ML20198C383

Forwards SER Re Reliability of Tdi Standby Emergency Diesel Generators (SER Confirmatory Issue 64).Util Required to Document Actions & Commitments Corresponding to Licensing Conditions & Tech Spec & Operating Procedure Changes

ML20198C383
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/05/1985
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Edelman M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
Shared Package
ML20198C389	List: ML20198C383 ML20198C395
References
NUDOCS 8511120074
Download: ML20198C383 (45)

Text

'

s NOV 0 5 2 Docket No.: 50-440 Mr. Murray R. Edelman Vice President - Nuclear Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101

Subject:

Submittal of NRC Staff Supplemental Evaluation Report Pertaining to SER Confirmatory Issue (64) - Reliability of TDI Standby Emergency Diesel Generators Enclosed is the NRC staff's supplemental evaluation report relating to the TDI emergency diesel generator confirmatory issue documented in SER Supplement No.

6 as Confirmatory Issue (64), which we propose to document in SER Supplement No. 8. The enclosed evaluation precedes final completion of the staff's re-view of the proposed generic resolution of the Owners Group Phase I issues and of the total DR/QR program at Perry. However, the staff finds that those re-spective reviews and its assessment of information provided by CEI in response to SER Co#f rmatory Issue (64) to date, have progressed sufficiently that all significant issues warranting priority attention, as a basis for issuance of an operating license for Perry Unit 1, have been adequately resolved. Accord-ingly, the staff concludes that the TDI diesel generators at Perry Unit I will provide a reliable standby source of onsite power in accordance with GDC 17.

This conclusion is subject to the conditions, Technical Specification changes, changes to diesel engine operating procedures, and implementation of the en-hanced diesel engine maintenance and surveillance program, identified and discussed in the enclosed supplemental evaluation report.

CEI is required to document actions and commitments corresponding to the licen-sing conditions, Technical Specification changes, operating procedure changes, and the enhanced maintenance surveillance program discussed in the enclosed report, in a future FSAR amendment, prior to Perry Unit I licensing.

If there are any questions, please direct them to the Perry Project Manager, John J. Stefano.

Sincerely, B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page s r1 ut4qn:

Docket filej NSIC OELD NRC PDM LB#1 rdg ACRS (16) 8511120074 851105 Local PDR MRushbrook BGrimes DR ADOCK 050 0 PRC System JStefano EJordan JPartlow TMNovak DCrutchfield CBerlinger EMurphy SBrown g MVirgilio CWoodhead

/ <> }

O B JStefano/mac

/DL TD T CBerlinger LB#f/r BJYo6ngblood i 11/p/85 11/y/85 11/pc/85

Mr. Murray R. Edelman Perry Nuclear Power Plant '

The Cleveland Electric Units 1 and 2 Illuminating Company cc:

Jay Silberg, Esq. Mr. Larry O. Beck Shaw, Pittman, & Trowbridge The Cleveland Electric 1800 M Street, N. W. Illuminating Company Washington, D. C. 20006 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.

The Cleveland Electric ,

Illuminating Company -

(

P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 s

Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Parmly at Center Rcad Perry, Ohio 44C81 Regional Administirator, Region II'I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 ,

Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.

Assistant Prosecuting , Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Mentor, Ohio 44060 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

618 N. Michigan Street Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43524 John G. Cardinal, Esq.

Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 l

I

f I 9

SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT TRANSAMERICA DEl.AVAL DIESEL GENERATORS PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I. INTRODUCTION Concerns regarding the reliability of large bore, medium speed diesel engines manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI), for application at domestic nuclear plants, including Perry, were first prompted by a crankshaft failure that occurred at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant (Shoreham) in August 1983. However, a broad pattern of deficiencies in critical engine components became evident at Shoreham and other nuclear and non-nuclear facilities employing the TDI engines. These deficiencies were found to stem from inadequacies in design, manufacture and the quality assurance / quality control at TDI. As a result, the s'taff introduced, in Section 9.6.3.1 of SSER No. 4, the need to verify the reliability of the TDI diesel engines at Perry as an outstanding unresolved issue. Two TDI diesel generators are installed in each Perry unit for use in providing emergency electrical power in the event of the loss of offsite power. As such, the pro ~ven reliability of the TDI engines is essential from a safety-related standpoint.

ss In a letter dated December 10, 1984 (B. J. Youngblood (NRC) to M. R.

