ML20092N497
| ML20092N497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1984 |
| From: | Treece B COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092N488 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407030208 | |
| Download: ML20092N497 (52) | |
Text
e Commonwealth Edison Company j; '. June 29, 1984
~ ELATED CORRESPONDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00WQED US u ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'54 11 -2 P ? :23
_ In _the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL
) STN 50-455 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
)
(Bryon Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY OF BOBBY G. TREECE ON ISSUES 5 AND 6 (CABLE OVERTENSIONING) AS LIMITED BY THE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF JUNE 8, 1984 I. Bobby G. Treece of Sargent & Lundy is the Senior Elec-trical Project Engineer for Byron Station.
II. All of the safety-related cables which were installed in conduit prior to the December, 1982, implementation of the electrical contractor's revised cable installa-tion procedure will perform their intended functions.
A. This conclusion is borne out by the analysis performed by Sargent & Lundy.
B. This analysis comprised the following steps:
- 1. Available cable pull ~ reports for cables pulled in conduit before December, 1982, were reviewed. Many of the cables covered by these reports were found to be acceptable.
2.- For those cable pull reports in which the
' allowable pulling tensions had been exceeded, 8407030208 840629 PDR ADOCK 05000
r 7x
-II-based upon the general pull criteria, the 1
details of! the cable pulls were forwarded to the-cable manufacturers for the performance of a specific analysis to determine the acceptability of the cable pulls.
- 3. All of these cable pulls were found to be acceptable, based upon the manufacturers' specific analysis.
- 4. Sargent & Lundy then analyzed approximately 2600 conduits, which included all safety related cables pulled in conduit prior to December, 1982.
- 5. The safety-related cables in all but three of the approximately 2600 conduits analyzed were found to be acceptable.
6; . .The details of these three conduits were for-warded to the cable manufacturer for the per-formance of a specific analysis. Based
-upon the cable manufacturer's analysis, these cables were found to be acceptable.-
C. The NRC accepted this analysis and concluded that there was a reasonable assurance that the safety-related cables installed in conduit prior to December, 1982, would perform their intended functions.
m UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-454 OL
) STN 50-455 OL COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )
)
'(Bryon Nuclear Power Station, )
Units l'and 2) ) ,
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF BOBBY G.-TREECE ON ISSUES 5 AND 6 (CABLE OVERTENSIONING),
AS-LIMITED BY THE LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF JUNE 8, 1984
'Q-1. Please state-your name.
A-1. Bobby G. Treece. >
0-2. What is your residence address?
L A-2. My' residence-address is 807 South We-Go Trail, Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056.
-Q-3. By whom are you employed <id in what capacity?
A-3. I am employed by Sargent & Lundy. My position is Associate and Senior Electrical Project Engineer
.for Byron and Braidwood Stations.
Q-4. Please describe your educational background.
A-4. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from the University of Arkansas in 1948.
.,n. - , - - - . - - p ,--
V .
I am. licensed-as a professional engineer in the states of Arkansas, Florida and Illinois.
-Q-5. Please describe your employment experience.
A-5.-I went to work for Ebasco Services in 1948 as a cadet engineer. In 1951, I joined Sargent & Lundy as an Electrical Engineer. In 1963, I became an Electrical Project Engineer and was promoted to Senior Electrical Project Engineer in 1968, the position which I hold c
today. During this period, I have been responsible for the engineering and design of the electrical aspects
.of. numerous power plants,-both fossil and nuclear.
In addition to Byron Station, I have performed electrical engineering work-for the Dresden, Zion and Braidwood Nuclear Stations.
Q-6.fPlease describe your duties as Senior Electrical Project Engineer ~for Byron Station.
A-6. I have principal responsibility for the electrical engineering and design for the Byron project. My duties include the division of work among the Electrical Project Engineers and Electrical Engineers assigned to the Byron project team. I supervise and review the work performed by_these engineers and provide the inter-face between the Electrical Department of Sargent &
Lundy and personnel at Commonwealth Edison with respect to Byron Station.
B .
'Q-7.JPlease describe the scope of your testimony.
-A-7..My-testimony is in response to Issues 5 and 6, relating to potential cable overtensioning, or over-
' stressing, at Byron. Station, as those issues have been. limited by the Licensing Board's Order of June 8,
'1984.. This testimony is intended to supplement the
' testimony.of James 0. Binder, of Commonwealth Edison.
Company,.which also relates to potential cable overtensioning.
- Specifically,-my~ testimony will describe the analysis performed by Sargent & Lundy of all of the safety-
'related electrical cables installed in conduit at Byron Station prior to December, 1982.. The purpose of that'
~
analysis was to determine whether or not any of those cables had' been: rendered unacceptable due to overtensioning
'I will describe how:the analysis came to be'done, the
.methodologyfused'in.-performing-the analysis, the
-results ofLthe' analysis,-and the conclusions.which were drawn from it. IThe attachments to my testimony consist Lof 'various letters and an NRC Inspection Report which pertain to this matter.- I am familiar with:the contents
- of all of these attachments to the extent that they pertain to the cable overtensioning matter.
Q-8..Did Sargent &-Lundy perform an analysis of all of the safety-related electrical cables installed in conduit at Byron Station prior to ' December, 1982, to determine whether any of those cables had been rendered unacceptable due to overtensioning?
a
r- a 1
_4_
A-8. Yes.
.Q-9. Is electrical cable installed only in conduit?
A-9. No. Electrical cable may also be installed in cable trays.
Q-10. Why did the. analysis' performed by Sargent & Lundy not i
consider cable installed in cable trays?
A-10. Potential overtensioning of cable installed in trays was i-- not considered.to be a problem and thus was not included
%4 -
in the analysis performed by Sargent & Lundy because the
-majority of these cables are laid in trays by hand. The i possibility of exerting too much tension during such i cable installations is small. For the remainder of h
the pulls through trays, the contractor uses pulling guides , or sheaves, for turning the cable around bends in the tray. For-a given' pulling tension, these guides reduce the sidewall pressure experienced by a cable below that for a conduit of the same radius.
Sargent & Lundy's installation drawing addressed cable sidewall pressure by specifying minimum cable pulling guide radii.
Q-ll. Please explain why Sargent & Lundy performed.an analysis of all of the safety-related electrical cables installed in conduit at Byron Station prior to December, 1982, with respect to potential overtensioning.
A-11. As previously described in the testimony of Mr. Binder, an NRC inspection in the Spring of 1982 identified as
7
~
~5-an item of noncompliance the fact that the cable in-stallation procedure used by the electrical contractor, Hatfield Electric, did not address the requirements to calculate allowable cable pulling tensions. Common-3 wealth Edison's response to this item was to revise the cable installation procedure so as to address the subjects of concern to the NRC. In addition, Commonwealth Edison committed to take appropriate action to ensure that all safety-related cables installed prior to the implementation of the revised procedure in December, 1982, would perform
( their intended functions. This was to be accomplished by a review of cable pull reports and the performance of additional analysis by Sargent & Lundy.
Q-12. Did you review cable pull reports covering all safety-related cables pulled in conduit prior to December, 1982?
A-12. No. Cable pull reports do not exist for all such cables.
Q-13. Why do they not exist?
A-13. Originally, the electrical contractor's cable installation procedure did not require that cable pull reports be prepared for all safety-related cable installations.
Q-14. Please describe the review of cable pull reports performed by Sargent & Lundy.
A-14. Sargent & Lundy began by reviewing the available cable pull reports for cables pulled in conduit before the revised t__
ps I
cable installation procedure was implemented in i
~ December, 1982. In addition, Sargent & Lundy reviewed the cable pull reports attached to Commonwealth Edison Nonconformance Report (NCR) F-747. For each cable covered
'by a-cable. pull report, Sargent & Lundy calculated the allowable pulling tension, using criteria supplied by the cable manufacturer, and compared that tension to the tension which had been documented on the cable pull report. .This review revealed that 25 of the cable pulls-covered by the cable pull reports exceeded the allowable pulling tensions. Of these 25 cases, five
~
cable pulls exceeded the allowable pulling tension determined by tensile strength, 16 cable pulls exceeded the pulling tension determined by sidewall pressure and four' cases exceeded the allowable pulling tension determined by both tensile strength and sidewall pressure.
For these 25 cable pulls,'it was determined that additional analysis was required before it could be
. concluded whether the monitored pulling tensions were acceptable.
Q-15. How could additional analysis demonstrate that the pulling tensions recorded in the 25 cases mentioned in
-Answer 14, above, were acceptable?
A-15. The cable pulling criteria as provided to Sargent &
Lundy by each cable manufacturer are general pull
_7_
criteria. As such, then do not establish the maximum tension which the cable can withstand without damage.
The general criteria thus include a margin of con-servatism. Sargent & Lundy, using these general criteria from each manufacturer, develops composite criteria applicable to all cables installed in Byron Station.
Because these composite criteria are based upon the most stringent of the cable manufacturers' general criteria,
-they provide an additional margin of conservatism for some
' types of cables. Sargent & Lundy's analysis of the cable
. pull reports was based upon each cable manufacturer's general pull criteria. However, due to the manufacturer's
.-margin of conservatism inherent in the general pull criteria, the manufacturer can perform a specific analysis to
- determine the acceptability of a particular cable pull.
Q-16. What was'done regarding the 25 cable pulls in which the
~
allowable pulling tension was exceeded?
A-16. Details of these specific cable pulls were forwarded to the cable mandfacturers by-Sargent & Lundy with a request that they perform a specific analysis of each cable pull.
< Based ' cut the cable manufacturers ' review, all 25 of these suspect cable pulls were found to be acceptable. See Attachment A (letter from Sargent & Lundy to Commonwealth Edison dated January 26, 1983) and Attachment B (letter from.Sargent & Lundy to Commonwealth Edison dated December 12, 1983).
._9_
Method 2. Sargent & Lundy determined the critical
' (nanimum) conduit length for each conduit size assuming a worst case conduit configuration and the actual installed cable configuration. If the actual length of the conduit did not exceed the calculated critical length, it was con-cluded that the cables.in that conduit had not been over-tensioned. If the actual length of the conduit run exceeded the calculated critical length, that conduit run was sub-jected to further analysis using Method 3, below.
