Text

Affidavit of Jc Kammeyer Re Responsibilities Specific to Tdi Diesel Generators
	ML20101U280
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	01/28/1985
From:	Kammeyer J; CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., STONE & WEBSTER, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20101U246	List: ML20101U243; ML20101U262; ML20101U280; ML20101U306; ML20101U314; ML20101U328;
References
	OL, NUDOCS 8502070228
	Download: ML20101U280 (96)
	v • d • e

1 g g};

January,0 1985 0 TED US c-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'85 FEB-6 P4 41 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING dtSE _OF SECFt'7A,i PG 4 SEFvtr:

cRANCH In the Matter of' )

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN C. KAMMEYER

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )

) ss:

COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG )

I,-John C. Kammeyer, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. Since April of 1984 I have been employed by Stone &

o Webster Engineering' Corporation as Program Manager for the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("TDI") Owners Group Design-Review and-Quality Revalidation ("DR/QR") Program. My business address is 1225 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina 28204.

As Program' Manager, I have the overall-responsibility for im-1plementation of.the DR/QR Program. -I am responsible for W' directing engineers and-quality inspectors in the resolution of ITDI! die'sel. engine problems,-and the design review / quality 8502070228 BM205 gDRADOCK 05060440 o PDR 2 gO

+

1 4 '1 _ _

(O '_

,- revalidation of selected engine components at twelve nuclear

,_ . power plan's,. t including the Perry Nuclear Power Plant ("PNPP").

- I have personal knowledge of each of the matters set forth

~herein, and believe.them to be true and correct.

2. I am.a graduate of Ohio State University, from which I obtained a-Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineer-ing. Prior to attending college, I spent six years in the U.S.

r Navy's~ Nuclear Power Program. My final three years in the ser-

~

-vice were spent as a reactor operator aboard a nuclear subma-rine. I'am a member of the American Society of Mechanical

' Engineers. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. Prior to accepting my current position as Program Manager, I was employed by Stone & Webster as the Assistant Head of- the Site Engineering Office at Shoreham Nuclear Power

. S tation .~ ;During the construction and start-up testing phase of the-Shoreham Plant, I was responsible for directing engineers and-designers in the. resolution of_ problems involving' fluid system and related~ components,-suchias piping, valves, mechani-ical equipment,.and equipment-erection. .I-also provided engi--

'neering.and managerial-support to Long Island Lighting Company

~

f for the Shoreham: Plant's original.DR/QR program and-the plant's licensingLaffort.. During the plant's pre-operational phase,: my s.

responsibilities _ included-providing developmental support for.the-

- 't U $

4 h

o.

?

station modification programs and engineering the specific mod-ification packages necessary fo'r upgrading mechanical systems and equipment. My responsibilities specific to the TDI diesel generators installed at the Shoreham Plant included the follow-ing:1/

a. June, 1980 to October, 1980:

Principle engineer assigned to the " Plant Main-tainability Study," which included a review of

- all major diesel engine and auxili-ary components for the purpose of assuring their accessibility and proper physical arrangement in order to meet maintenance requirements,

b. April, 1981 to June, 1984:

Principle engineer assigned to the resolution of all problems and technical issues involving the

.TDI diesel generators during final erection of

equipment-and the start-up-testing phase of the Shoreham Plant. These responsibilities included:

1/ My experience with the TDI model DSR-48 "inline" 8--

cylinder diesel engine is relevant to the DSRV-16-4 16-cylinder-

" vee" diesel. engine at PNPP.since both are R-4 model engines.

i 4 '

i' -

f p; .

,4

-n (1) Resolution of non-conformances identified on engine and auxiliary components; (2) Evaluation and implementation of all prod-uct improvements and design upgrades, including:

(a) Redesigned jacket water pumps, (b) Modified turbocharger supports, (c) Upgraded pistons, L. (d) New crankshafts, (e) New cylinder heads, (f) Turbocharger prelubrication modifica-tion,

, (g) New pushrods, (h) Upgraded new.subcover, (1) New cylinder block;.

(3) Development of procurement requirements for

. . replacement and spare' parts; (4) Working with TDI in the general-revision and. upgrade of the diesel engine operation-and instruction manuals;-

Do f(5)- Directing' engineers and designers in the 4 _ development of detailed ~ procedures for<

< disassembly and rebuilding of.:the' diesel' tengines;;

. (6) Development of.an~ engine-vibration qualifi-

.c - .catien program;-

[" -(7) : Participation.inlaLdiesel~ generator " Opera-

-tional: Review Program,"~to assess 1the sig--

'nificance'of diesel generator modifica -

tions, non-conformances, etc., on the

~

operational capability and reliability of~ _

~

the diesel 1 generators;1and presentation of-t the results and conclu' sions of this program -

, to~the Nuclear: Regulatory Commission

, 1("NRC")-.

- ~

w W

Y a -- w *-

.1- .--

7--

5 / ?_.;_

p 5., 1 r[:,

p ..

c. November, 1983 to April, 1984:

Special assignment to the Shoreham Plant DR/QR V

program, which evolved into the TDI Diesel Gen-erator Owners Group DR/QR Program. Areas of re-sponsibility included the following:

(1) Assisted in the development of the Shoreham DR/QR program, including its conception, development of pro-cedures, and structuring of the basic organization; (2) Participated in the development of a computerized database chron- -

icalling experiences with diesel engine components in both nuclear and non-nuclear applications; (3) Participated in the identification of components to.be subjected to a design review and/or quality revalidation;

. (4) -Expanded the Shoreham-specific DR/QR program to cover TDI engines-installed at eleven other nuclear power plants; (5) Participated in site-specific en-gine inspections to review the re-sults of quality inspections at a number of plants; (6) Participated in the review of all Phase I, design' review reports, gen-erated as a result of the' Owners Group Program.2/

2/ As more fully described beginning at 1 6.

,h. .- -

IF?N ~6h -

g ..;

.I. - THE TDI DIESEL GENERATOR OWNERS GROUP PROGRAM PLAN li ,

A. Background s

4. On October 25, 1983, as a result of a number of die-sel generator operating experiences involving various nuclear

power' plant. utility owners and diesel engine types, a technical information exchange meeting hosted by Mississippi Power &

Light \washeldinAtlanta, Georgia. As a result of discussions Oc ..

1 at this meeting, twelve U.S. utility owners, including

Cleveland Electric, formed the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group;to address operational and regulatory issues ' ting'to LTDI diesel generator sets used as back-up power supplies in

'U.S. nuclear power plants.

1

5. The present structure of the TDI Diesel Generator j Owners Group.was formalized and approved at an executive meet-(ing heldfin Atlanta, Georgia on December 21, 1983. It consists offan executive committee consisting of. company officers from.-

each participating. utility-and a' technical' program director.

JReporting to the technical. program-director are.thefproject;en -

- .gineer,fthe DR/QR program'. manager, and the DR/QR reportLreview a manager; eachrof whom is responsible for a.different aspect of'

.the program. Details of-the' organization of the Owners Group >

Lare presented-in the "TDI Diesel Generator. Owners Group' Program-

{ ,

Plan," which was: submitted to the.NRC on March :2, 1984.

f r

fh7 - . . - M1 - ~~- . d-- - ~I LG ._ .

p, X '

.6. The Program Plan established by the Owners Group pro-ivides an in depth assessment of the adequacy of the respective

"&x utilities'-TDI diesel generators to perform their intended safety-related function through a combination of design re-views, . quality revalidations, engine tests and component

~

" inspections. High quality technical resources were used in the implementation:of the Program. Organizations and in'dividuals with expert knowledge in the various areas requiring investiga-tion, inspection and analysis were employed to ensure chat the evaluations of-the individual TDI diesel generators would be

+

thorough and meaningful. The major technical resources uti-lized in this comprehensive Program, and their function were:

~ k Organization Role in Owners Group Program.

ta. : Stone & Webster' Engineer- Management of quality re-

, . :ing Corporation (SWEC) validation and design-review effort; Performance of~ design

_ review tasks;

- Provision =o'f-licensing .

and; logistical: support.

b. Failure Analysis Analysis-of:known

-~

.' Associates :(FaAA)? problem's;

- ~ Performance of design-

" review-tasks. .,

L c.: lFEV'.(German' Diesel 1 Con- ' Technical evaluation -

~- 'sulting Firm) of?known problems.

d.-

-^

Transamerica Delaval Provision.of'. technical'

(TDI)- ,

'and experience' data;.

.s

' ^

3,- ,y , : ;- - i -- -

3 -.

Organization Role in Owners Group Program Review of design review and quality revalida-tion results.

e. Owners' Group Provision of plant-

~

specific technical and experience data; Provision of working level enginee'rs familiar with diesel generator plant f s specific applications; Provision of overall program management.

f. Impell Performance of design review tasks.

-g.- Subvendors Provisio,n of technical expertise f on unique components;

, \

Provision of support for investigations ~and site-specific disas-sembly/ reassembly of engines.

7. The~NRC staff's evaluation'of the,0wners Group Pro-

.e gram Plan.was presented in " Safety Evaluat' ion Report-A 'TransamericaLDelaval,'Inc. Diesel Generator Owners Group Pro-

, ,s

-gram Plan ~," dated August 13, 1984. ,Thlh s;cfety evaluation

,, i

~

report.("SER") included'a review of the technical' evaluation report ("TER"), " Review and. Evaluation of.TDI Diesel Generator

. Owners' Group Program Plan," (PNL-5161). of June,:1984, which wasl prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory ("PNL").3/ Based 7 PNLvis under contract to the NRC$to perform-technical.

evaluations of-the-TDI' Owners' Group generic program, in addi-(': '

-(Continued Next Page)-

i',i E

i. ,

4

+ < .r .

u _

a .

y;3;;v a; n.

~

.on its review,-the NRC staff's overall firding was that the Owners Group Program Plan incorporates the essential elements needed to resolve the outstanding concerns relating to the

~

reliability of the TDI diesel generators for nuclear service, and to ensure;that the TDI diesel engines comply with GDC 1 and GDC 17. These essential elements include: (1) resolution of known generic problems (Phase I); '(2) systematic design review

a. ,

and quality revalidation of all components important to

/ . reliability and operability of the engines (Phase II); (3) ap-

. -propriate engine inspections and testing as identified by the

-results of Ph'ase I and II; and (4) appropriate maintenance and surveillance programs as indicated by the results of Phase I and: Phase Ii.

B. Phase I - Resolution of Generic Problems

8. In Phase I of the Owners Group Program, one-of-the.

.first activities undertaken was the. assemblage of experience

( '

data pertinent to TDI engines. Usinglinput from various nucle-

,s i ,

t' LERs, lO C.F.R Part

.p., 'aridata-sources 1 ,

yy ,

4/,(i.e., INPO,:SOERs, r '

. , , .3, 50.55(e)/s,* land 10 C.F.R. Part 21's, etc.) as well as non--

nuclear sources (both marine and stationary)', supplemented by.

h'

-(Conbinnhd)

\- At

' tion'tofplant-specific evaluations relating to'the1 reliability-of ? TDI'4 diesels. -

_4/ As more fully described at 1 15, i1

_g_

~

q{'

~

1 V

i M_ .. a[

{1e,-- ',' ~

1. . , _ .

. j.

y q, ,

_ ' n__

j , a

- ,T s E

, , ,y .:s-

.-. N*

_ g; 34 , > s, yk, b

~

t1 ,

.g; >

t/

'7

, ig * \'

F, Eda'ta obtained'ah'a result of feedback from the utilities' own' s

vv

, inspection-and testing results (conducted ~as part of'the Owners

- GroupPfogram)' -TDI engine / component operational experiences g were documented. A review of the accumulated data resulted in p ,

4f t -

aiconclusion by the 00ners_ Group _ technical staff (i.e.,

^

SWEC,

~,+ .

, :o :

i

?FaAAfEEV, etc.).that a limited number of J components warranted

. , y~ e consideration as significant known problems with'potentially .

r iL . .. .

. 'ts

.(generic applicability.to TDI diesel generators. Accordingly,-

- 4. .

%$d: , a lthese: sixteen componer!ts received priority attention witht'nathe

(.ff'b ,

._ Owners Group design review: group.

t The' sixteen components were i t i:: I k.llMjh _:m ~

Tas follows:

,[ci

j. p ,

~a. iTurbocharger, W 1b. Base and bearing caps,

c. . Crankshaft,

" ~

-d... Cylinder' block, y s .-

Le'. Cyliriderc.' head ' studs,1

f. ~ Connecting (rods, i tr) .

. eu h [I ~ g.

Connecting; rod: bearing-shells, *

'hf- iPistons,. -

... Y

~

,[ .

4 c

1 - i.; 4 Airstart-valve capscrews, 1 fj.

7 Cylinder 4 heads , :-

(g ~

, ik. Fuel-oiliinjectionitubing,. ' *

. ~ 1. - Main"and connecting pushrods, -

-m. {l Rocker arm;capscrews,.

,c :<

.n. : JacketLwater. pump, N ,

g

, jh' ~

l y -10 ,

(i '

a s

c, "l '. 1 a.~ I' \

l.

. '~

~

"'T \ ,C fl , , ,.l{ . 6~ 'E

0

~

l

o. Wiring and termination, J.; p. Cylinder liner.

v .g

_ , < 9. A detai' led design-review of each of these components

~

was. conducted by the Owners Group consultants to establish the adequacy of.their-design. Specific design and/or manufacturing concerns were identified and resolved through analyses, testing and documentation reviews. Establishment of maintenance equirements and the. preparation of inspection plans for these components also formed part of the Phase I effort.

$ '10. The following list of the evaluations performed in the course ofcthe crankshaft review illustrates the comprehen-siveness of_the Phase I process:

a. Review of TDI calculations and tests.

b. Conduct engine tests of 13-inch x 12-inch shaft.

~c. Conduct modal superposition and.Holzer torsional analyses of the'following engines:

. 1. Shoreham (R-48) n.

2. Midland (RV-12)

3. Grand Gulf (RV-16) [FNPP has.RV-16 engines]

4. . San Onofre (RV-20)

d. ConductLfinite element analysis of R-48 engine 12-inch crankpin fillets.

I , e. Compare measured and calculated stresses of R-48 engine 13-inch.x.12-inch shaft.

-n 5

L_. h. _

f. Compare measured and calculated output torque and free end torsiograph traces for R-48 engine.

'g . Compare stress levels with endurance limit for R-48 engine.

.h. Compare nominal stresses of R-48 and RV-16 en- '

gines with those recommended by industry stan-dards.

1. Compare nominal stresses of RV-12 and RV-20 en-gines_with those recommended by industry stan-

. dards.

J. Complete final report on Shoreham and Grand Gulf crankshaft integrity.

k. . Complete-final report on Midland RV-12 and San Onofre RV-20 engines.

