ML20246F087
| ML20246F087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/05/1989 |
| From: | Moist R, Potapovs U Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246E995 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900765 NUDOCS 8907130117 | |
| Download: ML20246F087 (8) | |
Text
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
4l 1 . .
ORGANIZATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE L
- PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900765/89-01 DATE: May 8-11, 1989 ON-SITE HOURS: 28
. CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Alfred Weber, President C&D Charter Power Systems Incorporated 3043 Walton Road Plymouth Meeting, Pa 19462 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: ~ Mr. Jerry Rogers, QA Supervisor TELEPHONE NUMBER: (215) 825-2150 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Manufacturer of batteries, battery chargers and battery racks for commercial and nuclear industry. Less than one percent of the total production is devoted to the nuclear industry.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: OAfdd8/d 2 M M 70da d 670lY8f R.' N. Moist, Reactive' Inspection Section No. 2 Date (RIS-2)
OTHERINSPECTOR(S):
APPROVED : bc
. Fotapovs, Chief, RIS-2, Vendor Inspection Branch 7/I/h Ytte INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A. BASES: 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
B. SCOPE: The purpose of the inspection was to follow-up on a 10 CFR Part 21 report submitted by Philadelphia Electric Company to determine root-cause of identified problem and to assess any generic implications.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Arkansas Clinton(50-461); Cooper (50-298);
Fermi Unit 2(50-341);Ginna(50-244)(50-313); Grand Gulf (50-416);. Hope Creek (50 Kewaunee (50-286) Limerick (50-352); McGuire Units 1&2 (50-369/50-370);
Millstone Unit Monticello (50-263); Salem Units 1&2(50-272/50-311) '
3(50-423);50-400/50-401);
Shearon Harris Units 182 ( Songs Units 283(50-361/50-362); ,
k 999007b3
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - ._ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ __ E
[ . . .
ORGANIZATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE l- PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA I
L REPORT: INSPECTION NO.: 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 8 PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: (continued)
St. Lucie Units 182(50-335/50-389'); Susquehanna Units 1&2(50-387/50-388);
Three Mile Island (50-289); Vogtle Units 182(50-424/50-425); Waterford Unit 3 (50-382);Zimmer(50-358).
A. VIOLATION:
to Section 21.21 to 10 CFR Part 21, C&D Charter Power Contrary Systems (CPS) failed to notify all its customers af ter Limerick Generating Station, Unit i notified C&D CPS in 1987 and 1989 that battery charger model ARR13CK300 was unable to meet required output current with the latest revision of replacement circuit boards.
(89-01-01)
B. NONCONFORMANCE:
- 1. Contrary to Criteria III, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Duality System Program Policy Manual (QSPPM), Revision K, dated December 7, 1987, Section 2.1.2.1, prior to being notified by Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 in 1987, CSD CPS did not test latest revision of replacement circuit boards at the Battery Charger Final Acceptance test (FAT) to verify that the current output.of the charger would meet specification requirements. (89-01-02)
- 2. Contrary to Criterion V, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and QSPPM, Revision K, dated December 7, 1987, Section 4.2, FAT procedure, TP-9503, paragraph 4.6, dated January 13, 1984 states " Set the current limit at 115 percent of rated output unless otherwise specified on release," but does not specify how this is accomplished. (89-01-03)
- 3. Contrary to Criterion V, Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and QSPPM, Revision K, dated December 7, 1987, Section 4.8.2, C&D CPS QA records or Bill of Materials did not identify the value of the fixed pre-load resistors installed at FAT and subsequently shipped to LGS, Unit 1. (89-01-04)
C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
None i
p ORGANIZATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE
- PLYM0UTH MEETING, PA 1
REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 8 E. OTHER COMMENTS:
- 1. Background C&D CPS was founded in 1906 as Carlile and Doughty Company, was incorporated in 1912 and reincorporated in 1948 as C&D Batteries Incorporated. In 1959, CSD was purchased by the Electric Autolite Company (EAC). In 1963 EAC merged with the Mergenthaler Linotype Company to form the Eltra Corporation at which time C&D Batteries became ar. Eltra Company. In 1979, with the acquisition of Eltra by Allied Chemical Corporation, C&D Batteries became an Allied Company. In 1986 C&D Power Systems was purchased from Allied-Signal by Charter House International, Incorporated and became C&D Pot:er Systems, Incorporated. In Sept' ember 1987 the name was changed to Charter Power Systems Incorporated, to reflect the new relationship.
