Text

Insp Rept 50-440/85-71 on 851021-24.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Allegations Re Control Panels,Motor Control Ctrs & Cable Pulls
	ML20138N730
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/02/1985
From:	Neisler J, Williams C; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20138N637	List: IR 05000440/1985071; ML20138N634;
References
	50-440-85-71, NUDOCS 8512240138
	Download: ML20138N730 (6)
	v • d • e

t; '

Qv ~,

,

~

m

~

,-

,4

.t. s

,.

,

.;

-,;,.;

,

.

v z*

y -

., ',

-

_

-

4'

~

g

',

-

'

.

. -.

.

[

Uq l

[

'

PU.S.-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSION

?

A '

~ ^

<

.

_

. REGION-III.

-

s

,

.

-

,

, Report.NoJ50f440/85071(D'RS)- '

.

-

- -

.

..

,

+

.

-

~

_

, :. Docket' No.- 50_,440 :

License No.:CPPR-148

-

_

a

.

~

.

,.

.

7 Licensee:: Cleveland Electric ' Illuminating Company ;

. Post Office Box 5000

Cleveland,-OH.44101-

_

' Facility.NameF : Perry Nuclear) Power Plant, Unit 1

-

Inspection' Ati- (PerryjSite,l Perry,L OHI

! Inspection. Cond0c'ted: October 21-24,L1985

-

.

,

-

r-

_

.

-

.

__

g# :

-e_.

,

+.

.

... Inspector:.

H.. Neisl er lM f

'J F

~

s

.

'

x Date-

'

.

ldb'/8i,

'

W..

I

_

F

Approved By: ~ C.-C.> Williams, Chief

,

n

~

Plant Systems Section Date

'

,

+.

'~

, Inspection Sumaryi

-

?~

-Inspection on': October

21 24, 1985 (Report No.- 50-440/85071(DRS))-

, e Areas: Inspected: -- Special inspection of allegations relativ.e to control' panels,-

-

.

~

motor. control. centers, Land cable-: pulls. 4The inspection-involved a total of:16 -~

-

- l inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.-

,.

~.Results: 1No1 violations,1 deviations or.1 unresolved issues-were identified' during

_

-

tthis. inspection.:

~

-

,

-_,-s F

g

.f

. f,.

l W.

,

iL-s'

>

l

-

if y

-

,

'^ !.f;

'

.

-

,

'

,,

. -. - -

p i

S N2 0

,

x

.

-

~

>

$

-

.

'.'

S'

L,

y g

+

. '

,,

f

1 y

w-

.e v-

-,,,r y

,,,-.s_#

--r--e*

w-y-w--w*- e E s--7-.g

---,=..+r

.,

.--+.v.w-,*

e-

,,--re..we-

=, -. -.

.

py

--

.

_

a W~ mm

%...

-

-r

s.

+

w

.

.. g mp

-

--

y k,

' Q-. -

~, -

'

~ '

-

4.

'

>

u

.;

,

cy,

-

x, t

.

..,-

,

'

'e

,,

i '

'-

,c

^

'

.

%p

. y'

-

.o

,

3' '

\\

"!

s a

-

,

,.

'

/

" DETAILS:

-

[

t-w-yH

.

_

y,

.g.

,

<

.-

-

z.

-

', '

y?

_

,

.

<.

b

,s Up ';, d Persons!Conticted-i

,.

>

_

+

3%

[

... _

.

?7

,

.

". K n ; Principle; Licensee: Employees

"

.

e,

-

,

siW*

ffEM Ril'$p, Ge'neraliSuperdisor, CQSL _..

M

,-W

'

L*R.: Matthys," Lead Pipe / mechanical,;;CQS i

,

?;; ~

f**N.lLehman,tStaffAnalysis,'PPTD}.'.

'

.

F.;Sondgeroth,iSenior Engineer,sLicensing-

,#

_

.

,, e*8dLiddell, Operations. Engineer,iPPTD

.

~

t c.

a y**SRTulk,1 Unit: Supervisor,-CQS

.

-

g,t Cimorelli,; Lead l Quality Engineer, CQS.

y

'- -

'

t, y,p

.

.-*E. Parker,iP/M. Supervisor, CQS"

+:

- s

/

.

',

LSR Rowbothom, ' Quality Engineer,eCQS -

'

' -

.

,

- " -

/ W.iMorris,5 Quality Engineer.1 QS

.