Method 3. For the remaining conduits, Sargent &
Lundy calculated the expected pulling tension for the actual installed conduit configuration containing the actual in-stalled cable configuration. This expected pulling tension was then compared to the allowable pulling tension as determined by the manufacturer's general criteria. If the expected pulling tension (as calculated) did not exceed the allowable pulling tension, it was concluded that the cables in that cunduit had not been overtensioned. If the expected pulling tension (as calculated) exceeded the allowable pulling tension, details of the cable installation were forwarded to the manufacturer with a request that a specific analysis be performed.
Out of the approximately 2600 conduit runs analysed using the method (s) described above, only three conduits were identified for which a specific analysis by the manu-facturer was required to determine the acceptability of the cables. See Attachment C (letter from Sargent & Lundy to
y Commonwealth. Edison dated June 23, 1983). Based upon the specific analysis performed by the cable manufacturer, the cables pulled in these three conduits were determined to be acceptable. See Attachment B (letter from Sargent & Lundy to Commonwealth Edison dated December 12, 1983).
Q-19. What conclusion did Sargent'& Lundy reach regarding whether any of the safety-related cables installed in conduit at Byron Station before December, 1982, had been rendered unacceptable due to overtensioning?
A-19. Sargent & Lundy concluded that none of the safety-related cables pulled.in conduit prior to December, 1982, was unacceptable; that is, their ability to perform their intended ' functions had not been irpaired by overten-
-sioning.
Q-20. Please describe the basis for that conclusion.
'A-20. That conclusion is based upon Sargent & Lundy's analysis of the' safety-related cables installed in.approximately 2600 conduits. This analysis included cables for which cable pul1~ reports were and were not available. Most of the safety-related cables involved were determined
-to be acceptable based upon Sargent & Lundy's analysis, which indicated that the expected pulling tensions (as calculated) didinot exceed the allowable pulling tensions for these cables. For the remaining safety-m_..-
~.
_11_
related cables, although the allowable pulling tensions as_ determined by the manufacturer's general criteria had been. exceeded, a specific analysis performed by the. manufacturer demonstrated that the cables will perform:their intended functions. Thus, those cables were also found to be acceptable.
~
-Q-21. Did the NRC accept this analysis of safety-related cables pulled in conduit prior to December, 1982?
A-21. The NRC accepted this analysis in Inspection Report
~$0-454/84-27; 50-455/84-19, which is Attachment D to my testimony. -The NRC inspector concluded that there was a reasonable assurance that'the safety-related 1
cables would-perform their intended functions. See Attachment D at pages E-14 to E-15.
L -
TREECE ATTACHMENT A SARGENT & LUND
- fp , ,
u ENGINEERS '
4 ' t! b SS E AST MONROE STREET . .
C HIC AG O. 0 L LIN DIS 6 0 6o 3 esial2...aeoo TWX 980 2212807 L
" January 26, 1983 Project Nos. 4391/2 &
4683/4 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood Stations - Units 1 & 2 Cable Pull Criteria Mr. J. T. Westermeier Project Engineer Commonwealth Edison Company P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Dear Mr. Westermeiers
' In response to the NRC's findings concerning the Contractor's Cable Pulling Procedures (Byron IE Inspection Reports _ Nos.
50-454/82-05 and 50-455/82-04), Commonwealth Edison Company's (CECO) letter dated November 5, 1982, stated that cable pull reports would be reviewed to verify that the allowable sidewall pressure was not exceeded for cables installed prior to the implementation of the revised Contractor's Cable Pulling Procedures. The expected date for completion of the review was January 31, 1983. As a basis for this review, Sargent &
i *Lundy received 44 cable. pull reports (listed in Attachment A) l -- from Byron Station Construction. This summarizes the results l of Sargent & Lundy's review of these cable pull reports.
l The cable pull reports were reviewed against the Electrical Installation (EI) drawings to identify the conduit containing the referenced cables. This-identification was required to define the factors necessary to calculate the allowable sidewall Pressure pulling tension (i.e. conduits smallest bend radius) .
For 29 of the cable pull reports received, the conduit contain-ing the referenced cables was identified. These 29 cable pull reports covered 35 cable pulls for 54 safety-related cables.
l For the remaining 15 reports, the review of the electrical installation drawing did not reveal any conduit containing only the referenced cables.
A-1
@oFY L
VJ c
m., Mr. J. T. Westermeier SA s January 26, 1983 i
Commonwealth Edison Company emcaso Page 2 i
[ ;
To increase the data base for this review effort, Sargent s Lundy i also used the cable pulling information included in Non-Confor-mance Report (NCR) F-747. This data covered 136 cable pulls for 159 safety-related cables. ,
This NCR had been written for cables '
pulled following the issuance of ECN's 2579 and 3015 but prior to implementation of the revised Contractor's Cable Pulling Procedures. i Sargent .& Lundy's review of the above referenced data revealed t j
that 17 of the 35 cable pulls covered by the cable pull reports, i and 8 of the 136 cable pulls covered by the NCR, potentially l exceed the allowable pulling tensions (reference Attachment B). ;
In.these 25 cases potentially exceeding the allowable pulling ^
tension,.five cable pulls exceeded the allowable tensile strength i pulling tension, 16 cases exceeded the allowable sidewall !
. pressure tension, and four cases exceeded both the tensile '
strength and the sidewall pressure pulling tension. Additional ;
analysis is required before it can be determined whether the '
monitored pulling tensions are acceptable. For exa=ple, conversations with Okonite Company indicate that for certain ,, i cable configurations the .6 multiplying factor can be increased to .8. Also, for cases where the allowable sidewall pressure !
pulling tension has been exceeded the location of the bends in the conduit can result in additional relief. A list of the 17 cable pulls and associated cables covered by the cable pull ;
reports requiring additional analysis have been given to Mr. J. O.
Binder for his use in preparing an NCR. .
Sargent & Lundy will continue work in this area to provide calculations and/or analysis to address the safety-related cables pulled in conduit prior to the implementation of the revised '
contractor's Cable Pulling Procedures for which pull reports ;
- do not exist.
i If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly, ,
((jb EiSEfiGAR* i I
T. R. Eisenbart Electrical Engineer -
' TRE:sh In duplicate j Enclosure .
j L Copies:
G. Sorensen/J. O. Binder (1/1) i
' D. L. Leone /W. C. Cleff (1/1) i
/
t
,s R. J. Netzel (1/l) i A-2 l
{
. GARGENT O LUNDY
.... '" $dE[35" ATTACHMENT "A" to 14_ Sargent & Lundy's (T. R. Eisenbart)
_f letter dated January 26, 1983 Commonwealth Edison Company .
Byron /Braidwood Stations - Units 1 & 2 Project Nos. 4391/2 & 4683/4 CABLE PULL REPORTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY REPORT NUMBERS CP-40 CP-316 CP-80 CP-319 CP-81 CP-320 CP-90 CP-336 CP-91 CP-338 CP-109 CP-339 CP-124 CP-340 CP-218 CP-323 CP-250 CP-321 CP-251 CP-322 CP-293 CP-330 CP-294 ~CP-324 CP-298 CP-317 CP-299 CP-318 CP-300- CP-295 CP-308 CP-313 CP-309 CP-331 l
CP-311 CP-310 CP-312 CP-337 CP-314 CP-8
< CP-315 CP-7 CP-219 CP-301 CP-125 e
A-3
- SARGENT & LUNDY EN i' 4 jNEERS o ATTACHMENT *B" to
- ' Sargent & Lundy's
' (T. R. Eisenbart)
(-,
letter dated January 26, 1983 Commonwealth Edison Company' Byron /Braidwood Stations - Units 1 & 2 Project Nos. 4391/2 & 4683/4 CABLE PULLS POTENTIALLY EXCEEDING
~
ALLOWABLE PULLING TENSIONS Cable Pull Report Numbers Cable Numbers CP-40 . . . . . . . . . . . LAP 183 CP-80 . . . . . . . . . . . LAP 073, LAP 320, LAP 322 CP-81.. . ... . . . . . . . LAP 072, LAP 319, LAP 321 CP-90 . . . . . . .. . . . 2SX138, 2SX140, 2SX153, 2SX258, 2SX100, 2SX110, 2SX260, 2SX139, 2SX149, 2SX157, 2SX137, 2SX102, 2SX112, 2DC073 CP-91 . . . . . . . . . . . 2APl79, 2AP182, 2AP300, 2AP401
- - CP-218 . . . . . . . . . . IVC 028 i
CP-250 . . . . . . . . . . LIP 005, LIP 006 CP-251 . . . . . . . . . . IIP 033, LIP 034
( CP-315 . . . . . . . . . . IVA578, IVA579 CP-316 . . . . . . . . . . IVA580, lVA581 CP-319 . . . . . . . . . . IVA558, IVA559, IVA560 CP-320 . . . . . . . . . . IVA374, IVA376, IVA548, IVA549 l
4 4
s A-4 l
l.
e l
l '
, TREECE ATTACHMENT B a
December 12, 1983 Project Nos. 4391/2-00 Commonwealth Edison Company Byron Station - Units 1 & 2 4
Byron-IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-454/82-05 and 50-455/82-04 Cable Pull Criteria References (a) Letter dated January 26, 1983, S&L (TRE) to CECO (JTW)
(b) Letter dated June 23, 1983, S&L (TRE) to CECO (JTW)
(c) Letter dated June 22, 1983, S&L (JFC) to Okonite (CD)
- Mr. J. T. Westermeier Project Engineer
(*annannwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
Dear Mr. Westermaier:
l Reference (a) summarized the results of an S&L review of cable pull reports obtained from Byron Station. Reference (b) summarized the L
results of an S&L analysis of safety-related cable pulls (in conduit),
l prior to the implementation of a revised pulling procedure, for which cable pull reports did not exist. As noted in Reference (b),
three of the conduits required further analysis by the cable manufacturer. Reference (c) transmitted the necessary cable pull information to the Okonite company and requested their analysis of same.
