IR 05000424/1986047
| ML20214P263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1986 |
| From: | Conlon T, Novak T, Sinkule M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 50-424-86-47, NUDOCS 8612040134 | |
| Download: ML20214P263 (42) | |
Text
'
.
_
..
' UNITE 3 STATES
[ka atcoq'o t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[' '
REGloN 11 n
- r j
"
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W.
'r
- ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
~%...../
-
Report No.:
50-424/86-47-
. Licensee: Georgia Power Company P.O. Box 4545
-
Atlanta, GA 30302-
-Docket No.:
50-424 Construction Permit No.:
CPPR-108 Facility Name:
Vogtle Unit 1 Module:
No. 12, Electrical Cables and Terminations Reviews Conducted: May 19, 1986 through July 2, 1986 On-Site Inspections Conducted: June 2-6 1986 and June 26-July 2,1986; NRC Offices Participating in Inspectio's/ Reviews:
n
,
Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), Bethesda, MD Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Bethesda, MD Region II, Atlanta, GA Reviewers: John Thompson, Project Engineer, NRR Inspectors: Milton D. Hunt, Reactor Inspector, Region II Jose h F.
acobsen, onsultant, Region II (EG&G Idaho, Inc.)
Approve
/ / - /9-F4 T. E. Conlon, Chief (Module--All Sections)
Date Signed P1 ant Systems ~Section Division of Reactor Safety, Region II
)N
- !li 8G l
M. V. Sinkule, Chief Da'te Signed l
Projects Sections'3C Division of Reactor Projects, Region II
'
0
// I'1 86
.-
.
T. Novak, Deputy Director p Datd S1'gned j
Division of PWR Licensing A-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations (NRR)
-
,
-
-
-
,: -
3i
-=
..
.
,
.
.
,
d
' '. '
SUMMARY DESIGN PROGRAF. VERIFICATION FINDINGS
<
2-15 A.
S00Rs not consistently incorporated into Specification X3AJ02 B.
FCRs not converted into MSCNS for Specification X3AJ11 12-16 A.
Calculation X3CK05 did not have revision numbers and issue dates B.
Data source references not provided for in Note 15, Page 6 C.
Note 28, Page 12 does not stipulate when Table 1 and Appendix A tables of DC-1809 were used 12-17 No documentation for full load currents used in Calculation X3CK05, Rev. 5 to size cables
,
12-18 A.
Documents for. safety related cable and accessories not classified Seismic Category I Document Classification DC-1809 Cat 2'
X3J11 11E X3J01 12E X3J02 12E X3J04 12E X3J06 12E
,
B. '0ER 86 states safety-related (Q) - class is 11E and seismic category is marked N/A and DER 014, Block 4 is designated non-Q while Engineering evaluation discusses Class 1E installation 12-19 A.
A wiring diagram shows cable with three wires and elementary shows 2
,
B.
A wiring diagram references one elementary diagram and the EE580 references another C.
Loop diagrams references wrong wiring diagram O.
Specification X3AJ02 references wrong paragraph E.
Calculation X3CK05 does not include conclusion section as indicated in Contents 12-20 Procurement specifications for cables state conductors shall be tin or lead alloy coated and the standard for lead alloy is not refeienced 12-22 1EEE384, FSAR, and Construction Specification X3AR01 conflict on cable tray fill
.
%
,,c.
--,.,,
.-
... -,
,
... -,
.,
. --_.
-
- - - -. -
- - - -,
.
-
.
.
-.
,
+
.
TABLE 3.
(continued)
12-23 Installed conduits do not meet spacing requirements in DC-1809
~
12-25 A.
Design documents have not been subject to design verification reviews as required B.
DVR meeting on CC-1809 had sign off error C.
No file Number X7V 1809 12-29 Specific changes to DC-1809 did not have adequate change bars 12-30 Data sources are not provided for cable ODS:in EE580.
12-31 Approvals not indicated on three CSCNs reviewed 12-32 Verification of cable lengths:
A.
Some were not checked in EE580 system B.
Some cable length taken from drawing because equipment was j
energized C.
EE580 lengths do not match pull cards 12-33 A.
. Separation requirements should be-submitted with SAR B.
Discrepancies in separation requirements in construction specification C.
Discrepancies in separation requirements D.
MCB separation inconsistencies
,
..
e
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
._
_
_
- _ _ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
e
...
l-TABLE 4.
(continued)
RRF Number Description 12-12 Violations of'the minimum maintained spacing requirement for 480 and 4160-V power cables were noted.
12-13 There is no documentary evidence that a " retraining of engineers on control of jumper packages" was ever conducted as stated in the letter to the NRC. dated August 15, 1985. Also a review of 142 jumper packages showed that 26 various engineers, who were not trained in the program, prepared 96 packages.
1) The procedure does not address review for all holds against the component.
2) The procedure allows the field to generate cards with changes such as cable routing.
22-F49 No documentation exists for cable storage conditions prior to cable pulling during cold weather (10 F or lower).
.
22-F53 Potential damage can be incurred by supporting cable coils with ty-raps or rope with no apparent means for protecting the cable from violating minimum bending radius, denting jackets, or damaging insulation.
22-F54 1) No documentation for location of unanticipated splices in field run cable.
2) No identification of material used in making above splices.
22-F56 The following are problems identified against cable pulling requirements:
1) Calculations were not retained.
2) Calculation results are not shown on pull cards.
3) Calculations only indicated results, not input data (applies to either hand or TI-59 program).
4) No criteria has been established for control of manual pulls.
Reliance is placed on the opinion of the pulling superintendent that cable damage will not result.
,
.. _., _ _ _
_._
__.
_
-.
_
-
e 38 -
TABLE 4.
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
_
RRF Number Description 12-1 Of.24 jumper packages reviewed, consisting of 101 jumpers, 1 package was found which omitted 2 jumpers shown by the applicable drawings.
In addition, 10 other packages omitted information pertaining to wire size and/or color erroneously called for grey wire when colored wire was required.
12-2 Calibration data recorded on the EE580 cards does not agree'with calibration records.
12-3 Of 77.inprocess cables and 50 completed cable:., the following apparently isolated procedure violations were noted:
1) One case of improper color code on a cable.
2) Two cables not pulled into the equipment as indicated on the EE580 card.
No rework or DR could be located.
3) Two trays did not have edge protectors where the cables exit the tray.
12-5 Various violations of the VEGP PPM requirements for processing greenlined card as follows:
1) Data from the greenlined card improperly incorporated on the revised computer card or rejected greenlines improperly closed out.
2) Green 11ne control log discrepancies.
-
3) Missing photocopies of greenlined cards and/or revised computer cards.
12-8 The requirements of ANSI N45.2.2, Sections 5 and 6, are not fully addressed by Field Procedure ED-T-05, although actual practices do appear to meet these requirements.
Specifically, Procedure ED-T-05 does not contain clear instructions for the issue, control, and documentation review of cable reels.
12-9 Two items on the Termination / Splice Final Checklist [Act. 2.3(g)
and 2.4(f) cannot be verified after the lug is installed, although the inspection records indicate all checklist items acceptable.
12-11 For two cable pulls, involving indeterminate raceway configuration, the maximum allowable tension was incorrectly calculated. Also the calculations, noted as having been performed, were not attached to the EE580 (7 cases).
-