ML20079H324
| ML20079H324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1984 |
| From: | Simpson J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401230398 | |
| Download: ML20079H324 (2) | |
Text
--
GENERAL $ ELECTRIC BREAKER BuslNEsS sECTION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
- 6901 ELMWOOD AVENUE
- THPADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19142 * (215) 726-2626 January 17, 1984 Mr. Richard DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Ducket No. 50/395 Operating License No. NPF-12 Substantial Safety Hazard 7.2kV Switchgear NE File:
7.1051
Dear Mr. DeYoung:
On September 13, 1983, our Product Service Department was informed that South Carolina Electric and Gas Company had reported to Mr. J. P.
O'Reilly on September 2,1983 that in April 1983 they had replaced some crimp type solderless wire terminals because of broken wire strands.,
associated with the "52Juxiliary Switch" mounted on G.E. Air Magnetic i
Circuit Breakers rated 7.2kV.
'~
l Mi. L. P. Carter, who is with our Nuclear Services Operation in Atlanta, Georgia, talked to SCE&G and arranged a visit to Columbia, South Carolina, for October 28, 1983. Mr. Carter reported that SCE&G didn't have records of the work done at that time and would forward same to him when available.
On November 16, 1983, our Atlanta Office forwarded SCE&G's records; however, they only stated how many breakers and the number of terminals per breaker that were replaced. No record was kept to show how many strands per wire were nicked or broken on the terminals. Our Atlanta Office asked SCE&G how many strands per wire were nicked or broken; SCE&G informed the Atlanta Office verbally that they estimated 10%.
Our specification No. 600045, Section 4.1.4 titled " Inspection of Crimp Type Solderless Terminals and Butt Splices" allows 6 (15%) nicked or broken strands per wire for our standard No.14, 41 strand wire. Our Quality Assurance specification is the same as MIL 454H.
We have audited 16 Air Magnetic Breakers in our factory and test laboratory and have not found any wires with broken strands that exceeded our specifications.
Some of these breakers are older and with operations well in excess of those at Since we have no report of broken strands - either bere or at SCE&G -
SCE&G.
exceeding the specification, we feel that this is not a reportable item under N
8401230398 84o117 PDR ADOCK 05000395 I
S PDR
Mr. R. DeYoung January 17, 1984 I have talked to Mr. V. Thomas and he suggested that I write to you explaining our position. On the above basis, we plan no further a_; ion.
Very truly yours,
[:L %[ae>~
J. H. Simpson Manager-Design Eng'ng.
/k cc:
J. P. O'Reilly US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia
. - _ _ _