- 2. 10 CFR Part 21 During 1987 and 1989, two C&D CPS model ARR130K300 battery chargers did not perform in accordance with specification requirement at Philadelphia Electric Company's (PECo) Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1. PECo's preventative maintenance program requires replace-ment of control and current limit circuit boards every five years in accordance with Qualification Test Re During 1987, PECo replaced one Control Circuit Board (CCB) port.(P/N MBC-1971-1-E) and one Current Limit Circuit Board (CLCB) (P/N MBC-1970-E) in a Model charger with latest revision of CCB ARR130K300 (P/NMBC-1971-2-E battery) and CLCB (P/N MBC-1970-1-E). With the new circuit boards installed it was not possible to obtain the proper float voltage adjustment or current limit adjustment, nor was it possible to satisf actory complete battery surveillance test, which requires the battery charger to provide 300 amps output over an eight hour time period. The maximum current output the battery charger was able to supply was 250 amps. At the time C&D CPS was notified verbally and subsequently performed in-house testing. As a result of the testing C&D CPS provided instructions to PECo to change out a 600 ohm fixed resistor with a 500 ohm variable resis-tor in the charger circuitry to resolve the current and voltage adjustment problem. The same problem occurred again on February 4, 1989 at Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 af ter installing six new CCBS and one new CLCB in a Made', ARR130K300 battery charger.
On February 9,1989, a reportabiiity evaluation of this condition was 1 initiated by PECo. On March 23, 1989, this evaluation determined
- s. .
. . 1
- ORGANIZATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE
' PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA REPORT- INSPECTION NO.:_ 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 8; that the deviation was reportable to. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21 as a defect. The safety signi-ficance of this problem .is that the battery charger current may be insufficient to supply station loads and. restore the. batteries to the fully charged state within the required eight hour time period.
- 3. . Tour of Manufacturing Facility at Conshohocken, Pennsylvania No nuclear battery charger'or replacement circuit boards were
'being manufactured.at the time of this inspection. The following manufacturing areas were toured:
- a. Receiving inspection - The inspector reviewed documentation such as procurement records, inspection records and non-confor-ming reports'of components used in the manufacturing process of battery chargers and replacement circuit boards for the nuclear industry. Components dedicated to the nuclear battery chargers and replacement boards have the letter "E" at the end of C&D CPS part number. This letter signifies that only a particular vendor from C&D CPS approved vendor list may be used to procure a component. These particular vendors have to be used since the components'were qualified for seismic and environmental conditions with the charger during original design. It was determined by the inspector that the QA super-visor reviews all purchase nrders and reviews and approves all dispositions (corrective action) for non-conforming reports in accordance with C&D CPS Quality Manual,
- b. Battery charger line - It was determined that all models for the ARR series three phase battery chargers manufactured for.
nuclear industry have fixed pre-load resistors installed.
The bill of niaterials for model ARR130K300 battery charger used at Limerick Generating Station shows a fixed 600 ohm resistor in series with a fixed 50 ohm resistor installed during the manufacturing process.
