AECM-81-376, Final Deficiency Rept Re Incorrectly Sized Beams for Cable Tray Support,Initially Reported 810903.All Deficient Beams Have Been Either Reworked or Replaced to Comply W/Correct Design
| ML20031D016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1981 |
| From: | Mcgaughy J MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, AECM-81-376, NUDOCS 8110090212 | |
| Download: ML20031D016 (5) | |
Text
.. '..
/
l
'l MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi P. O. BOX 1640 J ACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205
..,. 5 -
- 3 Y[4rM" October 1, 1981 Office of Inspection & Enforcement M
U. 3. Nuclear' Regulatory Comunission
( bp i f g'
V Region II.
/
101 Marietta Street, N.W.
1.16 (
d Suite 3100 3-M "OCT 8 NI" II L
Atlanta,' Georgia 30303 M.7 '
Attention: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Dir ctor p
p
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
/ Qj
SUBJECT:
Grand Calf Nuclear Station Units '. and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416/417 File 0260/15525/15526 PRD-81/36, Final Report, Incorrectly Sized Beams for Cable Tray Support AECM-81/376 on September 3,1981, Mississippi Power & Light Company notified Mr. H.
Dance, of your office, of a Potentially Reportable Deficiency (PRD) at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) construction site. The deficiency concerns incorrectly sized beams for cable tray supports.
?
We have determin M that this deficiency, had it remained uncorrected, could have adversely..fiected the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant and is reportable under 10CFR50.55(e).
It is not reportable under 10CFR21 as the affected equipment had not been turned over to Mississippi Power and Light at the time the deficiency was identified.
Attached is our final report.
Yours truly, 8
J. P. McGaughy, Jr.
EDS:dr ATTACHMENT-cc:
See nage 2
~
8110090212 81100 yDRADOCK 050004f6
$ llf[
PDR Member Middle South Utilities System-
~
i Mr. J. P..O'Railly.
AECM-81/376 14RC Page 2.
cc: Mr. N L. Stamploy Mr. R. P. McGehee Mr. T B. Conner Mr. Victor Stallo,. Director Office of Inspection 8: Enforcement U. S Nucleme Regulatory-Commission Washington,, D.C 20555 Mr. G. B Taylor South.Miss. Electric Power Association P. O. Box 1589 Hattiesburg, MS 39401 1
4 o
.1 j
l l
i
bec: ' Mr.41d C. Lutken-
'Mr. J.'Leatherman-Dr. D. C. Gibbs Manager of BWR-6 Licensing Mr. J.'N. Ward General Electric Compaty Mr. J. P. McGaughy, Jr.
175 Curtner Avenue tir. J. D. Heaton San Jose, Ca.
95125 Mr. R. S. Trickovic tir. J. W. Yelverton Mr. L. F. Dale Mr. D..M. Houston Mr. C. K. McCoy U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. T. H. Cloninger Division of Licensing Mr. R. A. Ambrosino Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. R. C. Fron Mr. G. B. Rogers Mr. S. H. Hobbs Mr. J. Matore Mr. L. E. Ruhland U. S. Nuclear Regulattry Commission Mr. D. L. Hunt Division of Licensing M
G. Wagner Washington, D. C.
20555 e
PRD File File Mr. Bruce J. Cochran Cochran Consulting Company P.O. Box 270503 Tampa, Florida 33688 5
e'
men W
""e e
emme.*-
ee
,e emse wh,,,,
.,, ~ "..
.,[.
,,, ",j_
e I
t
,a
+
e s
,-, p
. Attachment to AECM-81/376 Page 1 of 2 Final Report to PRD-81/36 A
I.
Description of the Deficiency Incorrect supplemental beam sizes W8 x 17 instead of W8 x 24, were ordered. Originally, seventy-six (76) seismic Class I tray supports were identified as having been installed using the incorrect size beams. The deficiency affects only Unit I.
The incorrect beam sizes were ordered because drawing notes were missed when fabrication requests were prepared.
II.
Analysis of Safety Implications Our Constructor has determined that if this deficiency had remained uncorrected it could have affected the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant and is reportable under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(e).
It is not reportable under the provisions of 10CFR21 because these ecmponents had not been turned over to MP&L for acceptance.
III. Corrective Action Taken The deficiency was caused by drawing notes being missed when fascica-tion requests were prepared. All proper procedures were followed and e required reviews were performed, but the drawing notes were still b
t.uc noticed. The incorrectly sized beams were then installed in the field because they were ordered specifically for the installed location and because of a lack of proper monitoring by our Constructor of installation activities.
Originally, seventy six (76) seismic. Class I tray supports were identi-fied as having been installed using the incorrect beam sizes. A sub-sequent review of all installed Q raceway support supplemental steel revealed an additional twenty four.(24) incorrectly sized beams. With the exception of one (1) beam, 1A-S01-1-4718A, all the discrepant beams had been ordered incorrectly sized.
Beam 1A-S01-1-47181. was ordered correctly sized, but apparently, a piece of stock steel was substituted for the ordered piece in the field.
All deficient beams have been either rewoticed or replaced to upgrade them to comply with the correct design.
In an effort to preclude ordering incorrectly sized beams, the person-nel involved in the preparation, review, and approval of fabrication requests were briefed on the drawing notes mentioned above and on their responsibilities.for.ginsuring, that,, material. otdered. complies with all
...., 3,. c drawiiig' requirements,. including applicable notes.
o Attachment to AECM-8r/376 Page 2 of 2 To preclude the installation of incorrectly sized beams, our construc-tor assigned a civil engineer to provide engineering support and to monitor the installation of supplemental steel for raceway supports for all Q installations. This is in addition to the normal QC inspection and installation verification required by Instruction No. 0712T of our Construct'.or's QC Instruction Manual.
t 4
g.
- ~ ", ". $,,,4
,g, g*_
- 4 f
r
,.p
=
p, e
g-
, [ ' # *e
',7,& ',\\ ' f )
e "g t 1, g
- t 4
1 I
l I
--