Based on Okonite Company's October 11, 1983 letter (copy attached) and subsequent discussions with Hatfield Electric Company (i.e., a r.* view of Hatfield cable pull records to determine actual direction
' of pull), we have concluded that the cable pulled in these three conduits are acceptable. The finding in this letter, together with References (a) and (b), complete the S&L review of the subject IE Inspection Reports.
O Q. _k, B-1 i
b- ,
. I o o
. t Mr. J. T. Westermeier December 12, 1983 !
Commonwealth Edison Company Page 2 i
Based on our findings, we recommend that you supplement your (
previous responses to the NRC as follows:-
l As discussed in Commonwealth Edison Company's (CECO) -
November 5, 1982 and January 24, 1983 letters, CECO ;
concurs with the NRC findings relative .to the contractor's cable pulling procedurna not addressing cable side-wall- l pressure criteria. As. indicated in Ceco's November 5, 1982 l letter, revised design documents were issued (May 19, 1982) l which specified the allowable cable pulling tensions for .
cables in conduit, considering both the conductor tensile !
strength and the cable side-wall pressure criteria. The !
contractor's cable pulling procedures have also been revised ,
accordingly. Cable pulled in tray was not considered a j potential problem since the architect-engineer's cable ,
information drawing addressed cable side-wall pressure by ;
specifying minimum cable pulling guide radii. In addit' ion, !
the majority of. cable pulled in tray was hand pulled. !
In order to verify the acceptability of cables installed ;
prior to the' issuance of revised procedure r the architect- i engineer (a) reviewed cable pull reports, where available, }
and (b) performed generic analyses / calculations, where
() cable pull reports were not available.
l
[
t
~
The architect-engineer's review: of the cable pull reports identified several cable installations in which the
)t
, recorded pulling tension exceeded the allowable pulling ,
I tension, an determined from cable manufacturer's Leneral i pull criteria. Each of these cablu pulls was identified and a Non-Conformance Report was issued by CECO to track their resolution. The architect-engineer forwarded the ;
details of these specific cable pulls to the cable f
- , manufacturcr with a request that the manufacturer perform {
L a specific analysis to determine the acceptability of each !
cable pull. Based on the cable manufacturers review, all l of these suspect cable pulls were found to be acceptable. l Where cable pull reports did not exist, the architect- ;
engineer performed an analysis, utilizing one of the i following to determine (generic or specific, of the acceptability as each appropriate) calculations) cable Installation:
}
(1) Calculation for an assumed worst case conduit '
configuration containing the worst case cable !
1 configuration. !
I B-2 ;
(Q (6) IQ l' P d
- b3 $M [J" jL La R l
I
l'
. l Mr. J. T. Westermeier
() Commonwealth Edison Company December 12, 1983 Page 3 L
(2) Calculation for an assumed worst case conduit i configuration containing the actual cable I configuration.
i (3) Calculation utilizing the actual conduit configuration containing the actual cable '
configuration.
i This analysis identified several cable installations which .
could not be verified acceptable, based on the cable '
manufacturer's general pull criteria. The details of each such cable installation were forwarded to the cable manufacturer, with a request that the manuf acturer perform a specific analysis to determine acceptability of each ,
cable pull. Based on the cable manuf acturer's review, all i of these suspect cable pulls were found to be acceptable. l The cable pull reports, analyses, calculations, and other supporting documentation used in responding to these l inspection reports are available for NRC review.
- i If you have any questions, please call me.
}
4 Yours very truly, ;
l T. R. EXCENDART T. R. Eisenbart !
i Electrical Engineer TRE:daa >
In duplicate Encl'osures ;
Ccpies:
D. L. Leone /W. C. Cleff (1/1) l' R. J. Netzel (1/0) 1
)
! l l
l B-3
( , , .
N y ; y C.), ,
fs 6_
t ._,
a d,
L +
j
Q' s.
".., "]" H 1615' Centre Circin g', *'8q g Pon: Offica Dox 626
,,v,. ,.,,,~,. ,]v Y Downers Grove.Ilkno.s 605:5 C . ~ ala uaa mou October 11, 19 3 nn
Sjneum n & [{}ljgy ,
EPeo C% i.n 13la0~
.~ J Mr. J. F.~Clancy, E.E.
Sargent &-Lundy Mail Code 25D15 MECElVED L55 East Monroe Chicago, Illinois 60603
Subject:
Commonwealth Edison Conpany-Byron /Braidt:ood Stationc 'lM t 17, 2 Cable Pull Criteria .
S&L Spee. F/L-'2823 & 2851 '
CECO P.O. Nos. '203603, 2036 3, 207113 i 20 ilio .
9
Dear Mr.'Clancy:
In response to your lette'r daced June i', 1)i3 pleace be adv! cd of the following as you requested. .
Attached are calculations for the cable' gull.: for the drattin.;s
, submitted by you. -Pulling froc 1JB261A'ta 3:ar in one continuous (m) length provides excessively high pullinr tencion and sidet:all
' pressures.
This is caused by the sxcessive number of offsets located in this run. The tot'al tension calculates out to 52,000 lbs.
in this direction. The coefficient. of friction actual was ;.robably
-lower than 0.35 out in any case the-allswable tension and side::all pressures were exceeded by thi wid'e marcin. These calculations appear on pages 1 and 2 of the attached shaets.
Ifccable~had been pulled'from the' gear tc ICB261A, they would have reduced the total; tension down to appro. ina'.ely 16,000 lbs. and a maximum sidewall pressure of 3726 lbs./-?t. Thece values although extremely high are well below the , pull ir One other direction. It would have been helpful if the pullin;; cerw had used a dynamometer to give us an idea what the a,: t ual t enu i; .'*. was , - but it is atauced they did not.
If the cable was pulled from lJb261A to zear it should be replaced
.because of the very high eulline tencien and sidewall pressure that would have been experienced.
'[\'
f L.)
s B-4 h
. s k
r x ,, , , _ x ts -
Mr..J.:F. Clancy' October 11, 1983
'O The cableL ic' 0 cay ;ror. une if it was pulled from the -!ar to
!, 7 '
- lJB261A.ulnce.the calculation; .show puiling r.encion and cidewall
- pressure:to.-be acceptable.
!Please call'ir-we:can 'oe of further service.
l Very truly yours,
~ '
THE OKONITE CO.'IPANY jn['
,f; h
Charles L. Doerr District Manager 9
i 9
,'n~ . CLD/cmj h
- Ye il
^'s l'r F
e k'
d
e ..
a v'r
~
ej% 4 I e
,- _ r.
C l
- p. . .
I/. '
, B-5 1 ,.
i ;.
(
L. '
u.a,;.s . a c. . . . :,,, m
=*
. Gi.l-{.Y. C.u/ Dn. ' _
.! $'t;0h uteet_ / e,:
enka. tiv osi, innu,,yte o. r:o.
,A , j cu,ent:eroieet _Sg:: y_._____._g... rs ~j ;in0 -t g(%_. agiJ_,y. _
_t;: i=c au
\ .. -
S;e* sfiCJt' i No . fl ;w./D.Ite M
bONhtCt $=l lM h ^ DJ S! /J $ { Q L/ Y t U)
~
?' , /A ( ${ L L / p*)(Y QMtoS - $ '< I/c_ 9 so m cin . /40" 0 x'Mu,u a Si-In ux0 a su.w - 5'k,y' CAsur urr 'dc = 3. 2.S c.d.'-fr= r '
C10 cc- O . O. '/c. = /. f 6 "
jw -iem sso ) : . c)o? :L 5 ':4 CMA. = /8,oco 4as (AGSOLvhi)
. _ . . i[mr+ c.r,~ = c. s sb aa ,< ~uo') ca,iowr si2c = 5%s.og.i'Gk
.. ... 4) Cdd Atr3k (5) = / 4- g y $
c . >.v a-i ->. 3
.. - CA 6@ t y. Alo fL, cMDS Y l'<?,CT.J.J & wi~ Coll. .rA C:ro/L
- tv 7 Act:ii
. . . . Se2.( & 3 )(. Q. 3S~ 4' .' 3 IS' =- [ $~ 4 6 5 /p;--
. . . . . . . - - . LU T* PA ct st2, :. 4,6 iSS fog ; ;-
c&a C8 rAcut s /.316'x 0,3 f : O,16 C CucsoArious .
..s-- . -
.e i Sb 26i A. ro I.S %c' =l // m.r x 4.5 e caps. .= 49's3 Y .. Mowuo 15'%op= -f9 e 'bh = 4 9 [ W '): 49 GlO= W l.13 . 5.5 5 .
~~
/S Bevo ro /C* scan =. 2. S ce X 4.51-a s = //LM 7Ft-+.5St65 = 4 L l.6 5 A R4)no .c<au) ! Vs;vo ~. d' cp % //3 = '74 t.[2.3.
/S'ocup r2 p%0 = qqc7 x .22c ;ia.s + 9 4 tc5 = 2 'lla c.s.5 C4'f(.Sypj,;.
Amurm 44 ' ecuo =. 2y, i c ' *'2% % Lt's % /, M = 4 22.l.83 44*6<.un rs 4-Y'ecao = See x 1.C.zter = ziras +4 22. L65 s 4i 6*l f CS.
p.p.;]u.p 4? 6 <;w 0 = 4 4 C A 1.4 2.4. = 4 3 4 L G5.
44BcNp 7a n' S cuo :- d5 f r x 4 619-yfr :- J'9 3 4-M -f- 534'05: 917'05.
._ Advuo n'acao :. 9?.7. tea .< '/.2 5 ? - //42265.
26 6a>D n 2s13 cuo =. E =r x f.S < c)lr- = 9 L6s -/-- l/42. liS = // $l u,.S.
M%no 2C'Ge.vD = //51 LG % 1.23? = /4/ ? L65 0
. _ . 26 B?!9 70 2 2E' G V C = 2 0 X A . S = 9 0 L.Z:. 4-- / 4/2 LGL = /SO S CGS'.