- c. Final acceptance test (FAT) area - The inspector asked the QA Supervisor how C&D CPS sets the charger current limit to the required percentage of rated output. All single phase (ARR Models) have a coarse adjustment (external potentiometer) and a fine adjustment (variable pre-load resistor) to meet the requirement during FAT. However, adjustment for three phase (ARR Models) battery chargers can be accomplished only by replacing the existing fixed 600 ohm pre-load resistor or l
i ORGAN 12ATION: C&D CHa.RTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE l . PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA REPORT INSPECTION I
NO.: 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 8 by shorting out the existing fixed 50 ohm resistor and by minor adjustments to the potentiometer on the control circuit board and current limit circuit board.
The inspector reviewed Final Acceptance Test Procedure TP-9503, Revision V, dated January 13, 1984 and determined that paragraph 4.6 which states " Set current limit at 115 percent of rated output unless otherwise specified in release" was inade-quate. The procedure does not. address changing out fixed pre-load resistors or selecting different fixed pre-load resistor values at FAT to meet current limit performance requirements.
This issue is identified as nonconformance (89-01-03). QA records or Bill of Materials did not identify the actual value '
of the pre-load fixed resistors after Final Acceptance Test, therefore, it had to be assumed that all three phase chargers had the same pre-load fixed resistors that were installed during normal manufacturing process prior to FAT which was not the case. This issue is identified as nonconformance (89-01-04).
- d. Circuit board area - The control circuit boards and current limit circuit boards used in both one phase and three. phase (ARR Series) battery chargers are universal boards. Testing of the boards is performed with a ARR24AC12 printed. circuit board tester which simulates all ARR battery chargers. The current limit circuit board (P/N MBC-1970-1-E) is tested to verify that tne current limit circuitry performs in accordance with test procedure TP-9317, Rev bion 2, dated November 11, 1985. The control circuit boara (P/N MBC-1971-2-E) is tested to verify that voltage regulat fon circuitry performs in accor-dance with TP-9317. It shouhJ be noted that each. replacement board sent to the user is tested only at the printed circuit board level. A tag (C&D CPS JN-421) is sent with each replace-ment circuit board which states: "This Device has been factory tested and adjusted. Some difference can occur when installed which will require final adjustment. Please refer to the service manual for complete instructions." The inspector reviewed the service manual, RS-421, dated May 1984 and determined that the current limit setting was adjusted by the potentiometer on the current limit circuit board.
However, this adjustment was not adequate relating to the Model ARR130K300 battery charger used at Linerick Generating Station (LGS), Unit 1. Discussion of this problem can be found under paragraph 4.0 of this report.
i ORGANIZATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE j
. PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA
]
REPORT INSPECTION HO.: 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 8
- 4. Design Control of Replacement Boards )
1 ector reviewed the design changes in both control circuit i The boardsinsp(CCB) PN MBC-1971-2-E and Current Limit Circuit Boards (CLCB)l P/N NBC-1970-1-E. The changes are as follows:
- a. CCB MBC-1971 to MBC-1971-2-E - The original board MBC-1971 was installed, tested and shipped with the original battery ,
chargers to LGS, Unit 1. The replacement board had a zener 4 diode changed from a 20 volt to a 18 volt which eliminated '
the possibility of oscillation. Two saturable reactors were -
redesigned because the original vendor went out of business. 4 C&D CPS engineers stated that either of these two changes -l may have an effect on the current limit adjustment range.
- b. CLCB MBC-1970 to MBC-1970-1-E - Again the original board MBC-1970 was installed, tested and shipped with the original battery charger to LGS, Unit 1. Multiple changes were made to the replacement board, mainly in component values or in updating electronic components to newer device types.
These changes were'made to improve operating characteristics such as the elimination of oscillation in deep current limit.
C&D CPS engineers stated that these changes may have an affect on the current limit adjustment range because they affect ,
board operating tolerances.