As a result of the above reviews, three Phase I crankshaft re-ports were issued, one each for the DSR-48 lead engine, the DSRV-16-4 lead engine and the DSRV-12 and 20 engines. The re-sult of the DSRV-16-4 engine review was that the crankshaft is

. adequate;for its-intended service and meets-applicable stan--

dards.

11. .It is important'to note that while TDI drawings and certain-TDI information were used as input to both the; Phase'I

~

Jand Phase'II (DR/QR) programs, the actualstechnical-evaluations were. performed' independent of TDI, thereby providing an inde-pendentiverification'of the critical design' aspects of.each component. ' Independent design verification was achieved'as

' follows: .

u

.. O

a. The attributes of the component to be verified by design review were determined by a thorough investigation of the component's service history and identification of likely failure modes. .

I

b. Methodology for verification of the critical attributes was established, and significant en' -

gine components (i.e components designed by

-D)I), were evaluated by the Owners Group, not by review of TDI analysis.

12. The Owners Group Program achieved independence from TDI's Quality Assurance ("QA") program by inspection and i

testing.of-the diesel generator equipment installed at each of

.the nuclear plant sites, including PNPP. These inspections-i --

were performed by both Owners Group personnel and by PNPP per-sonnel. . Examples of inspections performed by' Owners Group-per-sonnel-included field walkdowns of. pipe, tubing and. electrical conduit, safety-related wiring, and generator control equip-

- ment'.. (In addition, eddy. current examinations were performed'on components such as the crankshaft and connecting rods, and ma-

.terial comparator and hardness readings;were taken on'various x

components.. The Owners Group recommended inspections; arena-specific;means of' verifying critical aspects ofLeach component; f and 'as this method verifies the . s titability of the , components actually installed,Lindependence from TDI's~QA program is

' achieved.

g

4 F '.

.13. Review findings and final recommendations were out-lined in thirty-six separate reports.5/ As these reports were k

. completed, they were sent to the NRC staff for review and com-ment. The Owners Group had submitted all thirty-six reports to the NRC staff addressing each of the sixteen problem areas

. identified in Phase I of the Program. The testing and analysis 1

in-support of-these thirty-six Phase I reports represents a i

significant effort, spanning over a year's time and involving j i

more than a hundred engineers and technicians.

C. Phase II - Design Review / Quality Revalidation of Selected Engine Components

-14. . Phase II of the Program (design review and quality l revalidation), examined the components of each owner's engine, not evaluated in Phase I, from the standpoint of both design and quality attributes, to assess their ability to reliably perform.their intended function. A Component Selection Commit-tee composed of a. component selection chairperson, SWEC repre-sentative, FaAA representative, TDI representative,; diesel gen-erator specialist, and an owner's representative, formally reviewed:each owner's engine compone~nts.- Based on;the specifi'c 5/- Thirty-six reports _(fifteen subject. reports _plus supple-ments)awere. required to address the sixteen components due to differences between types of engines (i.e., the DSR-48 and DSRV-16-4). -All ofE the. sixteen components were addressed _.in separate reports except for the-cylinder block and cylinder liner which.were evaluated together.

L g

component's function and role in the overall operation of the engine, applicable. site and industry experience, and the engi-neering. judgment and experience of the Committee, certain com-ponents were then selected for a detailed design review and/or quality revalidation.

-15. _The first step in component selection, review of en-

.gine experience, encompassed three areas of review: (1) nucle-ar industry experience; (2) non-nuclear industry experience; and.(3) utility site-specific experience. Nuclear industry ex-

perience associated with each component was gathered and en-tered into the component database (a computer summary of the selected diesel generator components compiled using the "TDI

Parts Manual"). Sources of information included:

a. Licensee Event Reports (LERs);

b. Significant Event Reports (SERs);

.c. _ Institute for Nuclear Power Operation

-("INPO") ' Significant Operating Event Re-ports-(SOERs);

d. 10 C.F.R. Part 50.55(e) reports;-

e. 10 C.F.R. Part 21 reports;

f. INPO Nuclear Plant Reliability Data Sys-tem entries-(NPRDS);

g. Electric Power Research Institute re-ports;

h. -Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) bulle-ntins, noticesi and circulars; i'. 'TDI Service Information Memos-(SIMs).

x

'r q

r D.

The'non-nuclear industry experience of the component was

. gathered on engines manufactured by TDI. Sources of informa-tion included:

a. Stationary / marine engine experience (incl'uding the engines used on State W- of Alaska's M/V Columbia);

b. Correspondence between TDI and pur-chasers;

c. Ships' logs; and

d. Engine inspection reports.

Each utility'in the Owners Group gathered site-specific compo-nent experience which was entered into the database. Sources

-of.information~ included:

a. -Design change documents;

b. Repair / rework documentation;

, c. Deficiency' reports;

'd. Inspection reports;

e. Maintenance logs.

t All of the-information in this database contributed to the Com-mittee's' selection of components.

i.

16. .During'the component selection process,-engine compo-nents were classified as either Type A, LType B, or Type C.

-These cl'assifications1were based on the effect the component's-failure would have on diesel. generator performance. A description of each of these classifications follows:

,( ,

e

T:'

.o- c.

a. Type A Component - a component, based on the judgmcat and experience of the Compo-nent Selection Committee, whose failure would result in immediate diesel generator shut-down, or prevent start-up under emer-gency conditions.

~

b. Type B Component - a component, based on the judgment and experience of the Compo-nent Selection Committee, whose failure

.would result in reduced capacity of the diesel generator, or the eventual failure of a Type A Component, if not detected.

c. Type C Component - a component, based on the judgment and experience of the Compo-nent Selection Committee, whose failure would have little bearing on the effective use or.op,eration of the diesel generator.

~

Examples of Type A, Type B, and Type C components follows:

a. Type A Turbocharger Crankshaft Cylinder Block Connecting Rods

b. -Type B-Intercooler Jacket Water Standpipe: pipe, fittings, gaskets Base and Bearing Caps-Base Assembly

~

Cam Bearing.

c. Type C Turbo Tools LPyrometer Wire

-Turbo Charger Air-Inlet Adapter Crankcass Vacuum Fan s

C. -

c 1:

Examples of components which did not require classification were items such as nameplates and maintenance tools.

17. The Component Selection Committee chose the compo-nents to be subjected to a design review and/or quality revalidation on the foregoing bases (i.e., component classifi-cation as to criticality, past industry and other site-specific experience,-etc. as inputted to the component database, as well as the engineering judgment and experience of the Component Se-lection Committee). Absence of adverse operating experience did not-necessarily exclude a component from the DR/QR process.

-The following illustrates the general guidelines for selection:

a. Type A Components - design review and/or quality revalidation normally required.

b. Type B Components - Component Selection Commit-tee would determine if design review and/or quality-revalidation was required.

c. Type C Components - design review and/or quality revalidation normally not. required.

18. Engine components selected for design review and/or-

~

quality revalidation were then subjected to reviews, inspec-tions,3 testing, etc., as required by the Component Selection Committee.

19. The nature of_a specific component determined if.a Design Review alone was required,~ Quality Revalidation'alone I

~

was required, or both were required. The_ critical attributes Y

e' of a given component, and how best to verify that attribute (i.e., analysis, inspection or both), dictated the nature of the required' review.

20. An example of a Design Review-only component is the

-flywheel. It was determined that the only attribute required for review was the flywheel's effect on the crankshaft tor-sional system. Only design review was required to determine, for each plant, what differences, if any, existed between the site-specific flywheel and the lead engine, and to evaluate any differences.

21. An example of a Quality Revalidation-only component

.is the control panel assembly terminal boards / switches / wiring.

It was determined that the only review of attributes required o was a visual inspection of the control panel for cleanliness and a verification that the wire was purchased to environmental

. qualification requirements.6/

22. Design review and/or quality' revalidation require-ments were reflected in specific task descriptions prepared for each component by.the owners Group Design Review Group and Quality Revalidation Group.2/ Task descriptions included any 6j' ' Control panel assembly terminal verification isI ncluded i

Ji n'the PNPP diesel generator testing program described in.the

. Affidavit of Gary R. Leidich.

.2/ . The Design ~ Review Group consisted of consultants from R3 Stone ~& Webster, FEV, Impell, and FaAA. Stone & Webster was (Continued Next Page) l l

v: _.

p g-- .

requirementalspecified-in the selection process, as well as

.. , more-detai, led descriptions of procedures, standards, or design l g

review approaches'to be. applied.g/ The individual task de-

- 'scriptionsjwere then implemented by the Owners Group technical C : staff, fin the. case of design reviews, and by the individual owner'siquality revalidation' group, as. discussed in the Affida- ,

viti.of Edward C. Christiansen at 11 9 to 11.

23. -The owners. Group Program is based on a lead engine

i. *

~and. follow-on engineLconcept. The lead DSR-48 engines, at p Shoreham, and lead DSRV-16-4 engines, at Comanche Peak, were extensively evaluated over an eight-month: period. A full re-

, _ view was conducted on'all the required components during this period, utilizing over a hundred engineers, designers and tech-nicians. For each'of-the follow-on engines,-including-those at

-[(Continued) responsible for small~ bore piping!and tubing-equipment * . Impell-

~

wasfresponsible fortlarge bore piping. FaAA.and FEV were re-

,sponsible._for engineEcomponents. =Each component was assigned at

> 1. task leader.from the various organizations.- 'This~ task leader;

. wouldidevelop,a taskidescription which wastreviewed'and ap-

, jproved.by'the Design: Review Chairman and'the! Program Manager.

~

-The QualityqRevalidation Group; consisted of Stone &

.Websterfengineers,' quality / assurance engineers; and inspectors.

Basediupon:the inspection'and review requirements,.as:specifiedL e 'by the Component Selection Committee'and the-' Design Review -

Group,- they:would:developf specific L task descriptions for each -

Ecomponent. -

~ ,

"g/: - The tiask description for;each component reviewed-in

~ ~

i .

'PhaseJII.of;the rProgram'.is' contained inLor: referenced in each" Lowner'sfinal-~DR/QRfraport.

s > ,

^ '

1 e i s

t <A l

e- _..

, ~'*

PNPP, each component requiring a design and/or quality review was evaluated to determine if the lead engine review was appli-cable. This evaluation involved identifying differences in de-

~ sign, loading, or application and evaluating any significant differences. l

24. The gears provide a typical design task description for a PNPP Type A component. The design task description called for a comparison between the gear design for PNPP and th'e lead ergines. To accomplish this, a review of the TDI parts list and applicable. drawings was performed. This showed that the design at PNPP was the same as Comanche Peak and Grand Gulf.- Gear loads were calculated by utilizing the lead engine.

Gear analysis-was conducted with input from the specific PNPP crankshaft torsional vibration analysis. The PNPP gear tooth loads'were compared to the Comanche Peak and Grand Gulf loads to ensure that the'PNPP loads were bounded. The calculations performed on the Comanche Peak and Grand Gulf gears showed that the TDI design was adequate to meet its intended function.

Since PNPP's load was bounded by Comanche's and Grand Gulf's, the gear train installed in the PNPP engines was considered acceptable.

25. 171' components were' reviewed for the'PNPP engines.

153 of these components were tha same as those selected for-HDR/QR on the lead engines. Each component report in the PNPP-l f,

1 i

DR/QR Report contains a general description of the component, objective of-the review, methodology used, results, and conclu-sions (and includes references to the lead engines' reports as required).. A. total of eleven reports (some of which address multiple components) were prepared for components unique to the PNPP engines. Exhibit B contains examples of two PNPP-unique L reports (for.the cylinder block and starting air manifold tubing supports) and two reports (for the connecting rod

-bearing shells and rocker shaft assemblies) which rely on the previously-prepared lead engine reports (which are also included).

26. Upon completion of the DR/QR effort, inspection re-suits, document packages, design review findings, and calcula-tion results, were reviewed and approved by the owners Group technical staff. Where results of these reviews and/or inspec-tions indicated the need for additional action (i.e., component replacement, maintenance recommendations, etc.), follow-up ac-tivities were' initiated. ,

~27. Follow-up activities, if any, were generally a recom-mendation for_ increased maintenance, a one-time quality inspec-tion, or, in some cases, a modification to the equipment. In

-the case of the gear train review discussed above, the follow-ing recommendations-were made to ensure component reliability:

a. Visual inspections are to be performed during scheduled refueling outages for signs of pro-gressive pitting.

b. LMating surfaces between idler gear and hub are to be thoroughly cleaned prior to assembly.

'__ g,

c. Hub nuts are to be properly torqued to the rec-ommended torque range and relocked.

D.- The Engine Revalidation Effort, Testing and Inspection

28. The third major element of the owners Group Program involves an enhanced engine testing program, coupled with spe-cific inspections of both Phase I and Phase II components. The Owners Group technical staff, in evaluating specific engine components, provided technical recommendations to the owners regarding special or expanded engine tests and component inspections which would be appropriate to ensure the adequacy of the engines and components to perform their intended safety-related funct.4.ons. These recommendations were conveyed in each plant's DR/QR report.

II. CONCLUSIONS

29. At the completion of each owner's DR/QR effort, a final report is issued summarizing and transmitting results'of the DR/QR reviews, identifying any corrective actions or recom-mandations, and providing conclusions regarding the adequacy of

~ the diesel generators to perform their intended safety-related service.

-23 ,

n - , .

m:

'~

, y

30. The Owners Group has completed its review and issued

.the final ~-DR/QR report on the DSRV-16-4 diesel engines in- ;

.- ~ stalled at PNPP.9) .Both the scope, and the comprehensiveness of this review represents a significan't effort by the Owners ,

Group technical staff and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

personnel'. The'results of this. review,' as presented in the f j

~ PNPP'DR/QR Report, establish that the important. components of the TDI. diesel generators have been assessed to be adequate for ;

their intended safety-related function. [

31. _ Nuclear standby' diesel generator reliability has I

[ been a major concern of both the industry and the NRC.

Although previous programs have been sponsored by the NRC,. F

,' lEPRI, and other industry groups, to quantify.and improve die-

. . a soli generator reliability, the Owners Group Program is unprec ' ,

~

~ 'edented in its approach and analytical detail.. Many of=the components reviewed'have-been analyzed using' techniques:ex--

coeding the. detailed engineering effort which originally went '

into their design. The TDI. Diesel Generator Owners Group Pro ' u

+ igram provides= assurance of the reliability of the.TDI diesel" '

- generators-by establishing the. reliability"and' acceptability; .

of their critical-engine components.- Recommendations made'by [

, theIOwners Group,Jwhen implemented, will'further improve

<. m. ' component; reliability,:ther.eby improving the overall 4 s.

4

.. 2/ . Thi's report,/"TDI; Diesel Generator Design Review and' Qual--

~

ity Revalidation-Report,; prepared for~ Cleveland Electric a ' ^ Illuminating Company,tPerry Nuclear Power Plant," was submitted-

, cto the NRC-in January of 1985.-

y ., <

f:

li -E 4

reliability'of the TDI diesel generators. The Owners Group ef-fort provides a sound basis for concluding that the TDI diesel

generators in place at_PNPP are fully capable of reliably per-forming their. intended safety-related function.

r e-

~

W Wrmts.x i2 -

~

John C. Kammeyer'~

Subscribed and sworn to before.me this.2 6 day of January,.1985.

