IR 05000354/1985023

Insp Rept 50-354/85-23 on 850513-17.No Violations Identified.Major Areas Inspected:Installation of safety-related Electrical Equipment & Preventative Maint Program

ML20128Q664
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	06/18/1985
From:	Anderson C, Schaeffer M, Woodard C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128Q647	List: IR 05000354/1985023 ML20128Q645
References
50-354-85-23, NUDOCS 8507150054
Download: ML20128Q664 (5)

Text

. - _ - _

- _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-_

_______-_ ___- ________________ ____ _______-______

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _.

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-354/85-23 Docket No. 50-354 License No. CPPR-120 Priority Category B

--

Licensee:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza - 17C Newark, New Jersey 07101 Facility Name: Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit #1 Inspection At:

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: May 13 - 17, 1985

Inspectors:

%.9. $clu dw 4/w/r#

M. J.' Schaeffeir', Reactor Engineer datb 0$///

6/k/M-

,

C.

. W3odard, Reactor Engineer date Approved by:

(46 b h.

4//f/tr Cf J. Anderson,Knief, PSS,

/ date Engineering Branch, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 13-17, 1985 (IE Report No.50-354/85-23)

Areas Inspected:

Routine, unannounced inspection by two region-based inspectors of activities pertrining to the installation of safety-related electrical equipment, inspection of the preventative maintenance program, and inspection of Licensee's actions on previously inspected items. The inspec-tion involved 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of direct inspection time on site.

Results: No violations were identified.

8507150054 850628 PDR ADOCK 05000354 G

PM u_

-

.

.

e

%

DETAILS 1.0 Persons Contacted 1.1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company

• Mr. A. Barnabei, Principal Quality Assurance Engineer

• Mr. R. Donges, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer

• Mr. C. Fuhrmeister, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer

• Mr. R. Griffith, Principal Quality Assurance Engineer Mr. K. Hedjar, Site Engineering

• Mr. C. Kaffee, Start-Up Engineer Mr. P. Kudless, Maintenance Manager

• Mr. S. La Bruna, Assistant General Manager

• Mr. M. Metcalf, Quality Assurance Start-Up Engineer Mr. W. Mokoid, Senior Maintenance Planning Supervisor l

Mr. W. Preitts, Lead Electrical Start-Up Engineer

• Mr. J. Rush, Maintenance Engineer

,.

Mr. M. Shedlock, Senior. Maintenance Supervisor

'

!

1.2 Bechtel Power Corporation Mr. V. Shell, Lead Cable Pulling and Termination QC Engineer Mr. J. Miller, Cable Pulling and Termination QC Engineer 1.3 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation

• Mr. R. Donne 11on, Maintenance Department Supervisor Mr. J. Rucki, Construction Maintenance Supervisor 1.4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Mr. S. Chaudhary, Senior Resident Inspector

• Denotes Personnel present at exit meeting 2.0 Facility Tour The inspectors observed work activities in progress, completed work and plant status in several areas during a general inspection of the site. The inspector examined work items for obvious defects of noncompliance with l

NRC requirements and Licensee commitments.

Specifically, the tour included inspection of channel A, B, and C's 4160 voit Emergency

!

Switchgear, 480 volt Unit Substations, 480 volt Motor Control Centers l

and associated Batteries, Chargers, Inverters, and Diesel Generators.

!

r No violations were identified.

I

!

L_

v

.

3.0 Licensee's Action On Previously Identified Items (open) COR 84-00-04 General Electric HEA Relay Trip Force Values Out Of Specification / Malformed Torsion Springs General Electric identified to the Licensee, in Service Advice Letter PSM 175.1, that HEA relays manufactured between September, 1980 and August, 1983 may exhibit Trip Force values which could cause malfunction.

The potential for malfunction is related to a design change that was implemented during the above time frame. GE recommended to the Licensee that all HEA relays manufactured between the above dates (corresponding to a two alpha designator date code) should be inspected to determine the force required to trip the relay; and any HEA relay not meeting the specified force be replaced.

The A/E advised the Licensee that thirteen (13) HEA relays installed in safety related systems failed to meet the specified Trip Force values when tested according to the vendors instructions.

Bechtel generated Nonconformance Report No. 3108 to document the inspec-tion, testing, and replacement of the defective HEA relays.

In addition, the Licensee was advised by General Electric in Service Advice Letter PSM 165.1 that certain HEA relays manufactured between May,1979 and December,1980 may fail to operate due to malformed torsion springs.

Bechtel generated Nonconformance Report No. 2264 to document and control the suspect hardware..

The inspector reviewed the corrective action taken by the Licensee and concluded that there was insufficient data available to close these items at this time.

