that established the material properties for power-train parts an4 applicable mechanical component-parts and liat the r@su)ts.
Corre)ate the Method 1 inspection and test data for the listed items to the available aateria) certiiications and reconcile any differences.
Q9 ~
Provide a "system quality yxoup classification" for the starting air, air intake, exhaust, oooling eater, lube oil, and fuel oil systems.
The data should include the scope of each supplier involved in each of the systems.
Provide the specific ASMR Code, Sec. IXI, Class 3 and/or ASME B31.X Codes on which the design and fabrication oi off-skid piping and piping components have been baso4.
This data shall include the design bases for non-ASME Code items such as silencers and the radiator.
ASME Code, Sec.
VZZZ items such as surge tanks and air receivers shall also be identified.
Mhere alternates to ASM'ode, Sec.
ZZZ requirements ar ~ used, provide a comparison between ASM'ode Seo.
ZZI and'he alternate and demonstrate that the alternate is e~iva)ent.
Q>>
Provide results of NaR's audit of OEC Alsthom.
Q>2 ~
Provide the functional test plan and the test results.
I
J"
NEED FOR SIXTH DIESEL Increased Onsite Power Distribution System Availability
~
Improve p'ant availability
~
More flexibility for maintenance (revised AOT}
~
Dedicated diesel for each ESF bus
~
Elimination of operation and testing of complex control scheme for swing diesel Simplify operating and testing procedures 04/26/91 6 DO-2
EXISTING ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM lO lO fSOKV 500KV
))
7 4KV 4xv e xv aNV sus0 bus F Bus f NNo
) lNIT 0
)
LJNT 0 UNIT 0 QWTt
)
1KV SV8 H VNTt 0%8C.
DIESEL
~AATCN ORNERATOR NO. N NO. m axe SEC OENEIIAYt NO. N 04/26/9$ 6DG-3
x
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AFTER 6TH DIESEL INSTALLATION jSOKV SOS TO TO ISOKV IOOKV bUS SU 4KV bUS 0
) UNT 1
) )
)
1KV SUS F UN)T 0 4KV Bus F UNlT 2 4KV bVS H UNT R exec.
+ED.
NESE'XESEL OfNEINVOh OfNERA~ OKNERATQh QENEiNTOR NQ, NO. C5 NO. 2-5 NO. A 0%BE<
OENERAV\\
esca 0,
04/26/91 ODG-4
PROJECT SCHEDULE
~
Completion of testing at GEC Alsthom, July 27, 1991
~
Delivery August 21, 1991
~
Construction completion May 1,
1992
~
Subsystem testing May 1
August 1,
1992
~
Load bank testing August 1,
1992 January 1993
~
Final tie-in 2R5, April 1993 07/10/81
MAJOR SUBSUPPLlER Engine -
E L com ive
{Formerly ALCO}
Generator NE bles Assembler Excitation Panel-ler
- Panels, l8 C components, piping -
8E"
~ Safety Related Procurement Safoty Rolated and Commercial Grade 04/2$ /01 SSB-6
l
ENGINE DEDICATION Special Testing CG Survey Item 4
Performance With Survey of
- Design
- Process
- Material Source Verification 04/RC/91 BBB"8
~
g
- Breakers, relays,
- panels, switches, indicators, piping, and manual valves purchased Safety-Related or. Commercial grade.
Those purchased from Commercial grade suppliers have item-specific RPEs using:
~ Method 1
Special Inspections and Testing Performed at DCPP
I
RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS
~
s
~
I QUESTION 4
1 "Complete and evaluate the performance history of licensees with Model 18-251-F ALCO engines, or 16 cylinder engines, for the years 1986 thru present."
RESPONSE
Alco has built and put into service more than 10,000 diesel engines.
These engines have been used primarily for marine, railroad and power plant applications.
An extensive review and evaluation of performance history for the Alco Model 251 Engine has already been performed.
A review of the INPO Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System in particular reflects data from the other U.S. licensees which use this engine.
This review has shown that Alco produces a very reliable Diesel Engine.