/ .,

t. (ss :(. /. . .

Notary Public MylCommissionexpireson:

'l y i n I /

D 5

- 25-

)

i e

n -

r a

nx ! i-Exhibit A January 1985 KAMMEYER, JOHN C. ENGINEER PDWER DIVISION

~

EDUCATION Ohio State University - Bachelor of Science,. Mechanical Engineering,1979 Various U.S. Navy Electronic Technician and Nuclear Power Courses.

Various Stone & Webster' Career Development and Continuing Education Courses.

EXPERIENCE

SUMMARY

'Mr.lKammeyer has six years of experience on nuclear power plant-projects

'and six years experience on U.S. Navy Nuclear Submarines. Currently as an

_ Engineer,-assigned to the Transamerica Delaval Inc. (TDI) Owners Group,-as the Design Review and Quality Revalidation Program Manager. He is responsible for'the technical direction-and management of the TDI emergency stand by diesel engine requalification effort for twelve utilities.

Since joining Stone.& Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)-in June.1979, he has also been assigned to the Site Engineering Office of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. In addition, he has completed the Career. Development Program

-including assignments to the 850 MWe boiling water reactor Shoreham Nuclear

- Power Station as a Site Engineer-and as a Systems Engineer, and to a 938 MWe pressurized water reactor North Anna Power Station project as a Systems Engineer.

Prior to college, Mr. Kammeyerf spent six years'in the Navy's Nuclear Power Pro-

- gram;' the final- three years as a Reactor 0perator, aboard a nuclear submarine.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ,

American. Society-of Mechanical Engineers - Associate' Pkmber-r

+

f. .-:

^

, w

~ -

DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD XAMMEYER, JOHN C. 47182 STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BOSTON, MA (June 1979 to Present)

- . Appointments:

Engineer,JPower Division - Feb 1981

_ : Career Development Engineer, Power Division June 1979

' Shoreh'am Nuclear Power Station, Long -Island Lighting Company (Nov 1979 to v Present)-

. As ENGINEER ( Apr 1984 to Present) on special assignment to the Transamerica

-Delaval Inc. (TDI) Owners Group =in the capacity of Program Manager 'of the Design. Review and Quality Revalidation effort for TDI diesel generators E Tutilized at 12 different nuclear power plants. Responsible for directing.

Engineers and Quality: Inspectors in the resolution of. generic TDI diesel Lengine problems, and the ' site specific design review / quality revalidation

- at:each of the twelve-nuclear plants. Overall responsibility for the pro-f s - gram,; reporting directly to the client on' program schedule, scope, techni-

" . cal adequacy,and manpower. In addition,. participating in meetings with the Nuclear. Regulatory Comission'and its technical -staff to:present the

'overall: program and provide -briefings on problem component analyses.

1 As ENGINEER-(Aug 1982-Mar 1984) assigned to the Site Engineering Office (SEO)..in the capacity of Power Engineer and Assistant-Head-SEO, responsible

to the Head-SEO for the Power Division effort.- Duringithe construction and .

~startup testing phase of the plant, responsible for directing Engineers and .

designers in the resolution of problems dealing with fluid systems and re-lated components,lsuch as piping, valves, mechanical equipment, and equip--

ment erection. Provided engineering 'and. managerial support to the client for'the emergency ' diesel generator revalidation program and ASLB licensing

' i < effort. Plant.preoperational phase responsibilities include . developmental support of.the' station modification-programs ~and engineering the. specific :

- modification packages for the upgrade of mechanical systems. and equipmen.t.

.,In addition,'in the absence of the Head-SEO. responsible for'the operation

.of the; Site Engineering .0ffice.

4 As ENGINEER _ (May 1981-July _1982), assigned to the Site Engineering Office,-

responsible for resolving various engineering lrelated construction problems, ,

- principally with piping and mechanical components, requiring an immediate.

solution to support the construction schedule. _In addition, working dir-

,ectly with the client's start-up organization to resolve system operation '

deficiencies.

4

/

4 .

4 1

, e, -

T "a c JCK 1As; ENGINEER and CAREER DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER (Nov 1979-April 981) in the Nuclear Engineering Group as a systems engineer responsible for revision of reactor plant flow diagrams and update of FSAR and technical speciff-

. cations. : Responsible for: interpretation of purchase specification require-ment.and disposition of vender non-conformances. As a career Development

Engineer, spent four~ months at the Site Engineering Office, responsibilities

' included: maintainability study of all plant equipment to insure accessibility

and proper physical arrangement to meet maintenance requirements for the 850

-: MWe- power plant.

~

North- Anna Power Station - Units 3 & 4, Virginia. Electric and Power Company

=[ June 1979-Nov 1979)

As CAREER-DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, assigned to the Nuclear Engineering Group as a -system engineer responsible for preparing reactor plant flow diagrams, sizing of system components such as pumps and <alves, purchasing of equip- '.

ment including preparation of specifications, and preparing FSAR sections.

U.JS.' NAVY (Sept'1969-July 1975)

USS James K. ' Polk,-SSBN - 645 (Apr 1972-June 1975)

As senior qualified reactor operator, responsible for' repair and mainten-

. ance of reactor: instrumentation, supervision of division training; honor-able discharge with ETR-2(SS) rating, commendation from Commander Sub-marine Squadron l Sixteen.

s -

b

.s 7 -

.k L u 4

... . M M COMPONENT Exhibit B TDI OWNERS GROUP

, for PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1 CYLINDER 8 LOCK COMPONENT PART NO. 02-315A I INTRODUCTION l

The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group Program for the Perry :

Nuclear Power Plant requires Design and Quality Revalidation reviews of '

the ~ cylinder blocks to determine the adequacy of design for the intended use at Perry. The blocks are manufactured by TDI and are supplied under their part number 02-315-03-AE. The cylinder block forms the framework of I

the _ liquid cooled engine and provides passage for coolant and support for the cylinder liners and cylinder heads.

, j II OBJECTIVE The objective of this review was to evaluate the structural adequacy of the cylinder block. for its intended use at Perry Nuclear Power Plant.

III METH000 LOGY l In order to meet the stated objective, the following methods were used: !

Review of engine operating conditions at Perry and identification of any differences from those at Comanche Peak. ,.

l Performance of dimensional check and evaluation of liner / block

, interaction.

Evaluation of steady state stresses, alternating stresses and stiff- l ness in key portions for the cylinder block. ,

r

Evaluation of crack growth rate- for cylinder block landing and counterbore diameter by comparison with conservative Shoreham data and analysis. !

i

Review of liquid penetrant inspections of Perry DSRV-16-41A and 18 engine blocks.

Review of ' metallurgical / microstructure analysis of cylinder block

_, material. ;

Review of Perry site, nuclear and non-nuclear experiences (see p . Appendix C).

Review of Quality Revalidation Checklist results for acceptability.

l PE3237/1 l W l J

y

I PNPP-UNIQUE CCP1PCEDTI l l

Page 2 of 3 IV RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS l

^

Diesel generators IA and 18 have had limited operational experience. l Engine hours of operation accumulated to date consist of factory test hours performed by TDI.

The engine operating conditions at Perry were compared to those at Comanche Peak and Shoreham. No significant differences were found that would affect the structural integrity assessment of the Perry blocks.

It is recommended that cylinder liner bore and mating block dimensions be checked. in order to evaluate ^ the interaction of the block and cylinder liner. For the purpose of analyzing the steady state and alternating stresses present, the cylinder liner / bore interaction is assumed to be similar to that present at Shoreham. This assumption must be verified for Engines 1A and 18. These results were utilized in the cumulative damage analysis. The cumulative damage algorithm is explained in Reference 2.

Evaluation of steady state stresses, alternating stresses and stiffness in key portions of the cylinder block was accomplished as part of the strain gage testing at Shoreham and the results were included in the cumulative damage and crack growth analyses (Ref. 2).

The power output for this engine is 7000 kW at 100 percent load. Maximum output required for LOOP /LOCA is 4460 kW (Ref. 3). The duration of a LOOP /LOCA used in this analysis is 168 hours0.00194 days 0.0467 hours 2.777778e-4 weeks 6.3924e-5 months .

Strain gage testing of the original Shoreham EDG 103 block, inspection data from before and after testing, and materials testing were used as a basis to predict adequate life for cylinder blocks. The apparent rate of propagation of cracks between stud holes in the original Shoreham EDG 103 when compared with the Perry LOOP /LOCA requirements, indicates that even if the Perry blocks had ligament cracks they are predicted to withstand with sufficient margin a LOOP /LOCA event (Ref. 2) provided that block material is shown to be characteristic of typical Class' 40 grey cast iron. ,

To date, no inspection results for Engine 1A and 18 block tops have been reported. It is required that, pricr to placing the engines .in emergency standby service, the visual and N0E examinations consistent with those

. identified -in Appendix 8 he performed on Engines 1A and 18 to determine whether or not block top cracks are present.

Further, it is recommended that a material microstructure evaluation be .

performed on all engine blocks at Perry, to verify that the block

-- material ~is characteristic .of typical Class ' 40 grey iron. Without satisfactory material verification, there is no analytical . basis for continued engine operation. Increased operational time between inspections can be-justified with- demonstration of bicek material

-characteristics as typical Class 40 grey cast iron.

PE3237/2 9

I-

, PNPP-I.9IQUE CQ1PONENT Page 3 of 3 Application of the cumulative damage algorithm (Ref. 2) shows that the Perry engines, with Class 40 grey cast iron. material blocks, could perform 260 hours0.00301 days 0.0722 hours 4.298942e-4 weeks 9.893e-5 months at 100 percent load (or operation resulting in equivalent cumulative damage), without inspection, with sufficient margin for a LOOP /LOCA . event. Subsequent time periods of operation can be justified after reinspection of the block top for detectable ligament, stud-to-stud and stud-to-end cracks. If none are found, then engine operation may be performed until the future cumulative daeage equals the total cumulative damage accrued to the last inspection, minus 3 times the damage postulated during a LOOP /LOCA. This process may be repeated indefinitely throughout the life of the engines.

The above recommendations are a direct application of the cumulative damage algorithm and are described in Reference 1, Figure 5-1.

There are no TERs associated with this component.

Quality Revalidation Inspection results identified in Appendix 8 have been reviewed and considered in the performance of this design review, and the results are consistent with the final conclusions of this report.

Based on the above review, subsequent completion and review of block top inspections, block material evaluations and cylinder liner / block bore dimensional check as identified in Appendix 8 for Engines IA and 18, and implementation of routine inspections, it is concluded that the cylinder blocks are acceptable for their intended use at Perry.

IV REFERENCES

1. Design Review of TOI-R4 Series Emergency Diesel Generator Cylinder Blocks and Liners. FaAA-84-9-11.

2. FaAA Support Package Number SP-84-6-12(1).

3. Letter from E. C. Christiansen (Perry Nuclear Power Plant) to C. L.

Ray, Jr. (TO! Owners Group), dated 7/23/84. .

O PE3237/3

PNPP-UNIGJE COMPONENT APPENDIX A Page Al of 2

~

COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1 Cylinder Block-Liners and Water Manifold:

COMPONENT Cylinder Block UTILITY Cleveland Electric 111uminatina Co.

GROUP PARTS LIST NO. 02-315A TASK DESCRIPTION NO. OR-03-02-315A-0 SNPS GPL NO. 03-315A CLASSIFICATION TYPE A TASK DESCRIPTIONS Review liquid penetrant inspections of Perry DSRV-16-4 engine block tops and review engine operating experience.

Review engine operating conditions of Perry and identify any differences from those at Comanche Peak.

Perform dimensional check on cylinder block and cylinder liners and evaluate liner / block interaction.

Evaluate steady state stresses, alternating stresses and stiffness in key portions of the cylinder block.

Evaluate crack growth rate for cylinder block landing and counterbore diameter by comparison with conservative Shoreham data and analysis.

Review metallurgical / microstructural analysis of cylinder block top material..

Review of Perry site, nuclear and non-nuclear experiences (see Appendix C).

Review of Quality Revalidation Checklist results for acceptability.

Review infonnation provided on TERs.

1 PRIMARY FUNCTION To provide framework for engine components and to provide cooling water !

passages.

1 I

PE2781/1 1

l 4

PNPP-UNIQUE CCMPONENT COMP 0NENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST Page A2 of 2 OR-03-02-315A-0 ATTRIBUTE TO BE VERIFIED That components have sufficient strength and stiffness to react major loads.

SPECIFIED STANDARDS None.

REFERENCES

None. -

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Manufacturer's drawings for OSR-48 and RV blocks, liners and studs, including all specifications for material, torques, valve train loads and gas cycles.

Engine operating history (time vs. Ioad) for operation prior to block top inspection, and for total engine hours.

Anticipated engine operating profile (time vs. load) for fuel cycle, including pre-operational, qualification, and surveillance testing.

Engine factory test logs that report firing pressures and exhaust temperatures for each cylinder.

GROUP CHAIRPERSON - PROGRAM MANAGER - C.hv.o u a f' O PE2781/2 fL

aescem ammr Appendix 8 Page B1 c. 6 03-02-315A COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

COMPONENT Cylinder Block UTILITY Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit 1 GPL NO. 02-315A REV. N0. 2 SNPS GPL No. 03-315A TASK OESCRIPTIONS Enaine 1A

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

! 2. Perform a dimensional check on the area around the cylinder liner for all cylinder block liner landings, i 3. Perform a Liquid Penetrant test or Magnetic Particle test on the l cylinder block liner landing along the top landing surface, fillet radius, and vertical face adjacent to the landing surface. Liner

! landings 3L, 4L, SL, 6L and 3R, 4R, 5R, 6R should be inspected with the liners removed. If linear indications are found, increase inspection plan to all liner landings.

4. Perform a Liquid Penetrant test or Magnetic Particle test on the l cylinder head mating surface on top of the cylinder block. The area i between stud hole and liner, and between adjacent cylinder stud hole should be inspected. The inspection plan should include cylinders 3L, 4L, 5L, 6L and 3R, 4R, 5R and 6R. If linear indications are found, increase inspection plan to all cylinders,

5. . Perform an Eddy Current test on the cylinder head stud holes if -

required (i.e. linear indications found at stud hole extending into threads). ,

l 6. Remove a sample from each cylinder block by drilling and cutting.

! The samples shall be tetrahedral in shape with a one inch square base and a height of 5/8 inch. Attachment B shows the locations where the j samples should be taken.

l l

PE2634/1 i

L

a PNPP-UNIQUE C NPONENT l

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B2 of 6 03-02-315A TASK OESCRIPTIONS (continued)

Engine 18 Same as Engine 1A ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED Encine 1A

1. Quality status of Component Document Package

2. Dimensions of the cylinder block liner l'anding area 3-5. Surface integrity of the cylinder block liner landing

6. Samples are taken from the cylinder . block in accordance with TER

99-016.

