ML20003A600
| ML20003A600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | Mcgaughy J MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| AECM-81-49, NUDOCS 8102040361 | |
| Download: ML20003A600 (2) | |
Text
.
/
'jf]
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Build Mississippi tithlMedis P. O. B O X 16 4 0. J A C K S O N, MI S SIS SIP PI 3 9 2 0 5 YsU.r$iNczs%[
January 29, 1981 Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W.
Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention:
Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416/417 File 0260/15525/15526 PRD-80/73, Instrument Process Tubing, Status Report No. 1 AECM-81/49 On December 30, 1980, Mississippi Power & Light Company noti-fied Mr. J. Rausch of your office of a Potentially Reportable De-ficiency (PRD) at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (CGNS) construc-tion site. The deficiency concerns discrepant slopes in instrument process tubing.
This deficiency is currently under investigation. We expect to provide to you our final report and determination of reportabil-icy by April 24, 1981. Our findings and corrective actions, to '
date, are summarized in the attached status report.
Yours truly, J. P. McGaughy, Jr.
CWH:mt Attachment cc:
Mr. N. L. Stampley ctor Stello, Director Mr. G. B. Taylor Mr. R. B. McGehee Div. of Insp. & Enforcement South Miss. Electric Mr. T. B. Conner U. S. Nuclear Reg. Comm.
Power Association Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 1589 Hattiesburg, MS 39401 Bo/7 3
l
//
8102040 $ \\
Member Middle South Utilities System
s-
~
)
Attachment to AECM-81/49, Page 1 of 1 STATUS REPORT NO. 1 TO PRD-80/73 I.
Description of Deficiency A random sample of instrument process tubing has disclosed a number of installations that do not meet the minimum slope requirement of the appropriate specification. Several of the discrepant installations 'save been accepted by the Con-structor's Field Engineering +ad Quality Control sections.
This renders the quality of oil installed safety related tubing indeterminate. All Unit 1 instrumentation systems could be affected. The potential exists for the deficiency, as noted, to produce an error in essential instrumentation in excess of design limits. Potentially, inaccurate instrument readings /
trips could adversely affect the safe operation of the plant.
II.
Approach to Resolution of the Problem 1.
Reinspect instrument process tubing to ensure proper in-stallation.
2.
Investigate impact on safety by the improperly sloped tubing.
.i i
1 3.
Develop proper corrective action, if required.
4.
Review and modify inspection. requirements to preclude future acceptance of improperly slioped tubing.
III.
Status of Proposed Resolution 1.
The Architect / Engineer is in the process of evaluating the scope of the reinspection.
2.
The inspection criteria for instrument tubing slope require-ments has been revised and the inspection personnel on site have been instructed by Architect / Engineer personnel to as-sure consistancy in interpretation of these new requirements.
3.
Further actions required will be based on the results of the reinspection.
l
-IV.
Reasons for Delay of Final Report The Architect / Engineer has not completed initial investigation.
V.
Projected Date for Final Report l
We anticipate filing our final report by April 24, 1981.
l l
l l
t,
.