Edelman (CEI)), the applicant was advised of the TDI diesel generator j design verifications required by the staff to determine the acceptability i of the engine design at Perry. By letter dated January 17, 1985 (M. R. Edelman to B. J. Youngblood), the applicant submitted the Perry TDI Div.sel Generator Program Plan (the Program Plan) which describes the i approach being followed at Perry to resolve this outstanding issue.

The Perry Program Plan consists 'of an extensive plant-specific application of the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Grour, (TDI Owners Group) program, a 9 e , &y- 9 , -

-.---+-w.* y-- - , - - , -r .-r .--rew. --t- .*w -

g, --,wm_-y .,W-

group participated in by CEI for Perry. The Perry Program Plan parallels  !

that of the TDI Owners Group program involving the following phases of effort: (1) Resolution of known generic problems; (2) design review of l important attributes for selected engine components; (3) expanded engine testing and inspection; and (4) a maintenance and surveillance program.

Copies of the TDI Owners Group Phase 2 design review / quality revalidation.

(DR/QR) reports for Perry were included as an attachment to the Perry Program Plan. The staff, with the assistance of its consultant, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), reviewed the information provided with the applicant's January 17, 1985 letter, and from other nuclear plant owners of TDI diesel engines, and found that although some actions remained to be performed on the Perry diesels prior to licensing, significant progress has been made by the TDI Owners Group and by the applicant in verifying the reliability of their TDI diesel engine designs. The staff concluded that actions already taken by the applicant and those propos.ed to be ,,

performed prior to licensing are adequate to ensure that the TDI diesel

~

generators at Perry Unit I can reliably generate on-site emergency power.

The staff, however, required in SSER No. 6 that the applicant complete certain actions prior to licensing and that the maximum load be limited to 5740 KW until concerns about the crankshaft are resolved. In a letter dated June 28, 1985 (M. R. Edelman to B. J. Youngblood), the applicant provided information to address these outstanding concerns. The results of the staff's review of this information is presented below.

II. EVALUATION Upon completion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing held on the reliability of the Perry engines, the ASLB concluded that the Perry diesel engines have met regulatory standards and that emergency j power will be available when needed and that the engines comply with GDC 1 and 17. The Board also concluded that the applicant must complete the items described in the staff's SER.

I(

Given below are the actions described in SSER No. 6 which the staff concluded need to be completed prior to licensing, the applicant's response to each item, and the staff's evaluation of that response.

l

1. Staff Concern Submit the maintenance and surveillance program that CEI intends to use on the Perry engines for staff approval. The staff will review this program to the same extent it has those on other engines (e.g., Comanche Peak, Crand Gulf, and Catawba).

Applicant Response PNPP will utilize the maintenance and surveillance program developed by the TDI Owners Group. This program is included as Appendix II to the Design Review and Quality Revalidation (DR/QR report) which was submitted to the staff on January 17,1985(PY-CEI/NRR-0156L)and revised March 18, 1985 (PY-CEI/NRR-0203 L).

Staff Evaluation The staff, with assistance from PNL, has performed an audit review of-the Shoreham and Comanche Peak DR/QR reports and has concluded that the reports were complete and had adequately addressed the design and/or quality aspects of the components. Additionally, the maintenance and surveillance requirements given in Appendix II of the DR/QR were reviewed for the audited components and it was concluded that they were adequate. Some recomendations were made; however, these recommendations were not of sufficient concern to be the subject of an NRC requirement. Thus, it was concluded that the plant specific DR/QR efforts, including the maintenance and surveillance plans, have been effective and comprehensive and, as a result, no further detailed reviews of DR/QR reports need to be performed.