C

.'K_

W Haddick, Licensing Engineer

" l '

. - 'W Sumrowh Quality Inspector,^ 0QC

~

'f

HbSpackman,QualitylInspector,0QC'

>

.

<B.lFerrelli Licensing Engineer '.

,

s es

,

!

3 Contractor:andOther) Personnel-

,

3 e,

~

.

@E iCEMikEhsll,[ Quality l Con'trolManager,LKComstock.

,

"

,

-,.

.,

.

_

[

?*Dendtehthose;perslonsattendingexitinterview!

i u

,

-

c

,' ' Nh [2i !A11egst' ion-ReviAw$

'

" M c, k a.>

f(Closed) TATS RIII-85-A-125, Parts l-and 2

?

'

Duringia;1ong: cable.

[

' pull,in the control complex' through the duct! bank;from manhole.

N snumber-2Tto1the essential = service water pumpihouse cables:were-

. W*f

~

pulledLwithsst use Lof.ia<pu111 tension measuring devices:;In two

~~

s%0 tin' stances': cable! wasTwalked on by "other. crafts during1 cable 1 pulls.

,

e 8;g %.~

lNRCReviewj v

~

n'

,

o w'

.

y' e g

', 1The-inspector.. determined by interviewing cognizant individuals still

,

W s.

-

,

on' site and the review of nonconformance reports (NCR) P033-1964, that

.

6

-

(the(cables;had been pulled from the manhole to the essential service'

J,

'

(water; pump 3 ot.,e-(ESWH)iusing a tension measuring device. However, h

bl.

c14

..

W

-

Eapproximately150 feet of excess cable was pulled into the.ESWH. ~The'.

,

'

. cable wasjthenfpulled back 50' feet to remove the excess cable without-

'

<

3e^

tusing:altension measuring device.

.

3.S l - -*

?The in_spector-reviewsd NCR P033-1964 that'Yas-issuedtoidentifyand correct lossible. damage thac could result (from pulling the cables

,;/

p

-

without the useiof tension measuring devices.* The^ corrective action

'

A?m. '

.includedJthe performence of insulation resistance and continuity tests

"

'

~on the:: cables to' determine whether the cables had sustained any damage

-

o

,;

iduringLthel pull. The-inspector reviewed; insulation resistance and

'

~ continuityJtest. records for these cables and determined that thehl

'

tcables;had not'been damaged during the pull back through the man o e.

,

s

'

+

-

-1

,

)

q y#,

~

_,

,

m

, qp _ ' :=.

%

.;

y

_

,

-

,

";

-

.

,

n

~

,

gpg

~

xe m

gd Gf;M j ~ f, ; ; j

,

.

,

_

-"

>

,

%

Wc0 N

~ * " ' * '

'

~

f f@ y

,

.&fW N ~ M *

fu

~'%

%.

..

,...

~

-

~

OE J%f

' (JInithe~ twoiinstances of Ltheicrafts.allegedlylwalking;on the' cables'.

,

duri ng1pul. ling l activi ties b the 5 inspector; revi ewed cabl e l test records -

dy n i

?for cablesLin these areassand: determined from:the test-results:that on

- M.

. U the cablesThaddsuffered no' damage from being walked"on by craft -

j @? 7 V Q'T W *] personnel.

I l

%

The7te'st records:were / gen'erated as. alresultf ofe site:

~7T iprocedurallrequirementsithaticablesmustbeltested'subsequentto

~~

- '

R M-

> s=beingiinstallede

'

- - > -

-

w w %mm a,

e n.

_.

'

J

,

.

u

%

- "

4 e

Conclusion P -

'

Acf

.

l.

Jyk

~ RSincefthe:. conditions 7 described by the alleger had'been identified-

.. _. m,

..: --

.

~

'

-

gdy" _ M /

[andcorrectediinaccordance'withtheli.censee's7qualityassurance~

J fprogram,ethis1 allegation:was not? substantiated! relative:to:its having

, $E M@ J@

?a deleterious effect on plant (safetyt i

7-

.

,

~

q w w m;

, %, x.e 4;,..

E

.

--

.

. --

- -

.>

s

.

m.

-

-'

s

-

, :. w M Q lb.1. n(Closed)< Allegation'ATS RIII-83-A-093:b NRC'RegionTIII-received

_g g

..

