IR 05000412/1985022

Insp Rept 50-412/85-22 on 850923-27.No Violation Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Preventive Maint Program for Emergency Diesel Generators & Associated Equipment & Status of Previously Identified Open Items

ML20205G941
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/31/1985
From:	Anderson C, Woodard C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205G938	List: IR 05000412/1985022 ML20205G934
References
50-412-85-22, NUDOCS 8511130389
Download: ML20205G941 (8)

Text

n j . a:

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-22 Doc $etNo. 50-412 License N CPPR-105 Priority --

Category B Licensee: Duquesne Light Company Robinson Plaza, Building No. 2 Suite #210, Pa. Route 60 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205 Facility Name: Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit 2 Inspection At: Shippingport, Pennsylvania

' Inspection Conducted: September 23-September 27, 1985 Inspector: .

h C.tfl. Woodard, Reactor Engineer

- // -7/-Er date

'

Approved by: b C.-J.'Knderson, Chief, Plant Systems

/o date Section, PSS, DRS Inspection Summary: Inspection September' 23-27, 1985 (Inspection Report N /85-22).

Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of activities related to the preventive maintenance program for the emergency diesel generators and

'

. associated equipments. Review status of previously identified open item .The' inspection involved 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> on site by one region-based inspecto Results: No vioiations were identifie y113O g [

G-

- ._. .:_ . _ e

'-

. j

.

DETAILS

- Persons Contacted 1.1 Duquesne Light Company (DLCO)

• R.-Coup'and, Director-Quality Control (QC)

• D. W. Denning, Assistant Director-QC

• J. Horvath, Project Electrical Engineer

• J. Scalfero, Construction Specialist

• T. J. Walsh, Construction Engineer

• C. E. Kirscnner, Superior, Quality Assurance (QA)

• J. W. Waslousky, Supervisor, QA

• A. Howman, Assistant Licensing Engineer

• C. S. Majumdar,- Assistant Director-QC R. J. Swiderski, Startup (SUG) Manager 1.2 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporatiog

• J. G. Novak, Superintendent of Construction

• P. J. Bienick, Assistant Superintendent of Engineering

• D. P. Lessard, Assistant _ Superintendent of Engineering

• J. J. Purcell, Assistant Superintendent of Engineering

• R. C..Wittschen, Licensing Engineer G. B.-Macina,~ Engineering J. Devine, Principal Electrical Engineer J. Baker, Engineer P. Morgan, Engineer

- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission G. A. Walton, Senior Resident Inspector

,

• Denotes personnel present at exit meeting September 27, 198 .0 Facility Operation The inspector observed work activities in progress, completed work, and plant status in several areas of the plant during a' general inspection tour. Areas examined include 4160 volt switchgear and equipment rooms, various safety related cable raceway areas, 480 volt motor control centers and diesel generator room No violations were identifie .0 Licens3e Action on Previously Identified Items 3.1 .(Closed) Unresolved Item 85-16-03 pertaining to inadequate insu-lation of 5KV power cable terminations to various safety related motors in which the termination was made to pigtails and the insula-tion was established t. layers of insulating tape. The deficiency

.

. .

-

n

.

.was caused by the fact that SWEC drawing 12241-RE28A-4 for SKV termi-nations required only 120 mils of insulation thickness whereas the-insulation manufacturer (Kerite Company) had specified 500 mils for'this type splice termination. A total of 46 terminations were made to the _ erroneous drawing specifications. Drawing 12241-RE-28A-4

,was revised to reflect the manufacturer's requirements and Engine-ering Design Change -Request 2P-4757 was issued to modify all of the

46 incorrect terminations. At the time of this inspection 15 termi-

~

nations had been reworked, and turned over to the DLC0 Start-up Group. .The inspector reviewed the details of the rework EDCR, the inspection procedure and approvals, and visually. inspected one of the reworked terminations. No deficiencies were identified. This item is close .2. (Closed) 10 CFR-50 Appendix B, Criteria V Violation 85-07-05 regarding. lack of procedures to control or stop in process unsatis-factory cable pulls upon the issuance of a Nonconformance and Dis-position Report (N&D) when continued work could cause damage, prevent further inspections, or prevent remedial actions. This violation occurred when the.NRC inspector witnessed the continuation of a bulk cable pull consisting of 23 cables. This pull included seven cables that were kinked and one that had three longitudinal cuts in the-Jacket. These eight nonconforming cables had been identified as nc,n-conforming by Site Quality Control on March 22, 1985 and were later pulled on March 25, 1985 without resolution of the nonconfor-mances. This continued ' work could have caused further damage, pre-vented further inspection and prevented remedial action During this inspection, the inspector determined that N&D's had been issued later and dispositioned for.the affected cable The seven kinked cables were dispositioned to accept as is and the cut cable-was dispositioned to scrap. The inspector reviewed the following cable pulling and cable inspection documents which were in use during this inspectio BVS-931, Specification for Electrical Installation