~

~

Consequently, the staff concludes that the maintenance and sur-veillance requirements presented in Appendix II of the Perry DR/QR are acceptable. The staff is currently finalizing the maintenance and surveillance requirements for the Phase 1 components and will document these results in a forthcoming SER on the adequacy of the

-generic Phase 1 components. Until this SER is published, the

• maintenance and surveillance requirements presented by the staff at a meeting with the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) as March 20, 1985 (Enclosure 1) should be used; no major changes to these requirements are anticipated. '

The applicant will be required to follow any additional maintenance requirements for Phase 1 components when these are finalized.

The applicant has not proposed any operational or standby surveillance requirements. As a minimum, the applicant will be required to perform

~

the operational and standby surveillances given in Tables 1 and 2 (attached).

It is reasonable to expect that certain changes to the M/S program may become appropriate in the future based on operating experience. The staff will require that any changes to the M/S program be subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. In addition, the NRC staff /PNL conclusions relating to the adequacy of the crankshafts, engine blocks, and cylinder heads are particularly dependent on certain periodic inspections and/or surveillance checks. Thus, inspections of these components will be subject to the license conditions given in the conclusions.

2&3 Staff Concern Perform a torsiograph test that includes both variable speed tests and variable load tests and a subsequent stress analysis that confirms that stresses in the crankshaft are acceptable..

~ '

1 Address the effects of engine imbalance on crankshaft adequacy as part of the torsiograph test report to be submitted to the staff.

Applicant Response A torsiograph testing program which included variable speed and variable load tests was performed on each Unit 1 engine. The test report, submitted to the staff on June 14, 1985, concludes that the crankshafts are adequate for their intended use at Perry.

A special engine imbalance torsiograph test was conducted on each Unit 1 engine. The test results are addressed in the addendum to

' ~

the torsiograph test report submitted on June 14, 1985.

Staff Evaluation The staff, with assistance from PNL, has completed its review of the Phase 1, V-16 crankshaft review as it applies to the Perry engine.

This Phase 1 report, currently in draft form, concludes that the V-16 crankshaft at Perry is adequate for its intended full-rated load of 7000 KW and its rated overload of 7700 KW for the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> out of every 24 as specified by the manufacturer. These conclusions are based on analyses performed by the Owners Group and PNL, the results of torsiograph test including a torsiograph test with cylinder imbalance, and satisfactory performance of the crankshaft during operational tests supported by the absence of any fatigue crack initiation in

the crankshaft during post-test inspection. The staff, however, will require that

i y , ----. - . , , , , , ,, . p -_.. -. a .. --.m--,,_. _. , ,.g, ._y

a) To avoid the effects of the 4th order resonance, operating i and emergency procedures should be revised so that steady operation at speeds more than a few rpm below the rated speed of 450 rpm are avoided.

b) Operating and emergency procedures should be modified to incorporate precautions to prevent sustained engine operation with a cylinder imbalance or misfiring. These precautions  !

should include monitoring exhaust gas temperatures to assure that the differences between individual cylinder temperatures '

and the average temperature for all cylinders remain in the range recomended by TDI and measuring cylinder firing pressures according to intervals recommended by TDI.

c) The oil holes and fillets of the three main bearing journals subject to the highest torsional stresses (Nos. 4, 5, 8) should be examined with fluorescent liquid penetrant and, as necessary, eddy current techniques during each 5-year disassembly. The same inspections on oil holes and fillets should be performed on at least three crankpin journals between 3 and 8.

d) Hot and cold crankshaft deflections should be measured at each refueling outage to assure that the crankshaft alignment remains within TDI recomendations. (This item will be included as a generic NRC position in the forthcoming generic SER addressing resolution of the Phase l' issues.)