" _ tadditional allegations from the personiidentified as individual g

~

'

"B." tin Inspection Report No.(440/83037. The allegationssidentified Ms

-

R$f ' ' '

' x -

conditions that -the alleger believed to be. deficient in panel. The:

_

.

p,gy 3 *1 J1E 22-P001/2 and motoricontroldcenters 1R24-S018 and;1R24-S019.

v l. leg'ers' concerns were: pre'viously1 addressed-in Region lIII Inspection

'

w g

= 1p y a

% 'clfN (Reports ~NoE440/83037,440/84005,'440/84007,1440/84021,440,/85045

.

QA N L,

Jandf440/85054.-

g

, g g.,

,

...

a:

7.

.

-

MM u,

, u"(1): Panel 51E-22-P001/21:The alleger identifiedil5_ concerns 'related

<

Ef ? *

to this panel.as'follows:

M

,

c

-

e,,. '

e-

. <,

6 :i(i,)2 Concern 1:LLThe following1b'reakers have compression. type;

<,

+ < -

.u

,

%M$ f - #

'

n'

Ow+

21ugs, however, the conductors have a lug which is also

@g% "

,

terminated to;su'ch devicelby meansloftaLlugLcrushedito fit m

.

g:q <

'

Jinto'the compression slot.1: Device Nos; CB8,,CB12,'CB14,

~

n.

_

~

'

- i A..

CB16,LCB18,1CB13, C815, CB17 and.CB21.- _

y7 - *-

,

s h

.

MN2 - _i' #

k X, INRC Review:

'*

t

~IThdbe'ntLorcrushedterminAllugs.wereLreported-NMT [J.f

,

4 o the-NRC asfa'can'truction' deficiency pursuant to; Mm s

g, : y m

< :

.

'

10CFR'50'55(e)'onlune115,i1983; The111censee's? corrective-

.

~

.

'

' action;wasito replace-the lugsLthis actiorf was' reviewed and

@g> m

'

,

--

,.

.

acce'pted'inlNRC Inspection Report No. 440/85032.

,

-- -

-

/ -

.

pg NA

-

-(b); Concern 2: { Device No.'K-21' face plate missing;; bakete is

'

^

y5 cracked and chipped'away.1 p.

,x,

~

.

E.L

'

~?"

NRC-Review: Th'e inspector verified that. Device K-21,- as

'

s '.-s

,

-

installed,does not have a missing face plate nor 'was the W[( i -

"

~

.

%s W

'

, bakelite cracked 'or~ chipped. The device had :been replaced

+

-per FDDR KL1-735.-.

W

%

-

pg

<*

~ '

(c)icConcern3: Device No. S-5 auxiliary relay inspection covery

'

{y

' missing.

@p i #

.

,

= ' '

'

3;m; '

.

9(,

Ml

NRC Review: . The inspector's conversations with the relay

'

manufacturer's representative revealed that covers-(face

,

~ < ~,y

plates) are, optional with these particular devices and~are

.

"

,,

un

.,

-

'*

5.

AO fQ

&

c

.h 6 v

A

-.;y ;g m y, 21-

,,

, #_

e

,

1 A Q

_ u,,

-

_,.

a

.

_.. -

,,_

n 7 -

.

,:

y> _

e

_," ' ~

_

'

+*

~-

,

'.2

'

,v

,

',

,

.+

-

'f;

%

~m" s

-

a$%'y

.,.

'

$kglhphhkglg k('_

.

>

,

-

r

_2

'

[

f l A;

_

,

-?

'

N

-

<,

-

W i

'M f' _Ynot normallyfused inside panels. - There is no coverton:thiss

'.

..

,

%, t '

.__

-l' Mrelay and;the' inspector;icould determine noirequirementito;

~

<

P",s

-

hstal W cover.

_

!

W" q?.

m

"

%

s n-m

(-

S

'

d < ;W -

'

f(d)h Concern 4: JTerminall strips 1TB17:andTB22haveno'I.D.on

> -

b strip point:llocation.-

f

'

- ~

e

y

,

/NRCReview: :Thelinspector;veEified:that! terminal-strips.

~

l'-4 s

s

%

-

xTB17t and TB222haveL strip point' locations ;properlytidentified.-

,

n g

-

_,

n

. -

.,.

_ 'l(' )9 Concern 5:;ito Item No.f1Lof this'page;:Desice, Transformer s

,

U s

.q.,

ws W

e x

_

~

~ lugs,vrefer

^

'

^

<

_

Q T $8

-

'NRC/ Review: BThisiit'em waszclos'ed'as 10lCFR 50.55(e)_. Item-

-

@M@

G._ ~y ( gg

,

w'

~~ 1No.y440/83013'EE(in'In'spection'. Report No.'440/85032. LAll i

Limproperly crimpedjlugstwere replacedu

% -

CR.

