ML20127G657

Forwards Vols 1-4 of Rev 1 to Tdi Diesel Generator Design Review & Quality Revalidation Rept. Areas of Tdi Owners Group Recommendations Still Being Evaluated.Quality Revalidation Items to Be Closed Out Prior to tie-in

ML20127G657
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	06/12/1985
From:	Reinaldo Rodriguez SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
To:	Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20127G660	List: ML20127G657
References
RJR-85-260, NUDOCS 8506260021
Download: ML20127G657 (10)

Text

.

Osuun SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT C : 6201 S Street. PO. Box 15830. Sacramento CA 95852 1830.1916) 452 3211 AN ELECTHIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA RJR 85-260 l

June 12, 1985 DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ATTENTION HUGH L. THOMPSON, JR., DIRECTOR DIVISION OF LICENSING U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-313' RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT N0. 1 INITIAL DR/QR REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO NRC'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 0F TDI DIESEL GENERATORS

REFERENCE:

(a)NRCletterdatedJanuary 31, 1984, from J. F. Stolz to R. J. Rodriguez;

Subject:

Request for additional information regarding TDI diesel generators Transmitted under separate cover, please find five (5) sets of the Design Review / Quality Revalidation (DR/QR) Report for the District's TDI diesel generators. These reports are forwarded for your review and evaluation.

The DR/QR report contains technical evaluations performed by the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group and results of Quality Revalidations conducted earlier this year by the District. The report also provides additional information related to the NRC's seventeen questions transmitted to the District in reference (a), please refer to the enclosure for details on which of the seventeen questions are addressed by the DR/QR report.

In preparing the Rancho Seco DR/QR report for transmittil to the NRC, the District has prepared separate Engineerinq Summary Reports for each component. These have been inserted immediately behind the component technical evaluations provided by the TDI Owners Group. Each sunmry indicates line item by line item how the District has addressed each of the Owners Group recommendations, f u./ . ig.f j i g., fab.+

/

n,,now,.on:.i o

nn noom nw, zoogu m con / ,,e /

psyQl-1

l Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. June 12,1985 The District has not completed its review of Owners Group recommendations in some subject areas. Identified below is a listing of the subject areas which are still being evaluated by the District, and are to be addressed in a later supplement to the Rancho Seco DR/QR Report:

Description _ Part No.

1) Flywheel Bolting 03-330B

2) Air Intake Manifold & Piping (Large Bore)03-375

3) Starting Air Manifold Piping (Large Bore & Small Bore) 03-441A

4) Starting Air Manifold Valves Strainers, & Filters 03-441B

5) Starting Air Manifold Supports (Small Bore) 03-441C

6) Fuel Oil Piping & Tubing (Small Bore) 03-450B

7) Fuel Oil Piping Supports (Small Bore) 03-4500

8) Lubo 011 Lines External 03-465A Tubing, Fittings, couplings (LargeBore) 03-467A 9)TurbochargerLuboOilPiping(.Large Tubing & Flexible Couplings Bore & Small Bore)

10) Turbocharger, Lubo Oil Piping 03-467B Supports (Small Boro) 11)TurbochargerBracketAirIntako 03 475C

12) Turbocharger Bracket Pipo Supports (Largo Dore) 03-475E 13)OnEnginoPnumaticTubingAssembly(SmallBoro) 03 600 14)PyrometerConduitSupports 03 630 A.B.C./608A

15) Generator Control Panel 03 6508

16) Aux.SkidJacketWaterPiping(LargoDoro&SmallDore) 03 7170

17) Aux.SkidJacketWaterPipingSupports(LargoDoro) 03 717G L __- _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ ________ __ _ __ -_ - _____-_ _- _.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. June 12,1985