A Ravap 3 2 6 c e p ~ 15~0 S' L G 5 % i. ? 9. ' = / 9 S~C L GS .
WGe10 rs 31' GoJO = '?- > A 5 : 9 La5 -i- A SO LG S ;-
l 9 59 t G3.
M.ssaa .3T)t!uc ,/.292 K 195'1te' - 2. 'C3 3 L 83, W B n a T s I 3 6 = . 1. =. Lu rr v. ').C G}h - = 2.'70res t 2S33 m = 2863 iS.;.
fos:1m aan;o u z 32G.:.,o ,
{ _c,,= 74 0 /.Gl, 9 40 L.M /r= r- 0i< L ncc ILum) /o o u L.A s. /h r- /d,4.y .
B-6
. $ 60 2f.) A r > l 38 262. ~- Pn.t- G;< w :x. mr ,a = 2 9 0 5 L 8.S Criso g <,,,9j,w. ,.,y s o, c 7d .) i g_- l, .,.
, t .a;r.w ;c i. u. . itt a un vl*.Y4th 0 :e _ t.7)Zj._ Shut _ $ v:h cnke.av 03t, , Im;u,r y/F.O I:a.
.- ctient. Praise: }. Mys ' f. ? 0 l 'M f $2er::!] ').(7 i b Oll 0 N L susca.u:' :.o. w o.e.. -
.j 'NIlOfI Subject lA?3 C '>l'$ T*'d Y)!! b'l?
l A-lll-f l'TO 262. h 47*a.s4 : lC Pr X4,$' = ffg,S 4- 2903 = 28 4 2 LAS.
AEas tp 47*& Jo = 2f4 ? c as K /dG 1 4/f8 LG S --
Soos m u (2a.e cae c -..~ 4t S[" : }}22 L4 slp=7 cie ccc0S fooo c.4s),'y- -
\ ..
4'i%o ; o 13% v p }/ x 4.S~= S?) LBS 44/55= 4202t85
}
't Anv+m 43*'ecuo = 42.0 5' X.A.412 = 5942 L 6S - ---
5'IM% 02s 'L..u. =. S 2.
l4.7 O Lsh becOS ]o00 LG
.. 4s% ro %s 2x 4.s = 9 a1 + sM-2 uos = 5951 < as A /t w d o 70
- 6 cw o : $16/ u3 5. X 2.Of 0 /2., 20 0 461
- " ~ ~
Ss ocau. py:Jaf-
/2200 W -
j /
-J <_
r O l 7 L'35/ cxcen 1000 c .
/Fr ,
- f. 70"2cuo fa 22%g 2 2. x 4.-f :. 73/<.614- /Z 200 :- /2,7.99 L6.S N A6vuo 22%o 1/,_,7_9 c; x /./ o 3 : /b670449 Sice n<.e fae m itc > l% '*A :. 487o a ;a_g /ooo.n' c 3 7 /<='
22.thup ra 2L"G:no ' 3 X AS = !4 'GS + IA 6 70 tas = /4, , 4 LBS.
Acs.wg ze:.WSwo= h,G4x"1193 : / 7; K/ y c,s3 3tr M ru- % sac = 19 SI? ur a._. 2 1
Sooo u .y
- uces Jacoesc '
. 3. C W -
J 2t* B;vo ra 4'5 gao = 3I c:r- 4 4,C = l40 <BS + 12,SS =. I7,4ST(46L
~ . - . - . .
. Awao 4-5%vo =. }7,65?g JA4- = 25 j4 29 L&$ . . _ .
3 t (hwrat. Mc5M=. _. . '7 82.4. lgs [ m S 100)t6.;;'
4s% rs et c.,,o =. , x 4. s = do.s x z c,4 2 rs3s = 25,4 %
0 M a.)n o 9 0 :', . .-l.2 *-
2?',U='lX'.?..b[= S'1.,7_ I I t 2 5 q,,f f
, {lO[v0LL f.'!ci*$$JL '[ . ,' f f* . .
B-7 0At'A ?'t>K %?Oliid -'l3 (hi hci-; 6 'CVI:JL.GI b 3 rf) L0$.
E:680 ) I
,o . *
. . E.'. 31: . : i n % ::,iLGU L A i iO;w
. By .
<!L'.j'l% .5 / /.5, Shert b u! t-Inqu.ry/i!.O. i:o.
, Cl.kd. O y (> ate
/
Client l Pro).rct _ R Sfes.~ /-f.)_! 'fl b ' __() s <** " I o) !)) -; /-l J .l 'A.h _]
Specification No.'iles./O.m _ _ _ _
() Subject t.C,.J .,fs t o a A'LL-/dfo l%dh 0S/I ? 'f~D l l
~
S ci- pa-:.0 _/ wp 2. r:.> n- 1* .at. cuumugs__ s p 5'ruusa fvas.
10 p.c c s> % c<n 4 4 x 3. 2cv 3 =- 4-( a>S .
M%s() %P G:no z .? 0 s~X 4- l - g$ c &.s '
. . . . . . . . . . .90 /3310 To hS'6010 : kdo $G $ -f- 8 4 clS :. /M t 6.5 .
. .hAsad0 W6 sv? = /?- C'6" K l. 44- :. . / 80 c.43. . .. .
l . . . -
4-C'4.:un s a 2.2.*J.~ o . 1 4 0 5 5 i I } O e.G S = S '2 0 L 6 S . . . . ...
i .. _
A Oudo 2.2.0 & cuo :. 3 20 ca s y /, / ?J = 3 E-7 u3 . . . . _ .
LL6 cdp to 2$6a19 l A u!>S +- 3 ^C L u% =- 3 9h *63 ..
n U U<to 2 2* 6.:UC = S9! c65 y 1. I 93 =- 4 '7 2 uA s _ _ _ _ _ _
l . . . . . .
2 t "0 c u o r o 4 : f 6 o J o = 'l ') c -i- 4-7 2.u:S = 5'7/ < BS . . . . _ .
- bro Jao 9d* 6.wo
- .S*] / e s .5 x 2 ,0 f 2. /I'70 ess . . .
i -. 90*6rr!01*b 43 *4 v0 :- C) .p..; / ?u - / / 79 c.6 S .'
AAUJr/O 43 bc00 = l l 7 5' R !. 4-1 2. 2 } f.* la6 c.6 3 l[4 L 43 %vo r> 4-7*6nio =. So as Mss = / 71 i t. a.S
. /rLiMD 4]6co19 - 171i )( j.4G = 2 50 3 t S.S Wh:no p l3~6 262. :. 44^ }- 2.dJ 3 ~; 1S$ $ c.03 ISb es L. n 3 t.' 6 pro = 22 0 c.g + zS48 tu = 2 81ifL6S 3'2"6.m o 7c 3 2 omo :- 9cd 5 - W/'td.js =1717vM A wgo 52.6eso = 2-?2.2 x /, L93 = 3 css esa S (/) m 4 tt. u 56
- S -. ofG75L65 f-Y g, camp S -
l0 0 0 -
a.: , +. >/
3 2 6:wf> 2 3 6 *f 9]/) = $ Q + $ 6, S[ = '3 '7 A S t s$
Altmoy 7 3
- g,7,,ji) ~
,. 3*74 $ t,;5 g j,LS L =.4 b i3 css
.S t o c ' m - A A *~3 /~ g -
} 2 3 0 60 ^/t CxCcTDC /000 o
26 0419 ro ZVSolo =-9e ",3 ' 4 h (3 ^~- 4(o 2 2. L 6S _ _ _ _ _
/AAdvap 26U 6..wo s 4 6 Z Z x /.7 '5 2. - 56 71-c63 , _ , , _
, S e Lswnu. , Sf 4dlf -:- lt 2.2.c6s/t:r- o GWSS (o00 es% rv 4P.uia: 29 3 ms .-:,u - 5977tss .
A4Jr/0 4 I O l' .; C = S ^t 8 7to , . . 4 2 4. = 9 62 S MS l
StOes.uc - 2 [2 Sf -[^, 4 2 2 2-c) La:/p' r 6^t c.c0g /000
'I 45 % Ot>1Y6.;z 1 2-3 u n .;- E E L f = <T M L 4 5 h%0 4 4 ' L.sno = 5 5A8y ' h4 z j - /2,i??_ Ll>.5
- 2 9 ? 5 LMlce- F. /o y's lxo S I o- iA A = 12, ! ] ?. , ,
W6 n/G .7- s (5' W '- 2'20 m & I L I h &S l h 5 'l E t 6 S . -
ElCd0 B-8
.a
- D;'. I N - I e .G C A L CU :. ,'.'! :D.'i .
. B .L/ d.'. # Dat* [/ Sheet _,, .f
.,
- Chkd. By One inquiry!F.O. r;o.
~
Client / Project t hr~ /~
- I . V 'A ! (*;.'~n.'t.UC**7'.! .
fY0/ 5 $d
.-(') . Specificatio No.. R.v.!D ate o Subject a) L L i A) 4 h 7J,7 l !),d ( < _ 'J_' t. ri :),J PJC 6/-+ ct c f. : r* '*
i . ..
.. A- /t mo /Obg > /z, S ez < /,/ 3 = /4,0c2 a's -
.sioww ~ 14.a n/,,u . :-9 4t w/,, . amos 1030 . ,
.. . - . ../ 6*4mo 70 if6tr o //cg3 -j- ) 4.c o 2. = 1 4 o 1 3 'J 3 ..
.=
--9A.ow.0. % ? d blo = /t 6 a X./. t 3 = lf 23 4- u$3 .
. 2.t a.w u . = 1S, 2 sa. 4., o. . y2c w er gmg je,o a
~ ' ~ '
. . .I9'tMo tv / S6 2 lier =. 14 ss ~l- /f i?3 4-u.f b{E93L6S. ?
~
~
. . . . . 1~0 tac - TM ? N d Gew,2. ra vi tr.w I36 26/11 = /f ? 93 c e_s .
. . . .. . w o n 3,r S tG a w -ct. ,OM %dy-,. 33 24 t G.c P~T~ .
4 e
- e. .