--

FCP-431, Field Construction Procedure for Cable

--

IP-8.4 '., Inspection for Cable Pulling IP-8.4.1 was revised September 19, 1985 to include " Attachment 3.15 Guidelines For Handling Unsatisfactory Conditions Observed During In-Process Cable Pull Inspection". This attachment provides defini-tion of unsatisfactory conditions and specific stop work authority to the inspector when an unsatisfactory condition is observe The inspector selected from a number of cable pulls to be performed during this inspection a cable pull similar to the one in which the

. violation occurred to witness the pull. The pull selected was a bulk pull of 24 control and instrumentation cables into a three inch con-

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

_

.

i .

. 4 duit with four cables already installed. The pull was in raceway 2CX300RB1 from junction 2DX906R37 to 2FX340R27. Cable pull tickets, cable pull tension calculation. forms, cable pull assurance forms and cable' inspection reports were reviewed for each cable in the pul The inspector witnessed the beginning of the cable pull and the cable pulling arrangements at-both ends of the conduit including an installed currently calibrated dynamometer.to monitor pull tensio The: cable pull conduit overall length was 75' feet. The cable pull had progressed only a few feet into the conduit when the pulling team and QC inspector observed that the pull was causing the installed cable to move with the pulled cables. The Q-C inspector immediately stopped the pull, and initiated an appropriate N&D. The decision was made to pull out the installed cables and re pull them along with the new cables. With the licensee's written procedures and instructions in place and with this witnessed example of their effectiveness to stop work which could cause cable damage and to obtain corrective action. This issue is close .3 (Closed) 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criteria V Violation 85-07-06 pertaining to cables trained to bend radii smaller than specified by ' licensee specification 2BVS-931, Specification for Electrical Installation. Cable bend radii are critical to the integrity and quality of installed cables since bends' of smaller radii than recom-me'nded'by the manufacturer during installation or as permanently trained can.cause cable damage. The-violation involved two cited instances where cables being installed and already installed were bent to radii smaller than permitted by the licensee's own spect-fication 2 BVS-93 The inspector made random inspections through several areas of the plant in which safety related cables were installed and were in various stages of installation. Cables partially installed and not currently being worked on were coiled on hose reel type cable hangers. Cables in process of installation were being pulled over pulley and were protected. Completed cable-installations inspected

.in 4160 vol_t'switchgear, 480 volt motor control centers, and in the uninterruptible power supply cubicles were trained and-term 1nate No violations of minimum bend radius requirement were observe The inspector reviewed licensee Inspe.ction Report DLC-SQC N SPE-269 for their inspection verification of minimum bend radius in 30 junction boxes to assure that bend radii met the minimum criteria specified in Inspection Procedure Ip-8.4.1, Attachmen .9. This inspection. disclosed no deficiencie This issue is close ' (Closed) 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V Violation 85-07-11 per-

.taining to failure to protect electrical cablet installed in trays y, -

.x

.

..

c .against mechanical damage as required by licensee specification 2BVS-931, for Electrical Installatio ~

The inspector made random inspections of cables in cable trays and cable exiting cable trays in the 4160 volt switchgear and 480 volt motor control center areas, in the Diesel Generator Rooms, and in the cabling areas cited in paragrar.o 3.2 while witnessing a cable pul No deficiencies were observe Licensee revised cable construction procedure FCP-431 and revised inspection. procedure-IP-8.4.1 were reviewed. The revisions describe

.

protective measures to. prevent cable damage and inspection procedures I

to detect cable damage. The licensee reported appropriate training of both contruction and inspection personne Since the violation, licensee inspections of 1400 cable transition

, point. installations for mechanical cable damage disclosed two cases of. cable damage - one which was dispositioned by repair, the other was dispositioned to accept as is. For the specific instances of cable'. damage cited in Violation 85-07-11, there were three cables identified-with cable indentations. Two of the cables were evaluated and dispositioned as acceptable. The third cable was found unaccept-able and' repaire This issue is close .5 .(Closed) Unresolved Item 85-07-08 pertaining to tho proper utiliza-ion of limiting electrical cable sidewall pressure in cable pull calculations prior to cable pulls. This. item resulted when SWE could not provide the NRC inspector details as to how cable sidewall pressure criteria from the manufacturers was factored into the

-

maximum allowable cable pull tension for cable pull SWEC has generated Engineering Design and Coordination Report E&DCR-2P4712C dated June 17, 1985 to revise Electrical Installation Speci-fication 2BVS-931 to include Appendix P, titled " Cable Pulling Tensions". Appendix P contains, 1) the instructions for filling out the ' Cable Pull Tension Form (CPTF), 2) Sample completed CPTF which includes sidewall pressure values, and 3) tables which describe the maximum cable pull lengths between pull points for the various service classes of cable used at the site. In addition, prior to pulling cable, a CPTF is prepared by SWEC Construction and DLC/SQC independently, then calculated values are compared with manu-

-facturer's requirements to ensure that-they meet the acceptance criteri The inspector witnessed the proper implementation of revised specification 2 BVS-931, FCP-431, and IP-8-4.1 for the calculation of pull tensions (utilizing sidewall pressure as a criteria),

incorporating pull tension requirements into the CPTF and into the

- ,

M - < .

