ML20054F250
| ML20054F250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1982 |
| From: | Gerstner W ILLINOIS POWER CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, 81-05, 81-5, U-0490, U-490, NUDOCS 8206150364 | |
| Download: ML20054F250 (2) | |
Text
.
/11/Na/S POWER COMPANY 1605-L fp U-Oj90 y,,oy, p.o. sex e78. cuNTON. ILUNOIS 6172s May 27. 1982 Mr. James C. Keppler Director, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Deficiency 81-05 10 CFR 50.55(e)
Minimum Separation Requirements fc r Certain Components of the 4160V Swityhgear On October 2, 1981, Illinois Power verbally notified Mr. H.M. Wescott, NRC Region III, of a potential reportable deficiency per 10 CFR 50.55(e) concerning minimum separation requirements for certain components of the 4160V switchgear.
This initial notification was followed by two interim reports:
L.J. Koch letter to J. Keppler dated November 6, 1981 and W.C. Gerstner letter to J. Keppler dated February 26, 1982.
Our investigation of the matter has not been completed, and this letter is an additional report to provide an update on our investigation.
During September, 1981, three nonconformance reports were written against the 4160V switchgear, addressing apparent violation of separation requirements between Class l
1E and Non-Class 1E circuits inside certain switchgear cubicles.
These violations were identified subsequent to termination of field cables and were found to exist in both current transformer circuits and control wiring circuits.
l This lack of physical separation in the installed switchgear prompted the investigation into several areas of potential l
deficiency, including design, construction procedures and controls, and QC training.
In he area of design, Sargent and Lundy (CPS Architect Engineer) was requested to review their design and procedures in meeting the requirements of the Clinton Power Station FSAR This review determined that drawings for the subject IE equipment did not meet separation requirements described in IEEE 384.
However, Sargent and Lundy has performed an extensive technical analysis of the subject 1E equipment
(
l which demonstrated that the safety function of the class 1E y
l
/
7 l
8206150364 820527 i
PDR ADOCK 05000461 jQS 10 G
PDR 1
J.C. K;ppisr Mcy 27, 1982 NRC Pcg2 2 switchgear is not compromised.
Sargent and Lundy also performed a 100% review of their wiring diagrams to determine if drawings for other equipment had been issued with violations of the Clinton Power Station FSAR.
The results of their review show no other drawings required revision.
In the areas of construction procedures and controls and QC training, the investigation is continuing.
Cable termination procedures are being reviewed and evaluated for separation /
segregation controls in conjunction with an electrical stop work recovery program presently in progress at Clinton.
This recovery program is described in Illinois Power's letter
" Response to NRC Confirmation of Action Letter" (W.C. Gerstner to J. Keppler letter U-0468, dtd. April 21, 1982.)
We anticipate that we will need an extention of approxi-mately ninety (90) days to complete our evaluation of cable termination procedures, provide a determination of reportability of this potential deficiency, and to file the final report.
Very truly yours, y
hm W.C. Gerstner Executive Vice President cc:
H.H. Livermore, NRC Resident Inspector i
Director, Office of I&E, Washington, D.C.
I Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Director-Quality Assurance l
l