B-9 eu. 9
.- . E;Mn
TREECE ATTACHMENT.C ~
<::,g SA stGENT & LUNDY
^f
.f '
JNGINEERS
} ', 55EAS. MON 2OE STREET CHIC AGO. 8LLINOIS 60603 TELEPHONE 312 269 2000 9
June 23, 1983 Project Nos. 4391/2 & 4623, 1
Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood Stations - Units 1 & 2 i
Cable Pull Criteria
- Mr. J. T. Westermeier Project Engineer ,
commonwealth Edison Company RP.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
Dear Mr. Westermeier:
This letter supplements my January 26, 1983, letter concerning an initial response to the NRC findings regarding the Contractor's Cable Pulling Procedures (Byron IE Inspection Report Mos. 50-454/
82-05 and 50-455/82-04). That letter summarized Sargent & Lundy's (S&L) review of cable pull reports obtained from Byron Station Construction. In addition to a review of cable pull reports, an
,. analysis was required to address safety-related cable pulls in conduit prior'to implementation of the revised Contractor's Cable Pulling Procedures for which pull reports did not exist. This letter summari=es the result of this additional analysis.
As .a basis for this additional analysis, S&L received a listing of '
i all safety-related cables pulled in conduit prior to December, 1982, ;
from. Byron Station Construction. This listing identified approximatelyi l
2600 conduits requiring analysis. SsL has completed the analysis for those conduits by utilizing one of the following methods:
- 1. Calculations for an assumed worst case conduit i configuration containing a worst cable. configuration. r i
!. 2. Calculations for an assumed worst case conduit I i ' configuration containing the actual cable con- !
figuration. l I i
- 3. Calculations for the actual conduit configuration i
- containing the actual cable configuration. '
i , S&L's review identified three conduits that recuire additional l \; analysis by the cabic manufacturer. Cable pulling inforr.ation for these conduits has been foruarded to Okonite Company, by S&L lotter dated June 22, 1983, copy enclosed for their use in performing a i U
)
C-1
r .
SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Mr. J. T. Westermeier June 23, 1983
(- Commonwealth Edison Company Page 2 detailed analysis. We will advise you of their findings at a later date. S&L's analysis concludes that the remaining conduits /
cable pulls are acceptable.
The results of this analysis.and the supporting calculations are presently being put together into an auditable format. We expect-to complete this effort by July 22, 1983.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Yours very truly, T. R. EISENSART T. R. Eisenbart '
Electrical Engineer TRE:dw In duplicate Enclosure '
Copies:
G. Sorensen/J. O. Binder (1/1)
D. L. Leone /U. C. Cleff (1/1)
R. J. Netzel (1/1)
^
C-2
@oPY
c- .
e
'.' SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS
-e SS E AST MONROC STREET C HIC A G O. lL LIN Olt 6 0 G O 3 13821 289 2000
,e TWA 010 2 21 2 80 7 Cune 22, 1983 Project Nos. 4391/2 s
'Connonucalth Edison company Byron /Braidwood Stations - Units 1 & 2 '
Cablo Pull Critoria -
~
S&L Specifications F/L-2823 & F/L-2851 CECO P.O. Ucs. 203508, 203609, 207113 & 207114 -
Mr. C. L. Doerr The Okonite Corapany
. 1515 Centre Circic ,
Douners Grove, Illinois 60515
Dear fir. Docrr:
Enclosed are copies of two skotches covering three separato cable installations at Byrca Station. Records of the tensions e::perienced
.during the cable pulls are not cvr.ilablo, cnd the acceptance cf th:co inctullations is dependent upon the accepttnce of calculated pulling tensions.
1 Thoce shotchen are being cent to you for your analysis and coraent, becauce our preliminary calculations for these installations indicate that the m:ximum alleuzble pulling tencions for the installei c:.bisc) based on Okonite's cable pulling criteria, may have been exceeded.
Will you~please ' analyse these cable installations and give us your recommendation covering the disposition of the installed cablec.
If you have any cucctions about the installations shown on the sketcho=,:
please contcet us.
Yours very truly, 2 J. F. Clancy ,,
J. P. Clancy JFC:dna Electrical Engineer In duplicate Encl'eauro Copics:
J. 't. Ucuterncier (1/1)
G. 50rencen (1/1)
( D. L. Leonof.1. C. Citff (1/1)
(D J ~30 g) 3 f L{ C-3
r
^
~
. .L K C f c. ; ' S - C -f
., m -
?
~ -
\ _ - .l -
. , ._.\
- (-'
'l 14 m %
" r N - 1 3 6 -d b 4 ..
D '
w Q 2 --
r -
1-q 0 - % -
4 q)
- d '*
l
,-4
\ N 'o N ~
14
- m. U -
rs. - s .e
'p i
,- s s W N Qq S -
.' g \ -J
{ w T
- 1a . .y2-t ,
(' 1e* u DcN 4
g g i s taK 'r*t rJ .!. , t ; 49cs g N
(,
y i
m, sa n I, k % =
g f. '4 '. d
-' m & s C%
n it.< . J
- < ,s w s
t
'tQ i, % .s,) (g, 'y ('
x a .
l
.g 4
E 1 .
- 2. '
h s
s %
e k'
a o
d -
j --'
((
'y, - -
- i. .'
K 3 ,
s - -
, y .. ..
4 .
i
,n.
Q .
~
, s I i 4 M N J- J s
. % ~ .i z -
N t Y % k l,
$ \ -
.~' DS .s .c.v ie j'-
- d. n. 7 t% ~,. C -
- . n l 5 m J Qq ~
n.
. - tc.
fY's ) . --.
.J c
. a .,
.N y s r u r , , - m % Q T* *' r C '
O .:
-\ - A
\ ...s s _ . 0. a -
-d
( d n
$3a a a ~
%x 'N a j
% 's'l n's -
ha w C\
a
~'
-f A
3
\h d L -
k t =
- )
[I g 5 -
.J Ck b Y
}
c414 K vs
(.
C-4 '
L '. . *
., n '
A m_
) %._ --.
. \J Dtv4 AREA 0- 33d52 /
.s . . s ((E kfh
- s o
I v s I 56RAOls6 ,
/
,/ k COA 6t03.
t M, n
e
,1, , 4g.gn,, As" enows ,
- D 4". . .14'RAOos : , j s_', ,,g . gm 2e5' ~ '. g , ,, g ,a ,,y . r
. ' e- aa- z.p > f _- l;_f 3 . L
'n
, - .;t
?( )%V - $%'wf 22 se c- -1.__ ,,,, a ,-o. .
- .w . ~ reu~
.., sa:.s.. .--- ,
'. \ k= ne,.s :-i F--
~
--- A ",. ?
N .. ) . - . -- x- m
'(
~
t r . o *i
' q 1-s' .
o ,1
.2 4 o\ s'<. L g% C
- c,. 5 tl Q h ; *v: A g S NO T _
$4 - .
r 0 o go i A Tot 1 .$ qM -
- t~ 'o.
fl T t
'tr) r,. N g -
L .k m . \
m .
o
- g 2y *w n o t t ~
. : .t.w..
x .s in
.a. < A l N n~~
e 4 N
e q
\
3 4 h o 3 i s k . i5 3 *i k 4 .Y. , -~O 3 1 m h hl .
D Y 4 ,
l I
G g n y...-.
-~j v._d.e.- Y u -,
--~~ -
'] -
i s2 4
y ~
4 9 ,
<q -
Qm
(' 3 6' a *
(f, g
/ i'
\ T7 - C-6 li-
v i ~- .
,y y ,
</e-
- - ,1 s . m.. .
~, -
,. ~
h .. -
.? -
.. g .. . $
'g
' / kb ,M
- ig Ig
~9 ~ :
NN -
. 9 Al 2 y F 'E< So
,mm . . ,-
v w 'g/ o+
/
2 M., ~I N-
%w q
o y
/ s b i hT m.! . -
.1 s{, E'l .I~ Vh 4
=
[\
r
[.
h st(
4m y Ue a m
-)
n.
NI k !,
' Q8 ,
5 LN N I
_[. ,[..ti' ,l 0 A 9!
i t.
'l'd i -8 c- t ; 41
's d_. g a
\t me ! \qw N.
.7 m3~~'"s.
N p%
Ng " n S .
f ( +- i 3.1) -
u .. u a L . d h-Lu .?
-i v.
jv s.
- y
. Q' 4 o ' ,'t, $,, gn
.)
- 4. $ ~l J ,
)
3 r 45
- c. T ;, z l/ %n
=> u ,. .a DfuT 1./ f' $
l )
G d. b ld .5 ~
O. -
e 1 ,
)
o< m-s i . .
> N 3 4 I
e .\ .
._. 1 t \.
n N $w' 9
B 8
p ,5 y' ,
~-
=
..*) '
N
.m i
._, 3 N
i
, n .. . . ., . ,r.
Q. * *
- .,1... - .
1 -
~ . - -rf Q
GN) 1 .~}_$, . , - '
sz
- owa! u- cu o-3563 '
A
/ g,). m e g N c-7 9 *e .
. *' / - ana~3-de
'..".' . , c.is z u Q .
2 L('obE
,y 5"ca,r~.7 :
Cw.f .. ..
J W lL .S hT TC H S- 6 -l
> 2R
'A ( .Pt.?? c'f.sti O ?" A : S~' % ' I~ ~^*
l b, ~ 2 *L{
r N\ .
1~,;,.mrp(4nr>; 3'/;7D.<.I;a,i'J -
/ '
Puii-wsfieitcca: Goe cea . w..; r..< :. -
~r'- 8
i y g .. g p,_ , L , ,. g p,y t!r,,,: o
/
10
.,..,_, t , !=_, - - le /;
n . .a T
g u,
ELGVA ~71orI 83O*
/.GMw m 2z. q e Js e es-as 4 .. p oav5 a
g g ,I S S - .S o , a*.c
- n 5.e aouir %; e J j et...
\ . p'CrCSW.S.
. . . ~
N g rop Yliv),
?o .
?
