IR 05000361/1979027

IE Insp Repts 50-361/79-27 & 50-362/79-25 on 791001-05.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Allegation Re Factory Splices in GE Class IE Electrical Cable Installed at Facilities

ML13323A383
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/15/1979
From:	Dodds R, Eckhardt J, Elin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML13323A382	List: IR 05000361/1979027 ML13323A381
References
50-361-79-27, 50-362-79-25, NUDOCS 8001160453
Download: ML13323A383 (3)

Text

U. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO1ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT 50-361/79-27

REGION V

Report N /79-25 Docket N ; 50-362 License No. CPPR-97; CPPR-98 Safeguards Group Licensee:

Southern California Edison Company P. 0. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenuje Rosemead, California 91770 Facility Name:

San Onofre Units 2 and 3 Investigation at:

Construction, San Diego County, California Investigation conducted:

October 1-5, 1979 Inspectors:

~//

.<72 J. H. Eckhardt, Reactor Inspector Ifatehigned J.'-0. r1i1n Reactor Inspector J'ate / igned R. ') P 4 Resident Ispectore gned Approved By:

R. T. Dodds, Chief-ate'Si gned Reactor Engineering Support Section Summary: Investigation on October 1-5, 1979 (Reort No /79-27 and 50-362/79-25)

Area Investigated:

Unannounced investigation by regional based inspectors and resident inspector of allegation concerning splices of General Electric Class IE electrical cabl It was alleged that hundreds and hundreds of factory splices exist in General Electric cable installed at San Onofre, that the splices are well concealed, and that the problem will be buried in paperwork or a "deal" made with the NR The investigation involved 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> onsite by three NRC inspector Results:

The existence of the splices was substantiated, however, the licensee was previously aware of the splices and was pursuing the proble No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie RV Form, 219 (

DETAILS 1. Individuals Contacted a. Southern California Edison (SCE)

• H. B. Ray, Project Manager

• D. E. Nunn, Manager, QA

• P. A. Croy, Project QA Supervisor R. R. Hart, Construction Manager

• W. L. Rossfeld, Construction Lead QA Engineer J. Huey, QA Engineer b. Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)

• C. A. Blum, QA Manager

• J. E. Geiger, Project QA Supervisor

• R. H. Cutler, Project Field Engineer

• L. W. Hurst, Project Field QA Supervisor The inspectors also interviewed four Bechtel QC Engineers, a cable pulling Superintendent, and a cable pulling General Forema *Denotes those attending exit intervie. Summary of Allegation On September 25, 1979, the Region V Office received a typewritten letter postmarked Santa Ana, Ca., September 22, 1979, alleging that the General Electric cable installed in San Onofre has been spliced at the factor The letter stated that "General Electric spliced this class cable and used a vulcanizing procedure that almost completely concealed the location of hundreds and hundreds of splices."

The letter also states that Bechtel discovered this problem and "there is now an attempt to cover up this fact."

The unsigned letter was from "A Concerned Quality Control Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation."

3. Investigation and Findings The resident inspector was contacted by the Region V office on September 25, 1979, and indicated that he was aware of a cable splice that was discovered by Bechtel on September 12, 1979. Bechtel and SCE met with a General Electric representative on September 18, 1979 to discuss this finding. The resident inspector was allowing SCE, Bechtel, and GE to resolve this matter since they had discovered i During a routine regional inspection on October 1-5, 1979, the allegation was investigated by the regional based inspectors and the resident in spector. The inspectors interviewed all four of the Bechtel OC Engineers

-2 presently assigned to cable pulling. All of these QC Engineers were aware of the one splice found (in fact one of these Engineers discovered the splice), were aware of many "jacket patches" on GE cable, but each indi cated that he was not the alleger. Also, the cable pulling Superintendent and a cable pulling General Foreman were interviewed. They also were aware of the one splice and other jacket patches but indicated they did not know who wrote the letter. All of the people interviewed indicated that GE cable had many "jacket patches" and that when a cable pull was in progress and a patch was found, the QC Engineer.would make a decision to allow the pull to continue or reject the cabl This de cision is based on the size, appearance, and/or condition of the patc Nonconformance reports were generated for the cable that was rejecte During the investigation, six examples of "jacket patches" (as indicated by slightly different color and surface texture) on GE cable on reels were found. The licensee had these sections cut from the reels and dissected. In five cases, the insulation under the jacket was slightly deformed or had thin spots, and in the sixth case the insulation was cut through in a V" shape approximately 1/2 inch in size. This cut was not repaired. None of the cable was found to be spliced. It appears that GE has a vulcanizing process to repair the cable 'jacket or rejacket the cable in places where the insulation is damaged and uses this process extensively..

NRC Reg Guide 1.75 paragraph C.9 states that there should not be cable splices in raceways, and if there are splices in raceways this should be indicated in the Safety Analysis Report and the splice design give SONGS is committed to RG 1.75 but does not indicate splices in the SA Also, the Purchase Order calls for "continuous" cable to be supplied. The licensee indicated the GE representative revealed that GE had "many" splices in their cabl In summary, it appears that cable splicing of General Electric cable does exist based on the General Electric representative's statement to the licensee. To be acceptable, these splices must have appropriate design, qualification, testing and inspection. The licensee indicated that they are pursuing this matter with General Electric. The licensee also indicated they will modify the SAR based on the outcome of their investigation. Also, it does not appear that there was an attempt on the part of SCE or Bechtel to cover up the findin. Exit Interview At the conclusion of the investigation, a meeting was held with licensee and Bechtel representative (in conjunction with a routine inspection exit interview) denoted in Paragraph 1. The scope of the investigation and the observation and findings of the inspectors were discusse The licensee indicated they would continue to pursue this matter with the cable supplier and keep the NRC advised of the results of their con tinuing investigations.