Enaine 18 Same as Engine 1A ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Enaine 1A

1. Satisfactory Document Package

2. Review of inspection report by Design Group ,

3-4. See Attachment A 5-6. Review of inspection report by the Design Group Enaine 18 Same as Engine 1A PE2634/2

i

'. . PNPP-UNInUE C0fEGB3T

, t COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION' CHECKLIST Page B3 of 6 03-02-315A REFERENCES Enaine 1A i

1. QCI No. 52

2. Approved Sita NOE Procedures 3-4. TER#s99-004, 99-018,99-036

5. FaAA Procedure NDE 11.8

6. TER #99-016,99-031 Enaine 18'

(

Same as Er,gine 1A ,

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Enaine 1A

1. Docur,ent Summary Sheet

\

2-6. Inspection Report i

Enaine IB i Same as Engine 1A GROUP CHAIRPERSON PROGRAM NANAGER X % u u. % A w U fi COMPONENT REVIEW .

Enaine 1A - -

1. No EDGCTS site experience documents are in evidence. i k.

PE2634/3 ,

I s

D

.m

= _ . _ _ _ .. _-. _ _ __

PNPP-UNIQUE 00!PONEMP -

t ?

At;' 4

+

9-

'* ii' COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page 84 of 6 03-02-315A E

COMPONENT REVIEW (continued)

Encine 1A (continued)

} .- 2-6. No inspection reports have been received which fulfill these require 4- ments.

\

L Enaine 18 l < 1 l Same as Engine 1,A

[\

I s : ,-,

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ,

'Enaine 1A The Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as out-lined above, is complete. ..The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and crclusions in support of the final report.

.Encine 18 Same as Engine 1A GROUP CHAIRPERSON $[*M MC PROG.?AN MANAGER 1 %a, d A y

j ,

I I:

I.

I t

,I l

E p

f.

l PE2634/4 i

}.

. , . - - . h. L . , ., . . , . . . - . - . , . . . _ . _ , _ . . , . , . . . . , . . _ . , , . _ , . _ _ _ _ , . . _ . _ . _ _ -

l

. l P!PP-WIQUE C0fGONENT j a

Attachment A Page B5 of 6

~

.- 03-02-315A 1 COMP 0NENT 00ALITY REVALICATION CHECKLIST ACCEPTA8LE CRITERIA Area to be inspected i A)

1. Top of 81ock ..

2. Liner coente-bore ,-s ,

8). Reference Standard ASTM E125 C) Evaluation of indications

1. Relevant indications are:

a) Hot tears and cracks, linear indications that exceed ASTM E125 Class I-2 b) Shrink that exceeds ASTM E125 Class II-3 c) Inclusions that exceed ASTM E125 Class I11-3 i d) Porosity that exceeds ASTM E125 Class V-1

2. A)ll,fndications exceeding the specification listed above shall be' documented and submitted to the Design Group. '

3. Indications, that do not exceed the ASTM E125 reference regardless of size and quantity are acceptable.

D) Non RelevantrIndication

1. The indications referenced below shall ~ be considered non relevant.

a) . Magnetic writing.

b) Linear grain boundaries (carbon, ferrite, or graphite induced) c) Rounded grain beundaries (carbon, ferrite, or graphite induced) f

??

a e_

1

- pi 4

,3 W.l p.-

'e p

- c, PE2634/5 h,.,a 4

,j' s . ._,

=,-

lc hQ

. - PNPP-UNIES COMPQtENT

,;. r Attachment a _

COMPONENT OUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST

,,.,.. Page 86 of 6 ~

, . , 03-02-315A

\. v '

.i . ,

_f .

': -( -

c ~

2:

w *p , -

.r -

4 .

g 1 - . .

i. u . ,

= -----1

. g h . . .

W -

s-

' ~

lI.[.

c: - -

, t I , ..>. .

y .~.-- - .

r.

.._, ' y >

,. :- O

. .. O W"

I

. J s f-c -

t 4 . (

(. .. . . .- i E

'r t ta a

= . - .

m%u .

3 LJ ,q .a -

N' .,

. g 'r '.-

o.: . .

y O -

<o

. 1

. .\ -

>..z .

A g- c

.M

.. O .

w y$ g

-n w +/ l O c: N e., 1 2 . .

zomt O l - I

.as.

4 di ,

+ '

.As El . \ - t/$$ / 'I~,\

en -

'#3Tk r. -

< l':: !

/ . as..v.s.. -.. eism -

., :5 - =! <w 1' '

.. ~,

g4tB, i l O . .-. J. r", t,.c hu.W +:' (12 mw

.. .. w:s s ,

=w i

O

, -. -Q c.

d> ,-%fgjp~;;Q.? ,

2; u a_z

, e';,'I.,T.3

.. l r -

+

@[mm,D E 5

si f- C 51Q .\

. . a f

4

..- -$lr.

.v y.-

$!/j '*'YS ' ?;f I ?

Y

-Q

.- .. ~: .. -

. i ; ..%;": .y y n.:. .:.

\'

.-~5l ' . .. .

w ~ s ;.:. :. ~L f ..ab-

.-i . ~;.;r y .

' ^

l m~umnue cwmer i

l i

TDI OWNERS GROUP for PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1 STARTING AIR MANIFOLD - SUPPORTS (SMALL BORE SCOPE ONLY)

COMPONENT PART NO. 02-441C I. . INTRODUCTION The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group Program for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant requires Design and Quality Revalidation reviews of the structural adequacy of the starting air manifold tubing supports to withstand the effects of normal operating and earthquake loadings.

The primary function of these supports, is to provide adequate restraint to the starting air manifold tubing components.

II OBJECTIVE The objective of this review was <to perform an engineering evaluation of the tubing supports to assure that the component will perform its intend-ed design function during normal operating and earthquake loadings.

III , METHODOLOGY In order - to meet the . stated objective, the following methods were used:

e

The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator . Component Tracking System was reviewed for the ' Perry site, nuclear, and. non-nuclear industry experience. See Appendix C for results.

. The. Quality Revalidation Checklist results were ~ review'ed .for acceptability.

Engines 1A and 1B, both partially disassembled, were evaluated _ using .

actual walkdown information and by comparison with.the Comanche Peak

. load engine report.

i -~ Refer to the review procedures as described in Reference' 1 for a detailed methodology for this evaluation.

IV -RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

. The tubing .~ supports, as defined by this component design ' review have been-evaluated in accordance with Reference 1 and have_ been found acceptable

. with. modifications. .

J .-PE3111/1 a,

g jf --

PNPP-UNIQUE CDMFONENT

- Page 2 of 3 There are no TERs associated with this component.

The Quality Revalidation Inspection results identified in Appendix B have been reviewed and considered in the performance of this design review, and the results are consistent with the final conclusions of this report.

Based on the above review, and information contained in Reference 2, it is concluded that the tubing supports will perform their intended design function at' Perry under all normal operating and earthquake loadings with the provision that the following recommended modifications be implemented as detailed in Refenence 3.

Engines 1A and 1B Line-Distributors to Start Vilves in Cylinder Heads The %-inch tubing from the distributors to the cylinder heads is only '

partially installed because of the dissassembled state of the engines.

Upon installation of the air start distributors, the existing tube supports should be reinstalled. Tubing spacers should be modified by the addition of cover plates and secured to the engine blocks.

'~

In order to support the tubing of component 02-441A it is recommended that the following supports be added:

Engines 1A and 1B Line-Manifold to Governor Oil Booster Servo i A two-directional restraint should be added on the 3/8-inch tubing located in the riser at the governor base plate elevation, typical on. both L engines.

Line-Air Supply from Manifolds to Filters to Air Start Distributors A ' two-directional restraint should be added on the 3/4-inch ' tubing at approximately mid-span between. the air supply manifold and the-air filter

. inlet, typical on left bank and right bank on both engines.

~

The body of each filter should be secured with a . U-bolt to prevent torsion on fittings during a seismic event.

Air start distributors and the 3/4-inch -tubing from the filters to the distributors were notuinstalled during. the field walkdown. Intermediate-seismic restraints should be added if the linear length of tubing exceeds-4 feett- 9 inches.

l I

t

'PE3111/2 p

. . . -- .. -~ .

PNPP-UNIQUE CCfFGErr ;

Page 3 of 3

!~ Line-Distributors to Start Valves in Cylinder Heads Two-directional restraints should be added as required to ensure 3 feet -

6 inch maximum span lengths are not exceeded.

Engine IB Air Purge Lines A two-directional restraint in the k-inch tubing from the air start manifolds to the combustion air headers should be added at approximately mid-span to meet 3 feet - 6 inch maximum span length requirements, typical on both sides of the engine.

Engine 1A Air Purge Lines i .The %-inch tubing from the air start manifold to the combustion air headers was not installed during the field walkdown. Installation of this tubing should be similar to Engine 18, including modifications.

V REFERENCES

1. " Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small Bore Piping, . Tubing, . and Supports for the TDI Owners Group," Report No. 11600.60-DC-02 Revision 0.

2. ' Stone & Webster Calculation number 11600.60-NP(B)-0301-XH.

3. Memo No. 6548 from' C. Malovrh/SWEC to J. Kamseyer/SWEC dated 11/29/84.

i.

i s

r.

' PE3111/3 54w .

..L.. . . . . , .- , , . .. ~ . . , - , , , . - , . . . . , . . , , , , _ _ ..____,.,y_4 . , ,_ ,- ,

DNPP-UNIQUE ODMEGENT APPENDIX A Page Al of 2 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST .

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT I Starting Air Manifold -

Tubing Supports COMPONENT (Small Bore Scope Only) UTILITY Cleveland Electric Illuminating Compans GROUP PARTS LIST NO. 02-441C TASK DESCRIPTION NO.: DR-03-02-441C-0 SNPS GPL NO 03-441C CLASSIFICATION TYPE A TASK DESCRIPTIONS Perform an engineering review of the tubing supports to provide additional assurances that the component will perform its intended design function during normal operating and earthquake loading.

PRIMARY FUNCTION -

Provide adequate restraint to the starting air manifold tubing components.

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED Structural adequacy of the tubing supports due to the effects of normal operating and earthquake loadings.

SPECIFIED STANDARDS' IEEE 387 REFERENCES

" Engineering Review Criteria Document for the Design Review of TDI Diesel Small

. Bore -Piping, Tubing, and Supports for ~ the TDI Owners': Group" Report No.

11600.60-DC-02, Revision O.

PE3025/1

/ i_ ^ ~

l l

PNPP-UNIQUE CDMFOETf COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST Page A2 of 2 DR-03-02-441C-0 l DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Delaval design documentation (specifications, calculations, drawings, etc.).

In lieu ~of information from Delaval, the following information is required:

verified support sketches and piping isometrics, material specifications, pipe size and schedule, and operating parameters (pressure, . temperature, load combinations).

GROUP CHAIRPERSON "-- - PROGRAM MANAGER 2 C h - e _

} {f ' U d

i l .

PE3025/2

. PNPP-UNIQUE CCMPOENT Appendix B Page B1 of 3 03-02-441C COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Starting Air Manifold: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. l

~ COMPONENT Supports UTILITY Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit 1 i l

GPL NO. 02-441C REV. NO. 2 SNPS GPL NO. 03-441C t

, TASK DESCRIPTIONS Engine-1A

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2. Obtain sufficient data to support the design review effort. This may -be accomplished by developing quality verified as-builts in accordance with Procedure DG-7, or by the Design . Group performing a -

field walkdown. i Enaine 18 Same as Engine 1A l

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED.

Engine 1A

1. Quality status of Component Document Package'

2. Information necessary for the design review effort. .

i

! . Engine 18 Same~as Engine 1A L

i L'

PE2626/1" .

i sw ,. Y ,

, . PNPP-UNIGJE COMPGENT COMPONENT QUALITY MiVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B2 of 3 03-02-441C ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Engine 1A 1

1. Satisfactory Document Package

2. Review of detailed'information by the Design _ Group Engine IB Same as Engine 1A REFERENCES.

Engine 1A

1. QCI No. 52

2. Procedure DG-7

, Encine IB

.Saec as Engine 1A DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Engine 1A

1. Document Summary Sheet

2. Quality verified as-built isometric drawings for the supports if availa31e from the Owner.

Engine 18

~Same as Engine 'I GROUP CHAIRPERSON h. L# % PROGRAM MANAGER MW- e 4

PE2626/2-

PNPP-UNIQUE COMPONENT COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B3 of 3 03-02-441C COMPONENT REVIEW Engine 1A~

1. .No EDGCTS site experience documents are in evidence.

2. The Design Group will be responsible for closing out the as-built drawings as per Procedure DG-7. The as-built drawings will be Quality verified by the appropriate site Quality organization. The i performance of an engineering walkdown by the Design Group, precludes the issuance of a quality verified as-built drawing or sketch.

Engine 1B Same as Engine 1A r

1 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION l -- .Enaine 1A I

The Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, is complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

Enaine 18 Same as Engine 1A GROUP CHAIRPERSON d [ d b M M PROGRAM MANAGER M b v e m u .u-p t-t PE2626/3 i

t

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 1 of 2 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1 Connecting Rod:

COMPONENT Bearing Shells UTILITY Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

GROUP PARTS LIST NO. 02-340B TASK DESCRIPTION NO. DR-03-02-340B-0 SNPS GPL NO. 03-340B CLASSIFICATION TYPE A TASK DESCRIPTIONS Design review for this cc.nponent is not required based on the following:

A review of the Comanche Peak and Shoreham DR/QR reports, which establish the acceptability of the bearing shells for their intend-ed purpose.

The applicable engine dimensions and operating parameters at Perry are identical or very similar to those for the same component at Comanche Peak (Lead Engine).

A review of the EDG Component Tracking System indicated that there was no site . experience and no significant applicable nuclear or non-nuclear industry experience.

Maintenance recommendations based on the Comanche Peak DR/QR report to ensure proper performanc'e under normal operating conditions are as follows:

Inspect and measure connecting rod bearing shells to verify lube oil maintenance, which affects wear rate. The visual . and . dimensional inspection of the bearing shells should be conducted at the fuel outage that precedes 500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months of operation by at- least the sum of hours of operation in a LOOP /LOCA event plus the expected hours of operation between outages.

Perform an X-ray examination on all bearing shells using a procedure with sufficient resolution to implement recommendations for acceptance criteria developed by Owners Group connecting rod bearing shells Phase I Report.

PE2873/1 c

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST Page 2 of 2 OR-03-02-3408-0

' There are no modification recommendations for this compenent.

