IR 05000461/1981009
| ML20004E624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1981 |
| From: | Gardner R, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004E621 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-81-09, 50-461-81-9, NUDOCS 8106120406 | |
| Download: ML20004E624 (6) | |
Text
.
,.
w.m#
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-461/81-09 Docket No. 50-461 License No. CPPR-137 Licensee:
Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 Facility Name: Clinton Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection At:
Clinton Site, Dewitt, IL Inspection Conducted: April 9-10, 1981 N ' a [('s I'Y '
Inspector:
R. N. Gariner yfa5/M
,
-
(O(I W U,/ w Approved by:
C. C. Williams, Chief 6L/J9 / 6 /
Plant Syste:ns Section Inspection Summary Inspection on April 9-10, 1981 (Report No. 50-461/81-09)
Areas Inspected: Observation of electrical installation activities, review of nonconformance reports, review of field change requests. This inspection involved a total of 13 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncomplianct or deviations were identified in two areas; two apparent items of noncompliance (Criterion V - failure to follow procedures - Paragraph 1.c; Criterion III -
examples of inadequate translation of design criteria into drawings ad specifications - Paragraphs 1.a. and 1.b.) were identified in one area.
- MoeleoN0G
'
.
Y DETAILS Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- J. O. McHood, Vice President
- G. M. Brashear, Manager of Clinton Site
- A. J. Budnick, Director of Quality Assurance W. L. Calhoun, Supervisor of Electrical Construction
- R. J. Canfield, Director of Construction
- E.
E. Connon,-Assistant Director of Construction L. W. Dozier,. Assistant Director of Construction
- M. C. Hollon, Supervisor of Construction Quality Assurance Baldwin Associates
- W. J. Harrington, Project Manager
- J.
E. Findley, Senior Resident Engineer
- H.
R. Swift, Project Engineer T. Selve, Quality and Technical Services Manager
- L. A. Gelbert, Quality Control Manager General Electric Company
- G. A. Boortz, Control and Instrumentation Construction Engineer
- S.
G. Hall, Qualitt Control Electrical Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III
.-
- H. H. Livermore, Senior Resident Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Observation of Electrical Work Activities a.
The RIII inspector observed that the utility power cable which I
connects Termination Cabinet H13-P709 to panel li13-P672 is a non-divisional cable enclosed in flexible conduit.
Further, the inspector. observed that this non-divisional cable was routed into a division 4 floor duct just before it enters Termination Cabinet H13-P709. The routing of this cable from a non-divisional floor duct into a division 4 floor duct was in accordance with General Electric drawing 219B4641, Revision 1.
Pa ragraph 4.2.1.10a)1)
of NEDO-10-466-A, the Power Generation Control Complex Design Criteria and Safety Evaluation, in addressing cable separation categories, states, "Five categories have been identified, four divisions and one non-division. Each of these groups must be kept isolated from the other groups." Tbq.js e rector informed w-2-
,
'
the licensee that the flexible conduit is not an acceptable fire barrier. Paragraph 4.2.6.4 of NED0-10466-A states, in part, "The flexible conduit is only used for providing a ground path and not for fire barrier separation."
The inspector informed the licensee that the above is an example of incorrect translation of design requirements into instructions, procedures and drawings and that this was an example of an item of noncompliance with the requirements of Criterion III of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
(461/81-09-01)
b.
The RIII inspector observed that the cable associated with the smoke detector and fire detector installed in the division 2 floor duct at coordinates X-0008 and Y-015 of unit G were enclosed in flexible conduit with no divisional identification. Further, the inspector observed that the cable was routed from the division 2 floor duct into a division 4 floor duct and finally into a non-divisional floor duct. The licensee informed the inspector that the smoke detector and fire detector cabling design for the PGCC floor complex was incomplete. However, to the extent that this cable has been installed in a manner which is contrary to the design criteria identified in paragraph 1.a. above, this is another example of an item of noncompliance, contrary to the requirements of Criterion III of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
(461/81-09-02)
c.
The RIII inspector observed sharp edges in the PGCC floor duct complex at the following locations:
(1) Division 2 floor duct @ X-001, Y-014; Unit G (2) Division 2 floor duct @ X-026, Y-001; Unit A (3) Division 1 floor duct @ X-020, Y-027; Unit D The above condition is contrary to the requirements of para-graph 5.2.1(f) of Baldwin Associates Procedure 3.3.7 which states, " obstructions are cleared from cable pan /PGCC floor ducts, allowing cables to be pulled free of any sharp edges within the ducts."
The aforementioned sharp edges caused damage to cables B21H-XX-130 and E51A-XX-048. Subsequent to the RIII inspector's identification of these sharp edges and damaged cables, the licensee initiated nonconformance reports 4372 and 4373.
The inspector informed the licensee that the failure to assure that the PGCC floor ducts were free of sharp edges is an example of an item of noncompliance, contrary to the requirements of Critarion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendtx u.
(461/81-09-03)
. -.,
-3-
.