The following summaries show the statistics of Alco Engines in operation and the results of the performance history reviews:
Alco En ines Produced Since 1950 Model Model 251 251F Other Total Total 4 of Engines Manufactured at Dickson Street, Montreal 2209 282 777 2986 Total I of Engines Produced in the World 9610 973 1242 10852 Locomotive Application Marine Application Genset Application Other Applications Estimated Total I of Engines Still in Operation 8156 646 552 256 507 1211 9367 221 9
655 172 1
553 73 21 277 6500 Failure History for the Five Alco Diesels Installed at Diablo Canyon The review of the documented maintenance history for the five operating Alco engines at Diablo Canyon identified thirty-three mechanical type component failures.
There were only three part failures that could not be attributed to normal wear or maintenance and testing practices; i.e.,
a leak in a jacket water return line due to a flaw in the casting, a cylinder head coolant passage
- leak, and a weld crack in the turbocharger casing-to-flange joint.
4
~ )
I
These part failures at Diablo Canyon can not be specifically traced to a weakness in the controls exercised by the manufacturer.
To ensure similar problems do not occur on the sixth diesel engine
- assembly, specific inspections and testing involving these parts have been incorporated into the Method 3 and Method 1 portions of the dedication methodology.
NRC Bulletins, Information Notices, and SOERs Eighty Bulletins, Notices, and Significant Operating Experience Reports were reviewed for impact on this commercial grade purchase.
Out of the eighty, two (Information Notices 86-07 and 89-84) were determined to be applicable to this evaluation.
Information Notice 86-07 dealt with the overspeed and subsequent engine damage due to failure of a Noodward Governor.
The cause of the failure was determined to be improper operation of the governor.
PG&E procedures were reviewed in reference to this problem and have been deemed adequate.
Therefore, this notice has no impact on the engine or governor being supplied with the sixth diesel.
Information Notice 89-84 discussed the failure of Ingersoll Rand air start motors at Diablo Canyon.
An extensive engineering evaluation was performed regarding this problem, and the new sixth diesel assembly incorporates an upgraded model of the motor to prevent reoccurrence of the problem.
INPO Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS)
There were a total of eighty-eight records for this manufacturer.
Of these, seventy were mechanical failures.
The initial review of the NPRDS records showed that with the exception of a
cracked cylinder head at Consolidated Edison and two turbocharger failures at Public Service Electric and Gas, all seventy of the mechanical problems with the engine or engine auxiliary systems could be attributed to normal
- wear, adjustment of equipment, or poor maintenance/testing practices.
Subsequent investigation showed that the cracked cylinder head was due to improper operation of the
- engine, and that the two
'rbocharger problems were associated with turbocharger bearing wear.
The NPRDS failure records have no impact on the purchase of our sixth diesel engine.
EPRI NP-4264, >>Failures Related to Surveillance Testing of Standby Equipment>>
Of the seven diesel manufacturers evaluated, this report documents that Alco engines had the lowest total number of failures per engine per year for the time period between 1979 and 1983.
The report also indicated that Alco engines had the second lowest number of surveillance-related failures during the total time period evaluated.
NSAC-108,
>>The Reliability of Emergency Diesel Generators at U.S.
Nuclear Power Plants>>
This report concludes that the Alco engines operating in the U.S.
have an overall reliability of 98.2 percent for 1983,
- 1984, and 1985.
Alco Non-Nuclear Pailure History A total of eighty-eight Alco Equipment Bulletins issued from 1961 to 1988 have been reviewed by PG&E.
Twelve of these bulletins were applicable to our specific model engine.
Of these twelve bulletins, nine of the parts upgraded by the Bulletin have been installed in the Sixth Diesel, while three were not applicable to this particular purchase.
Government Industry Data Exchange Program GIDEP is a
government sponsored program that includes data on material problems experienced by those organizations who participate in the Exchange Program.
PG&E is a
member of this
- program, and GIDEP was searched for any references to Alco engines or their parts.
No failures were identified for Alco diesels in this database.
Based on comments made by the NRC, PG&E has initiated. an additional survey of licensees with Alco engines to cover operations between 1986 and present.
The evaluation of this performance history is in progress.
Reference P'document:
1.
Example Letter for PG&E Alco Reliability Survey (Attached)
~
~
~
~
I I
yl QUESTION 4
2 "Evaluate all available and relevant history (nuclear and commercial) for long term degradation and fatigue cycle effects.
