ML20032B070
| ML20032B070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1981 |
| From: | Gardner R, Hawkins F, Mendez R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032B067 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-81-14, 50-441-81-14, NUDOCS 8111040350 | |
| Download: ML20032B070 (6) | |
See also: IR 05000440/1981014
Text
e
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
REGION III
L
Report No. 50-440/81-14; 50-441/81-14
Docket No. 50-440; 50-441
License No. CPPR-148; CPPR-149
Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company
Post Office Box 5000
Cleveland, OH 44101
Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, OH
Inspection Conducted: September 29 - October 2, 1981
'i
Inspectors:
. Gar ner
/O/2 / / B i
I
i
s
i
p
R.
e
}O/21/ B 1
v
i
I
a
Approved By: h .
.WHawkins, Acting Chief
/0/21/Al
~
Plant Systems Section
/
-' ~ ~
Inspection Summary-
Inspection on September 29 - October 2, 1981 (Report No. 50-440/81-14;
50-441/81-14)
Areas Inspected: Observation of electrical cable installation activities,
observation of electrical component work activities and review of records.
This inspection involved a total of 60 onsite inspection-hours by two NRC
inspectors.
Results: Of the three areas inspected, no items of noncompliance or
deviations were identhied in two areas. One apparent item of noncompliance
(Severity Level VI - examples of failure to follow procedures - Paragraphs Ib
and Ic) was identified in one area.
.
8111040350 811023
PDR ADOCK 05000440
G
.-
-
-
-
-
. - - - - - - - .
_ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
- - - - .
-
)
.
.
DETAILS
Persons Contacted
Cleveland Electric 1.
minating Company (CEI)
- M. Edelman, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Department
i
- R. Farrell, Manager, Nuclear QA Department
- E. Riley, Supervisor, CQS
- G. Leidich, Supervisor, CQE
- S. Tulk, Lead Electrical Quality Engineer
- J. Kline, Generation Supervising Engineer
- B. Barkley, Generation Supervising Engineer
- D. Green, Senior Project Engineer, Nuclear Design
Kaiser Engineering, Inc.
- D. Howard, Director, QA Programs
- P. Gibson, Project QA Manager
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected
1.
Observation of Electrical Cable Installation Activities
,
a.
The RIII inspectors selected six Class IE electrical cables
-
which had been installed in Unit 1.
The routing of each cable
i
was compared with the routing requirements identified on the
respective pull cards. The inspectors observed the following:
(1) 5KV power cable IR22H-5A was observed to be routed correctly
from 4.16KV switchgear Bus EH11 to 4.16/.48KV transformer
EHF-1-B.
(2) 15KV power cable IR22H-7B was observed to be routed correctly
from 4.16KV switchgear Bus EH12 to 4.16/.48 KV transformer
EHF-1-D.
(3) 600 volt control cable .'221C-41A was observed to be routed
correctly from Power Generation Control Complex (PGCC)
termination cabinet 1"13-P715 to 4.16KV switchgear Bus E!Ill.
(4) 600 volt control cable 1G41C-32A was observed to be routed
correctly from Motor Control Center (MCC) EFIA09 to PGCC
termination cabinet 1H13-P748.
(5) 600 volt control cable IM26A-6B was observed to be routed
correctly from PGCC termination cabinet 1H13-P746 to hCC
i
EFID09.
-2-
-
1
.
.
(6) 600 volt control cable 1M51A-2A was observed to be routed
correctly from PGCC termination cabinet 1H13-P743 to MCC
EFIB07.
The RIII inspectors observed that the raceway internals were
free of hazardous debris and sharp edges. Conduit bushings
were installed as required. The cables and raceways were
properly identified and undamaged. No separation problems
were identified.
b.
The inspectors observed numerous cables in the Unit I control
room which were coiled at the PGCC termination cabinets and
supported by cable ties. The inspectors observed that the
method the licensee used to protect coiled cable jackets from
being damaged by sharp edges on cable ties, involved the use
of cloth which isolated the caole jacket from the cable ties.
However, the inspectors observed that the cable jackets of
cables coiled at PGCC termination cabinets IH13-P743 and
1H13-P746 were not protected from damage due to sharp edges
on cable support ties. The inspectors observed that the
cable jacket on Class IE cable IP45C-19A was damaged by the
sharp edge on its cable support tie. Furthermore, the jackets
on several other coiled cables were observed to be impinging
on the sharp edges of their respective cable support ties.
This condition is contrary to the requirements of paragraph
3.2.24 of L. K. Comstock cable pulling procedure 4.3.3 which
states in part, "...
the cable shall be protected so that
the tie does not damage the cable jacket."
This failure to accomplish activities affecting quality by
documented procedure * is considered an item of noncompliance
with 10 CFR 50, Apr.ndix B, Criterion V as described in
Appendix A of the report transmittal letter.