4 Q90,A" Rw/ I
. j D
E r \
)
N) Ir i q, s y 4, ,
J mil 439-o W ^ .
zu v~ rn
- E\ ?
) [\ '..
- s. <
' t ,.
g f
- Ls M c~ kotk .
}, ', \
5-9 "U l
6 , as~nse,as
{ i 3 , , eg %.
/ 35' '
. _y ,/ gy>c',,3
- h e-o i
s stDE \/l*W
\
\ .d
, . (A W
't j:>^,.s
.. s -
/ /y
/~/
( -s /
- O e *** s ._, % ,i' s *
- 40* I.% egs
- 2. *0 " f'
(% Grf GIM v1%n' '
4 J. ,' ^#'
'd . "' ? p '? ,g*
- J
[- ,
,.1',... . , Ct f f p L;gt WAN C-8
((}, YY . t.,
- ' ,, . B. '
TREECE ATTACHMENT D gogg UNITED stof ts NUCLE AD REGULATO'9Y CO?x.usslON s g ** e
[ ;I RECloN til 7Y 799 roc %EvtL P eOa0
%$ ,a GLgneE6Lv4 BLLINOel 60817 JG 6 '554 3 - 7 gi Docket No. 50-454 Docket No. 50-455 Commonwealth Edison Ccmpany ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:
This refers to the routine safety inscection conducted by Messrs. R. S. L:.e and E. Christnot of this of fice on April 24-27, April 30-May 4, and Maj E .'1, 1984, of activities at Byron Station authorized by NRC Const action Permits No. CPPR-130 and No. CP R-131 and to the discussion of our findings with Messrs. R. Tuetken and R. B. Klingler and others of your staf f at the conclusion of the inspection.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas eaa-ined durir; the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consistec of a se!ec*e examination of procedures and representative records, observatio s, and interviews with pers:nnel.
Durirg this inspection, certain of your activities a:peared to te in ncr-compliance with NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Acpe9 cia.
A written response is required.
As a result of this inspection, it is our understandi,g that you will corc ct a reinspection of all electrical conductor butt splices at Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, as outlined in your letter of May 17, 1984, D. Farrar to James G. Keppler.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure (s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the re-quirements of 2.790(b)(1). If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, a ccpy of this letter, the enclosure (s), anc your response to this letter will be placed in the Public Document Room.
The responses directed by this letter (and the accompanying Notice) are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
D-1
7: ,
TREECE ATTACHMENT D Common ealth Edison Company 2 ;
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
/
R. L. Spessa-d, Dire: tor Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix, Notice of Voilation
- 2. Inspection Re: orts No. 50-454/24-27 and No. 50-455/54-19 cc w/encls:
- ' O. L. Farrar, Director of Nuclear Licensing V. I. Schlosser,- Project Ma .ager Gunner Sorensen, Site Project Superintendent R. E. Querio, Station Superintendent DME/00cument Control Desk (RI
- 5)
Reside. Inspector, RIII Byron Resident Inspector, RIII Braid-cod Phyllis Dunton, Attorney General's Office, Environmental Control Ofvision Ms. Jane M. Whicher-Diane Chavez DAARE/ SAFE R. Ra,.sen, ELD h D-2
g -;
TREECE ATTACHMENT D s.
Appendix NOTICE OF VIOL 4TICN ,
Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50 ~54 Docket No. 53-:55 As a result of the inspection conducted on April 24-27, April 30-Maj 4, ar:
May 10 and 11, 19E4, and in actor:ance with the General Policy are Preced.res for NRC Enforce ent Actions, (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), the follo-ing violatices were identifie :
1.
10 CFR 50, Ap;erdix B, Criterion V, as imple ented by Co- :n-ealth E:'ste Cer a y Tcpical Re;crt (CE 1-A), Section 5, re:. ires that acti.ities af fecting cuality be prescrite: by Oc:u ented instructi:ns or Dr:ce: *es.
Cort *ary to the above, the licensee failed to assure that the rec iee-ments of S&L Dra-ing 6E-0-3237 B, February 1953 Revision, Ncte 47, ae e translated into instructions or pectedares. Note 47 re; sires the e!e:-
'trical contractor to ins:ect for ca:1e tray se:a aticn ard 3:3 ca::e t'ai covers when the mini .m se;aration recuire ents have tee violate:. Tnis is exe plified by the f act that 124 units of safety-relate: catie tra, has been installed since February 19s3 an this tray has n:t been ins:+:-
te for se:araticn re:; ire ents.
A :itional details are ciscusse: in Parag-aph 2.c of Ins e:ti:n Re: Ort 454/E4-27; 455/E4-19(:E).
This is a Severitj Le,el w' violatien (5c;:le ent II).
- 2. 10 CFR 50, Ap:encix B, Criterion X'!I, as i ple ente: by C - On-ealtn Ecis:n C: cany Topical Rep rt (CE 1-A), Section 16, reasires that measu*es be established to assure that conditions adverse to cuality se:n as nonconformances are proeptly identified and corre:ted.
Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to assure that nonconforming cable tray hargers were identified and corrected. This it exe alifie:
by the fact that as a result of this NRC inspection, 345 previously accepted cable tray hangers were reinspected and 119 were found defecti.e and 19 were indeterminate because they were inaccessible for reins;ection.
A contributing factor to this item is that Ceco Quality Assurance failed to determine the effectiveness of the electrical contra: tor's cable traj hanger reinspection program (Reference - HECo NCR 407R). Additional details are discussed in Paragraph 2.c of Inspection Report 454/S4-27; 455/84-19(DE).
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).
D-3
p TREECE ATTACHMENT D Apcendix 2 Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written state e-t or explanation in reply, including for each item of nonccmpliance: (1) cor-rective action taken and the results achieved; (2) ccerective action to De taken to avoid further nonccrraliance; and (3) tne cate when full conclia ce will be achieved. Consideration may be given to exte-cing your respe se ti e for good cause snc n.
JU; i ~. 3 gg Datec R. L. 5;:essarc, Director Divisicn of Eng' eering D-4 t
u.
(,
TREECE ATTACHMENT D
. . i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATGRY CCMMI5510N i 4
RE31CN III Reports No. 50-454/E4-27(CE); 50-455/84-19(:E)
Docket Nes. 50-454; 50-455 Lice ses N:. CFFR-130; CPFF-121 !
Licensee: Commen.ealth Edison Cc ;a y Post Office Sc= 767 Chicago, IL 6CHO Facility Na e: Bjren Statien, Units 1 & 2 Inspe: tion At: Sy en Site, By :n, Illinois !
Inste: tion Conde:te:: April 22-27, April 30-vay a a c Maj IC-11, 192 Inspe:ters: R. S. Lose 2,3 4 d/h' '
/t U.y*. A .
wate '
f) ,9 ' i E.Cn-. s;n:: . w k. 4. w-.~' .x / 4 , ' , r. ,
Ca:e f) L?? 'TfiI....Mc m A;: : . e: Ej: C. C. a' ilia s, Cr e' Pla-; Sjs tr.s is::i:-
[- / ' / *-
~3te '
l I
Ins:ection St - :arv Ins:ecti:n en A:-il 24-27. Ac-il 30. May 4. are va / 10-11.19E (^er:-t I ho. 50-45',64-27tDE): 50-455,da-19(DE))
Areas Insce::ed: Re.1ew of licensee action on previously identified iters.
This insol<ec the review of applicable procederes, drawings, recores ar.d calculation on-site and at Sargent and Lundy (licensee's A/E). This ins:e:-
tion involved a total of 146 inspection hours by two NRC inscectors. Six of
{
these inspector hours were expended in Nuclear-General Empicyee Training nich will be required for unfettered access (Ref. 10 CFR 50.70).
Results: In the areas inspected, two items of nonc: pliance were ide itifie: 1 (Paragraph 2.c, f ailure to identify and control nonconforming conditions-Criterion XVI, and Paragraph 2.d, failure to assure that activities affecting quality are prescribed in instructions or procedures-Criterion V). i l
l D-5 L__
TREECE ATTACHMENT D DETAlts
- 1. Persons Contacted -
Coe-o -ealt5 Edison Cet:rv (CEcei G. Sorensen, Construction Suce-i..tende-K. J. Hansing, Quality Assurance Su;erinter:e-
"J. O. Sincer, Project Electrical Su;ervisar
- R. B. Klingler, Project Quality control Su:er.:s -
- J. L. Bergrer, Quality Assuran:e Su;:ervisor "M.
- E.
V. Dellatetta, Electrical Quality Assurance Em; 9ee-T. Sa;e , Electrical Field Engineer
- J. W. Ra:;erort, Quality Assurance Engineer E. L. Martin, Quaiity Assuran:e Supervisor J. W. Zid, Qua!ity Assu-ance Engir.eer P. T. Myrca, Q.ality Assurance Surersiscr Hatfield Elect-ic Cc 3 v (HE o)
D. L. Heider, CA/C: Ma a;e*
- 5. Hubier, lea: Quality Cortrol Ins:e:t:r Sa :+- a-d Lu-dv (5!.t)
J. D. _Rega , Ele:t-ical Er;4neer S. G. Treece, Se .icr Eie:tri:a; ?r:Je:t Engi ee-J. F. Clar:j, Qualit,s Assu-ance T. R. Eise : art, Ele:trical Ergi eir J. J. Ka :a, Se .ier Str,.:tura! Engireer T. J. Ry a , Structural Prcje:t Engineer The inspe:te-s also contacted and intervie ed ctter lice see a :
cor.t-a:::r pe son :el during this re; rting period.
- Cenctes those present at the exit interview conducted On Maj 4,19Ed.
- 2. Action on Previously Identified Itens a.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-454/80-09-01; 50-455/80-OS-01): Du 4rg a previous insoection it was identified that the req ire ents of t.ne Byron SAR and Specification 2831 were not adequately translated i .tc Specification 2815 in that corrosion protecticn (painting) was n:
specified for the exposed carbon steel material and ex;csed s;ct welds utilized in the installation of seismic Category I electrical raceway hanger supports. Engineering Change Notice (ECN) Nu-be-4362 was issued to revise Specifications F/L 2815 and F/L 2831. The licensee's painting contractor (Midway Industrial Contractor, Inc. )
has a program in place that will assure that the items have been paint 3d.