The evaluation shall consider all design changes to the 2-3 EDG (e.g.,
the radiator),
as compared to DCPP's existing EDGs.
The evaluation shall consider the effects of long term degradation and fatigue on the following:
(1)
POWER-TRAIN PARTS, critical component-parts which will not demonstrate acceptable long term degradation or fatigue cycle effects during the engine functional testing, as follows:
BLOCKg CRANKSHAFT'YLINDER LINER~ CYLINDER HEAD~ VALVES AIR
& EXHAUSTS VALVE INSERTS'ISTON BODY'ISTON CAPg CONNECTING RODS'ONNECTING ROD BOLTS'ONNECTING ROD NUTS~ MAIN BEARING SHELLg MAIN BEARING THRUST~
CAMSHAFTS (Total Power-Train Parts
= 424)
(2)
MECHANICAL COMPONENTS, associated with the diesel engine assembly up to the nonsafety-related boundary; such as individual engine parts, engine mounted equipment, and skid mounted auxiliary equipment.
Mechanical components are classified by PG&E in the following product types:
ENGINE MOUNTED ROTATING COMPONENTS I SKID MOUNTED ROTATING COMPONENTS I SPECIAL FASTENERS g
CASTINGS g COMPONENTS FROM SPEC IAL MANUFACTURING PROCESSES I ENGINE DRIVEN OR SKID MOUNTED PUMPS I PRECISION MACHINED PARTS, SPRINGS g
MECHANICAL CONTROLLING
- DEVICES, HEAT EXCHANGER, COMMODITY METALLIC, COMMODITY NON-METALLIC g GASKETS g VALVES (Total Mechanical Component-Parts
= 6316)"
RESPONSE
A performance history evaluation for part failures has already been performed as part of the initial issue of the Sixth Diesel Replacement Part Evaluation.
This evaluation included a review of:
Documented Failure History for the Five Alco engines installed at Diablo Canyon; NRC Bulletins, Information Notices and Significant Operating Experience Reports; INPO Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System; Alco Equipment Bulletins; arid the Government Industry Data Exchange Program.
(See Discussion of results in Question g 1).
This review of failure history, particularly the Diablo Canyon results and the problems identified in the Alco Equipment Bulletins, would identify any parts that failed as a result of long term degradation and fatigue cycle effects.
Preliminary results indicate that there were no significant failures of mechanical parts.
Also, information concerning significant mechanical failures was requested from the other licensees.
Once this information is received and evaluated, a final conclusion regarding failures of these parts in the industry will be drawn.
a
~
t
See Question 4
6 for discussion of design change review to be performed by PG&E and GE Locomotives.
Reference Documents:
1.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
- 1991, Attachment 10, "Method 4 Backup Documentation" 2.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
1991, 1, "Information Regarding GE Locomotives Equipment Bulletins" 3.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
1991/
Attachment 16, "INPO NPRDS Information"
I y
QUESTION 4
3 "Provide a complete list of all component-parts contained in the 14 product types listed above including, where
- known, GE Locomotives (GEL's) vendor of the component-part.
Based on the completed
RESPONSE
The complete list of parts in the 14 product categories has been provided in the recent submittal to Mr. Matthews (See Reference Document 1 below).
This list was developed using the Renewal Parts List for the Alco Model 18-251-F Engine.
- Also, to provide additional clarification, the new Revision to the Replacement Part Evaluation for the Sixth Diesel Engine includes a list of all unique Mechanical parts in the engine, as well as a summary of what verifications are being performed by PG&E (See Reference Document 4)
~
The verification of the adequacy of GE Locomotive's subsuppliers was performed as part of the Commercial Grade Survey of GE Locomotives.
One indication of GE Locomotive's control of their subsuppliers was that the majority of the specifications showed the approved supplier(s) for that part.
Of the 14 product categories (representative parts) examined during the Commercial Grade Survey, the following did not have an approved supplier indicated on the Engineering Specification:
Cylinder Head Stud (Bar Stock), Valve
For parts without an Engineering approved
- supplier, controls are provided through the purchasing and receipt inspection processes.
Any weakness identified during the survey was resolved using additional verification.
The 14 representative parts reviewed in the Commercial Grade Survey were procured from a total of 13 different subsuppliers.