18) Aux. Skid Lube Oil Piping Supports (Small B, ore) 03-717K

19) Fuel Oil Filters SC-014A

20) Maintenance Matrix in Appendix II Part #'s as of Rancho Seco's DR/QR Report identified in App. II As a result of the reviews performed to date, the District takes exception to Owners Group recommendations pertaining to visual inspection of piston rings for wear and carbon buildup. As indicated in the Engineering Summary Report for component No. 03-3418, the District plans to perform a boroscopic inspection of the cylinder liners to examine for evidence of excessive wear after diesel generator site testing. This should give suitable indication of piston ring condition. Also, after engine start-up testing is completed, a lobe oil analysis will be performed to determine metal content. Implementing the Owners Group recommendations would require removing all cylinder heads and pulling all piston / connecting rod assemblies. This is an extreme amount of disassembly to accomplish visual inspection of all piston rings. The District considers the alternate course of action outlined above an adequate means of determining ring condition through indirect means. Please refer to the DR/QR Engineering Summary Report for component 03-341B for a detailed discussion of the District's plans.

The utstrict's plans for future related activitics are indicated below:

0 Start-up testing is scheduled for completion in fall 1985.

O Post-run inspections will be performed after start up testing.

O Results of tests and post-run inspections will be summarized and transmitted to the NRC as a revision to the existing DR/QR report. It is anticipated that the summarios will be transmitted to the NRC during the first quarter 1986.

0 Olesel generators are planned for operational tie-in to the existing plant during Rancho Soco's Cycle 8 refueling outage, scheduled for fourth quarter 1986.

Cogcerning start up testing, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) performed 10' cycle testing on their 101 diesel generators, at or above 3300 kw.

Occause the anticipated loads on Rancho Seco's 101 diesel generators will be significantly less than 3300 kw, tho Ofstrict plans to take credit for the testing that LILCO has performed on their "1 cad" engines and not perform any testing beyond that required for a normal preoperational test program. This approach is consistent with tho Safety Evaluation Report dated August 13, 1984, issued relativo to the Dlosol Generator Owners Group Program Plan.

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. June 12,1985 In conclusion, those Quality Royalidation items which pertain to the Phase I sixteen major components of the diesels will all be addressed and closed out by the District prior to final plant tie-in of the diesels during the Cycle 8 refueling outage. In the event that Quality Revalidation items remain open on any Phase !! components, the District will address and close out not later than completion of the Cycle 9 refueling outage, scheduled for Spring 1988.

Shouldyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactRobRochlerat(916)452-3211.

extension 4905, R.J.Rodrihucz ti Assistant General i ager Nuclear

Enclosure:

(1) Supplementary response to the NRC's 17 (2) DR/QR Report for Rancho Seco - 5 sets (questions.underseparatoc l

l

- _ . _ - _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.__s

Enclosure (1)

Supplcmentary R3sponse to the NRC's 17 Questions

Background:

Reference (a) is an NRC letter which forwarded a series of 17 questions regarding TDI diesel generators. The District responded to these questions as information became available. This resulted in four separate installments of information which were provided to the NRC in our letters dated March 15, 1984; March 23, 1984; April 20, 1984, and August 24, 1984.

Introduction:

Presented below is additional information concerning the 17 questions. The information provided is based upon Rancho Seco's TDI diesel generator inspection results as well as the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group analysis and recommendations. In some cases, the District has indicated that an amended response is being provided to that previously provided. These amended responsos reflect the latest Owners Group recommendations identified in Rancho Seco's DR/QR Report.

Questions and Responses

1) QUESTION: Provide a copy of the procurement specifications to which the standby diesel generators were ordered.

RESPONSE: A copy of the procurement specification for the standby diesel generators was transmitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under cover letter dated March 15, 1984.

2) QUESTION: Provide the performance specification and inspections performed upon receiving the DG's to snow that the procurement specificattuns were met.

RESPONSE: This item was completely answered in a District letter dated April 20, 1984, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

3) QUESTION (1): Identify the materials used in the design of the DG's at yourplant(specificallylimitingcomponentssuchas crankstarts, camshaf ts. Jistons rocker arms, bearing materials, cylinder bloc (s, cylinder heads, pumps, turbochargers,etc.).

(2): Discuss how you assured yourself that design materials used in the manufacture of the DG's were as stated and in accordance with materials described in the TDI proposal, purchase specifications, and conformance to industry standards.