The following Quality Revalidation inspection recommendations are made to ensure proper component quality and performance, and should be . performed on both diesel engines:

h'

Perform a visual inspection of the connecting rod bearing shells.

Perform a liquid penetrant test of the connecting rod bearing shells.

Perform a dimensional check of the connecting rod bearing shells.

l_

Perform. a radiographic inspection of the connecting rod bearing shells.

Perform an eddy current test as required to identify surface discontinuities.

PRIMARY FUNCTION Not required ATTRIBUTE TO BE VERIFIED Not' required

. SPECIFIED STANDARDS Not required REFERENCES -

' Not required

. DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Not required--

GROUP' CHAIRPERSON' - -

= PROGRAM MANAGER M C \ b% '

p VE J

- PE2873/2 P # r% - 4

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS) i TDI OWNERS GROUP for COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 CONNECTING R00 BEARING SHELLS T5 F6NENT PART NO. 02-3408 I INTRODUCTION The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group Program for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station requires Design and Quality Revalidation reviews of connecting rod bearing shells to determine the adequacy of their design for the intended use at Comanche Peak. The primary function of the connecting rod bearing shells is to provide a low friction sliding interface between the connecting rod and -the crankpin through the formation of a hydrodynamic oil film. .This interface transmits . the cylinder firing pressure to the crankshaft, converting the force into torque.

The connecting rod bearing shells are- manufactured by TDI. from permanent

. mold aluminum alloy 852-T5 castings purchased from ALC0A (Ref.1). The TDI part number for the components used at Comanche Peak is 02-340-04-AG.

II OBJECTIVE The objective -of this review was to evaluate the adequacy of the connecting rod -bearing shells for their intended service at the -Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Specifically, the ' following tasks were performed:

Journal orbit analysis -to determine the pressure distribution in the -

~

hydrodynamic oil film.

Finite element analysis to -determine the' stress distribution in the connecting rod bearing shells.

Fracture mechanics. analysis - to determine the resistance to fatigue cracking.

Computation of acceptance- criteria- for radiographic. NDE of-

-. connecting rod bearing shells.

Evaluation of material-selection and dimensional accura'cy.

l

A review of maintenance procedures.

l l

1

- TDIO896/1 =l I

k

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS) 4 Page 2 of 3 h A review of Comanche Peak site, nuclear, and non-nuclear experience.

A review of the Quality Revalidation Checklist results for l acceptability. ;

III METHODOLOGY t-l As described in Reference 1, the design review of connecting. rod bearing shells consisted of several steps. First, laboratory investigations of

. wear patterns,. chemical, metallurgical and physical properties were conducted._ A journal orbit analysis, using dimensions, weights, and i ~ weight distributions for DSRV-16-4 engines, as well as engine operation parameters, was performed. The output of the journal orbit analysis,

!. 'which -is the pressure distribution in the oil film under conditions of sideal geometry,. wa's modified based on observed babbit contact patterns to provide input data to the finite element analysis using the ANSYS code.

The stress distribution computed by the finite element analysis was used to calculate the fatigue life of the connecting rod bearing shells based on nuclear site experience. The stress distribution was also used to calculate the maximum discontinuity that could be present without decreasing the fatigue resistance.

The' -material selection with was evaluated respect to friction coefficient, and resistance to corrosion, fatigue and wear. Dimensional accuracy was evaluated from TER inspection results.

Details of the methodology and analysis - are contained in Reference' 1.

The applicability of the analysis to Comanche Peak was determined.

The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Component Tracking System was reviewed for ' the Comanche Peak, nuclear, and non-nuclear industry experience.

, IV .'RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

' Calculation of the maxim.us ten'sile stress in the connecting rod bearing shells.in DSRV-16-4 engines, in~ combination with other. nuclear experience, L was used- to predict a fatigue life of - about 38,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months for the DSRV-16-4 be~aring shells (Ref.1 and 3). This fatigue life, which safely exceeds the expected ' usage of the engines 'during the operational = life of-the station, can be assured -if an approved radiographic procedure such' as:

~ Failure Analysis - Associates' " Radiographic Examination of ~ Diesel Engine .

Upper and Lower Bearing Shells," (Ref. 2) is followed.~

Design _ and operating parameters for the Comanche Peak DSRV-16-4 -engines (Ref.-:4) . were; compared to the generic analysis of- Ref. 1. Those parameters ~were- found to .be' within 5 percent of the generic case,

' confirming' the applicability of the genericianalysis to Comanche Peak.

TDIO896/2

- , . . . . , ,-.,-.,--.-c.v.-.,_--, .e ,t.-,-cmm , y4 , , - - - - . p -

. (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 3 of 3 The material selection was appropriate based on professional judgment and experience with similar bearings. Dimensional accuracy was verified as summarized in Appendix 8.

The wear resistance of the connecting rod bearings has been proven l adequate in nuclear experience, provided all TDI recommended lubricating l oil maintenance procedures (Ref. 4) are followed.

The connecting rod bearing shells should be inspected visually and dimensionally to verify lubrication maintenance which affects wear rate.

The visual and dimensional inspection of the bearing shells should be

conducted at the fuel outage which precedes 500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months of operation by at i.

least the sum of expected hours of operation in a LOOP /LOCA event plus the expected hours of operation between outages.

The information provided on the following TERs has-been reviewed and is consistent with the final conclusions of this report: 10-079, 10-008,10-026.

Quality Revalidation Inspection results identified in Appendix B have been reviewed and considered in the performance of this design review and the results are consistent with the final conclusions of this report.

Based _on the above review and assuming implementation of the radiographic acceptance criteria, it 'is concluded that the connecting _ rod bearing shells are acceptable for their ' intended ~use at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

V REFERENCES

1. Failure-. Analysis Associates, " Design Review of Connecting Rod Bearing Shells- for Transamerica Delaval. Enterprise Engines,"

FaAA-84-3-1, Palo Alto, California, March-12, 1984.

2. Failure Analysis. Associates, " Radiographic' Examination of Diesel Engine Upper and -Lower' Bearing Shells," NDE' 9.3, Palo Alto, California, February 6, 1984.

3. FaAA Support' Package No. SP-84-3-1(b).

4. TDI-Instruction Manual for Comanche Peak DSRV-16-4 Diesel Generators.

TDIO896/3

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix A Page Al of 2 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPONENT Connectina Rod Bearing Shells CLASSIFICATION TYPE _A_

COMPONENT PART NUMBER 02-3408 TASK DESCRIPTION NO.: DR-10-02-3408-1 (SNPS PART NUMBER 03-3408)

TASK DESCRIPTIONS:

Compare and evaluate differences in design and operating conditions which are site specific.

Review NDE and other inspection results.

Review information provided on TERs.

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Provides hydrodynamic oil film sliding surface a'nd load transmi tion between connecting rod and crankpin.

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED:

Corrosion, fatigue, and wear resistance.

Coefficient of friction, dimensional accuracy, operation parameters.

SPECIFIED STANDARDS:

None.

e e

TDIO199/1

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix A Page A2 of 2 l

REFERENCES:

None.

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED:

Manufacturer's drawings, cylinder firing pressure, lubrication specifications, and reciprocating weights.

GROOPCHAIRPERSON: d/ =% PROGRAM MANAGER:

u v> n i

l I

I; L-l TDIO199/2 l

i:

1. +. !

r.-

3 (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix B Page B1 of 4 10-02-3408 COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Connecting Rod Bearing Texas Utilities Generating Co.,

COMPONENT Shells UTIILITY Comanche Peak Station GPL NO. 02-3408 REV. NO. 2 SNPS GPL NO. 03-3408

' TASK OESCRIPTIONS D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 l

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

. 2. Perform a visual inspection of .the connecting rod bearing shells.

. 3. . Perform a Liquid. Penetrant test on the connecting rod bearing l- shells, l-c 4. ' Perform a dimensional check of the connecting rod bearing shells.

5. Perform a Radiographic inspection of the connecting rod bearing p shells.

6. Perform an Eddy Current test as required to identify surface discontinuities.

p D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

, Same as 0.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 l

-ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

! 1. Quality status of Component Document Package 2-3. Surface integrity of bearing shells

.4.. Proper bearing shell dimensions

5-6. Integrity of the bearing shells TDIO295/1 l

t

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B2 of 4 10-02-3408 ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED (continued)

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 Same as D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. Satisfactory Document Package 2-3. Review of inspection report by Design Group

4. Dimensions are in accordance with the TDI Instruction Manual 5-6. Review of inspection report by Design Group D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 Same as D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 REFERENCES

'D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020 2-3. Approved Site NDE Procedures

4. TDI' Instruction Manual orfapplicable drawing

5. Approved Site NDE procedure

6. FaAA-NDE Procedure 9.2 D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 Same as D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED 0.G.- CP1-MEDGEE 1. 0ocument Summary Sheet TDIO295/2-

" ' ' ' - w- --r--,,-

M 'T= ' * = T 9e 'g y%e = w -e ,,m - y.._y,. w , - g-,**,+ , -,_w-.g,y .,y ._-y, y- ,

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

, COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B3 of 4 10-02-3408 DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED (continued)

, .D.G.-CP1-MEDGEE 01 (continued) 2-6. Inspection Report D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 Same as D.G._CP1-MEDGEE-01 GROUP' CHAIRPERSON a PROGRAM MANAGER g id ,,

t W'

COMPONENT REVIEW D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. All EDGCTS site experience documents were assembled and reviewed with unsatisfactory results. NCR 80-00220 remains open.

2. A visual inspection was performed with unsatisfactory results. This was reported by TER# 10-008 and dispositioned by NCR 84-0076.

L 3. A Liquid Penetrant test was performed with unsatisfactory results.

This was reported by TER# 10-026 and dispositioned by NCR 84-0076.

4. A dimensional check was performed with results reported by TERs#

10-026 and 10-008.

'5.. A Radiographic test was performed with unsatisfactory results. This

. was reported by TER# 10-026.

6. An Eddy Current test was performed on selected bearings with satisfactory results as reported by TER# 10-026.

, D.G. CP1-MEDGEE 1. All EDGCTS site experience documents were assembled and . reviewed' with unsatisfactory.results. NCR 80-00220 remains open.

2. .A visual inspection..was performed with unsatisfactory results.

Subsequently, the-- bearing shells with indications were replaced due to the Radiographic. test results. This was reported by TER# 10-079.

3. A Liquid Penetrant test was performed. Unsatisfactory bearing shells were replaced because of the Radiographic test results. This was reported by TER# 10-079.

4.- A. dimensional check was performed with satisfactory results.

This was reported by TER# 10-079.

TDIO295/3

c:

(REFEREMCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B4 of 4 10-02-340B COMPONENT REVIEW (continued)

D.G.-CP1-MEDGEE-02 (continued)

5. A Radiographic test was performed with unsatisfactory results.

Bearing shells with indications were replaced with new bearing shells. This was reported by TER# 10-079.

6. An Eddy Current test was not required. This was reported by TER#

10-079.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 The- Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, is complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 Same as D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 GROUP CHAIRPERSON /[e5 /7 bbY PROGRAM MANAGER Y N % x G

l l

e TDIO295/4 i

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

TDI OWNERS GROUP for SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 CONNECTING ROD BEARING SHELLS COMPONENT PART NO. 03-340-B I -INTRODUCTION The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group Program for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station requires Design and Quality Revalidation reviews of the connecting rod bearing shells to determine the adequacy of its design for the intended use at Shoreham. The primary function of the connecting rod bearing shells is to provide a low-friction sliding interface between the connecting rod and the crankpin, through the formation of a hydrodynamic. oil film, which transmits the cylinder firing pressure to the crankshaft, converting the force into torque.

The connecting rod bearing shells are manufactured by TDI i from permanent mold - aluminum alloy B-852-T5 castings purchased from ALC0A (Ref. 1). The TDI part number for the components used at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is 03-340-05-AE.

II OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to evaluate _the adequacy of the connecting rod bearing shells for their intended service l

at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. _Specifically, the L objective was to perform the following analyses:

o Journal orbit analysis to determine the pressure distribution in the hydrodynamic oil film.

o- Finite element analysis to determine the stress distribution in the connecting rod bearing shells.

o Fracture mechanics analysis to determine the resistance to fatigue cracking.

o Computation of acceptance criteria for radiographic NDE of connecting rod bearing shells, o Evaluation of babbitt adhesion.

o A review of maintenance-procedures, o A review of nuclear, non-nuclear and Shoreham site

. experience.

TDI4-231

$ (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

~

Page 2 of 3 III METHODOLOGY As described in Reference.1 Report on connecting rod bearing

shells, the analysis consisted of several steps. First, laboratory investigation of wear patterns, chemical,

! ' metallurgical and physical properties, and fracture surface morphology .were conducted. Journal orbit analysis- using

, dimensions, weights and weight distributions confirmed by direct measurement at Shoreham, as well as engine operating L parameters from the Shoreham engines, was performed. The

[ output of the journal orbit analysis, which is the pressure distribution in the oil film under conditions of ideal l

geometry, was modified based on observed babbitt contact

! patterns to. provide the input data to finite element 2

~ analysis using the ANSYS code. The stress distribution computed by the finite element analysis was used to calculate the fatigue life of the connecting rod bearing i shells based on the Shoreham experience with the bearing s _ shells, and to calculate the maximum discontinuity that could be present without decreasing the fatigue resistance.

The influence of babbitt adhesion was aslessed by inspection of bearing shells with marginal babbit adhesion- after significant_ exposure to operating conditions in the Shoreham 1

diesel engines.

Details of the methodology and analysis are contained ~-in the Reference 1 Reports.

' IV RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS _:

Comparison of the-maximum tensile stress in the original and-the current ~ connecting rod ~ bearing shells at Shoreham .shows that the stress is reduced.by_50' percent.in the replacement bearing shells (Ref. 1). This result was used,to_ predict a -

~ fatigue life of about 38,000_ hours for the current bearing shells. This fatigue . life, which safely exceeds the expected-usage of the engines during the 40-year operational

-life of the plant.(Ref. 1), can be assured 1f an approved

^..

radiographic procedure ~such as Failure Analysis Associates

' " Nondestructive Examination of Diesel Engine Upper and Lower Bearing: Shells"'(Ref. 2).followed. This procedure has been reviewed and. approved by LILCO, and is followed at Shoreham.

The recommendation is implemented in E&DCR F-46505 (Ref. 4).

Babbitt. adhesion was found to be adequate for successful z

functioning- - of ' the connecting rod bearing shells at

'Shoreham. The normal inspection intervals .are. adequate _ to monitor performance of the babbitt overlay.

Quality Revalidation Inspection .results identified 'i n Appendix _B have been reviewed and considered .in the

performance' of- this design review and the results' are consistent'with the final conclusions of this report.

TDI4-231

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 3 of 3 Based on the above review and implementation of the radiographic acceptance criteria, it is concluded that the connecting rod bearing shell is acceptable for its intended design function at Shoreham.