Identification of a spectrum of subsuppliers was one of the bases for the selection of the representative sample.
As discussed in Question 4
6 a followup design change review is to be completed later this year.
Any new design changes identified will be correlated with the failure."'.:story evaluation.
I I y
Reference Documents:
1.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
- 1991, Attachment 15, "Supporting Documentation for the Commercial Grade Survey Representative Sample and Critical Characteristics" 2.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
Attachment R to Preliminary Revision of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator Engineering Resolution to Open Items Identified in Commercial Grade Survey 90216SS (Attached) 4.
Preliminary Revision 1 of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator, Text Section XI - Summary of Unique Safety Related Engine and Auxiliary System Mechanical Parts and their Independent Verification (Attached)
L j
QUESTION g
4 "Provide documentation which justifies the bases for selecting only one representative part from each product type, listed above, as the scope of the Commercial-Grade Survey of GEL (i.e., explain how the selected part represents the various parts and vendors contained in each product
- type, with the exception of HEAT EXCHANGER), or propose an expanded sample of selected mechanical component-parts for the scope of an additional commercial-grade survey assessment of GEL.
The survey shall focus on GEL's vendors'ontrol of design, special processes, and materials.
Additional problems identified in the expanded scope commercial-grade survey may lead to expanding the sample further."
RESPONSE
As part of the preparation for the development of the Commercial Grade Survey Criteria, representatives from PG&E Quality Control, Source Inspection, Design Engineering, Quality Engineering, Quality Assurance, and Licensing developed a list of Product Categories, Representative Parts for each category, and the associated critical characteristics based on their experience of Dedication and Diesel Engines.
The objective of this list was to identify a list of categories and parts which would represent all unique mechanical items which are part of the Engine/Skid Assembly.
In conjunction with the identification of the product categories, a part by part review was performed using the Alco Renewal Parts List for Model 18-251-F to ensure that all engine mechanical parts (excluding power-train parts) were covered by the categories identified.
This evaluation resulted in a list of 14 categories/parts (shown in Reference Document 1).
Note that part of the criteria for this selection was the subsupplier, although PG&E did not have access to a
complete listing of subsuppliers for all engine parts.
The following chart shows the subsuppliers for the fourteen representative parts:
Turbocharger Air Start Motor Cylinder Head Stud (Bar Stock)
Piston Rings Radiator Fuel Injection Pump Fuel Injector Valve Spring Governor LO Heat Exchanger Exhaust Manifold Stud Flex Hose Valve Cover Gasket, Fuel Oil PC Valve Auburn Technologies Ingersoll Rand Commodity Purchase Kaydon Ring
& Seal Young Radiator Lucas Bryce Lucas Bryce Associated Spring Woodward Governor McRae Engineering Erie Bolt Aeroquip Joints-Etanches,Supply Fulflo
( i
~
~
In order to perform a comprehensive -survey, where the Commercial Grade Survey Team could concentrate on the specific details of
- design, procurement and inspection, the parts identified in, the above evaluation as representatives of the 14 product categories were utilized for the performance of the survey.
Any weakness identified during the survey in the areas of design, special processes or material were resolved using additional verification of a
sampling of parts from the associated category.
Any additional verifications required have been documented in QC Surveillance Plan 6602-1.
Reference Documents:
1.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
1991, 4, "Attachment Z to Preliminary Revision 1 of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator (QC Surveillance Plan 6602-1)"
2.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
- 1991, Attachment 15, "Supporting Documentation for the Commercial Grade Survey Representative Sample and Critical Characteristics" 3.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
Attachment R to Preliminary Revision of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator - Engineering Resolution to Open Items Identified in Commercial Grade Survey 90216SS (Attached under Question 4 3) 5.
Preliminary Revision 1 of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator, Text Section XI Summary of Unique Safety Related Engine and Auxiliary System Mechanical Parts and their Independent Verification (Attached in Question 4 3)
LJ
0 QUESTION 4
5 "Provide (1)
PG&E's established measures to control changes in critical characteristics or changes to the acceptance criteria for critical characteristics, and (2)
GEL s established design control measures and design bases reconciliations for changes that affect power-train parts and mechanical components."