CECO Project Construction Department (PCD) is monitoring the progress of the painting contractor, This item is closed.
2 D-6
4 TREEC2 ATTACHMENT D
- b. (Cicsed) Unresolved Item (50-454/82-17-02; 50-455/82-12-02): Curing a previous inspection it was identified that cond.:it and cable tray hanger bolts no longer met the bolt torque require ents as spe:ifie:
in the applicable procedures. The licensee .as requested to enluate these relaxed torque concitions anc determine if they were at:e:ta 'e.
With respect to ca31e tray hangers, as part of the hanger reins e:t'c-program, the harge- bolt tor:we .as verified and any bolts feu : :t meeting the torque re:vire ents were re-tarcae to Dreceve re: i e-ments. With res ett to co cuit han ers, a reins:e: tic, cf 3~ :: : t
, hangers .as concucted. This reinsd: tion icentified E3 can: 't a ;e-bolts with less than the spe:ifiec terr.e. These ha.ge s -e e
- e-analy:ed for w:rst case cc-citices. Inis analjsis as rede-e: :, te inspect 0 s and four to be ade;aate. The a a!> sis ident'fie:
- cat t'e concuit hangea oculd hase perfcr ed their cesign fun:tien in :ne as-found condition. Tnis item is closed.
- c. (0 pen) Unresche: !!e . (50 454/52-17-: ; SC-455/52 *2-CA): Cur- ; a previces inspe:; ten it .as identif:ej :nat tne ha ;e- co- e:ti:-
details unce* firecrocfing were teirg at:este: .it*:st C ins:e:-
tion. Tne hE o CA Mana;e- had instr.:te: tre C ins:e:::-s t: 3 - + : *.
conne:tien details cvered by fire r:cfing tasec On the inf:- at' -
on the weld tra.e?er fer the sutje:t con e: tic.. de* ail. *rei?
instructi:9s oe-e :::. ente: in Q /(C Me. ran:.9 'i. : e - 2 E IeH
- instructic s oe-e : :< ice; in ceajun:tien with t .e ca 'e O!- a ;i-reins:e:tien ret. ire; by hECo hCR 407. At tr.at ti e. the 96;' - :::
ins;e:t:" inferred the licensee tnat the welc tra.ete* ::s?d 'e utilize: far a::e: tan:e presicir; the han;e- c:- e: tion ceta'I uli:
was note: On tre tra,eier. In at:cr:arce with a CE 0 lette*, cale:
S;eter:er 22, 1952. "E : aan re:?re: te su:-it ce-tain ca*.a :c--
tatning to tnis reins;e:tien program on a pe-ioci: :ss's. C';
this reporting :e-i c, tne Re;ien III ins;e: tor re.le.e theie :ata provided by HE o. These data indicated that cf 2,3:3 ha ;e s re:--
spected, firepr:ofirg had to be re oved fr m 131 ha ;e-s t: : e '. e --
mine acceptance. This report indicated that 3 of the ha se-s -e e rejected af ter the fireproofing was removed. To :etermine .Py t*eie three hangers were rejected, the inspectors revie-e: the a;:lica:'e weld travelers, hanger de-hang /re-hang forms (HCRF), re.crk rec.es *.ed, field change request (FCR), deficiency reports (DR), non:enfortan:e reports (NCR), and the hanger inspection checklists. Folic.ing are the results of this review:
(1) Hanger 8Hv11 on Drawing 0-3097H, Revision T.
HDRF 1151 indicates hanger originally installed August 19, 1980. HECo could not locate a weld traveler for this installation.
FCR 1807, dated August 19, 1980, was issued to relocate the hanger.
OR 119, dated June 11, 1982, stated that the hanger could not be inspected due to installation of fireproofing.
This DR was closed on December 21, 1982.
. . HDRF-1151, dated September 30, 1982, indicates that the hanger was not installed per the drawing and FCR 1807.
Hanger was removed on October 12, 1982.
3 D-7
TREECE ATTACHMENT D Weld Traveler 19038, datec October 12, 1922, states,
" Welded plate to tute steel and structural steel (South side only)." Accected by QC Welding Inspecter.
Weld Traveler 19039, cates Cctater 15, 1952,. states,
" Repaired weld on plate to structural and tube steel".
Acceoted by QC Welding Ins:e::cr.
HDRF 1151 incicates har;er was reinstalled on Cet:te 22 1952.
Hange- installation was at:e::e: by CC.
s .
The foll: wing discrepancies were coser.ed:
Initial we'd traveler missing, Weld traveler for Norin sice of ha ;e miss'ag, NCR, CR, or Inspection Re: ort (as a:: i:10:e) ide tifji ;
that the han;e was not installe: ;e- Ora ing anc T R 18C7 was missing.
(2) Ha ;er H:05, Dra ing 1-3C51H, Revisico H Weld Tra.e'e- 2:543, date: Ju'j 25. 1975, :::. e :s tre installation of tre han;er. Ac:e::e.: :. 0: at::i ;
Ins;e:t:r.
Inspecti:n che:klist, date: Se::em:er 27, 1952, refe::et tre na ;e- te:3.se the ins:e: tor ::.0: not ve-ify tre han;e* t);e and 00. fig.-ati:n. Was later a::e::e: t Me o 4235.
HECo to CE:c sun a j re:: Ort, dated C::cte- IC, 1953, indicates th.s ha ;er was reje: e: c.rirg t.e rei 3:s:-
tien.
Tre fc:':.f rg cis:re:n 'es .e e etse .e:: .
No :::. .e :atien to sh: .r.j tre na ;e .as reje::e:,
No c:c. ertation to incicate that tre P.a ger as re:ii e:
or re.:rked, as a::lica:1e, No ins;e: tion checklist / weld traveler to inci: ate t'.a; the hanger is nos a :epta::le.
(3) Hanger H 153, Drawing 1-3061H, Revision 5, Inspection checklist, dated February 22, 1934, was a final acceptance of this hanger. The checklist reference::
FCR 22920, Revision 1; FCR 21871; Rework Request 6*5; DR 1025; and HDRF 2197.
Work Request 648 involved the removal and replacene .t of the hanger horizontal members.
FCR 21871 involved the pan to hanger atta:bments. Work Request 648 and FCR 21871 were not in the area of concern and the inspector chose not to followup on these items during this inspection.
DR 1025, dated October 23, 1982, documents that Connection No. I was a DV5 detail instead of a DV4 as specified, anc Connection No. 2 was a DV89C2 instead of a Dve9El as specified.
FCR 22920, dated November 8,1983, changed connection No. I to a DV3 detail and Connection No. 2 to a DV89G2.
4 D-8 e
TREECE ATTACHMENT D a:
The following discrepancies were obse ved:
The inspectors could not determine how FCR 22920 was imple ented in that a HDRFra'ork Recuest was not availa:'e for revisw. The ins e: ion checklist, dated Fetrcary 22, 1984, indicate:
installed. that Details DV3 and DVa932 were actualij (4) Based on the esults of the recor: 5 re.ie- of the three re e:t+:
hangers, the ins:et. ors ele::ed to re.ie- a rand;n sa :le cf tne recce:s fer nar;ers that had been reins:e::ed an: a::e:te: :y
.- HECo ;C. Follcaing are the results of tnis re.ie-:
1 (a) Han;e- 4:23, Cra-ing 0-3C6.4, Revisic- M. -as a::e: ed :n Ins;:e: tic, Re: Ort 4270, cated Oc::ter 5,1952. Irs:e::':n a:peared to t.e aceq:. ate.
(b) Harger il:3, Cra i .; 0-3 534. Revisien L, was a::e::e: :-
Irs:e::':r 'ie::r: 2172, cated C:::te- 21, 1332. : 3:+::::-
a;:ea e: :: de ace; ate._
-(c) Han;e- L.:31. Dra ing 1-3'5*.H. Revisi:n H, was a::e::e: :-
Ins:e: icn Re::r 3653, cated Se: e :e- 17, 1952. C:- e:-
tics esia'Is 1 and 2 -e e acce: e: cn tne Ins:e:*.f:- Re:;-
base: c- 4 eld Tra.e:er 2 500, cated July 18, 1973. A re,de- of :re tra eler indicate: that a CVia ::- e:*.i:-
Ce ail -25 utili:e: as specifie: cn tr.e cra r; Tr' -a f0.r: :: te a::e :a::e.
(0) Ha ;e -::5. : a ing 1-2'5;H, Re,isien ", -as a::e: .+: :-
I sce::i:n Re::r: 3557, cate: C:t::er 7, 1952. C:- e::':-
cetails 1 an: ? were accepted based on Weld Tra.e'e- f ai;3, cata: July 26, 1973. During a resiew of tre : a.e'e , it was c: served that the tra eler did not indicate ::"
c:- e::icn details were used to atta:1 the haager te :Pe stru: ;ral steel, i.e. , details 1 and 2. Based on the de: entatien presented, this hanger installation ccui:
not be ac:epted by the Region III inspectors.
(e) Hanger HC80, Drawing 0-3051H, Revision L, was acce:ted en Inspection Report 3484, dated October 16, 1952. Conre:: ion details 1 and 2 were accepted based on Weld Travelers 2 501, 248C4, and 24834 During a review of these traselers, it
- was observed that the travelers did not denote which con-nection details were used to attach the hanger to the structural steel. Based on the dccumentation presente:,
this hanger installation could not be a:cepted by the Region III inspectors.
(f) Hanger H028, Orawing 0-3051H, Revision L, was inspected en Inspection Report 3433, dated October 5, 1982. This Inspection Report referenced DR542. During a review of this DR, it was observed that the auxiliary steel plate size was listed as being the wrong size. This item was not disposition nor corrected and the OR was improperly 5 D-9
TREECE ATTACHMENT D closed. Based on the documentation presented, this hanger installation could not be accepted by the Regien III inspectors.
