IR 05000461/1986044

Insp Rept 50-461/86-44 on 860610-12.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Allegations from Former Electrical QC Inspector on Concerns Re Electrical Cable Installation.Concerns Unsubstantiated

ML20202F102
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	07/09/1986
From:	Hawkins F, Neisler J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20202F080	List: IR 05000461/1986044 ML20202F077
References
50-461-86-44, NUDOCS 8607150095
Download: ML20202F102 (5)

Text

t

.

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f411SSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-461/86044 Docket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137 Licensee:

Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, Illinois 62525 Facility Name: Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At: Clinton Site, Clinton, Illinois InspectionCoyducted: June 10-12, 1986 T

b Inspector:

J. H. Neisler O 7/9/8C.

Ha'te f

Approved By: h.C.Hawkins, Chief 7/ 9 / 8 G Quality Assurance Programs Section Dath Inspection Sunmary Inspection on Ju_ne__10-12, 1986 JReport N_o. _5_0__46_1/86044)

Areas Inspected: Unannounced special inspection of allegations.

IIe'siil ts : No violations or deviations were identified.

8607150095 860709 PDR ADOCK 05000461 G

PDR j

.

-_- ~_

.- _

-_- - - - -

.

_

,

_..

,

.

,

!

i DETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted i

)

Illinois Power, Company

• R. Weber, Supervisor, Quality Systems l

• J. Brownell, Supervisor, Licensing and Safety

]

R. Lebkuecher, Licensing Engineer T. Massey, Quality Control K. Bowyer, Quality Control T. Butera, Quality Control Supervisor C. Baker, Supervisor, Licensing and Safety

'

R. Main, Start-Up Engineer

!

'

I Baldwin Associates

}

R. Goldman, Training Section C. Mills Training Section

!

• Indicates those persons attending exit interview.

i il The inspector also contacted and interviewed other personnel in the quality and start-up test sections.

2.

Allegations

,

!

NRC Office of Investigations personnel interviewed a fonner electrical

!

quality control (QC) inspector who expressed several concerns relative to electrical cable installation at Clinton. The former QC inspector had

.'

been employed by a subcontractor to perform quality control inspections

!

of electrical cabic installation and terminations for Baldwin Associates.

His concerns, expressed during the Office of Investigations interview,

<

I are addressed as follows:

l a.

Concern No. 1 i

The individual stated that he had observed cables being pulled between manhole 4 and the service water intake. He said that during the pull, several cables were damaged and that one or two of the cables were ripped in two ai.d the rest were knotted and twisted up to the

,

point where the conductors were prctruding through the outer jacket.

'

He also stated that this cable pull did not have a meter or other j

type monitoring device on it. He did not indicate whether or not the cables were safety-related.

I j

NRC Review i

The NRC inspector reviewed procedure BAP 3.3.2 (Cable Installation, Revision 12) and other available documentation relative to electrical and control cables installed between the plant and the service water

screen house.

l

?

'

' _,. _ _.. _ _ _

_-

__,

,,,,.,,. _

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

. _ _ _. _. _ _,, _. _

.. _.. _ _.

_

- -.

.

.

The inspector's review of continuity tests and insulation resistance tests (megger) of both safety-related and nonsafety-related circuits to the service water intake structure indicated that all circuits exceeded the acceptance criteria. Safety-related circuits to the service water intake structure are part of the shutdown service water system. The inspector reviewed preoperational test procedure PTP-SX-01 (" Shutdown Service Water System") and ATP-WS-01 (" Service Water System Test Results"). The test results show each circuit in the safety-related shutdown service water system and the nonsafety-related service water system to be functioning correctly. The inspector observed that both systems were operating during the inspection.

As a result of these reviews, the inspector determined that if the installed cables are damaged, the damage is too slight to be detected by the standard methods of testing installed cables. There was no I

indication of cable breaks or grounds during the tests.

Conclusion Based on this review of test results and the inspector's observations, this allegation was not substantiated, b.