RESPONSE
(1)
Per Reference Document 3 below, if the acceptance criteria in an RPE is to be changed, the RPE is revised and reissued.
To explain this point, the Crankshaft portion of the Preliminary Revision 1 to RPE M-6602 is attached showing the revision of the Critical Characteristics based on the GE Locomotives Engineering Evaluation.
(2)
The Commercial Grade Survey performed by PG&E of GE Locomotives examined their Design Control Process.
They have an established procedure for Control of Design Changes, which includes Engineering Change Notices and Nonconforming Material Reports.
Also, as part of the overall Evaluation of the Sixth
- Diesel, a followup design change review between the original five Engines purchase/
and the Sixth Diesel will be performed later this year.
Reference Document(s):
1.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
- 1991, Attachment 12, "NEMP 3.12, Rev. 4" 2.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7,
1991, 3, "Response Regarding Compliance with NEMP 3.12" 4.
Attachment R to Preliminary Revision of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator - Engineering Resolution to Open Items Identified in Commercial Grade Survey 90216SS (Attached under Question 4 3) 5.
Attachment AL to Preliminary Revision 1 of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator Crankshaft, Critical Characteristics and VerificationActivities (Attached)
C LP
~
~
~
4 QUESTION 4
6 "Provide an evaluation of the 2-3 EDG's design changes, as compared to the existing EDGs, and reconcile the design changes to the like-for-like based seismic qualification of the 2-3 EDG."
RESPONSE
The proposal for the Sixth Diesel Assembly submitted by GE Locomotives identified the differences in Design between the original five engines purchased in 1969 and the Sixth Diesel.
These changes are being evaluated by PG&E's Seismic Group.
To ensure that all the changes have been identified, a drawing by drawing comparison between the original five and the Sixth Diesel will be performed by GE Locomotives and PG&E later this year.
Once this design review is complete an evaluation of any additional changes will be performed for seismic impact.
PG&E has confidence that any changes identified by this review will not impact the seismic qualification and that no significant modifications will be required.
EJ
~
~ l f,,C QUESTION 4
7 "Confirm that the seismic evaluation of the 2-3 EDG and its component-parts will be performed using the same LTSP seismic criteria that govern DCPP's existing five EDGs."
RESPONSE
The draft procedure for this "check" evaluation was discussed with the NRC Staff at a meeting in Rockville on June 20, 1991.
The NRC comments are being resolved.
This effort is ongoing, and is also tied to the followup design change review discussed in Question 4 6.
C Jl
~ 4
~
I ~
S 0
QUESTION 4
8 "Determine whether GEL had traceability, via heat or lot identification, to a material certification that established the material properties for power-train parts and applicable mechanical component-parts and list the results.
Correlate the Method 1
inspection and test data for the listed items to the available material certifications and reconcile any differences."
RESPONSE
The supplier's responsibility regarding material traceability is specified in PG&E's contract for the Sixth Diesel Engine.
Per this
- contract, GE Locomotives is required to maintain traceability and submit documentation for the power-train parts.
Reference Document 1 below is the attachment for the crankshaft, which includes the documentation for material traceability submitted by the supplier, There are no specific PG&E material traceability or submittal requirements for the remaining mechanical parts.
- However, GE Locomotives specifications require submittal of such documentation where deemed necessary based on the criticality of the part and the uniqueness of the material or process used.
Any such documents are verified by GE Locomotives during the receipt inspection of the part/component.
Reference Document:
1.
Attachment AL to Preliminary Revision 1 of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator Crankshaft, Critical Characteristics and Verification Activities (Attached in Question 5 5)
l>t
QUESTION 0
9 "Provide air, air systems.
involved a "system quality group classification" for the starting
- intake, exhaust, cooling water, lube oil, and fuel oil The data should include the scope of each supplier in each of the systems."
RESPONSE
The system quality group classification for the safety related portions of the above listed systems is PG&E Piping Code Class C,
NRC Reg guide 1.26 Quality Group C.
The system quality group classification for the non-safety related portions of the above listed systems is PG&E Piping Code Class E.
The attached P&ID's shows the supplier for each portion of the above systems (Legend:
Yellow GE Locomotives; Pink GEC Alsthom; Green PG&E).
Reference Documents:
1.