V REFERENCES 1.- Failure Analysis Associates, " Design Review of Connecting Rod Bearing Shells for Transamerica Delaval Enterprise Engines". FaAA-84-3-1, Palo Alto, California, March 12, 1984.

i

2. Failure Analysis Associates, " Radiographic Examination of Diesel Engine Upper and Lower Bearing Shells", NDE 9.2, Palo Alto, California, February 6, 1984.

~

3. FaAA Support Package No. SP-84-3-1.

4. E&DCR F-46505

, TDI4-231

v (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

APPENDIX A Page Al of 2 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST COMPONENT Connecting Rod Bearing Shells CLASSIFICATION A_

PART NUMBER. 03-340-B TASK DESCRIPTION:

-Obtain.and review pressure vs crank angle data. Perform journal orbit . analysis, . finite. element analysis, and fracture mechanics life estimate. . Determine maximum void size in castings. Examine GGNS bearing shells. Evaluate- babbit adhesion and thickness variation effects. Evaluate maintenance procedures.

Review .information provided on TERs: Q-42, Q-47, Q-69, Q-182, Q-216.-Q-221, Q-303, Q-312, Q-332, Q-334, Q-359, Q-372, Q-436, Q-447, Q-485,- DR-34, DR-110, DR-248, Q-505.

PRIMARY-FUNCTION:

Provides hydrodynamic oil film sliding surface and load transmission betweer connecting rod and crankpin.

ATTRIBUTE TO BE VERIFIED: ,

Corrosion, fatigue, and wear resistance. Coefficient of

. friction, dimensional accuracy, operation parameters.

SPECIFIED' STANDARDS:

None

REFERENCES:

Seismic Qualification Review, TDI Emergency Diesel Generators at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. " Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Shoreham Project Job Book No. 244.7.

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED::

Manufacturer.s' drawings, cylinder. . firing pressure, lubrication specifications.and reciprocating weights.

~

' GROUP CHAIRPERSON / PROGRAM MANAGER

,014- m perdy v' * ~

w 1

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page A2 of 2 APPENDIX A COMPONENT REVIEW:

Journal orbit analysis to determine the pressure distribution in the hydrodynamic oil film.

Finite element analysis to determine the stress distribution in the connecting rod bearing shell.

Fracture mechanics analysis to determine the resistance to fatigue cracking.

Computation of acceptance criteria for radiographic NDE of connecting rod bearing shells.

Evaluation of babbitt adhesion.

A review of maintenance procedures.

A review of nuclear, non-nuclear and Shoreham site' experience.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the above review and implementation of the radiographic acceptance criteria, it is concluded that the connecting rod bearing shells are acceptable for their intended design function at Shoreham.

Seismic qualification for the connecting rod bearing shells is addressed in " Seismic Qualification Review, TDI Emergency Diesel Generators at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, " Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Shoreham Project Job Book No. 244.7.

GROUP CHAIRPERSON _ PROGRAM MANAGER pg4 u "r ~

TDI4-231

, (REFEREECES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix B Page B1 of 5 COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST

^

[

COMPONENT Connecting Rod Bearing Shells DOCUMENT NO. QR-03-340B

- PART NO. 03-340B INCORPORATES DOC. NOS. QR-1,Rev.1,QR-2,QR-3 1

1 f -

TASK DESCRIPTIONS -

-ENGINE 101

-1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

' 2. Perform a Radiographic Test on the connecting rods 1 through 8.

i; _

3. Perform a Liquid Penetrant Test on all the connecting rod bearing shell surfaces (Thoroughly clean with solvent only the bearing shell 0.D.

~

l for all 8 cylinders.

Do not use any form of abrasive cleaner.)

4. Perform a visual inspection of the connecting rod bearing on the upper shell of

! cylinder 8.

ENGINE 102

-1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2. Perform.a Radiographic Test on the connecting rods 1 through 8. .

I

3. . Perform Liquid Penetrant Test on all the connecting rod. bearing shell surfaces for cylinders 5, 7 and.8. (Thoroughly clean with solvent only the bearing shell 0.D.

, Do not use any form of abrasive cleaner.)

ENGINE 103

, )i>

1. Assemble and review existing documentation. .

2. Perform a' Radiographic Test on the connecting rods 1 through 8.

L 3. - -Perform a Liquid Penetrant' Test on all the connecting rod bearing shell surfaces

for-all 8 cylinders. (Thoroughly cleaning with solvent only the bearing shell 0.D. Do not use any form of f abrasive cleaner.)

^

I SPARES

.1.' . Perform a material analysis of the connecting rod bearing shells.

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED ENGINE 101 ,

1.- Quality status of Component Document Packago

2. Internal discontinuities.are within engineering guidelines for the' connecting rod bearing shells.

-3.- ' Surface integrity of the connecting rod bearing shells

4. - Surface integrity of the cylinder.8 on the upper connecting rod bearing shell'

[ ENGINE 102

'1. Quality status of Component Doc'paent Package 2.. Internal discontinuities are within engineering guidelines for the: connecting rod.

bearing shells.

3. LSurface. integrity of;the connecting rod bearing shells k .

' *~ '

1 .

-s,

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS) a 1 COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B2 of 5 QR-03-340B

s ! ,-

l' t' ; .. ,

. ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED (continued)

ENGINE 103

1. ~ Quality status of. Component Document Package

. 2.- Internal. discontinuities are within engineering guide lines for connecting rod bearing shells.

3. Surface integrity of connecting rod bearing shells

-SPARES

1. Material of the connecting rod bearing shells

~ ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

. ENGINE 101

1. Satisfactory Document Package

. 2-4. Review of Inspection Report by Design Group ENGINE 102

, . 1. . Satisfactory Document Package Review of Inspection Report by Design Group '

2-3.T. '. 6 ENGINE 103 r .

1'- .. Satisfactory Document Package

[s/f'" 2-3.: -Review of Inspection Report by Design Group I ' SPARES

. . I' . Review of Inspection Report by Design Group REFERENCES ~

s- ENGINE 101 .

1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

.2.- SH1-089. applicable Site / Vendor Documents. FaAA Bearing Report, AlcoaIDesign Manual', TERs DR-110,'Q-91.

3.: .

TERs Q-216, DR-34, Q-91, LILCO Approved Inspection Procedures

-4. TER DR-248, LILCO Approved Inspection Procedures

' ENGINE 102 I:

1.. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. TER DR-110, SH1-089, applicable Site / Vendor Documents, FaAA Bearing Report, Alcoa f

Design Manual

.3. -.LILCO-Approved Inspection Procedures

~,- *

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS) -

l J COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B3 of 5 QR-03-340B 3.-

~'N% REFERENCES (continued).

.;r

. ENGINE 103

1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. :TERs DR-110, Q-91, SH1-089, applicable Site / Vendor Documents, FaAA Bearing Report, Alcoa Design Manual

. 3. - TER Q-91 LILCO Approved Inspection Procedures SIARES I I

1. LTER.Q-485

_ DOCUMENTATION-REQUIRED

_ ENGINE 101 1., Document Sumary Sheet j 2-4. Inspection Report

.c s 4 ENGINE 102 *L 1.- Document ~ Summary Sheet 4

.2-3. Inspection Report ,

ENGINE 103 1.- Document [SummaryShtet - '"

2-3.- ' Inspection Report s

SPARES ,

1.- Inspection Report-GROUP CHAIRPERSON PROGRAM MANAGER- 4 y ___ , . -

g' a COMPONENT REVIEW ,

' ~

n;g

~

ENGINE'101-- .

., g: [ . .,

1. All' preassably EDGCTS :Shorehss, experience document:5 were assembled 7and reviewed -

-with:satisfrictory results. '? "*

2. ' All~ sixteehfb earing shells were % >itet to Radiographic Examination, five findings.

T, -were reported'by.TER Q-372. T*i w

ts Uspositioned by. LDR- 2291: rsa.nd remains open.

y,j ., ' +l h_ ,

\

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

- COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B4 of 5 QR-03-340B

^

COMPONENT REVIEW (continued)

ENGINE 101 (continued)

{

3. Liquid Penetrant Examination was performed on fif teen of sixteen shells. The upper shell for cylinder 8 was rejectable upon visual examination as reported by 5 TER Q-312. The other fifteen evidenced indications as reported by TER Q-332 and dispositioned by LDR 2278. The Eddy Current Examination showed that indications were cosmetic in nature and acceptable for use. LDR 2265 was generated to disposition the failed cylinder 8 shell (Q-312) which was' replaced. The failed shell was forwarded to the Design Group for further analysis.

4. Visual inspection of cylinder 8 upper shell reported by Q-312 as noted above.

~

ENGINE 102

1. All preassembly EDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed

" with satisfactorf results with the exception of LDR 2119 which remains open.

" 2. All sixteen bearing shells were subject to Radiographic Examination. Thirteen vere accepted and three were rejected. All results were reported by TER Q-64.

LDR 2119, generated for Liquid Penetrant indications recommends replacement of these three shells. Rejected shells were forwarded to Design Group for further analysis.

3. Liquid Penetrant Examination was performed on the six referenced shells with three displaying indications. These results were dispositioned by LDR 2119.

ENGINE 103

1. All preassembly EDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed with satisfactory results.

h 2. . All sixteen bearing shells were subject to Radiographic Examination.

Seven shells evidenced findings as reported by TER Q-182 with disposition recorded

[ by LDR 2210. LDR 2210 remains open.

3. Liquid Penetrant Examination was performad on all sixteen shells with satisfactory results on all surfaces of all shells.

SPARES 1.~ Material analysis was performed on connecting rod bearing shells as reported by TER Q-505.

E RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

{

ENGINE 101 2

The Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, is.

complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their

- evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

u t

n ti . _

*- (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

L. :

COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B5 of 5 QR-03-340B e RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS (continued)

ENGINE 102 Same as Engine 101

, ~ ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 SPARES Same as Engine 101 I

- , A R -

GROUP CHAIRPERSON PROGRAM MANAGER MI h

( / ) q c l:

t

.~)*

r f'

s 4

_~

l-DG6 Hot List-

.i-5

.- w (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 1 of 2 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT 1

~

Rocker Shaft Assemblies:

Intake / Intermediate &

COMPONENT Exhaust UTILITY Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

b ' GROUP PARTS LIST NO. 02-390A&8 TASK DESCRIPTION NO. DR-03-02-390A&B-0 i

? SNPS'GPL NO. 03-390A&8 CLASSIFICATION TYPE 8

. ' TASK DESCRIPTIONS L . . .

i Design review for this component is not required based on the following:

l-

. A review of the Comanche Peak and Shoreham DR/QR reports, . which establish the acceptability of the rocker shaft assemblies for

! their intended purpose.

!~

. A review of nuclear and non nuclear industry experience listed in the EDG Component Tracking System indicated there had been no design related failures associated with this component. -There is no site

. experience listed in the Component Tracking System.

l L

There are no maintenance or modification recommendations > for this component.

The following Quality Revalidation inspection recommendations are made to l

' ensure proper component quality and-performance:

. Perform -a visual inspection' (both engines) of the intake,'intermedi-E '*m ate and exhaust rocker 'ars . assemblies for signs 'of distress, linear-

-indications and chipped pieces' in the swivel pads and outer lips 'of i- 4 the pushrod cups. The-lips should be~ flush in the assembly.

< + Perform a material comparator test .on one intake / intermediate rocker l .. ars shaft and one exhaust rocker. arm,s. haft (one. engine only).

I PRIMARY FUNCTION.

-Not required.

PE2875/1'

r=

g (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST Page 2 of 2 DR-03-02-390A&B-0

; ATTRIBUTE TO BE VERIFIED Not required I

SPECIFIED STANDARDS Not required-REFERENCES Not required

< - DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED Not required 1 GROUP CHAIRPERSON N PROGRAM MANAGER M W h ~

4 V V' O I

I f

PE2875/2:

a' -

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGYNE REPORTS)

TDI OWNERS GROUP for.

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNIT 1 INTAKE / INTERMEDIATE AND EXHAUST ROCKER SHAFT ASSEMBLIES CuriNNENT PART N0s. 02-390A and 02-3908

'I INTRODUCTION The-TOI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group Program for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station requires a Design and Quality Revalidation review to determine the adequacy of the intake / intermediate and exhaust rocker shaft assemblies for their intended use at Comanche Peak. The pri-

- mary ' function of the intake / intermediate and exhaust rocker shaft assen-blies is to translate the motion of the_ main pushrods into the reciprocating motion of the intake and exhaust valves and ~ connector pushrod. The part numbers for the rocker shafts as assigned by the manufacturer, TOI, are 1A-5532 and 1A-5465. '

II OBJECTIVE The -objective is to. evaluate the adequacy of the rocker ~ shafts for their

. intended use at Comanche Peak. Specifically, the following ' tasks . were performed:

Review of Comanche Peak site, nuclear and non-nuclear industry.

Evaluation of state of stress in rocker shaft assemblies.

-Evaluation of resistance to bending and fatigue.

Review of pushrod socket installation.

Evaluation of load in rocker are assembly and pushrod sockets.

. Evaluation of rocker shaft Lsupports.

T Review:of Quality Revalidation Checklist- results- for acceptability.

III- METH000 LOGY'

-The,EmergencyiDiesel Generator Component Tracking System records for

-Comanche Peak were reviewed to determine the nuclear, non-nuclear, and -

' specific Comanche Peak experience of the rocker shaft assemblies.'

The calculations-. .for loads ' and stresses of - rocker arms at the ShorehamL Nuclear Power Station' were ^used for. this analysis. The rocker ' arms used

- at Comanche Peak are nearly identical to those used at Shoreham with any

~. differences being ' judged ' inconsequential- ~ to the results 'of; these calculations _(Ref. _1).

TDIO900/1' 4

'h (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 2 of 3 A theoretical model was developed to compute the dynamic response of the valve systems, and to estimate the pushrod, rocker arm, and shaft forces. These forces were used to conduct a stress analysis of the rocker shaft assemblies, and to evaluate their resistance to fatigue.

The bearing stresses on the rocker shaft support were calculated in order to verify that resistance to lateral loads on the rocker arms is provided by 1) the friction forces between the rocker support and shaft assemblies, and 2) the rocker shaft and support dowel and not by bearing

[ between the rocker shaft bolt and the support.

- IV RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The ;maximua pushrod and rocker arm forces were computed (Ref. 2). These

forces were used to compute the peak shear and bending stresses in the rocker shaft assemblies. The maximum shear stress. was found to be 7.9

ksi, and the maximum bending stress was found conservatively to be 24 ksi. These are both below the endurance limit stresses of 19.2 ksi for shear and 30 ksi for bending (Ref. 2).

Conservative stress analysis of the intake, intermediate, and exhaust

, rocker arms indicate a minimum factor of safety against failure of 1.1 1

(Ref. 2). The forces acting on the pushrod sockets induce stresses in the sockets (59.2 ksi max, Ref. 2) which are below the allowable of 200 1

ksi.