Although the staff concluded that the V-16 crankshaft at Per'ry is adequate for its rated overload capacity of 7700 KW for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> out of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> allowed by the manufacturer, the staff finds the applicant's request to perform month by surveillance testing at loads less than 7000 KW to be acceptable. Modifications to Technical

! Specifications regarding surveillance testing which the staff considers acceptable as a result of this review are provided as

an enclosure to this SER. This conclusion regarding surveillance testing at loads less than 7000 KW is documented in PNL report entitled "A Review and Evaluation of TDI, Inc., Diesel Engine Reliability and Operability - Final Report" which is in preparation.

The enclosed Technical Specifications include limited surveillance '

testing at 7000 KW to be performed at 18-month intervals. Such tests need not be performed as part of preoperational testing since test loads during preoperational testing were conservative relative to the maximum emergency service loads the engines are required to handle.

4. Staff Concern Confinn that Owners Group recommendations have been followed regarding:

(a) random sample testing of pushrods (b) proper torquing of the jacket water pump shafts Applicant Response ll i

(a) Destructive random sample testing to verify the weld quality of future friction welded pushrods is reconsnended by the TDI Owners Group. This will be done. The pushrods that are presently b ' r-installed have been subjected to the inspections required by the DR/QR including:

1 1

l Verification that the main and connector pushrods are friction l

welded.

1 Performance of a liquid penetrant test on all friction welded main and connector pushrods, or, as an alternative, visual i

'nspection. No surface cracks were found along the bond line between the rod end and the tube.

i (b) The Owners Group recommends torquing the castle nut on the engine drive jacket water pump shaft to a value between 120 and 660 ft-lbs. The Division 2 pump was disassembled and reassembled onsite with the castle nut torqued to 120 ft-lbs.

A rebuilt jacket water pump assembled at the factory was installed on the Division 1 engine. Castle nut torque was not -

verified during the Division 1 engine revalidation effort.

It will be verified during the post operation (approx 100 hrs.)

• inspection.

Staff Evaluation The staff concludes that the actions taken by the applicant and those proposed to be performed on the pushrods and the jacket water pump 4

adequately address the staff concerns regarding the abi.lity of these y

. components to perform their intended functions.

4. Staff Concern Demonstrate the adequacy of control panel assembly / panel system.

Applicant Response 3

The control pan'el assembly / panel system for PNPP has been found to be acceptable per the requirements of the DR/QR. Inspection results were submitted to the staff by letter PY-CEI/NRR-0188L dated February 8, 1985. Inspections were performed in accordance with the Component Quality Revalidation Checklist prepared for Perry by the Owners Group.

Original issue of the PNPP DR/QR contained the Component Design Review Checklist for the Yogtle Plant. This was in error. Subsequent revision to the DR/QR on March 18,1985(PY-CEI/NRR-0203L) corrected this error, i

l.

t

Staff Evaluation The corrected DR/QR report for the control panel assembly / panel system concludes that this component is acceptable. The staff and PNL have performed an audit review of the DR/QR report for Shoreham and Comanche Peak and concluded that the reports were complete and -

had adequately addressed the design and/or quality aspects of the components. As a result, no further detailed reviews of DR/QR reports need to be performed.

Thus, this component was not specifically reviewed for Perry.

Rather, the review of this component was accomplished through the overall audit review approach used on the Comanche Peak DR/QR.

5. Staff Concern Demonstrate the adequacy of the bearing stresses on the chock plates.

I Applicant Response Minimum load surfaces for the chock plates used on the PNPP engines have been calculated, and in all cases, the actual field measurements of the bearing surfaces exceed th'e calculated minimum requirements.

~

Additionaily, hot and cold crankshaft deflection measurements have i also been taken. These measurements show that deflection is well within the acceptable limits established by the manufacturer. This

indicates that the engine is properly supported.

l Staff Evaluation i

The response by the applicant and successful operation of the engines for approximately 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> on each engine with no visible signs of support deficiencies are adequate. to address the staff concern.

1

6. Staff Concern i

l Replace the 4R cylinder head with one that does not contain a i through-wall weld repair where the repair was performed from one .

side only, or demonstrate that the present cylinder head does not  !