Excerpt from PG&E Q-List (Attached) 2.
Excerpts from Diesel Generating System Piping Schematics (Attached)
~
~
C QUESTION 4
10 "Provide the specific ASME Code, Sec. III, Class 3 and/or ASME B31.X Codes on which the design and fabrication of off-skid piping and piping components have been based.
This data shall include the design bases for non-ASME Code items such as silencers and the radiator.
ASME Code, Sec. VIII,items such as surge tanks and air receivers shall also be identified.
Where alternates to ASME Code Sec. III requirements are used, provide a comparison between ASME
- Code, Sec. III and the alternate and demonstrate that the alternate is equivalent."
RESPONSE
This information regarding ASME Codes and equivalent specifications for piping and piping components is divided into three sections:
(1) specifications for piping design, (2) specifications for piping material procurement, and (3) fabrication requirements.
Section 1
The original and present design basis for the on-skid piping, on-skid piping components, silencers and radiator is the GE Locomotives (formerly Alco) commercial
- design, and does not correlate to any specific ASME Code requirements.
The design basis for the off-skid piping classified as PG&E Piping Code Class C is ANSI B31.7 Class 3, 1969 Edition with 1970 Addenda.
The design basis for the off-skid piping classified as PG&E Piping Code Class E is ANSI B31.1.
PG&E Specification 1539 section 8.6 (attached to the Engine Purchase Order), also requires that the following components meet ASME Code Section VIII:
Section 2
Starting Air Receivers (2)
Turbocharger Air Receiver (1)
All piping.~nd piping components which were procured for the Sixth Diesel by PG&E were purchased to ASME Code Section III Class 2 or 3
(NC or ND) 1983 Edition with 1984 Addenda or 1986 Edition.
The minimum requirement is Class 3,
- however, to provide the PG&E procurement group flexibility, Class 2 was also given as an option.
Section 3
PG&E Specification 1539 section 6.11 requires that all welding of auxiliary system piping be performed by ASME Code Section IX qualified welders.
~c'
The off-skid piping installed by PG&E on site is fabricated per the existing PG&E Welding Procedures.
Reference Documents:
1.
PG&E Letter to Mr. Steve Matthews dated June 7, 1991, page 17, "Purchase Order Documents" 2.
Excerpt from PG&E Q-List (Attached in Question g 9)
0 T
e
~
4
QUESTION 4 11 "Provide results of PG&E audit of GEC Alsthom."
RESPONSE
To clarify the question, it should be understood that PG&E did not perform any audits of GEC Alsthom.
Since GEC is a subsupplier to GE Locomotives, all audits/assessments were performed by GE Locomotives.
The GE Locomotives initial and followup Audit Reports as well as the associated PG&E Trip Reports are attached in chronological order.
The initial assessments showed that GEC Alsthom had a good program.
- However, the procurement and assembly activities at the time of these assessments were limited.
GE Locomotive s monitoring of the GEC Alsthom activities during the week of May 20, 1991 identified problems in GEC's implementation of their Quality Assurance Program.
The resolution of the majority of these problems is the reinspection of the components and assembly activities.
This reinspection is in progress.
Note that the Inspection Plan developed by GEC Alsthom to correct the problems was developed with input from both GE Locomotives and PG&E.
Reference Documents:
1.
GE Locomotives Audit Reports for GEC Alsthom (Attached) 2.
Excerpts from Attachment AA to Preliminary Revision of PG&E Replacement Part Evaluation for the 6th Diesel Generator Engineering/Quality Assurance/TES Trip Reports for Visits to GE Locomotives or Their Si..ksuppliers (Attached)
r>,c
QUESTION g 12 "Provide the functional test plan and the test results."
RESPONSE
All functional testing to be performed by the supplier is outlined in the following procedures:
GE Locomotive Break-In Procedure 01P8383 GE Locomotives Electrical Test Specification Procedure 50D77481 The Engine Break-In Test has been completed satisfactorily.
Procedure 50D77481; which is the integrated testing of the Engine-Generator Assembly in Toronto, has not been completed at this time.
Reference Documents:
1.
PG&E Letter No. DCL-91-161, Enclosure 2
2.
PG&E Letter No. DCL-91-161, Enclosure 6
($