.n.,.

.;

,.

-

.

,

.

=7,' J p W_ ma3f) ; Concern 6:vTraining:radibsNiolation fn' device;_ Panel' Alarm -

f

' No.JA-8,; Device No. A-9; meter also h;as? violations.

.

, ' ~ < '~

-

'

..

.

,s.

<

.

NRC: Review:,Thelirspector, verified thatfDevice No. A-8~andi

~.

'

m

,7

,

.. _.

,", A-9: external wiring had no training radius violations when -

-

g

,

1finaliinspected. 3There are no regulatory requirements-kw q";fE Ne ww,-

,

T ig'overning training' radius of vendor 3 wiring inside instruments;

'

~

W.and panels,1therefore!the~' alleger lsebeliefithat LK Comstockt

.%1. -

g proceduresJapplied1to'these1 vendor panelshas incorrect, k ~ M $

.

- ithetinspector, howe'ver, verified; that wiring inside. these.

Y5

'

>

devices: wasl acceptable'. ::

t,v.

~,%

-

rg

,

~

,

+

,

ff

-

E [(I).JCon'cen 7: 1The/following devices havetbroken wire strands:-

r y, c+ '3

'

,

.

..

_

.

N-Device Number =

,

1 Wire.Nuinber #

V o

'

~

x

~

'.

.

10S-17 '

$<17

^dMf

-

,

"

59~

-

N/A.

.,7

@- -7

%

-

.

S6L

' N/A-

x/

> L.

~'

'

SI N/A

-

S2; N/A

.

_

.

_

/

f 1NRC Review:. The inspector examined wires to each of the

'

~

identified. devices and observed that none of the wires:had 4%

^

_

visible-broken strands,

'

-

,

m::a:. J'I'

.(h) Concern 8: Device No.'CB6, (a breaker) terminal board W _

dS

insulator _betweenepoints.5 and 6 is cracked. Also no I.D.

.

'

y-

on 'stripf tenninal ' point 1ocation.

,

-

--

A M

& m

.

The_ inspector verified by observation that a

.

E NRC Review

'

^

s crack does not exist between terminal points 5 and 6 and

'

.

that1 terminal strips ;are' properly identified.

' /

~

'

+,s

,

-'

%

_

N i

[

-

~

i,,,

pw

-

,

-y m

,

e.

-

,

.

'p t -

~

,

.

C3-b d.k

"

O

,,

d

_f_

p: &l93 Y,'

^ ~

n

,

)

[

~l^

' -

^

,

c..

-

'

gn-

.

L +' r

-

,

.o

.

o.

.

-

a

<

,

J.(i)l Concern 9: <On terminationLof:s'econd set of~ conductors below-

'

n x

..

I

-

p

_

m

, Device No.1CB6, =teminalipoints.No. 4,:5-'and 6 -appear to be.

,

%

,

_

$ terminated-wrong by vendor..:. unit No. 2 whichzis'identicalf

'

%

i

.isiteminated opposite of each other :.

.1. we have:no drawings 1

.

,

for, cross: reference.

-

' ' '

'

c,

-

!NRC1 Review: The inspector examined the' General.ElectricE

,

-(GE) engineering. response:to this; item., The GE response:

'

-

~

recommended.."use-as-1s" since,the second' set of conductors

,

-

'

.

-

Lis-terminated:according to the'GE design..The.inspectorL

^

W

.

,

gconcurred withithe~"use-as-is" disposition after reviewing _

. } thel design drawings.

'

..

p 3. -

Sq

~

.>p; (j)f iConcern - 10: Device No.: CBS, no: terminal ;I.D., also-CB9..

.,

,

m,

-

H-NRC': Review:CThe' inspector verified that terminalsion CBS'

'

S'

'

~ : and CB9 are properly identified.

2-

--

,

^ '

~

R-(k)] Concern'11:' Device No. CB10, no terminal strip ~ point location,

>

,

.

e i

-

'

"4

. :NRC Review: ?The_ inspector-verified that terminal:. point location

'

,

r,y

~ 7are properly identified'at CB10.

~~

(1): Concern 12:: Teminal ' strip 14, all said terminations are

'

' ~

correctly.termin_atedito there correct points however, the

,

- -

-

,

"

cvendor! drawings-show'all terminations to be on the~ right'sidee

of strip.