The capscrew (P/N 02-390-05-AA) connecting the rocker shaft to the rocker support is torqued _to 365 ft-lb (Ref. 2), . which develops a tensile preload of .21.9 . kips (Ref. 2). This is sufficient to provide frictional resistance to'-lateral forces on the intake rocker-side of both rocker shaft _ assemblies. On the other side- (intermediate rocker), the support dowel -(P/N.- 03-362-01-08) is engaged by the rocker s. haft end, and transfers the ' shear from the rocker shaft to the sub-base assembly boss.

~

1The shear resistance supplied by friction at this end is minimal, due to the uplift forces on the rocker ~ shaft by the main exhaust -and

' intermediate pushrods (Ref. 2),'and calculations ' indicate that these shear stresses exceed the endurance limit stress for the dowel at full l engine load (Ref. 2). However, .there is no.' evidence (nuclear ~or non-nuclear)~ indicating- dowel failures.- Specifically, . Shoreham.

experience indicates that approximately 400 ~ hours (Ref. 3 and 4)- have been logged on these dowels at ' full engine load. Recognizing that the pushrod loads 'and material strengths used in the calculations - may 'be conservative, and that ~ the ' dowels have been subjected to more than- 5 x .

' 108 cycles at full load without failures, it is. concluded that the dowels

. ~ are capable of' transferring the shear ' loads to the sub-base assembly.

.The Linformation provided on the following TERs has been reviewed and 'is

. consistent' with the final conclusions of- this report: 10-005, 10-006,10-097.

~ ; Quality . Revalidation Inspection results identified in'. Appendix' B have been -reviewed ' and considered in the performance of this review. .These results are consistent with the final conclusion of this report.

TDIO900/2

. = __ _ _ _ . _

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 3 of 3 Based - on the above design review, it is concluded that the intake / intermediate and exhaust rocker shaft assemblies are acceptable for their intended design function at Comanche Peak.

V REFERENCES

1. FaAA Report No. 84-6-2(a). "TDI Owners Group for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1--Intake / Intermediate and Exhaust Rocker Shaft Assemblies - Components Nos. 03-390A and 03-3908," 06/29/84.

2. " Rocker Shaft Assembly Support Packag6," SP-84-6-2(a).

3. " Emergency Diesel Generator Crankshaft Failure Investigation - Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," FaAA report

83-10-2.1.

4. " Evaluation of Emergency Diesel Generator Crankshaft at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," FaAA report #84-3-16.

T

- TDIO900/3

, "l (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix A Page Al of 2 1 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST TEXAS UTILITIES Rocker Arms and Pushrods

, Intake / Intermediate Exhaust v . COMPONENT Rocker Shaft Assemblies CLASSIFICATION TYPE B COMPONENT PART NUMBER 02-390A&B TASK DESCRIPTION N0: DR-10-02-390A&B-1

= (SNPS PART NUMBER 03-390A&B)

TASK DESCRIPTIONS:

i Evaluate rocker shaft assembly stresses.

Review pushrod socket installation.

Review information provided on TERs.

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Actuate intake valves, exhaust valves, and intermediate pushrods.

4 ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED:

Review loads, rocker arm assembly and pushrod cups SPECIFIED STANDARDS:

t-l ~ None.

L

REFERENCES:

b None..

')..

l.

l

- TDIO189/1

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix A Page A2 of 2 DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED:

Valve and pushrod loading, installation drawings.

GROUP CHAIRPERSON: 4/, I PROGRAM MANAGER: 2bws% u D

t

','i TDI0189/2

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix B Page B1 of 3 10-02-390A COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Rocker Arms & Pushrods -

. Intake and Intermediate Texas Utilities Generating Co.,

COMPONENT Rocker Shaft Assembly UTILITY Comanche Peak Station 1

GPL NO. 02-390A REV. NO. 2

.SNPS GPL NO. 03-390A TASK OESCRIPTIONS 0.G.' CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. Assemble and. review existing documentation.

2. Perform a visual inspection of the intake and intermediate rocker arm-assembly for signs of distress, linear indications and chipped pieces in the outer lips of the pushrod cups.

3. Determine the material of one rocker arm assembly.

0.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2. Perform a visual inspection of the-intake and intermediate rocker arm.

assembly .for signs of - distress, linear indications, and chipped pieces in the outer lips of the pushrod cups.

ATTRIBUTES'TO BE VERIFIED D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. Quality status of Component Document Package

2. Surface integrity of the rocker arm assembly

3. Material of rocker are assembly D.G; CP1-MEDCEE-02

1. -Quality status of Component Document Package

2. iSurface integrity.of the rocker arm assembly TDIO308/1

.. d

.1 (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page 82 of 3 10-02-390A

' ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

^

1. . Satisfactory Document Package

2. No linear indications / chipped pieces in the outer lips of the pushrod cups -

~3. Material to be AISI-4142 D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. Satisfactory Document Package

, 2. No linear indications / chipped pieces in the outer lips of the pushrod

-cups.

REFERENCES D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

g. .

1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020 L2-3. -Approved Site NDE Procedures D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. -QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. . Approved Site NDE Procedures r

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. . Document Summary Sheet 2-3. Inspection Report-f: D.G..CP1-MEDGEE-02 L- 1. Document Summary Sheet l 2. Inspection Report i

l TDIO308/2 t

t'

. , - ~ , . . . . - .-

, ...n--~ - . . - , - ,

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page 83 of 3 10-02-390A GROUPCHAIRPERSONh W" PROGRAM MANAGER [ =

5%

UVf COMPONENT REVIEW D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. No EDGCTS site experience documents are in evidence.

2. . A visual inspection was performed with unsatisfactory results. This was reported by TER# 10-006.

3. The material was determined by use of a material comparitor test.

This was reported by TER# 10-005.

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. No EDGCTS site experience documents are in evidence

2. A visual inspection was performed with satisfactory results. This was reported by TER# 10-097.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION L 0.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 The Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, is complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 Same as D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 GROUP CHAIRPERSON M ,4 MN ~

PROGRAM MANAGER !

U'y xx l

{

TDIO308/3 t-

, (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix B Page 81 of 4 10-02-3908 COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Rocker Arms & Pushrods - .

Exhaust Rocker - Texas Utilities Generating Co.,

COMPONENT Shaft Assembly UTIILITY Comanche Peak Station GPL'NO. d2-3908 REV. NO. 2 SNPS GPL NO. 03-390B TASK DESCRIPTIONS D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2. Perform._a visual inspection of the intake and intermediate rocker arm assembly for signs of distress, linear indications, and chipped pieces in the outer lips of the pushrod cups.

3. Determine the material of one rocker arm assembly.

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2. Perform a visual inspect.1on of the intake and intermediate rocker arm assembly for signs of distress,_ linear indications, and chipped pieces .in the outer lips of the pushrod cups.

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

~1. Quality status of Component Document Package

2. Surface integrity of the rocker, arm assembly

3. Material of rocker arm assembly TOIO309/1 L

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B2 of 4 10-02-3908 i

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED (continued)

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

. - 1. Quality status of Component Document Package

2. Surface integrity of rocker arm assembly ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 0.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

1. Satisfactory Document Package

~

2. No linear indications / chipped pieces in t.ie outer lips of the pushrod cups.

3. Material to be AISI-4142 D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. Satisfactory Document Package .

2.- No linear indications / chipped pieces in the outer lips of the pushrod cups.

REFERENCES 0.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

. 1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020 2-3. Approved Site NDE Procedures-D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 i

1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. Approved Site NOE Procedures 6

(

TDI0309/2

n (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page 83 of 4 10-02-3908 DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 l

1. Document Summary Sheet .

~2-3. Inspection Report D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. Document Summary Sheet

2. Inspection Report GROUP CHAIRPERSON / PROGRAM MANAGER Z h m o

i

-COMPONENT REVIEW p D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01

'1. No EDGCTS site experience documents are in evidence.

2. A visual inspection was performed with satisfactory results as re-

' ported by TER# 10-055.

3. The material was determined by use of a material comparator test.

This was reported by TER# 10-005.

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02

1. No EDGCTS site experience documents are in evidence.

2. A visual inspection was performed with satisfactory results as re-ported by TER# 10-097.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 The Quality Revalidation . effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, 'is complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

TDIO309/3

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT QUALITY REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B4 of 4 10-02-3908 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION (continued)

D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-02 l

Same as D.G. CP1-MEDGEE-01 GROUP CHAIRPERSON M[/5 A El4/T PROGRAM MANAGER c.Z h %)

1 e

9 i

i TOI0309/4

7 (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

TDI' OWNERS GROUP for SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT 1 INTAKE / INTERMEDIATE AND EXHAUST ROCKER 5 HAFT A5SEMBLIES COMPONENT PART NO. 03-390-A and B I INTRODUCTION The TDI Emergency Diesel Generator Owners Group Program for

the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station requires Design and Quality Revalidation reviews to determine the adequacy of the intake / intermediate and exhaust rocker shaft assemblies for their intended use at Shoreham. The primary function of the intake / intermediate and exhaust rocker shaft assemblies is.to actuate the intake valves and connecting pushrod to pen the exhaust' valves by transmitting and changing the direction of motion from the camshaft. The part numbers for both rocker

. shaft cssemblies as assigned by the manufacturer, TDI, are

.1 A-5446 and :1 A-5465.

_II' O8JECTIVE-The--objective of this review is to evaluate the adequacy of i the rocker shaft assemblies for their intended use at Specifically, the following tasks were performed:

Shoreham.

o' Review of- nuclear, non-nuclear, and Shoreham site experience.

o -Evaluation of- state of stress in rocker shaft assemblies. .

1 o . Evaluation of-resistance to1 bending and fatigue.

o- . Review of pushro'd socket installation. ,

'o Evaluation of- load 'in rocker arm assembly and pushrod sockets..

Eo Evaluation'of rocker. shaft supports.

o Evaluation of the Quality Revalidation Checklist results:

~

. 'for, acceptability. ,

DR13-214-014

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 2 of 3 III METHODOLOGY The Emergency Diesel Generator Component Tracking System records for Shoreham were reviewed to determine the nuclear, non-nuclear, and specific Shoreham experience of the rocker shaft assemblies.

A theoretical model was developed to compute' the dynamic response of the valve systems, and to estimate the pushrod rocker arm, and shaf t forces. These forces were used to conduct a stress analysis of the rocker shaft assemblies and to evaluate the resistance to fatigue.

The bearing stresses on the rocker shaft support were calculated in order to verify that resistance to lateral loads on the rocker arms is provided by 1) the friction forces between the rocker support and shaft assembly, and 2) the rocker shaf t and support dowel and not by bearing between the rocker shaft bolt and the support.

IV RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The maximum pushrod and rocker arm forces were computed (Ref.

1). These forces were used to compute the peak shear and bending stresses in the rocker shaf t assemblies. The maximum shear stress was found to be 8.1 ksi, and the maximum bending stress was found to be 15.2 ksi. These are both below the endurance limit stress of 40 ksi (Ref. 1).

Conservative stress analysis of the intake, intermediate, and exhaust rocker arms indicate a minimum factor of safety against failure of 1.1 (Ref. 1). The forces acting on 'the pushrod sockets induce stresses in the sockets (8.8 ksi_ max,-

Ref. 1) which are below the allowable of 50 ksi.

The capscrew (P/N 02-390-01-0J) connecting the rocker shaft to the rocker support.is torqued to 365 ft-lb (Ref. 1), which develops a tensile preload of 21.9 kips (Ref. 1). This is sufficient to provide frictional resistance to lateral forces on the intake rocker-side of both rocker shaft assemblies.

On the other side (intermediate rocker), the support dowel (P/N 03-362-02-08) is engaged by the rocker shaft end,. and transfers the shear from the rocker shaft to the sub-base

. assembly boss. The shear resistance supplied by friction at this - end is minimal, due to the uplift forces on the rocker shaft by the main exhaust and intermediate pushrods (Ref. 1),

and calculations indicate that these shear stresses exceed the endurance limit stress for the dowel (Ref. 1). However, there- is no evidence (nuclear or non-nuclear) indicating dowel failures. Specifically, Shoreham experience indicates that' approximately 400 hours0.00463 days 0.111 hours 6.613757e-4 weeks 1.522e-4 months (Ref. 2 and 3) have been logged on.these dowels at full engine load, which exceeds the endurance limit for this material.

.DR13-214-014-u: a

r j (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Page 3 of 3 Quality Revalidation Inspection results identified in Appendix B have been reviewed and considered in the performance of this design review and the results are consistent with the final conclusions of this report.

Based on the above review, it is concluded that the intake / intermediate and exhaust rocker shaft assemblies are acceptable for their intended design functi.on at Shoreham.

V REFERENCES

1. " Rocker Shaft Assembly Support Package," SP-84-6-2(a).

2. " Emergency Diesel Generator Crankshaft Failure Investigation -

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," FaAA Report #83-10-2.1.

3. " Evaluation of Emergency Diesel Generator Crankshaft at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," FaAA Report #84-3-16.

}

, DR13-214-014 r.

t 4

~

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix A Page Al of 2 COMPONENT DESIGN REVIEW CHECKLIST

~

Rocker Arms and Pushrods Intake / Intermediate Exhaust

- COMPONENT- Rocker Shaft Assemblies CLASSIFICATION TYPE B PART NUMBER 03-390-A and 03-390-B TASK DESCRIPTION:

Evaluate rocker shaft assembly stresses.

Review pushrod socket installation.

Review information provided oon TERs: Q-43, Q-44, Q-70, Q-79, Q-126, Q-127, Q-131, Q-132, Q-133, Q-147, Q-148, Q-151, Q-175, Q-197, _ Q-199, Q-200, Q-201, Q-270, Q-278, Q-279, Q-280', Q-281, Q-295, Q-296, Q-297, Q-319, Q-346, Q-444, Q-481, Q-515 Q-516, DR-1, DR-24, DR-88, DR-170, DR-176, DR-195, DR-196,_DR-197, DR-198, DR-215, DR-224.

PRIMARY FUNCTION:

Actuate intake valves, exhaust valves, and intermediate pushrods ATTRIBUTE TO BE VERIFIED:

Review loads rocker arm assembly and pushrod sockets.

-SPECIFIED-STANDARDS:

None-

REFERENCES:

" Seismic-Qualification Review,.TDI Emergency Diesel Generators at' Shoreham Nuclear Power- Station " Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Shcreham Project. Job Book No. 244.7.

9-P l

DR13-214-014 r

E.' 8 i-.

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix A Page A2 of 2 00CUMENTATION REQUIRED:

Valve and pushrod loading, installation drawings.

s i . ,

GROUP CHAIRPERSON: PROGRAM MANAGER -

=

mr,y,Ha ( ) I k ygge COMPONENT REVIEW:

Review of nuclear, non-nuclear and Shoreham site experience.