RESPONSti These items were partially answered in our District letters dated April 20. 1904, and August 24, 1984, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The DR/QR Report transmitted herein as enclosure (2) provides the results of inspections performed on Rancho Sero's 701 diesel generators.

l 1

4) QUESTION (1): Does TDI have a program where parts / components, etc., are modified (such that design margins are reduced) in order to improve operability and DG reliability?

(2): Does this apply to any DG parts at your plant? Provide a list of product improvements made by TDI on your model DG and identify and justify which of these were not incorporated on your diesels.

l l RESPONSE: These items were completely answered in our District ,

letter dated August 24, 1984, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

5) QUESTION: If applicable, provide responses to all NRC open items on  :

standby DG's at your plant. l l RESPONSE: This item was completely answered in the District's April i j 20, 1984, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l 6) QUESTION: Identify each of your DG's by model number and rating (continuousdutyandshorttimeoverload)aspurchasedand .

discuss all tests including torsional and other design  !

rooftests)performedontheDG'sthatwereobserved l

! p(also those not observed) by you at the manufacturer's facilities. .

I  !

l RESPONSE: This item was completely answered in the District's April  ;

l 20, 1984 Ietter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

l 7) QUESTION: In addition to qualification tests that were performed in f

accordance with regulatory guides 1.9 and 1.108, and IEEE j Std. 387, describe all other onsite tests performed on -

your DG's.

l RESPONSE: Preoperational testing of the diesel generators has not l yet begun at Rancho Seco. Testing is expected to be completed in Fall 1985. Response to this item is deferred ,

l until results of tests are available and have been evaluated.

8) QUESTION: In addition to any deficiency reports already provided to i the NRC, summarize and describe problems encountered and i resolved during installation and preliminary operation of l the DG's. Dur<ng this period, were any unusual or ,

abnormal operations observed such as excessive vibration, '

noise, etc., and how were these conditions corrected.  :

Provide a detailed summary of the complete operating  ;

histories of your 00's.  ;

h.

RESPONSE: See response to Question H. l

)

i f

l l \

9) QUESTION: Tabulate, compare and discuss differences in present actual DG loading to estimated loads included in the procurement specifications. Identify the magnitude of the increased load (if any) on the DG's and describe how the increased loading affects the DG capability with regard to reserve margin.

RESPONSE: This question was completely answered in the District's April 20, 1984, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

10) QUESTION: If DG loading has increased from that specified in the procurement specifications, has it been necessary to upgrade the standby DG's to meet the new load requirements? If DG upgrading has been performed, provide a detailed description of the upgrading accomplished on your DG's. What is the revised manufacturer's rating for each upgraded unit for normal continuous duty and short time overload conditions? Is the DG built-in design margin (after upgrading) still within the recommendations of IEEE std. 3877 What is the reserve load carrying capability (margin) of your upgraded DG's?

RESPONSE: This question was completely answered in the District's April 20, 1984, letter to tha-Nuclear ' "

Regulatory Commission.

11) QUESTION: In light of the prcbisms that have been identified to date with Deleval diesels, discuss your plans to perform 'an internal visual inspection of,each standby DG with regard to potential crarikshaft and/or web cracks as identified at the Shoreham Station and provide "a detailed discussion of your plans to -

perform any non-destructive testing (NDT) such as dye per.etrant testirigy,etc., as. deemed appropriate to assure absence of cracks at' these locations or'at any other locations where cracks may have been,cbserved." Discuss schedules for such -

testing.

3" RESPONSE: The District wishes to amend'its previous response to this item. -

c; transmited in our August 20,11984 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory co7snission. Ths:Nrended portion is described below:

,- s The Owners Group recomrrendt vidathe ' District plans to perfonn, verification of attritutes is: indicated in the DR/QR Report for Crankshafts.

The scheddIE tir performiig the veri cations is ar follows:

y .. .

Visal arid Eddy current examinationi are complete.

Refer to.DR/QR Report for results.

m + .

Pr2 operation # and-tordograph test.ing is gch'eduled for fall 19f!5. N Note: no fdrther ths,'tections or tests are planned by th?

District ,3fcr the crankshaft. - ' .,

% 9h

, '-, [I [ k I g

, . - - s ,.*, ..----%.

