IR 05000250/1993020

Insp Repts 50-250/93-20 & 50-251/93-20 on 930712-16. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Area of Electrical Maint

ML20056E669
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/10/1993
From:	Moore L, Shymlock M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML17352A195	List: IR 05000250/1993020 ML20056E666
References
50-250-93-20, 50-251-93-20, NUDOCS 9308250038
Download: ML20056E669 (7)

Text

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

.

. . . . ..

UNITED STATES f#p noh NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ye t REGloN 11

.s

)p ;7

..

S 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900 g g ;j ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323@99 s ~.... /

o Report Nos.: 50-250/93-20 and 50-251/93-20 Licensee: Florida Power and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, F1. 33102 *

Docket Nos.: 50-250 and 50-251 License Nos.: DPR-31 and DPR-41 Facility Name: Turkey Point 3 and 4 Inspection Conducted: July 12-16, 1993 Inspecto :' [2'b 9 Li L. R. Moore ~ Date Signed Approved By: WM M.'B. Shfmlock, Chief 9-/043 Date Signed Plant Systems Section Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety SdMMARY Scope:

This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the area of electrical maintenanc Results:

Review of work documentation and interviews with maintenance personnel indicated the licensee has implemented adequate controls of electrical maintenance activities. Management involvement in maintenance activities was appropriat One violation was identified during this inspection (paragraph 2.B) related to an inadequate work instruction used on a safety-related cable pul .

9308250038 930812 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000250 PDR

- . -- - . . . . .- - .

'

. ..

l

.

REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted ,

i Licensee Employees j

,

• R. Earl, Quality Assurance Supervisor  !

J. Estep, Chief Electrician  !

• R. Gianfrancesco, Maintenance Support Service Supervisor  !

D. Gonzales, Electrical Field Supervisor H. Freeman, Chief Electrician I

<

• H. Johnson, Operations Supervisor )

• J. Knorr, Regulatory Compliance Specialist l

• R. Kundalkar, Engineering Manager  :

• E. Lyons, Technical Services Supervisor i i *L. Pearce, Plant General Manager '

• M. Pearce, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor i

R. Simms, Electrical Field Supervisor l

• E. Weinkam, Licensing Manager i

!

Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included !

j electrical maintenance journeymen and apprentices, technicians, and j administrative personne l NRC Resident Inspectors l

*T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector j *L. Trocine, Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview i

Acronyms and abbreviations used throughout this report are listed in !

paragraph . Electrical Maintenance (62705) )\

'

The inspector reviewed electrical maintenance activities primarily over the period from 1991 to the present. The inspection included a review of procedures, maintenance documentation for completed work and interviews with electrical maintenance personnel. Interviews addressed

.

training, job preparation, work control processes, procedural compliance, management involvement, and specific tasks such as Raychem splicing and cable pullin Component Cooling Water (CCW) Pump Motor Overhauls The inspector reviewed the CCW pumps' motor overhaul activity accomplished in 1991 and 1992. Plant Work Order (PW0) 3992/63 for

B CCW pump and the following work packages for remaining CCW pumps were reviewed:

,

, WA901128085909 pump 4C WA900726090905 pump 4B

-_ -.

.

l

WA900726084523 pump 4A WA900731075122 pump 3C l WA900731065746 pump 3B The overhaul work package included motor lead box modification '

The documentation for these maintenance activities contained the I appropriate procedures to accomplish the various work processes '

included in the overhaul, i.e. cable splicing, motor removal and installation, ground testing, and post maintenance testin !

Initially the inspector was unable to verify the torque of cable l splice bolts as required by the applicable plant specification, j 5610-E-756, Installation, Inspection, and Testing Details for -

Electrical Equipment and Cable, revision 8. Further investigation i identified that this portion of the work was accomplished by the l construction department rather than the maintenance departmen j The documentation, FPL Termination and Splicing Inspection Reports !