Concern No. 2 The individual stated that quality control inspectors wrote nonconformance reports (NCR) that were invalidated by their supervision. During the individual's tenure at Clinton, one QC inspector was purported to have written 25 NCRs that were later invalidated by his supervisor.

NRC Review The NRC inspector reviewed the procedure governing the issue of NCRs. BAP 1.0 ("Nonconformances", Revision 13), Paragraph 5.2.d states, "The initiator of an NCR shall obtain the NCR number from NRG Q&TS and enter the number on the NCR." The initiator, the QC inspector, then submits the NCR to his supervisor for review. The NRG clerk enters the NCR number and the initiator's name at the time

'

the NCR is requested. The quality control supervisors do not see the NCR until after it is logged at NRG. The inspector found that eight NCRs had been initiated by the subject QC inspector and that each of the eight had been properly dispositioned. There was no evidence in

,

'

the log that 25 reports had been initiated by the QC inspector and invalidated by his supervisors.

Interviews with other QC inspectors who were at Clinton during this time did not reveal any cases where NCRs had been invalidated instead of being dispositioned according to procedure.

,

l i

Conclusion The NCR logs and interviews wi.h other quality control inspectors do not substantiate the concern that NCRs were invalfdated by supervisors.

,

>-*r+v--

al er-emw--s

<

<--?--

-

-

- -, - - -

m

-

>-s

---

e-r-wet-wr--

+++r--

--u-

+-me+=-p3 y

ve+ry+

g----

-...-

- ---

-.

.

-..-. - - - -

-

.

.-

'

!

.

,

!

'

I c.

Concern No. 3 i

In violation of procedure, the individual stated that cables were

,

pulled back from panels in the auxiliary building.

'

NRC Review

'

The NRC inspector examined NCRs 19863, 19715, 19311 and 19985. These NCRs documented cables being pulled back from inside electrical panels and motor control centers on the 721 elevation in the auxiliary

building and the fuel building.

The cables had been installed in l

trays and inserted into the panels, but they had not been terminated.

To terminate the cables, they were pulled back, cut to length and

'

replaced in the panels at the proper location. The NCRs were disposi-

tiened use-as-is by the contractor's engineering section after review i

!

by the architect / engineer. The inspector's visual examination of the

!

panels, cables and their termination revealed present installations

!

to be acceptable.

l e

Conclusion The cable pullbacks were properly documented on NCRs and reviewed and accepted by the design organization; therefore, this allegation is not substantiated.

!

d.

Concern Nc. 4 The individual expressed concern that scee power cables were routed

<

with control cables. He specifically identified cable penetrations

,

between the cable spreading room and the control room.

NRC Review

<

The inspector visually examined the cables exiting the cable trays in the spreading room and entering the control room through the

.

control room floor penetrations.

Redundant cable divisions are

'

,

separated according to IEEE 384.

Power and control cables from the

'

same division are installed in separate trays, but they enter panels

through the same penetration. This is not in violation of either design drawings or Procedure BAP-3.3.2 (" Cable Installation").

Conclusion

!

This concern was not substantiated. The installations do not violate either procedures or design drawings.

i e.

Concern No. 5 There were over 100 cables damaged in the cable spreading room by careless handling of temporary cable pan covers.

l

f i

i

!

.-

.

NRC Review The NRC inspector examined cables in the accessible cable trays in the cable spreading room and found no damaged cables. No NCRs had been issued that identified cut or damaged cables during the time the individual was on site.

Persons interviewed by the NRC inspector denied that 100 cables had been damaged in the cable spreading room by careless handling of temporary cable pan covers.

Conclusion No evidence exists that over 100 cables were damaged as alleged; therefore, this concern was not substantiated.

3.

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

dt the Conclusion of the inspection and summarized the scope and findings

,

of the inspection. The licensee representatives ackrowledged the inspector's comments. The inspector also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents or processes as proprietary.

)