ML19322A622
| ML19322A622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1971 |
| From: | Seidle W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911210695 | |
| Download: ML19322A622 (2) | |
Text
.
.d?
.v, t. -
, C),
- h*
p Q1 g * *,4,.,,
UNITED STATCS
,c7 g Q
[
M.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION A
g
, p g;:f',f Y
4, 7 p OlVISioN oF COMPLIANCE
- jN c mEoion n - suite ata
,. p
'% 'run e '/
v 230 PE ACHTREE STR EET. N CR T H W E ST AT LA mT 4. cEcacia sosos a 326
/
l N May 3, 1971 J. P. O'Reilly, Chief, Reactor Testing and Operations Branch (2)
Division of Compliance, Headquarters COMPLIANCE INQUIRY MEMORANDUM NO. 269/71 h - DUKE POWER COMPANY (OCONEE 1),
LICENSE NO. CPPR-33, DOCKET NO. 50-269 - MALFUNCTION IN h.16 KV SAFETY FEATURE SWITCHGEAR f
On April 28, 1971, D. G. Beam, Assistant Project Engineer, advised Region II by telephone of the shorting of the k.16 kv switchgear bus to ground. The following information was recei'.ed during this call and a subsequent call frcm C. B. Aycock, Field Engineer - Electrical.
1.
The short circuit occurred in the ecmpartment of the breaker which connects the Lee Station transfor=er (CTS) to the k.16 kv standby bus No. 2.
This feeder is an alternate source of emergency power to Oconee.
2.
The short circuit occurred between the bus pctential transformer lead and ground. Since the equipment had been visually inspected and had passed a high potential test, & cock could not state the cause of the failure with certainty. He postulated that the lead =ay have been disconnected during tests and had not been properly reconnected.
Vi-bration could have then caused the lead to shift sufficiently to cause the short.
3.
Aycock stated that based upon visual examination, it did not appear that the damage was severe. The transformer lead was destroyed, and a section of bus and a phase barrier were damaged. The licensee has sufficient spare parts to replace these items. The circuit breaker that interrupted the fault has not as yet been tested for damage.
Aycock stated that he would advise the inspector of the test results.
k.
Aycock could not be sure that procedures had been followed in the initial testing of the equipment since he could not be positive of the cause of the incident. From the discussion, it is probable that the lice:see does not have adequate procedures for the control of te=porary circuit modifications du.ing testing. The inspector vill review the incident during a scheduled inspection the first week of May.
~7911210b aeceospir.p F.* A/
3 63 t
r.
.o J. P. O'Reilly May 3, 1971 5
The licensee does not plan to submit to DRL a written report of the incident.
Y(.
l%
i L
l l
j W. C. Seidle CO:II:CEM Senior Reacter Inspector cc:
E. G. Case, DRS (3)
P. A. Morris, DRL R. S. Boyd, DRL (2)
R. C. DeYoung, DRL (2)
D. J. Skovholt, DRL (3)
P. W. Howe, DRL (2) o A. Giambusso, CO l!
L. Kornblith, Jr., CO R. H. Engelken, CO J. B. Henderson, CO R. W. Kirkman, CO:I B. H. Grier, CO:III J. W. Flora, CO:IV l
R. W. Smith, CO:V REG File,
,g i
.]
F i
,/
t 6
9
.-