ML20011F242

Ro:On 891219,lubricating Oil Used at Plant Failed to Meet Viscosity Requirements Specified by Mfg.Lubricant Oil Which Failed to Meet Mfg Viscosity Spec Replaced & Upgrading of Procurement Requirements for Lubricating Oils Underway

ML20011F242
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	02/16/1990
From:	Odell W GULF STATES UTILITIES CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RBG-32365, NUDOCS 9003020219
Download: ML20011F242 (3)

Text

,

I >

cj i

j, .. aq a:c '

f .^ J

l. .

9 GULF STATES UTELITIES ' ' COMPANY f C- r .

_ filVER $1 ND ST ATION I POST OMICL BOX 720 ' $T IRANC&'tLLE, t OlHSIANA 70775 - '

AM A CODI BN , 636 (094 340 Bes t . ,

l >-i y' i, February 16.-1990 RBG-32365 j .

>l,  ;, File Nos. G9.5, G9.25.1.4 w'~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,  !

Document Control Desk f .!

Washington,:D.Cc- 20555~. j Gentlemen: .

River Bend Station -- Udit I-

' Docket No; 50-458~v ,

F

. Please find' enclosed an Informational. Report regarding

- lubricating oil lused at River Bend Station which failed to meet

]

l viscosity requirements- specifiedf by- the manufacturen. GSU is -

providing this. report to inform the NRC and the industry of. rne

.[

T "L

- potential- .for"- receiving lubricants- that- fail to meet t

- requi_rements . : 1 Sincerely, b _.

j >

W. .1 dell Manager-River Bend Oversight

& Jpgp

/PDG/tGW/DCH/RJS/pg -

River Bend Nuclear Group cc: ,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cons'ission n

611:Ryan Plaza Drive', Suite 1000 sf Arlington, Texas 76011 ,

<' o1 NRC Resident? Inspector i Post Office Box 1051-St.'Francisville, LA 70775 N Mr'. Walt PaulsonL

"- U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission

... Document Control Desk .

l~ ~ Washington', D.C. '20555 >

i 9003020219 90021 DR ADOCK 0500 f 1g

~

r 1

p. 't g

- o; ,

4'$ f

~

OIL VISCOSITY REPORTED CONDITION On December 19. 1989 three unidentified bulk oil storage drums (70 gallons each) ',

were tested to assure that they contained Gulf Harmony 68 (Chevron-Industrial 011' R&0 68) before use. These drums failed to meet the viscosity requirements specified by the manufacturer for Harmony 68. The viscosities of the oil in >

'these~three drums were as follows: ,

Drum No. Viscosity (standard unit seconds) c 14 182 sus I' 15 192 sus 18 260 sus  ;

For the test conditions (100 degrees F), the viscosity of new Harmony 68 oil 'i should exceed 300 sus.. An additional drum (55 gallon) taken from warehouse inventory which was labeled as Harmony 68 was also tested. This drum also failed to meet the viscosity specified by the manufacturer for Gulf Harmony 68 and confirmed that a problem existed with inventories of Harmony 68 oil at River -

Bend.

INVESTIGATION

• l-GSU identified 34 safety-related components which use Harmony 68 oil.

The investigation included viscosity testing of the lubricant in each component.

The data obtained from the test results was compared with both the lubricant manufacturer's viscosity specification and the equipment manufacturer's viscosity specification to determine the acceptability of the lubricant .for each i

. component. i Sampling and testing was also performed on the inventory of Gulf Harmony 68 at River Bend. The inventory consisted of 20 new drums, the 13 drums- previously tested and 3 bulk storage tanks, for a total of 36 separate containers. The samples taken from each container were analyzed by Chevron Research Laboratory ,

in California, Spectro-Chemical, Inc. in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and on-site at River Bend Station (RBS).

The viscosity testing of the suspect oil at RBS and the independent facilities-indicated that the lower viscosity was in the allowable range for Gulf Harmony 46, a lower viscosity oil. In addition, GSU requested the assistance of a consultant with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), who was

\ previously with ' Chevron Research Corporation working in the field of

)+ environmentally qualified equipment. Based on the viscosity, the consultant stated that the suspect oil is probably Gulf Harmony 46. Since Harmony 68 and Harmony 46 are both made from the_ same mineral types and contain the same additives, there would be no impact on radiation resistance or a design basis event. In addition, the continuous use of the lower viscosity oil should not affect environmentally qualified equipment.

1 l

j

y a a .i. , p i ,

e' V ~ The compatibility of the suspect oil; with Gulf Harmony 68 is also supported by

.using color as a basis for comparison. Since this appeared-to be the same for ,

both the suspect oil and Harmony 68 it suggests that no additional additives were present in the suspect oil.

RESULTS :

The results of the viscosity testing .of the oil samples taken from '

safety-related equipment are provided below:

. 8 components - The viscosity was determined to be within the lubricant  !

3 manufacturer's specification.

. 17 components -

The viscosity failed to _ meet the lubricant manufacturer's specification but was within the equipment '

manufacturer's suggested viscosity range.

. 11 components - The viscosity failed to meet the lubricant manufacturer's specification and was lower than the equipment manufacturer's suggested viscosity range. Eight of these components ,

were' analyzed for the presence of wear metals and no wear products were found. Therefore, GSU has concluded that the use of the suspect oil did not result in degradation of plant equipment.

The results of the oil samples taken from River Bend Station inventory determined that 2 oil storage drums in addition to the original 3 (5 total) failed- to meet the viscosity requirements specified by the lubricant manufacturer.

ACTIONS TAKEN 4 The 11ub, .g oil (found in 11 components) which failed to meet the lubricant manufact; viscosity specification and the equipment manufacturer's suggested . .osity range has been replaced with lubricating oil of the proper viscosity.- The lubricating oil (found in 17 components) which failed to meet the- . lubricant manufacturer's viscosity specification but was within the equipment manufacturer's suggested viscosity range will be replaced with lubricating oil of the proper viscosity at the next scheduled lubricating oil y change for each component. Lubricating oil in bulk and warehouse storage (70-and - 55 gallon drums, respectively) was placed on quality control hold and was- h tested for satisfactory viscosity prior to release.

As corrective action to prevent recurrence, GSU is upgrading procurement requirements for lubricating oils to be used in safety-related equipment. These procurement requirements would enable GSU to identify shipments of substandard 011' prior to acceptance and thus prevent introduction into plant Equipment.

_