E-91-5108 and 6092, was provided which verified implementation of !

the appropriate torque on the cable splice bolt Based on review i of work documentation and discussions with maintenance staff ,

involved with these tasks, the inspector concluded that the I overhaul activity on the CCW pump motors was accomplished in '

compliance with regulatory requirements for safety-related maintenanc r B. Charging Pump 3B Motor Overhaul The 3B charging pump motor was overhauled in April, 1992 and was l documented on work order WA920319860000. The overhaul included I routine cleaning of the motor winding. During the overhaul it was determined that it was necessary to acquire four to six inches of I additional motor feed cable. The work instruction, step 10, i directed the journeyman to pull the cable to obtain the extra !

length and megger the cable afterwards for grounds. The i instruction did not specify how the cable was to be pulled, '

hand or mechanical pull, nor did it reference the plant specification for pulling safety related cable, Drawing 5610-E-756, Installation, Inspection, and Testing Details for Electrical

'

Equipment and Cable, revision 8. For mechanical pulls, e.g. use of a chain fall or similar device, the 5610 specification provided requirements to assure the cable was not damaged during the pulling process. These requirements included a calculation to determine the limiting pull stress value and the use of a mechanism for measuring the induced pull stres The work documentation provided no details regarding whether a hand or mechanical pull was accomplished. Based on discussion

,

with the journeyman who accomplished the pull, the inspector determined that a chain fall was used for a portion of the pull to acquire the additional four to six inches of cable. There was no

'

limiting stress calculation and no mechanism used to determine the induced pull stress. The journeyman indicated he was not cognizant of the specification 5610 requirement and the work i

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

b

.

.

instruction did not reference the specification. As a result of the inadequate work instruction, the plant did not comply with the applicable plant specification, 5610-E-756, for safety-related l cable pulling. This was identified as violation 50-250/93-20-0 i Failure to Provide Adeouate Procedure for Performance of Safetv-Related Cable Pul The inspector reviewed documentation of subsequent activities on l 3B charging pump which indicated that the cable was not damaged by 1 the initial cable pull. The cable was meggered and the results indicated that the insulation was not damaged. During the initial pull, a single phase lead lug was detached from the cable. A nonconformance report (NCR) N-92-0108, was initiated to correct this deficiency. Corrective action required another cable pull to l acquire an additional six inches of cable. The instructions for i the second pull included an engineering evaluation which l calculated a limiting pull stress and provided work instructions l which implemented the specification 5610 requirements. The limiting stress was determined to be 2400 pounds and the induced j stress to acquire the additional six inches was 1800 pounds. The '

value of the induced stress of the second pull indicated that the initial pull did not exceed the calculated stress limit of 2400 ;

pounds for this cable. The inspector concluded that the 3B charging pump motor cable was not damaged by the initial pul l l

Following completion of the motor cable repair, the overhaul was !

cemleted and post maintenance testing demonstrated that the pump :

was operable. The pump demonstrated no subsequent abnormal I operating conditions indicative of inadequate maintenanc C. DC Load Center Maintenance Inspection and testing of the 3A and 3B DC load center undervoltage relay was documented on WA920127031524 dated February 13, 1992. The inspector noted that although one of the specified acceptance criteria was not met, the test was documented as satisfactory. Discussion with the licensee demonstrated that the out-of-tolerance criteria was a parameter used to verify the relay annunciator circuit was energized. The criteria was given as " verify voltage exists in circuit, acceptance criteria 125 -

138 VDC." The as found value was 139.2 VDC. This parameter did not impact the actual undervoltage relay setpoint which was verified in step 6.2.1.3.1 of the procedure to be within given acceptance criteri During performance of the procedure, an On-the-Spot-Change (OTSC)

was initiated to change the acceptance criteria of the annunciator circuit to require verification of circuit voltage without specific numerical voltage values. The licensee stated that the annunciator circuit was supplied from an unregulated power source with voltage levels varying depending on load. The inspector I

l

- _ - - . - . - -=

'

I i

!

!

!

4 i

!

concluded the procedure change and as found annunciator circuit  ;

voltage condition did not impact the undervoltage relay setpoint l or acceptability of the tes j Steam Generator 3A Feed Pump Motor Overhaul Overhaul of this pump motor was documented on WA920514215139 and ;

accomplished in November 1992. The documentation indicated the  !

maintenance activity was adequately cortrolled by procedures and j work instructions. The inspector noted that the motor cable plate !