These items remain open.

4.0 Electrical (Components and Systems)--Work Observations The inspector observed work in progress, partially completed work, and completed / turned over equipment to PSE&G to determine whether the requirements of applicable specifications and work procedures have been met in areas relating to installation and maintenance.

4.1 The inspector examined channels A, B, and C which included 4160 volt Switchgear's 10A401, 10A402, and 10A403; 480 volt Unit-Sub-stations 108410, 108420, and 10B430; 480 volt Motor Control Centers'

108411, 108421, and 108431 on elevation 130' in the DG building.

In addition, the inspector examined the associated Batteries, Chargers, and Inverters.

The inspector examined the previously mentioned equipment / components for cleanliness, adequate ventilation, proper identification, and maintenance.

No violations were identifie. _ - _ _

__

-

.

4.2 The inspector toured the emergency diesel generator areas and observed welding performed on the generator coil guard baffles.

Re-welding was required to correct a manufactures defect.

This was reported by Louis Allis Corporation (10 CFR 21) in their letter to NRC dated March 29, 1985.

Intermittent fillet welds had failed on the coil guard baffles at another facility.

Failure of the welds could have caused the baffle to be pulled into the generator thereby causing failure.

The repair consisted of a continuous fillet weld on the baffle on the opposite side of the skip fillet welds.

This con-tinuous fillet weld was done in accordance with the manufactures instructions.

No violations were identified.

5.0 Electrical (Components and Systems)--Record Review The inspector reviewed pertinent work and quality records for activities relating to the procurement of electrical components and systems to ascertain whether the records meet established procedures and whether the records reflect work accomplishments consistent with NRC requirements and FSAR commitments in the areas of documentation, receipt inspection, quality control, and installation.

5.1 This determination was based on the review of the following:

E-109 (Q), Technical Specification For 4160 Volt Metal-Clad

--

Switchgear, E-117 (Q), Technical Specification for 480 Volt Unit

--

Substations, E-118 (Q), Technical Specification for 480 Volt Motor Control

--

Centers,

-

. E-151 (Q), Technical Specification for Battery Charges, E-150 (Q), Technical Specification for Batteries,

--

E-154 (Q), Technical Specification For Instrument Alternating Current

--

Power Supply.

SWP/P-E-33, Installation of Electric Control Boards, Control Complex

--

Equipment, Switchgear, Motor Control Centers, Load centers and Distribution Panels, PQCI, R-1.00, Project Quality Control Instruction-Receiving

--

Inspection, PQCI, E-6.0, Project Quality Control Instruction-Installation of

--

Electrical Equipment

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ _ _ _.___

_ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i

'

..

l

l The components were procured in accordance with the procurement specifications and installed and inspected in accordance with prescribed procedures.

No violations were identified.

6.0 Preventive Maintenance Activities----Start-Up/ Operations The inspector reviewed the Licensee's progress in overcoming the delays in implementing operational preventive maintenance of equipment and systems turned over to PSE&G from Bechtel. The Licensee was cited for these untimely delays in preventive maintenance during a previous inspection (85-17) conducted April 15-18, 1985. At that time there were more than four hundred (400) past due items. During this inspection the Licensee has made considerable progress in reducing the number of past due items.

As of Mry 9,1985, the number of past due PM items was approximately eighty four (84).

The inspector randomly selected twenty six (26) items from the Inspection Maintenance Report (IMR 8580) and requested the work orders from the Licensee.

The Maintenance Work Orders were reviewed for compliance to prescribed PSE&G procedures and found acceptable.

Subsequent to the review, the inspector emphasized to the Licensee that l

during the start-up and operational phase, maintenance requirements may change for certain types of equipment and that the manufactures l

!

instructions regarding maintenance will reflect these changes and need be indicated on the Maintenance Work Orders. The Licensee acknowledged awareness of this and showed the inspector examples of where PSE&G's operational maintenance organization is extracting from the vendors equipment manuals the maintenance requirements necessary to pcoperly maintain equipment in the start-up and operational phase.

No violations were identified.

7.0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee and construction representatives (denoted

,

in paragraph 1.0) at the conclusion of the inspection on May 17, 1985 at the construction site.

The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection, the inspection findings and confirmed with the licensee that the documents reviewed by the team did not contain any proprietary information.

The licensee agreed that the inspection report may be placed in the Public Document Room without prior licensee review for proprietary information (10 CFR 2.790),

!

At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the team.

!

l l

- _

_. - _. _ _ _ _

.,

.,. _, _ _ _.___ _ __

_. _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.

. _..

,

.,_

_