(440/81-14-01)
The inspectors observed that the Class 1E medium voltage
c.
armored power cables installed in cable trays A106, B256, and
B268 were laid such that direct contact was maintained between
adjacent cables. This condition is contrary to the requirements
of paragraph 3.2.17 of L. K. Comstock cable pulling procedure
4.3.3 which states in part, " Class 1E medium voltage armored
power cable ...
shall be installed in their exclusive cable
tray with a nominal spacing of 3/8" between adjacent cables."
This failure to accomplish activities by documented procedures
e
is a further example of noncompliance as cited in Paragraph 1.b.
(440/81-14-01)
d.
The inspectors observed that Class iE cables were pulled through
core drilled penetration ECC 4368 having neither a sleeve nor a
sleeve bushing to protect the cables. The inspectors questioned
the licensee concerning the measures being taken to protect such
-3-
t
-
,
cables from the rough edges where cables enter and exit such pene-
u ations. The inspector:: were shown a copy of field question
No. 15502, dated July 27, 1981, which addressed this concern.
The engineering response to the subject document inclu hd a
procedure for the repair of rough eiges on core drilled penetra-
tions. The inspectors observed core drilled penetration ECC 4368
and determined that the penetration was free of rough edges.
The inspectors observed that Class 1E cable tray B1332 and non-
e.
class IE cable tray X1146, located in the cable spread room, had
a horizontal separation of 3" in lieu of the required 12" separa-
tion. The inspectors reviewed Gilbert Associates raceway in-
sta11ation drawing D-214-142, revision H, and determined that
a separation barrier was to be installed between the subject
trays at a later date.
L licensee stated that during raceway
installation inspections the quality control inspector will
verify either adequate separation is maintained b> tween raceway
of different divisions or that separation barriers are identified
on raceway installation drawings. The licensee further stated
that, should a required separation barrier noc be identified on
a raceway installation drawing, the quality control inspector
will issue an Inspection Report (IR) to identify and control the
missing barrier. The RIII inspectors observed that the quality
control inspector who sign-J the raceway installation card for
Class IE tray B1332, indicated on the card that the separation
barrier was verified as being identified on the raceway drawing.
f.
The RIII inspectors observed the installation activities pertain-
ing to the PGCC interconnecting electrical cables and determined
the following:
(1) The divisional floor ducts, which serve as raceway for the
interconnecting cables, were free of sharp edges.
(2) The inspectors observed that there was no separation barrier
installed at the transition point (coordinates X-001, Y-0024,
25) in which a division III floor duct becomes a non-divisional
floor duct. The licensee stated that Field Design Instruction
(FDI) WNKI was being issued by General Electric which would
require the installation of additional firr barriers. The
inspectors reviewed a marked up drawing of the PGCC floor
duct complex which identified the need for a barrier at the
aforementioned location.
2.
Observation of Work Activities - Electrical Components
The inspectors observed the installation activities pertaining
to the following electrical components:
a.
Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor (5KV), IE12-C002C
-4-
,. ..
(1) The installation records Indicated the subject motor was
!
stored in place.
(2) Receipt inspections were performed and documented on a
Receip. Inspection Report, dated January 20, 1977.
(3) The motor heater was energized as required.
(4) Storage and maintenance requirements were deliueated.
Records indicated that these requirements were being
implemented.
b.
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Water Leg Pump, IE51-C003
(1) The installation of the subject motor was acceptable. The
motor was installed by traveler No. T1-E51-01, revision 0,
in accordance with procedure GEP-1P-0103, revision 1.
(2) Receipt inspections were performed and documented on a-
Receipt Inspection Report, dated May 15, 1980.
(3) Storage and maintenance requirements were delinented. Records
indicated that these requirements were being implemented.
c.
Motor Operated Valves 1E12-F105, IE51-F0010
(1) The installation of the subject motor operated valves (MOV)
was acceptable. MOV 1E12-F105 was installed in accordance
with Pullman isometric drawing IE12-49, revision 10A. MOV
IE51-F0010 was installed in accordance with Pullman isometric
drawing IE51-5, revision 8.
(2) Receipt inspections were performed and documented on Receipt
Inspection Reports.
(3) At the inspector's request, the licensee removed the operator
housings from the subject MOV's.
The inspectors verified
that internal heaters were energized and that the MOV internal
components were free of damage or corrosion.
(4) Storage and maintenance requirements were delineated. Records
indicated that these requirements were being implemented.
d.
The inspectors questioned the licensee concerning the subject of
underrated terminal boards, previously identified on Limitorque
valve ope.ators. The inspectors were shown a copy of a licensee
memo r .,nna requesting the station Nuclear Test Section to perform
inspections on Limitorque valve operators to ensure that under-
rated term.nal boards are not included in Perry installed M0V's.
-5-
__
_
.
..
.s
3.
Review of Records
'
The inspectors _ reviewed the receipt inspection records, storage and
maintenance records, and installation records pertaining to the
electrical components identified in Section 2 of this report. The
records were retrievable and acceptable.
Exit Itierview
The inspectors met with licensee representatives _(denoted in the Persons
Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on October 2,
1981. The inspectors summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the information.
_,
-
-6-