.contain such a repair. -

Applicant Response Cylinder head 4R (serial #A76) does not contain a through-wall weld

. repair perfonned from one side only. Details were provided to the ,

! staff by letter dated February 21,1985(PY-CEI/NRR-0198L).

Transcripts from the ASLB hearing on the PNPP diesel generators (Issue 16), also address this issue (pages 2428 and 2429).

All PNPP TDI engine cylinder heads were returned to Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) to be reconditioned in accordance with the latest recommendations established by the TDI Owners Group. This included reworking the valve seats, water discharge ports, steam vent hole, and injector hole. Additionally, each head was stress relieved and pickled. Upon completion of the rework, cylinder head 4R (serial #A76) was inspected by a CEI representative and rejected because of combustion face (fire deck wall) pitting and weld indi-cations. These tidications were excavated (not through-wall), and i built up with weld material per accepted procedures. The CEI representative reinspected the head and found it acceptable.

d Staff Evaluation As a res~ ult of reviewing the inspection results, PNL found that the l

4R cylinder head on the Division 2 engin'e contains a weld repair in the firedeck area. The staff has not accepted through-wall weld l

I repairs in the firedeck area of the cylinder heads where the repair was performed from one side only. The applicant's response demon-strates, to the staff's satisfaction, that no cylinder heads i

{ currently in use contain weld repair where the repair was performed from one side only. . As part of the maintenance and surveillance program recommended by the Owners Group for Perry, the staff has strongly relied upon the Owners Group reconsnended procedure of barring over of the engines with the stopcocks open prior to planned starts and after engine shutdowns. The staff believes that this procedure, perforined 4-8 hours after engine shutdown and again after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and before any planned starts, is an effective way to

. detect cylinder head defects which would allow water to enter the cylinder.

4 III.' CONCLUSION 4

This SSER precedes final completion of the NRC/PNL review of the generic j resolution of all Phase 1 components by the Owners Group and of the final l

1 SER on Perry. The NRC staff and PNL conclude that the generic Phase 1 reviews and Comanche Peak DR/QR review upon which the Perry DR/QR review is based have progressed sufficiently such that all significant issues l warranting priority attention as a basis for issuance of an operating l license have been adequately resolved. Consequently, the NRC staff l concludes that the diesel generators will provide a reliable standby l

source of onsite power in accordance with General Design Criteria 17.

This conclusion is subject to the following:

f A. License Conditions

1. As a result of a major crankshaft failure that occurred at ,

Shoreham (DSR-8) and lesser cracking that was evidenced around the crankshaft oil holes at San Onofre (DSRV-20) and because of

{ the criticality of the crankshaft to successful engine operation, the crankshaft should be inspected as follows:

l The oil holes and fillets of the three main bearing journals subject to the highest torsional stresses (Nos. 4, 6, 8) should be examined with fluorescent liquid penetrant and, as necessary, l eddy current, during each 5-year major disassembly. The same inspections on oil holes and fillets should be performed on at least three crankpin journals between journals 3 and 8. -

2. Cylinder blocks should be inspected at intervals calculated using the cumulative damage index (CDI) model and using inspection methodologies described by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.,

(FaAA) in report entitled " Design Review of TDI R-4 Series i

Emergency Diesel Generator Cylinder Blocks" (FaAA-84-9-11) j dated December 1984. Liquid penetrant inspection of the -

cylinder liner landing area should be performed any time liners are removed.

3. The engines should be rolled over with the airstart system and the cylinder stopcocks open prior to any pla:1ned starts, unless j that start occurs within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of a shutdown. The engines should also be rolled over with the airstart system and the cylinder stopcocks open after 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, but no more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> i

after engine shutdown and then rolled over once again approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after each shutdown. In the event an engine is removed from service for any reason other than the rolling over procedure prior to expiration of the 8-hour or 24-hour periods noted above, that engine need not be rolled over while it is out of service.

The licensee should air-roll the engine over with the stop-cocks open at the time it is returned to service. The origin' of any water detected in the cylinders must be detennined and any cylinder head which leaks due to a crack shall be replaced.