Evaluation of state of stress in rocker shaft assemblies.

Evaluation of resistance to bending and fatigue.

Review of pushrod socket installation.

Evaluation of load in rocker arm assembly and pushrod sockets.

Evaluation of rocker shaft supports.

Evaluation of the Quality Revalidation Checklist results for

. acceptability.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:

The intake / intermediate / exhaust rocker shaft assemblies are acceptable for their intended design function at Shoreham.

Seismic qualification for the - intake / intermediate / exhaust is addressed in " Seismic Qualification Review, TDI Emergency Diesel Generators at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Shoreham Project Job Book No. 244.7.

A i s o n GROUP CHAIRPERSO PROGRAM MANAGER [ -

pm& u 't ~

OR13-214-014

- - ._ _ s.. - -_ _ _ - . - .

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

L: .

Appendix 5. Page B1 of 5

.- COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Rocker Arms & Fushrods - Intake &

Intermediate Rocker Shaft COMPONENT Assembly includina Capscrews DOCUMENT NO. QR-03-390A QR-1, Rev. 1; FART NO. 03-390A INCORPORATES DOC. NOS. QR-2. Rev. 1

.TASE DESCRIPTIONS ENGINE 101

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2.. Review the pushrod cup installation documentation and ensure the overhang is properly ground flush (TDI F/N 08-390-01-0F) for cylinders 3, 7 and 8.

3. Perform. visual inspections of cylinders 5, 7 and 8 intake and intermediate rocker arm assemblies for signs of debris, chipping, loose metal and damaged parts prior to subcover removal. Document with photographs.

4.- Determine the material and the hardness of both the shaft-(TDI F/N 03-390-01-0A) and the capscrews (TDI F/N 02-390-01-0J) for cylinders 5, 7, and 8.

'5. Perform visual inspections of intake and intermediate rocker arm assemblies for signs of wear & distress, cylinders 5, 7, 8.

6. Perform a dimensional inspection of the rocker are bushing bore, cylinders 5, 7, s . 8.

INGINE 102

1. Assemble and review existing documentation.

2. -Review the pushrod cup installation documentation and ensure the overhang is properly ground flush. (TDI F/N 08-390-01-0F)-for, cylinders 5, 7 and 8.

3. Determine material and hardness of the shaft (TDI F/N 03-390-01-0A) for cylinder 7.

4. Perform itsual inspections of intake and intermediate rocker are assemblies for signs of wear & distress, cylinders 5,'7, 8.

5. Perform dimensional inspection of rocker arm bushing bore, cylinders 5. 7, 8.

EDGthE 103 Some as. Engine 101 8.l.eEEE.

s .1. Perform material analysis of rocker are shaft

+

ATTRIBUTE 8 TO BE VERIFIED

'EN0INE 101'

1. Quality status of Vendor Component Package All. sockets (TDI F/N 08-390-01-0F) ground in accordance with TDI Letter April 15,

~

2.

'1983. L. McNugh to N. Rudikoff.

' 3. - Absence of debris, loose' metal and damaged parts in the rocker arm assemblies.

N 8

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

C,^HPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Paige B2 of 5 QR-03-390A ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED (continued)

ENGINE 101 (continued)

4. Proper material and hardness of the shaft (TDI P/N 03-390-01-0A) and capscrews-(TDI P/N 02-390-01-0J).

5. Visual integrity of the rocker arm assemblies

6. Dimensions of the rocker arm bushing bores ENGINE 102 -

1. Quality status of Vendor Component Package

2. All sockets (TDI P/N 08-390-01-OF) ground in accordance with TDI Letter April 15, 1983. L. McHugh to N. Rudikoff.

3. Proper material and hardness of the shaft (TDI P/N 03-390-01-0A)

4. Visual integrity of the rocker arm assemblies

5. Dimensions of the rocker arm bushing bores ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 SPARES

1. Materials of the rocker arm shaft ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ENCINE 101

1. Satisfactory Document Package 2-6. Review Inspection Report by Design Group ENGINE 102

1. Satisfactory Document Package 2-5. Review of Inspection Report by Design Group ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 SPARES

1. Review of Inspection Report by Design Group REFERENCES-ENGINE 101

1. QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. TER Q-91, LDRs 1851, 1252

3. LILCO approved inspection procedures, Q-126, Q-91

4. TERs Q-91, DR-33, Q-143, Q-16 DR-24

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

CONp0 NUT REVALIDATION CHECEIIST Page 33 of 5

' QR-03-390A

, REFERENCES (continued)

ENGINE 101 (continued)

5. TERs DR-24, Q-91

6. LDRs 1235,'1245 DGINE 102

1. -QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. -LDas 1252 & 1851, QR-1 Rev.1

3. TERs DR-24, Q-16, DR-33, Q-143

4. TER DR 5. LDRs 1234, 1245 WGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 DOCURIDTATION REQUIRD IIIGINE 101 1.. Document Summary Sheet 2-6. Inspection Report ENGINE 102

1. Document Summary Sheet 2-5. Inspection Report EllGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 SPARES e

1. Inspection Repo t GROUP CMAIRFERSON FROGRAN MAllAGER _[A I CONF 0NEll? REVIEW 991115 101

1. All. preassembly DCCTS Shoreham enperience documents were assembled and reviewed with satisfactory results.

2.' A visual inspection of the intake rocker are push rod cups was performed for cup overhang. The findings were reported by TER Q-346 and dispositioned by LDR 2279.

.The visual inspection of the intermediate rocker are pushrod cups was found to be.

satistsetory.

a

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMP 0ttENT REVALIDATI0tt CHECELIST Page B4 of 5 QR-03-390A CONF 0H DT REVIEW (continued)

ENGINE 101 (continued)

3. _ A visual examination was performed for debris, chipping.. loose metal, and damaged l parts. The findings were reported by TER Q-270 and dispositioned by LDR 2241.

4. Material tests were accomplished with a Bausch & Loeb 3600 Mobile Metal Analyser on the shaft and the (2) two capscrews for cylinders 5, 7 & 8. The results were

, reported by TER Q-295. Hardness Tests were performed with an Equotip hardness tester. The results of the hardness tests for shafts were reported by TER Q-319 and those for the capscrews were reported by TER Q-297.

5. A visual inspection was performed with findings reported by TER Q-280 and dispositioned by LDR 2246.

6. A dimensional inspection was performed as reported by TER Q-278.

SGINk 107

1. All preassembly EDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed with satisfactory results.

2. Positive verification of cups being ground flush was reported by TER DR-170 for cylinder 5 only. Documentation to support inspection of 7 & 8 was reported by TER Q-44 and dispositioned by LDR 2070.

3. Visual inspections of 5, 7 & 8 rocker arm assemblies were accomplished. The results were reported by TER Q-44 and dispositioned by LDR 2070.

4. Materials were determined by Bausch & Loeb 3600 Mobile Metal Analyser for cylinder 7. The results were reported by TER DR-197 for.the intake and intermediate shafts. Hardness tests were performed on the shafts for cylinder 7 ,

by use of an Equotip hardness tester as reported by TER DR-215.

5. A dimensional inspection was performed as reported by TER DR-170.

l

, ENGINE 103

1. All preassembly IDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed-as were done for Engine 101.

2. A visual inspection of the pushrod cups for overhang was satisfactory. The results

of the' inspection of intermediate for cylinders 5, 7 & 8 were reported by TER:

Q-131.

3. A visual inspection was performed for evidence of damaged parts. The results are reported by TER Q-147 and dispositioned on LDR 2194.

4. Materials were determined by Bausch & Loeb 3600 Mobile Metal Analyser. --The

(. results of the tests performed the on shafts were reported by TER Q-200. The test l results fer the capscrews were reported by TER Q-199. An Equotip hardness test was performed on the shafts and the capocrews for cylinders 5, 7'&-8. The results were reported by TER Q-175.

5. A visual inspection was performed with findings reported by TER Q-147 and-

,. dispositioned by LDR 2194. . .

6. A dimensional inspection was performed as reported by TER Q-133.

4 4' SPARES

'1. ~ Material analysis was performed on rocker are shaft as reported by TER Q-505.

., (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B5 of 5 QR-03-390A RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ENGINE 101 The Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, is complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

ENGINE 102 ,

Same as Engine 101 ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 SPARES Same as Engine 101

. . \

I GROUP CHAIRPERSON PROGRAM MANAGER h N C ( h t.a

[

h l

t

4 4 ' , .)

,r',,

t <

s

'l p DC3 Checklist 2 k

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

Appendix B Page B1 of 4 COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST ,,

dockerArm&Pushrods COMPONENT Exhaust Rocker Shaft Assembly DOCUMENT NO. QR-03-390B PART NO. 03-390B INCORPORATES DOC. NOS. QR-1

[

I TASK DESCRIPTIONS ENGINE 101

1. Assembic and review existing documentation.

Review the pushrod cup installation documentation and perform a visual inspection

~

2.

to verify the overhang is properly ground flush (TDI P/N 08-390-01-0F) for cylinders 5, 7, and 8.

3. Visually inspect the rocker arm shaft assembly for any signs of wear, scoring and pitting on cylinders 5, 7, and 8.

4. Measure rocker arm bushing bore on cylinders 5, 7 and 8.

5. Determine the material and hardness of the shaft (TDI P/N 03-390-01-0A)'for cylinders 5, 7, and 8.

ENGINE'102

1. As'semble and review existing documentation.

2. Review the pushrod cup installation documentation and perform a visual inspection to ensure the overhang is properly ground flush (TDI P/N 08-390-01-0F) for cylinders 5, 6, 7, and 8.

3. Visually inspect the rocker are shaft nssembly for any signs of wear, scoring and pitting on cylinders 5, 6, 7, and 8.

4. Measure rocker arm bushing bore on cylinders 5, 6, 7, and 8.

5. Determine the material and hardness of the shaft (TDI P/N 03-390-01-0A) for cylinder 7.

ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 104 i<

ATTRIBUTES TO BE VERIFIED ENGINE 101

1. Quality status of Component Document Package

2. Pushrod cup overhang properly ground flush

3. Absence of wear, scoring and pitting on the rocker arn shaft

4. Proper rocker arm bushing bore dimension

5. Proper material and hardness of the shaft (TDI P/N 03-390-01-0A) j!NCINE 102 Same as Engine 101 FNCINE 103 4

3 3 Same as Engine 101

_,. 't s

s b

(RFFEPI.NCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECELIST Page B2 of 4 QR-03-3903 9

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ENGINE 101

1. Satisfactory Document Package 2-5'. Review of Inspection Report by Design, Group ENCINE 102 Same as Engine 101 INCINE' 103 ,

.Same as Engine 101 W' REFERENCES ENGINE 101

1. QCI-FSI-Fil.1-020 2.. TERs Q-91, Q-444', Letter from W. Lenny McMugh (TDI) to Neil Rudikoff (LILCO) dated 4/15/83 (LDR 1252)

3. TERs Q-91 DR-88, DR-481

,";. 4. . TERs Q-91. DR-88, DR-481

'5. TERs Q-91, Q-143, Q-16, DR-88 ENGINE 102 m..

1. 'QCI-FSI-F11.1-020

2. TERs Q-444, Q-481, Letter from W.'Lenny McHufh (TDI) to Neil Rudikoff (LILCO)

. dated 4/15/83 (LDR 1252) 3.- TER DR-88

4. TERs DR-88,.Q-481

5. TERs DR-38. Q-16. Q-143, Q-481 ENGINE 103-y: Same as Engine-101 2 ;,

. DOCUMENTATION REQUIRES INCINE'101 ,

, 1. Document Summary Sheet: y 2-5. Inspection Report s

X- ENGINE 102

Same'as Engine 101 j s

4 g

+'

su:

.=_[

g3

= 1 -

, (REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B3 of 4 QR-03-3905 DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED (continued)

ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 GROUPCHAIRPERSON[ PROGRAMMANAGERI h z.! w.

COMPONENT REVIEW ENGINE-101

1. All preassembly EDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed with satisfactory results.

2. A review of pushrod cup installation documentation showed the overhang to be ground flush satisfactorily.

3. The rocker arm shaft assembly was visually inspected. The results were reported by TER Q-281 and dispositioned by LDR 2247.

4. The rocker arm bushing bore was measured. The results were reported by TER Q-279.

5. Materials were determined by use of a Bausch & Lomb 3600 Mobile Metal Analyzer.

Results for cylinders 5, 7 and 8 reported by TER Q-296. Equotip hardness tests

were performed on the shaft for cylinders 5, 7, and 8 and reported by TER Q-319.

The report was documented by TER Q-297.

ENGINE 102

1. -All preassembly EDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed with satisfactory results.

,.! 2. The pushrod cup overhang was inspected. The results were documented by TER

> DR-198.

3. A visual inspection of rocker arm shaft assembly was performed. The results were reported by TER DR-176.

4. The rocker arm bushing bores were measured. The results were reported by TER DR-198.

5. The materia'l of the shaft was determined by use of :he Technicorp Model 850/950 we Alloy Separator. This was reported by TER Q-79 (cylinder 7). An Equotip hardness test was performed. The results were reported by TER Q-79 (cylinder 7).

ENGINE 103

1. All. preassembly EDGCTS Shoreham experience documents were assembled and reviewed with satisfactory results.

2. -A visual inspection was performed on cylinders 5. 7 and 8 to ensure that the overhang is properly ground flush. Cylinders 7 and 8 were found satisfactory as reported by TER Q-132. Cylinder 5 was found unsatisfactory. This was reported by TER Q-132 and dispositioned by LDR 2184.

- 3. A visual-inspection of.the rocker _ arm shaft assembly was accomplished.

Unsatisfactory results for cylinder areas 5, 7 and 8 were reported by TER Q-148 and dispositioned by LDR 2195.

4. Rocker arm bushing bore-dimensions were taken and reported by TER Q-151.

5. . Materials were determined by use of a Baush and Lomb .3600 Mobile Metal Analyzer on the shafts for cylinders 5, 7 and 8._The results of this test are reported by TER

'Q-201. Equotip hardness tests were performed on the shafts for cylinders 5, 7 and 8 and reported by TER Q-175.

(REFERENCES TO LEAD ENGINE REPORTS)

COMPONENT REVALIDATION CHECKLIST Page B4 of 4 QR-03-390B RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ENGINE 101 The Quality Revalidation effort with respect to this component, as outlined above, is complete. The results have been forwarded to the Design Review Group for their evaluation and conclusions in support of the final report.

ENGINE 102 Same as Engine 101 ENGINE 103 Same as Engine 101 a 1.

dC

~

CROUP CRAIRPERSON PROGRAMMANAGERh/ g y u' c DG3 Checklist 2

, f ,y tr w - x -- ,-, -- - v. .- - . s. y

ML20101U280

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

Navigation menu

ML20101U280

Text

SUMMARY

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

REFERENCES:

Navigation menu

Search