'

-

holes were enlarged without use of the design change process. No guidance was provided in the work document, prescribing how the holes were to be enlarged. Discussions with the licensee  ;

-

demonstrated that this minor change was within the craft skill  !

levels. Additionally, because this pump was not safety-related, the use of the modification process documentation was not required '

,

by plant commitments. The inspector concluded that the motor l

overhaul was appropriately performed and documente j Diesel Generator (DG) Exciter Transformer Replacement The Unit 3 exciter transformer replacements were documented on Plant Change Modification (PC/H)92-141 and accomplished in October 1992. The PC/M documented that the new model transformers were installed and properly tested prior to return of the DGs to operations. Discussions with the journeymen accomplishing the transformers change-out indicated that the transformers were initially wired incorrectly due to use of an incorrect drawing in the PC/M package. The error was identified by an engineering check of connections which was required by the. procedure prior to

,

post modification testing. The error was corrected during the work process therefore no plant equipment reliability concern existed. The inspector concluded that the transformer replacements were appropriately performed and documente :l

' Reactor Coolant Pump Motor Overhaul The overhaul was performed in May 1992 and documented on WA920427114553. The documentation indicated the work was performed and documented ccrrectiy. Discussion with a journeyman i on this task indicated that there was a concern with poor shift turnovers on this extended overhaul. The inspector reviewed a maintenance department inter-office correspondence dated June 19, 1992 which addressed department expectations for turnover activity during this time frame. The correspondence confirmed that turnover improvements were necessary and that management was  ;

responsive to this issue. The inspector noted that the '

correspondence stated that management permitted overtime compensation for turnover and work package reviews. Based on work documentation which verified completion of satisfactory post maintenance testing, the inspector concluded that work on the RCP

motor was adequately accomplishe . .. . ,-. -, --. . . - , - . - - _ . - - . -

.

5 A Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor Overhaul Maintenance on this pump motor was accomplished on November 20, 1992 and documented on work request 92046820. The inspector noted that a QC holdpoint was missed related to verification of the <

proper Raychem kit used of a cable splice. The deficiency was identified by the licensee during the work process and documented on Quality Control Report, 92-0942 dated November 20, 1992. A post installation review by QC personnel verified that the correct Raychem kit was used on the splice. The inspector concluded the work was adequately performed and documented. The deficiency was appropriately addressed.

. Maintenance Staff Interviews The inspector interviewed 15 of the maintenance staff personnel on issues such as work practices, work instructions, training, management involvement, and specific maintenance tasks related to the previously discussed work tasks of paragraphs A through G above. The interviews included journeymen, chief electricians, field supervisors, and management personne The personnel indicated that the documentation reflected the actual work accomplished. With the exception of the 3B charging pump cable pull noted previously, they indicated that work instructions were adequate to accomplish the assigned tasks. The non-supervisory personnel indicated their individual capability and responsibility to assure performance of quality work. Personnel consensus was that management goals to expedite work and minimize equipment or plant outage time did not impact work quality. Discussions with management staff regarding specific maintenance tasks demonstrated a familiarity with the work activities reviewed by the inspecto Conclusion Based on review of documentation and discussions with maintenance personnel the inspector concluded, with the exception noted, that electrical maintenance activities were adequately controlled and documented. Management involvement in maintenance activities was appropriat . Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on July 16, 1993, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. Proprietary information is not included in the report. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results below. There were no dissenting comments received from the license (0 pen) Vio 50-250/93-20-01, Failure to Provide Adequate Procedure for Performance of Safety-Related Cable Pull

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

,.

,

6 Acronyms and Abbreviations CCW Component Cooling Water (system)

DC Direct Current DG Diesel Generator FPL Florida Power & Light i

'

NCR Nonconformance Report OTSC On-The-Spot-Change QC Quality Control PC/M Plant Change / Modification PWO Plant Work Order

,

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