No cylinder heads that contain a through-wall weld repair where the repair was performed from one side only shall be used on l the engines.

4. Except as noted below, the staff is not imposing additional reporting requirements pertaining to the TDI diesels at Perry beyond that already required in the regulations (Parts 21, 50.72, and 50.73) and by the plant Technical Specifications. The

! exceptions involve any cracks which may be found in the crank-shafts or in the engine blocks between stud holes of adjacent -

cylinders. Either of these unexpected situations would constitute a potentially serious concern regarding the future operability 4

of the engine. In these cases, the staff will require by license condition that any proposed resolution to either of these conditions be approved by the NRC staff prior to returning the the engine to an " operable" status.

t i

5. Operation beyond the first refueling outage shall require staff approval based on the staff's final review of the Owners Group generic findings and of the overall implementation status of Owners Group recomendations at Perry. These conclusions will be documented in a final SER on Perry.

l 6. Any changes to the maintenance and surveillance requirements i

identified in Section B below not governed by these license conditions should be subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

l B. Maintenance and Surveillance Requirements The applicant should utilize the maintenance and surveillance require-ments given in Appendix II of the Perry DR/QR as committed to.

Maintenance and surveillance requirements for Phase 1 components should encompass the requirements presented to the NRC Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) by the staff on March 20, 1985 (Enclosure 1)

The staff will finalize these requirements in an SER on the generic Phase 1 components and although no major changes are expected, any modifications to these requirements will have to be adhered to by the applicant. The applicant will also be required to perform the operational and stand-by surveillances given in Tables 1 and 2 (enclosed). .

C. Other

1. Operating and emergency procedures should be revised to address engine operation below 450 rpm and cylinder imbalance / misfiring as described in Section II.

2. Technical Specifications regarding surveillance testing should be revised using the enclosure as a guide.

S 1

e e

l

i TABLE 1 Diesel Engine Operating Surveillance Parameters and Frequency Component Frequency Lube Oil Inlet Pressure to Engine Log every 60 minutes ,

Turbocharger Oil Pressure Pump Fuel Oil Filter /StrainerAP

. Lube Oil Filter / Strainer AP Jacket Water Pressure Crankcase Vacuum Engine Speed Stack Temperature (RB, LB)

Lube Oil Temperature JacketWaterTemperature(In,Out)

Lube Oil Sump Level Room Temperature Engine Cylinder Temperature (all)

Kilowatt Load i Exhaust Temperature Inlet to Turbo (RB, LB) 4 j Fuel Oil Transfer Pump Strainer AP Log every 60 minutes unless i pump is auto / duplexed and alarmed StartingAirPressure(RB,LB) Check hourly Fuel Oil Day Tank Level Check hourly ManifoldAirPressure(RB,LB) Log every 60 minutes Manifold Air Temperature (RB, LB) Log every 60 minutes Visual Inspection for Leaks, etc. Check hourly i

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

l I

4 TABLE 2 Diesel Engine Standby Surveillance Parameters and Frequency Component Frequency

~

Starting Air Pressure Log every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Lube Oil Temperature (In, Out)

Jacket Water Temperature (In, Out)

Lube Oil Sump Level ,

Fuel'011 Day Tank Level Room Temperature E Test Annunciators Log every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Check Alarm Clear Check daily Check Operation of Comp. Air Traps Governor Oil Level Intpect for Leaks U Air Butterfly Valve and Cylinder Check monthly Operation of Fuel Rack Check daily; lube monthly i Check Internals of Block and Base At each refueling outage for Leaks Keepwarm 011 Filter 4P Weekly Test Jacket Water for pH, Conductivity, After adding makeup water, j Corrosion Inhibitor or monthly l

Cylinder Compression / Peak Pressure At each refueling outage Air Start Distributor Filter Monthly Air Start Admission Valve Strainer Every 3 months Lube Oil Analyze monthly m_ .-- --

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