ML19220B983

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Thirty Day Followup Ltr of Deficiency.Conduit Installed Through Unnumbered Pull Sleeve.Certain Corrective Actions Planned,Including More Emphasis on Hold Tags
ML19220B983
Person / Time
Site: Crane Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/19/1975
From: Arnold R
Metropolitan Edison Co
To: Knuth D
NRC/IE
References
GQL-00100, GQL-100, NUDOCS 7904280031
Download: ML19220B983 (2)


Text

.

U!

%c., " i i - ' j METROPOLITAN EDISCN COMPANY

't3rF C2 Stx 542 REAtlNG. PENNSYLVAN! A 19603 TELE:"CSE 9 5 ~ 20-2501 December 19, 1975 GQL 0100 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Dr. D. F. Knuth, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==1ssion

'a'ashington, D. C. 20555 Docket No. 50-320 Subj ect : Three Mile Island Nuclear Stat 1.

- Unit 2

Dear Dr. Knuth:

On November 20, 1975, Mr. Rick Kei=ig of your office was verbally notified of a situation which Met-Ed cons' 2ers to be reportable under the require =ents of 10 CFR 50.55 (e). This letter constitutes the required thirty day follow-up letter.

Descrintion of Incident On Nove=ber 18, 1975, UE&C/QC issued site Deviation Report 0530 against conduit and cable 1DC3, due to the fact that the conduit was not routed through pull box 1DC27 as indicated on the applicable drawing and pull slir.

Instead of routing the conduit through pull box 1DC27, construction had elected to install the conduit through an unnu=bered pull sleeve. The renainder of the conduit was install <1 per the drawing. The DR was issued when the electrical construction group began pulling circuit 1DC3.

A red hold tag was placed en the cable and the conduit, and the Electrical Depart =ent was notified of the DR issuance. Si=ultaneous with the issuing of the DR, the pulling crew stopped the pull to shift their pulling line up The Electrical Depart =ent then began to process a Categorf 1 Release to allow the= to continue pulling. The Category 1 Release was approved by QA and con-struction; however, the A/E would not sign the release. The cable pulling supervisor was not inferned that the release was disapproved and assured that he was cleared to continue pulling. At about 1600 hours0.0185 days <br />0.444 hours <br />0.00265 weeks <br />6.088e-4 months <br />, he directed his pulling crew to continue the pull to co=pletion which would involve several hours of overtime. At the end of the dayshift (1615) the pulling crev QC inspector left the site. Neither he nor any of the QA supervisory personnel were aware that the pull was going to continue into the second shift. The pull then proceeded to co=pletion at about 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> without benefit of QC to nonitor and record the cable tensioning records as recuired by specifica-tions. A supplement to the original DR was written the following day indica-t'ng that the cable was pulled despite the red DR hold tag and without QC surveillance.

~ 2%

3 1.- )

~

79042800H g

Analysis of Safetv I=olications The purpose of =enitoring cable tensioning during pulling operations is twofold. First, it ensures that a constriction of the conductor cross sectional ares does not occur. Secondly, it gives an indication of the resistance tacurred during pulling which may damage the cable insulation.

Both a satisfactory continuity check and = egger test were performed on circuit 1DC3. These tests give assurance that no damage occurred tc the circuit during the un=onitored portion of the pull.

Corrective Action On November 19, 1975 a meeting was held with GPU and CE&C =anage= ant personnel Electrical construction supervisors, and QC supervisors cc dis-cuss the =atter and to provide corrective actica to prevent recurrence.

The follcwing course of action was agreed to:

a.

Construction personnel were instructed to honor all hold tags and not to assu=e that a release had been completely processed.

b.

A better line of co==uncations between construction and QC personnel regarding second shift and overtime work would be developed.

c.

The engineer is to determine whether or not pull boxes are an i=portant component in routing information and if pull sleeves may be substituted for pull boxes as required by construction.

Very truly yours,

O } k 7' R. C./ Arnold RCA: C'4S : tas cc: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly 84 207