- m. ' ' 4 ' 3 ,

g'- *

g ,

m,+

,

,.

-

.

i+ .

.

-6'

t 4 .

,

g  : actual' field construction cable, pull and into the inspection of the (ps '

Lcable pull (refer to paragraph 3.2).

'

TheLinspectorl reviewed licensee engineering, evaluations performed

, F, - ifor cables previously:. installed in raceways to confirm that revised

' - J Especification, 2BVS-931 allowable.sidewallipressures were not ex--

~ ceeded during the; pulls. 1The. inspector-reviewed the calculations and

, Ethe-evaluations'made for 31 cables l pulled in the following-10 race-m '

. ways sections: 2CC307PC, 2CX130WC, 2CX955WA, 2DX910W25,.2DX980W17, 1 2DX982W19, 20X981W17,12CX990WA,-2CC307PC, 2DC973016. No violations D' ,

TofJ11miting cable -sidewall pressure criteria were identifie ., ,

,= This' item is close '

'

3.6--(Open) Unresolved Item 83-12-03 pertaining to excessive unsupported m; .' cable <1engths. .The inspector found that the Itcens'ee has completed-inspections of approximately 2800 cable' transitions out of.an

.

estimated 6000. Findings are that fifty nine percent of the cable-

- '

-transitions:are in excess of the acceptance criteria and will require engineering: evaluationfor dispositioning. Evaluation-is proceedin _ Rework has not commence This-item will~ remain open pending NRC. review of completed engine--

ering evaluations and dispositions of the cables which are outside

~

the acceptance. criteri ~

~

4.0 Emergency-D'fesel Generators i"

,4.1: Beaver Valley Unit'2 emergency diesel generators are the Colt'

'

,

. Pielstick Model PC 2.3V, 4240'KW units. ' Installation of:these units is complete and they'have been. turned over to the startup group for

, c continued maintenance, pre-operational testing and acceptance prior

,,

.tolp.lant(startu '

The inspector toured the diesel generator equipment a_reas to inspect

-

for any obvious indications of improper installation and maintenance ..

and licensee resolution of applicable generic. issue ,

.4.5 The engine and generator control panels in the diesel. generator room

'

were examined for internal vendor workmanship and for field'and

-

cvendor installed wiring and' cable. No deficiencies were observe '.3 =The: inspector found that the diesel engine driven oil pump potential

~

.

mounting boss crackage/ breakage problem which had been first observed on PC2.3 Hope Creek /Shoreham Units reported as a potential 50.55e -

. . Significant: Deficiency was being carried by the licensee as SDR-08

~for~ repairs prior to fuel loadin '

, 4.4i *

The emergency diesel generator systems maintenance was begun after installation on May'1, 1984. Maintenance requirements during storage and after installation are described by specifications 2SMR-230 and

< ',

--

- _ -

.

.

.

'

2BVS981. Maintenance specified after installation includes the

, following.

I i

Monthly:  ;

-

Energize space heaters in main generator

-

Megger main generator windings

-

Inspect for protective covers over generator control, neutral

{ terminal box and annunciator panels and also for general cleanliness Quarterly:

[

I * Megger Auxiliary motors as follows:

-

Crankcase vacuum pump h

'

-

Electric fuel oil pump

-

Rocker arm pre-lube pump

-

Barring Device

-

Pre-lube keep warm pump The inspector verified that the equipment maintenance history cards indi-cate that all monthly maintenance was performed as scheduled. However, the licensee could not confirm the quarterly meggering of auxiliary motors past December 198 This is an unresolved item pending licensee confirmation of manufacturers requirements for the quarterly meggering of these small electric motors (412/85-22-01).

5.0 Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is needed to determine whether it is acceptable or a violatio Unresolved items are discussed in paragraph .0 Exit Meeting The inspector met with licensee and construction representatives (denoted in paragraph 1.0) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 27, 1985 at the construction site. The inspector summarized the scope of the inspection and the inspection finding The licensee was informed that the paragraph on proprietary information would no longer appear in the cover letter to the inspection report and

' _ _ _ _

y u~

-

...-

- .-

,a

, h'

~8

'

'that-the manual chapter places responsibility upon the licensee-to inform

.the. inspectors if material provided during the inspection is proprietary and is'to.be'omitted from the report. There was non '

~

- At no: time during this. inspection was written material given to the licensee or his representative .

'

- O P

n

.

$

+

h