..-
-.
.-
- -. _.-_.
.-
.
.
- -
-
e i
d.
The RIII inspector observed the installed condition of the smoke detectors and fire detectors located in the PGCC floor ducts.
The inspector observed holes in the barriers separating the floor duct of one division from the parallel floor duct of another division of a non-division duct. These holes are a part of the smoke / fire detector installation and serve as the mounting points for octagon boxes to which the smoke / fire detectors are attached.
These holes allcw the passage of small insulated conductors from the detector in ane floor duct to a detector in the parallel floor duct. The inspector observed that this installation process does r.ot appear to provide adequate isolation between parallel floor ducts of different divisions.
Based on the inspector's concerns, the onsite General Electric representatives issued Field Deviation Disposition Request (FDDR)
LH1-651-81 on April 10, 1981. This matter is tnresolved and the response to this FDDR will be reviewed dur'ng a subsequent inspection.
(461/31-09-04)
e.
The RIII inspector observed that the licensee is using RTV as a moisture barrier and air seal at various locations in the PGCC floor duct complex.
In examining the RTV being used, the inspector observed that the manufacturer identified a shelf life of six months without refrigeration. The licensee could not verify that the six month shelf life had not been exceeded, however, the licensee informed the inspector that the date of manufacture is being determined. This matter is unresolved pending determination of date of manufacture.
(461/81-09-05)
f.
The RIII inspector observed that division I cable VQ99-0-031 is terminated at panel 313-P800, located in the Main Control Room, utilizing a Canon Plug mated to an Amphenol receptacle.
The inspector questioned the licensee concerning the engineering evaluation performed to ensure that the mating of the Canon plug to the Amphenol receptacle would not result in deleterious effects such as those produced as a result of material incompatibility.
The licensee informed the inspector that this concern had been previously addressed and that the data generated as a result of this concern would be made available at a later date. This matter is unresolved pending review of the aforementioned data.
(461/81-09-06)
g.
The RIII inspector observed that General Electric drawing 219B4641, Revision 1, which is the utility service cable drawing previously mentioned in paragraph 1.a. of this report. The subject drawing had been reviewed by Sargent and Lundy (S&L), the Architect Engineer, and identified as status 2.
S&L indicates by status 2 that, " Contractor may proceed in a ccordance with specification based upon revising drawings and resubmittal." The inspector observed that the S&L revision re. quest dated October, 1980, had not been implemented.
In discussions with the licensee concerning this matter, the inspector was informed that General-4-
__
_
..
_ _ _ - - - -.. _ -
.
_
-
, _.
-
o
Electric was responsible for the PGCC design and that while the comments made on General Electric drawings by S&L would be reviewed, the decision as to their incorporation would be made by General Electric. Chapter 3 (page-3-1, if the Clinton Power Station Quality Assurance Manual states, in part, "Sargent and Lundy is assigned the central role as design coordinator.
In this capacity, Sargent and Lundy shall receive and review applicable design documents from the other contractors, advise IP of design interface problems, and maintain configuration control." The licensee informed the inspector that measures exist to ensure that all General Electric drawingc identified by S&L as other than status I will be reviewed and resolutions made as to the S&L comments. The RIII inspector will review these measures to ensure that the licensee is identifying design interface problems, taking the necessary steps to assure the identified problems are resolved, and evaluating status 2 or 3 documents as to their affects on system turnover. This matter is unresolved.
(461/81-09-07)
2.
Review of Nonconformance Reports The RIII inspector reviewed nonconformance reports (NCR's) 4124, A137, 4148, and 4115. These NCR's identified damaged PGCC cables.
The disposition for each damaged cable was to repair the damage in accordance with General Electric FDDR LH1-586-81. The licensee informed the inspector that the materials used to effect the rep *..s were provided by General Electric.
No items of noncompl.nce were identified.
3.
Review of Field Change Requests The RIII inspector reviewed Field Change Requests (FCR's) 8252, 8218, 8212, and 8211. These FCR's identify insufficient PGCC cable length to allow termination af ter the cables were pulled. A revised routing was requested for each short cable. The licensee informed the in-spector that an FDDR was written for each FCR to document the revised routing of each cable and to provide engineering control of floor duct cable loading.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
I 4.
Other Areas Inspected
!
During a tour of the cable reel yard, the RIII inspector observed that the end caps on reels 03501-010-0 and 03351-09-03 were deteriorating and required replacement. The licensee stated that immediate correc-tive action would be taken.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
-
l-5-l
>
- - -.
.- - -
.-
.
.-
_
..
-
.
.- -_
-,
l i s J
Unresolved Matters Unresolved matters are items about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncom-pliance, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraphs 1.d.,
1.e.,
1.f.,
and 1.g.
Exit Interview The inspector's met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection on April 10, 1981. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the i.' formation.
.
O
!
-6-
.
..- -... -.-.-..- -
-..... -.. -. - - -. - -.,
. -.
.. - -.. -. -,, -- -..