It was determined by the inspector that design changes prior to 1987 for replacement circuit boards were not subject to design control measures commensurate with the original design. Both replacement CCB's and CLCB's were tested at board level, but not in a ARR series three phase battery charger to determine if there was an effect in the current limit adjustment range. This problem is identified as nonconformance(89-01-02). l
- 5. Other Evalustion The inspector reviewed a QA data request from C&D CPS Engineering, dated October 6,1987 to verify current limit range of ARR130K300 hattery charger with replacement circuit boards MBC-1970-1-E and
% -197 N -E installed in response to LGS, Unit 1 problem. Data indicated that the current output of the battery charger with a fixed 600 ohm resistor and a fixed 50 ohm resistor in series or with the fixed 50 ohm resistor shorted was not met. A fixed 600 l ohm resistor paralleled with a fixed 2000 ohm resistor in series I
with a fixed 50 ohm resistor or with the fixed 50 ohm resistor shorted did meet the current output of the charger.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ i
\; -
~
ORGANf2ATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE
. PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA i REPORT INSPECTION
- NO.: 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 8 The inspector reviewed another QA data request, dated October 13, 1987 from C&P Engineering requesting comparison of current limit.
range of ARR130K300 battery charger with circuit boards MBC-1970-E and MBC-1971-1-E installed using a fixed 600 ohm resistor paralleled with fixed 2000 ohm resistor in series with a fixed 50 ohm resistor.
The results of the tests showed that current output of the charger was met. C&D CPS Engineering based on these tests recommended that LGS, Unit 1 to remove the existing fixed resistor in charger cir-cuitry and replace it with a variable 500 ohm resistor using C&D CPS installation procedure. No other customers were notified of this problem.
- 6. 10 CFR Part 21 Deportability The NRC inspector determined after review and evaluation of 10 CFR Part 21 notification from LGS, Unit ?, technical specification, and purchase orders that C&D CPS failed to notify all its customers that battery charger model ARR130K300 was unable to meet required output current with the latest revision of replacement circuit boards.
This problem is identified in violation (89-01-01). The inspector reviewed standard policy and procedures A-14-1, dated July 1, 1987,
" Reporting of Defects and Non-Compliances in Accordance with 10 CFR Part 21." The procedures appear to be adequate.
- 7. Circuit Breaker Review Circuit breakers that were used during original design of battery chargers were procured from I/O Electric, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania a distributor. The two types of circuit breakers procured from I/O Electric were Westinghouse model JB-3125125 amp. A.C.
breaker and Westinghouse model 1.AB-21500 400 amp. D.C. breaker.
These breakers were procured in the early 1980's and installed in the ARR series three phase battery chargers during original design, therefore, no traceability to shipping documents or invoices was available. However, the inspector reviewed Acton Qualification Test Report 15520 for the original battery charger used for LGS, Unit 1 and verified that the above two Ntinghouse models were used in the qualification test program.
All replacement breakers are procured from Westinghouse Electric Supply Company (WESCO). The inspector reviewed documentation that showed the breakers are shipped directly from Westinghouse Electric l with qualification Corporation,NSID,Monroeville, data Pennsylvania included. Westinghouse breakers Model (HFB3070andKB371) were selected by the inspector to verify the above.
i I
u_-______._._______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l
+
.. 1 ORGANIZATION: C&D CHARTER POWER SYSTEMS INCORPORATE PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900765/89-01 RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 8
- 8. Exit Interview The manager of Application Engineering stated that C&D CPS is !
notifying all of their customers, relating to ARR Series 6 and !
12 pulse three phase battery chargers of the problem identified '
at Limerick and advising their customers to make a determination '
of the safety significance. This notification will be completed within thirty days. C&D CPS gave the inspector a list of all their customers and what battery chargers they procured from C&D CPS.
F. PERSONNEL CONTACTED:
- Jerry Rogers, Quality Assurance Superviror
- G. Graham Walker, Manager, Applications Engineering
- David H. Muhlrad, Manager, Product Development
- David C. Johnson, Manager, Quality Assurance Keith Walbert, Receiver, Receiving Department
- Attended Exit Meeting l
i l !
l
.