12) QUESTION Justify that the standby DG's at your plant are sufficiently reliable that there will be reasonable assurance that the facility can operate without undue risk

-to the health and safety of the public. Your

-justification should include, but not be limited to the following:

(1): Quality assurance program conducted by you during procurement, manufacturing and receipt of your DG's.

(2): Your assessment of the TDI manufacturing process, inspection, and quality assurance program conducted during manufacture of your DG's.

(3): Your assessment of TDI responsiveness to problems that have occurred with your engines during installation and preliminary operation including assessment of TDI J performance.

(4): Comparison of you DG's with all other TDI emergency DG models now in use or to be used in other nuclear generating stations (and other non-nuclear facilities) to show that the conditions and/or failure modes present at Shoreham will not occur at your plant and at other nuclear plants; provide any supporting information that may be obtained from non-nuclear installation.

.(5): Independent review or verification of any TDI design calculations for critical components of your DG's, and/or other means used to assure that your DG's are designed to DEMA standards and applicable industry codes and standards, and (6): Your overall assessment of the DG's at your plant with regard to TDI system design, operating experience to date, and system dependability, availability and reliability to warrant operation of your plant.

RESPONSE: Items (1), (2), & (3) - were completely answered in the District's April 20, 1984 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Items (4), & (5) - These items were partially answered in our District letter dated August 24, 1984 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, the District can now state that the Owners Group has completed its analysis of Rancho Seco's TDI diesel generators. The results of this analysis are contain'ed or referenced in the DR/QR Report.

Also included are the Owners Group's recommendations and inspection results of Rancho Seco's diesel generators.

Item (6) - This item will be addressed after completion of preoperational testing and post run inspections.

~13) QUESTION:

Provide a tabulation of the number of times (including each date of occurrence) voltage was lost at the emergency bus (es)' requiring operation of the DG(s) including a brief description of each incident. In the above tabulation, also identify the loss of emergency bus voltage due to loss of offsite power.

RESPONSE: Item 13 was completely answered in the District's April 20, 1984 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

14) QUESTION: Shoreham has identified connecting rod bearing materials are not in accordance with design specifications on their engines. This condition may also exist on all other TDI diesels. Provide assurance the correct bearing design and materials have been used in your engines. Should you find that improper bearings have been used in your diesels, state how and when you propose to correct this problem.

RESPONSE: This item was partially answered in our District letter dated August 24, 1984. The District wishes to amend its response in that letter as described below:

The District has completed all Quality Revalidations recommended by the Owners Group. The recommendations and inspection-findings are identified in the Rancho Seco DR/QR Report for connecting rods. The District does not plan any further inspections since Quality Revalidation is complete.

15) QUESTION (1): Most of the piston skirts in the Shoreham diesels were cracked. Because of a conenon cylinder design for.all TDI diesels, it is presumed that this condition potentially exists on all other TDI diesels. Discuss your plans, including internal inspection or other means to determine the potential or actual existence of such cracking. In your response, indicate whether the design and materials are identical to those in the Shoreham units; if not identify differences. Identify any corrective actions you have taken to date or plan to take.

(2): The staff understands that TDI has a piston design modification to correct the above problem. Are you aware of this and has TDI transmitted this service information to you?

RESPONSE: Item 1 - This item was partially answered in our District letter dated August 24, 1984 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The District wishes to amend its response in that letter as described below:

The Owners Group's recommendations are contained in the Rancho Seco DR/QR Report. The results of modifications and inspections performed or to be performed are identified within the piston report. The District plans to perform only those inspections identified in the DR/QR Report.

Item 2 - This item was completely answered in the District's April 20, 1984 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

16) QUESTION: What maintenance and/or operating practices have you developed to assure optimum reliability of your diesel generators at your plant?

RESPONSE: See response to item # 17, below.

17) QUESTION: What surveillance practices in addition to those required by piant technical specifications have you instituted to assure optimum reliability of your diesel generators at your plant?

RESPONSE: This was partially answered in our District letter dated August 24, 1984 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As indicated in that letter, the District wishes to defer a complete response until preoperational tests have been completed and results evaluated.

l:

l l

l b