ML19329B148

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Guidance on Acceptability of Util Spec Change Re Support of Control & Instrument Cables Routed in Vertically Installed Conduit.Change Identified as Inappropriate Per IE Insp Rept 50-346/76-18
ML19329B148
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 12/15/1976
From: Heishman R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Seyfrit K
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML19329B143 List:
References
NUDOCS 8001300722
Download: ML19329B148 (2)


See also: IR 05000346/1976018

Text

-_____-__-______ - -_____________________

(

^

-'

-

.

.

.

()

-

.

'

h_./

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-

l

l

REGloN lit

759 ROOSEVELT RO AD

GLEN ELLYN. BLLINCIS 60137

December 15, 1976

Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch

Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Headquarters

SUPPORT OF CONTROL AND INSTRUMENT CABLES ROUTED IN VERTICALLY INSTALLED

CONDUIT - (A/I F30248H)-

TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY - DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1 (DOCKET No. 50-346)

Section 300-19 of.the National Electric Code (NEC) requires that

" Conductors in vertical raceways shall be supported.

One cable

]

_

support shall be provided at the top of the vertical raceway or as

'

close to the top as practical, plus a support for each interval of

l

spacing as specified in Table 300-19(a)." Spacings for conductor

l

supports and support methods are also provided.

J

The Toledo Edison Company (TECO) in their Final Safety Analysis

Report for Davis-Besse Unit No. 1, committed to use the NEC for

.

Class 1E design and installation.

TECO's installation specification

(D)

electrical inspection, it was noted :. hat Davis-Besse installations

[

appropriately references Section 300-19 of the NEC. During a special

T'

did not conform to the above stated criteria.

The disposition by

I

TECO of the finding was to revise the installation specification.

Originally, the specification read: "Verti. cal. conduit. risers of more

'

-

{

.than 20 feet shall be provided with spproved cable clamps or supports."

~

~

i

As revised, it reads': "All vertical conduit risers carrying' power

l

cables shall have the provision for supporting'the cables in accordance

with the .1971 National Electric Code, Section_300,-19_.

All vertical

t

conduit risers carrying control or instrumentation cable, which are

over 20 feet in length and terminate at the upper end, shall have the

cables restrained by wedge grommets or split Kellum Grips at the upper

end to prevent strain on the terminals." -

~

'

Ij

IE:III identified the specification change as inappropriate and a

/

deviation from previous commitments (IE Inspection Report _No.

050-346/76-18). The basis for this action was:

-

.

1.

The arbitrary split in requirements between power and control

instrumentation cable;

'

,,

2.

The liberal requirement of " terminated at the upper end"; and

.

.

.

.

5

O@Om

x sl

t

,

9

m

5

%

00 9N

776 19

013

._

.-.

^

.

.

,

~'

..

.

I

Karl V. Seyfrit

-2-

December 15, 1976

3.

The lack of assurance that the unsupported cables will maintain

all safety, physical, and electrical characteristics and not

sustain damage from elongation, expansion, vibration, abrasion,

or fraying over the design 40-year plant life.

TECO disagreed with the deviation notice and contend, in their

response letter dated November 24, 1976, that the specification

change is considered to be appropriate, in accordance with good

i

I

engineering practice, and meets the intent of the NEC. Further,

i

TECO contends that support for control and instrument cable is

solely "for the purpose of termination protection and not related

l

f

to conductor tension strain."

1

Answers to the following questions are specifically requested:

1.

Is TECO's specificacian revisica appropriate,

i.e.,

in keeping

j

with the inecnt of NEC Section 300-19?

H

2.

Is the revised design acceptable for support of instrument

control cables? If not, what would be considered an acceptable

'

design?

l

l

Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact

j

Mr. D. W. Hayes or Mr. F. J. Jablonski.

-

i

R. F. Heish=an, Chief

Reactor Construction and

Engineering Support Branch

i

Attachments:

1. Ltr dtd 11/24/76

i

Lowel E. Roe to James G. Keppler

2. Ler dtd 12/15/76

?

R. F. Heishman to TECO

cc:

G. W. Roy, IE:HQ, w/ attachments

J. G. Keppler,w/o attachments

D. W. Hayes, w/o attachments

C. C. Williams, w/o attachments

4

a

1

. - - .

-

.

-

.~~