IR 05000440/1985041

Safety Insp Rept 50-440/85-41 on 850626-28 & 0710-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Licensee Activities Re IE Bulletins & Circulars,Previous Insp Findings & Instrumentation Installation

ML20133D703
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/31/1985
From:	Neisler J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20133D694	List: IR 05000440/1985041 ML20133D688
References
50-440-85-41, IEB-80-06, IEB-80-16, IEB-80-6, IEC-80-01, IEC-80-1, NUDOCS 8508070422
Download: ML20133D703 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:,

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-440/85041(DRS) Docket No. 50-440 License No. CPPR-148 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illumination Company Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plants, Unit 1 Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspection Conducted: June 26-28, July 10-12, 1985 h k /Q00YtLw,0l % '. 9 l

     .
      ,

Inspector: J. H. Neisler /

     '
     /
     '
     {}>i- \
      '

_Date fn/2[[ WjkE)'t% Approved By: C. C. Williams, Chief 7b/ Date /

o P Plant Systems Section / Inspection Suimiary Inspection on June 26-28, and July 10-12, 1985 (Report No. 50-440/85041) Areas Inspected: Routine safety inspection of licenseTactivities relative to IE Bulletins; IE Circulars, previous inspection findings; instrumentation installation, electrical cables and raceway installation, incuding NRC as-built verification; and cable voltage drops. The inspection involved a total of 34 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspecto Results: No violations or deviations were identified during this inspection.

l 8508070422 850 2 gDR ADOCK 0500o440 l PDR

.
.

DETAILS e 1. Persons Contacted Principle Employees

*C. M. Shuster, Manager, Quality Assurance
*E. Riley, General Supervisor, Quality Assurance
*G. Parker, Unit Supervisor, NQAD
*R. Vondrasek, General Supervising Engineer, NED
*S. Kensicki, Technical Supervisor, PPTD
*G. Sondgeroth, Senior Engineer, Licensing
*N. J. Lehman, Staff Analyst, PPTD
*E. Willman, Senior Engineer, NED
*K. Turosky, Associate Staff Analyst, PPTD
*F. Stead, Manager, NED
*R. Neuendorf, Operations Audit Coordinator, NQAD
*W. J. B0yd, Quality Engineer, NQAD
*S. Tulk, Unit Supervisor, NQAD K. Cimonelli, Lead Quality Engineer, CQS E. Condo, Quality Engineer H. Putre, Supervisor, Equipment Qualification S. Litchfield, Equipment Qualification Engineer R. Peters, Quality Engineer, CQS D. Duff, Quality Engineer, CQS W. Morris, Quality Engineer, CQ5 E. Thomas, Equipment Qualification Engineer R. Matthys, Lead Quality Engineer, CQS H. Spackman, Operations Quality Section, NQAD
*J. Ioannidi, Site Project Manager, G/C
*R. Szczech, Operations Engineer, Tech / Compliance G. Hicks, Element Supervisor, NTS 2. Licensee Action on P evious Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (440/84007-06): Inadequate information on the qualifications of Rosemount Model 1152 pressure transmitters. The inspector examined documentation attesting to the replacement of all Model 1152 pressure transmitters in safety-related applications with qual.ified Model 1152 pressure transmitter . Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins (Closed) IE Bulletin 80-06 (440/80006-8B): Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Reset Controls. The inspector determined that the requirement to identify the involved systems has been completed. Reset deficiencies in these systems have been corrected. Testing of these systems has not been ac.complished. The closeout of this bulletin and the acceptable testing of the reset controls is included and tracked in NUREG 0887, Perry Safety

' Evaluation Report, Section 7.3.2.5 as license condition No. 6

l

i-

      ._
.
.
(Closed) IE Bulletin 80-16 (440/80016-BB): Potential misapplication of Rosemount Inc. models 1151 and 1152 pressure transmitters with either A or D output codes. The uspector examined documentation certifying that all model 1152 pressure transmitters and model 1151 transmitters with either A or D output coders had been replaced in safety related system . Inspection and Enforcement Circulars (Closed)IECircular 80-01(440/80001-CC): Service advice for General Electric Company induction disc relays. The inspector verified that the circular was received by licensee, that a review for applicability was performed and that appropriate corrective actions were effecte . Functional or Program Areas Inspected Instrumentation (Components & Systems) - Review of Quality Assurance Implementing Procedures The inspector reviesed the quality assurance implementating procedures of the major instrumentation contractor to ascertain their adequacy; conformance to the approved Quality Assurance Program; and 9roviding the appropriate controls to assure instrumentation systems are installed according to plant design criteria. The inspector selected the following Johnson Controls Incorporated procedures for review:

QAS-201-PNPP Qualification and Certification of QA/QC Personnel QAS-202-PNPP Auditor Training and Qualification QAS-P.03-PNPP Indoctrination and Training of Non-QA/QC Personnel QAS-401-PNPP Design Control QAS-403-PNPP Preparation and Submittal of As-Built I/F Drawings QAS-404-PNPP Hanger Balancing Program QAS-501-PNPP Procurement Document Control QAS-601-PNPP Preparation and Approval of the I/F Planner and I/F/ Package QAS-701-PNPP Document Control QAS-702-PNPP Control of Field Questions, Field Variance Authorizations and Engineering Change Notices QAS-802-PNPP Receiving Inspection QAS-904-PNPP Weld Material Control QAS-1101-PNPP Control of Inspections QAS-1102-PNPP Installation, Inspection and Repair of Hilti-Kwik Bolts, Concrete holes, Drywell Liner Plate Holes and Support Baseplates (Safety Related) QAS-1601-PNPP Nonconformance Control QAS-1701-PNPP Corrective Action No violations or deviations were identified in this are Cable and Raceway As-Built Verification l

The inspector performed a walkdown inspection of selected cable trays, conduits and electrical power cables in the reactor building ! 3

-
. - _- . . --- .-. . _ - . - ._ . - - -- _

_

'
.
-

to determine whether the as-built configuration of the raceways and cable installation conforms to the latest design or as-built drawings and licensee conmitment The inspection involved the review of cable pull slips, cable qualification documentation, weld filler material, control procedures, craft and inspector training, quality inspection records and installation records. In addition, the inspector visually examined the physical installations as to the location, routing, supports, separation, identification and terminations. Components selected were as follows: Conduit Cable Tray Cables 1R33C3821B 254(B) IM51F4B 1R12C190B 111(A) 1M51F2A 1023P633 1C41F8(B) IC41F8B 1R22C1628 1R61A1828 1R23F17B _ 1R23F20C Junction Bax- Equipment 1R23F22C 1R22C2828 08-1-3144 1M51-C001B 1R22C170C JB-1-3834 1M51-C001A 1R61A10388 1C41-C0018 1R61A970B No violations or deviations were identified in this are Cable Voltage Drops The inspector reviewed the licensee's program for evaluation of voltage drops in Class 1E circuits to determine the adequacy of cable sizing criteria used during design and construction. The inspector also determined whether the licensee had applied adequate management controls to preclude the installation of undersized cables in Class 1E systems. The inspector examined the following documents:

. Letter PY-CEI/GAI-5212, dated June 4, 1982, transmitted the results of CEI Engineering's Design Verification Review; section II.J of the review addressed voltage drop calculations for cables included in the computer routing program. Specifically,
 .the review questioned the lack of feedback from the field of actual routed lengths and states that Gilbert Associates Incor-porated (GAI) programs should include requirements for feedback to engineering for verification of the preliminary voltage drop calculation . Letter PY-GAI/CEI-12714, dated July 6, 1982, provided GAI's response to the CEI Design Summary Report and agreed to revise the Perry Project Design Criteria, Chapter 2, to include a table of maximum allowable circuit lengths for each cable size and to develop a computer program to identify installed power and control circuits that exceeded allowable lengths so that these circuits could be evaluated for excessive voltage drop .  . -  . ._ . _ __
'
.
.
 . Internal memo's within the CEI site engineering organization, dated February 1,1,983 and February 3,1983, identified that possible excessive WCltage
   ?

drops existed in circuits numbers E22, R25,3 P45, R45 and E5 . Cetter PY-GAI/CEI-16656, dated September 9, 1984, transmitted the results of a DC circuit review that had been performed in response to INP0 (SER) 80-83 and recommended installing larger conductors or parallel circuits in some long DC circuit In additien to the above documentation, the inspector reviewed calculation sheets containing the voltage drop calculations for approximately fifteen circuits and computer data identifying , circuits having potential for excessive voltage drop. The inspector

also reviewed the licensee's current program for Class 1E cable i voltage drop evaluation. This program establishes procedure and

:  criteria for reviews and calculations to evaluate the as-installed
:  circuits and to provide corrective action when the voltage drop is
!  found to be excessive. The licensee informed the inspector that over 39,000 circuits had been evaluated, approximately 12 had been reported pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e) as having excessive voltage drop and that corrective action had been initiated to reduce the voltage drop to specified levels.

! No violations.or deviations were identifie . Exit Interview

The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1) , at the conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such information as proprietary.

.

 ~

5

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

}}