,

~

M

,'

_

NRCiReview: The! inspector; examined; terminal-strip 14'and-

-

'

,

detemined that-theia11eger was correct in'that al1~

terminations are correctly teminated.and that vendo~r-

.

+

terminations :are~ on the' left' side of the terminal strip.

~

s -

-

_

.The; inspector determined:that-it does not matter which

,

_

side of.the terminal strip Lhasithe vendor _ terminations m ~

,because:it has no affect'on' function or nuclear plant-

? safety,

~

w

_

'(m): Concern 13: The following device-called a Synchioscope

(Serial No."156001903) on stud three and four have three wires underione termination' point.-

m

.

NRC Review: The inspector verified that terminations on

~~

$,, l% P_

~

.the synchioscope are in accordance'with de. sign ' drawings.:

.

1~ -

~

Synchioscope terminal studs are designed to acconnodate

.

.more than three. wires per stud.

'

,

(n) ' Concern 14i Device No. K-15 on terminal, teminal point 13

-

g So

.

. has.four lugs under one temination point.

^

~

.NRC Review:- By visual inspection, the inspector verified

>+

,

_

_ that K-15 does not have four lugs on terminal point 13 or

~

any.Other point.

.

p

/

'

.,

l

,

s

-

..

w

'

y hih-,

'"

_

.

.,

, _ $,- _

? -

-

,

.

n

,

/i~_,~~

,

7I-

.. [

..

.

+-

s

,,%<

i(o)~ Concern 15: The:fo110 wing'.. devices and terminal strips have

g

%~'-

~

gray paint overspray:. c.. the: normal' finish of the' jet black

' ye

! bakelite areas-have-heavy streaks of gray in them sometimes c

m

-

"

.

Tcovering up point term location.

.

-

,

L ss 1.Termina1JBoards 9, 13-and'14

~

%,

[

~

<

Devices'

2K-57 and'A3

"

,

NRC Resiew: cThe inspector examined the teminal: boards and

'

c devices.

If unacceptable paint deposits existed'in February O'

1982, when1 inspected by the-alleger, the' paint was subsequently ~

,

1 removed and 'is currently. acceptable.

..

av

.

...

.

~

Lu

.

.iDuring.the investigation of the above allegations the-

-

"^

'

Jinspector interviewed'the alleger's former> supervisor,

-

'

-

his lead. inspector, and other quality' inspector's who were

s

-

cognizant of the work ~ performed on this1 panel. The.

~

=

'

-

cintervieweesEstated that receipt inspection had identified

>

l deficiencies in the' panel, these deficiencies were reported

+-

~

' to the supplier,-General: Electric. GE issued a-field ' design

'

' deficiency ~ report to authorize corrective action.- This V

y,

(corrective' action was satisfactorily accomplished.

.

,

_

-Conclusion:- This allegation was~not. substantiated-as

-

'

,

'

_ 1affecting nuclear. safety since the deficiencies were

,].(

t

' properly : identified and adequately cc.ected. -

'P..

y f

_

(2)(Allegation: E The"allegerzidentified-several circuit breaker t cubicles in' motor controlicenters 1R24-S018'and ~1R24-5019 that

>

q.;,

g, he;said contained wiring deficiencies in 1982.-

t

.

-

'

NRC Review: The NRC inspector visually' inspected each field

~

i

-. installed conductor. in each circuit. breaker cubicle in motor p'

- <-.,

ET

_

-

control; center 1R24-S018 Land 1R24-S019. No bend or; training

'

HN

'

radius violations, nicks, broken l strands ~, lug bend violations, cuts, kinks-or inadequate supports were evident during-the

-

? inspection. ?If these conditions existed at one time, they

,

were subsequently adequately-corrected.-

Conclusion:' This allegation was'not substantiated based on the

'

a

--

-

inspector's observations during his visual inspection of the

~

. conductors in each circuit breaker cubicle.

,eqs

,

- x 3.x 1 Exit Interview-

[

The inspector met with licensee representatives -(denoted in Paragraph 1)

'

-

!at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector sumarized the scope -

,

'

?and findingsLof the inspection. The licensee representatives acknowledged

the, inspector's coninents.

The.~ inspector'also discussed the likely

. *

-

.informationalicontent of the inspection report with regard to documents and Lprocesses reviewed by the' inspector during the inspection. The licensee

did ~not identify any such documents /processess as proprietary.

,

p a

,c v

'

-

.

IR 05000440/1985071

Text

Navigation menu

Search