~
(g) Hanger HCE5, Drawing 1-3051H, Revision H, was noted as being unat:ectable on Inspection Repert 3734, date:
July 30, 1932. Reasens noted ae e: (1) una:1e to ver.
connection details 1 and 2 because they were covere: .its fire: roofing, and (2) weld tra.elers cid net s:ecifj t e conne: tion details installed. On Se:te :e- 27, 195 . :-is ha ;er was accepted per Me o 295. Based en t*e :: . etta-tien presented, this hanger cou!c net te a::e:te: :. tre Regi:n III inspe:ters.
(5) Eased On tne results of the de:.,entation resie. fc- tre ten ate.e listed haa;e-s, the Fegion III ins:e: . ors te -inate:
thei- re.ie- of ca:!e traj ha ;er dec ~e-tati:n. On ::r'1 ~
1952, tre ins:ect:rs c:,:.:te a mini-exit-inte vie it- CE :
and "E CA a-d :: ste.:tien pe-s: rel. Cu-4 ; this i-te .'s .
the ins;e:::rs resie-e: their con: erns aitn t e a::f ta;'I; )
of the ca:!e tray han;er dO:u?.entation. Tre ins,e:t: s ree.este: that tne li:ensee revie. the ha ge- 0:: e tat :n i anc determ.ine -hat ha ;e s were una::e: a:1e. On May 1, 1952, the ins:e:ters ere inferne by the licensee that tre e were a;;roximately 345 na ;e- tnat were accepted based en Ye : 2:-:
the licensee state: that a::-ex4 atelf E :: ha ;e 01: a;es we*e revie ed ty CE:o C. 5 : HE Q: pers: re' Th+ li:e sse continued to pr:.i:e :sily c;:stes :n tre : 0;*ess :# tre ha ;er reins:e:.icn ef fert are tncir fin:' ;s. C.-: ; a tele:ncre cor.e sation :st een Mr. J. Sincer (CE::) ar:
Mr. R. 5. Love (RIII) en May 11,195 *, Mr. Bircer pr:.i:-:
the following results of the reins;e:tica effort:
. Total num er of han;ers re:;.: iring reinspe: tion 3:1
. Numter of hangers inaccessible 19 These han;ere were documented on HECo NCR 950
. Total nuncer of hangers reins;ected 295
. Total number of deficiencies identified 105
. Deficiencies by attribute:
Welding fitup 91 Wrong connection detail 7 Wrong weld length, elevation, auxiliary stee!
plate size, and missing bolts 31 Fit up deficiencies are documented on HEC NCR 959. Conrecti:n detail and steel plate deficiencies, etc. are documented on HE o DRs 4921-4928, 4930, 4932, 4934-4937, 4943, 4945-4948, SCC 3, 5007, 5013-5017, 5019, and 5022-5032.
A 6 D-10 L
r i !
+
TREECE ATTACHMENT D (6) As a result of the inspector's observations ncted above, the inspectors requested that the licensee provide the last three audit / surveillance repcrts performed by CECO in the area of hanger acceptance for tr.e su:: ject reirs;ection progra.9 as stated earlier in this recort, tnis initial reinspection e:,:cr; ,
involved 4308 hangers. The Ceco QA Eng neer informed the i
ins;ectors that to tre best of his knt !ed;e, no audits or surveillances were ;:erf:r :ed in ;9is area and furthe* tere, "e (CECO QA Engineer) aas r.ct a-are f tnis ban;er reins;e:r:m
, program. On May 10, 1954, Mes s rs. C. C. 'a'illia s a a R. S L:.e of the Re;&n III staf f centa: ed Mr. K. J. Ha s;ng, C:, -
Su;:e-inte . dent, by tele::hore an: discussed the rei 5:e:U -
pr:gra, a : lack of CECO QA accits and/or sar,e'ilamees in :n's area. In su- ary, Mr. Hansing statec tnat: (1) CECO C aas a.are of the hange- reins ettion progra9; (2) CE o CA Ch Ie ' 1 to perform a sce:iai aedit/ surveillance of tnis nan;e- re 3:e:- i tion prc;-a,; (3) CE:
in this pre; a- It shca'd ;A -asbenet a-are n:te: thatofRe;i:'
Regi:n !II's III's ',""i y; es *-
ment with tnis reins:ecP n effort Es d:: e e: l' i"3:i:U' Re;:crts 454/52-17; 455/22 '2 and 454/33-42.
On Ma 11,195 *, Mr. R. S. Love, Regi:n III, c: ta:ted es s-s.
J. O. Bir:er, J. L. Bergner arc otre-s cf tne CE:: P:2a:
Byrcn site Organi:ation oy tele;;r: e. Curir; inis c:n.e-ssr :n it was les ned tnat CECO QA nad in f a:t pe-f: te: an a :it ;f tre subje:t reins ection pr:g a, in Jure 1933 ar.: nac a c: ce-,
witn HE o e o 255. Mr, Ser;ner cid nct ela:::-ate en this conce-n. Mr. Bi-de stated trat ducir.; this irs:e:U:s :e '::.
he (Mr. Birde-) cire:ted tre SE 0 Q:/[C Ma i;-r :: :-e:3 e i letter to cancel e a 255. Upen resie- of tr.e se:.e :e :f eve .ts an0 the results of the hanger reins;e: tion ef f rt, it would a: pear that the 12s deficiencies Obser,ed on 119 sa's! '-
related cadle tray hangers would have gone un:etected if ; e Region III ins:e:ters had not uncoverea tne pro::le- areas ar:
requested CECO to perform an incepth review of hange- d :.:-
mentation and the subsequent reinspection pregram The licensee was informed that failure to establish a pro;*am te assure that conditions adverse to qualify are pre ptly identi-fied and corrected is an item of noncemplaicance in a:::rdar:e with Criterion XVI of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B (50-454/S4-27-01; 50-455/84-19-01),
d (0 pen) Noncompliance (50-454/82-17-05; 50-455/82-17-05): During a previous inspection it was identified that the licensee was not identifying, controlling, and correcting cable tray separation violations. As part of the corrective action, during the latter part of 1982 and early 1983 a concerted effort was made by CECO, HECo and S&L to identify all cable tray separation violations. This
.information was compiled and analyzed by S&L. The corrective action were: (1) relocate one or more cable trays to correct the violations; or (2) install cable tray covers on one or more of the cable trays (by the installation of covers, the separation criteria is reduced 7 D-ll
b -*
TREECE ATTACHMENT D from 3" hori: ental and 12" vertical to 1" hor:iontal and 1" vertical);
or (3) based on the analysis, acce:: the installation as installed; and (4) place a distinctive mark (black octagen mark) cn the a;;1i-cable drawings to indicate that a seca ation violation had been identified in that area and tnat the violation had been 'analy e:: by the engineer, S&L.
During this re;0* ting ::e-ice, the ins:e:::es: (1) reviewed the engineer's analysis an: f ;.n it to be 3 e;. ate; (2) re.ie-e: se'e:-
s ted dra.irgs arc verified tan they -ere marsed to indicate that ne engineer ha: a"a'j:ed the se::arati:n violati ~3; (3) revie-e:: se'e::
crawing to verify that tray c vers v.ere 5:ecified as cart of t*'s correcti.e acti:n; an:: (4) toured the :::.er 310:< an: icer.tifie:
separati:n viotatices 3rd ve*fied that the vi0la:#:ns ha tee-accressed ty t e e gineer and ap;:r:criate action take- C.ri ;
intervie-s wi:n 5&L ::e*1:n el identified in Paragr3:- I cf this report, the ins;e: tars .ere informed that seversi n::es 5a: tee-ad:ed cr re.ise: :n Druirg EE-0-32373, Fe:r :a y 1923 resis': , to prevent re:.r a ce of ca:1e tra/ seca-aticn v i:lsti:ns. Du-i. : a revie of Dra.i ; 6E-0-32373, ge' .isi:n L, it -as c:ser.e: thaU.::e 47 cire:ted the ele: rica! c ntracter, HE o, to instal ca::le tra,.
c sers in ac: r:arte witn the electrical spe:ificati:ns .~e tre 3' hori::-tai an::-12" vertical se::aration re:Jire en:s e e vi late:
even thew;, the a;:li:3-le dra.ing c:es not sh:. tne so :Je:: tra,. ::
be c ve-ed. N:te 45 cire::s tne electrical contra: tor to n:tify 5!..
if the 1" .Tetal t: Tetal se;arati:n is violated after the installa-tien of cable traj cc.ers. Du*ir; a review cf HE*a 9 Se-ies :: ::e-c.res, it as c:5e ve: tra t e re:;. ire a-ts of Ncte 43 .e e a:e-cua el, a::-e:se: ::;.t : e e:. ire .erts of N::e 47 .eee n:: a::rets+:.
0 -in; in:E *."e-s .i tn tre CEC Pr:Je:t Electrical Sc:e vis: , CE::
Electrical QA Er;iree , CECO Eie:trical Fiele Engineer, HEC: C ',;
Pa 1;e , anc HE:: Project E*gineer, it a;; eared that these ;;ees:- e'
-e e ro; a-are Of the re:;uire ,er.t of N:te 47 on Dra.ing GE-0-32375 until it -as bre:.;-t to treie..atterti:n by the Regi:n III ins:e:::-3.
It -as als: lear .ed that HECo QC, engineering, anc constra: tie -e*e not verifying ca :le tray separation.
During this re;:orting period, the licensee instituted a progra- to determine the amount of safety-related cable tray installed in t:rits 1 and 2 since February 1983 (effective date of Note 47). As a resd ;
of this reviev, it was determined that 83 cable tray inspection reports (Note: each report can address 1 or more sections of cable tray) had been prepared for Unit 1, and cable tray separati:n requirements were not verified (
Reference:
HECo NCR 975, datec May 4,1984), and 41 reports were submitted for Unit 2 (
Reference:
HECo NCR 976, dated May 4, 1984). The licensee was informed that failure to assure that activities affecting quality are prescribed in documented instructions or procedures is an item of noncompliance in accordance with Criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B t
(50-454/84-27-02; 50-455/84-19-02).
D 8 D-12 L
W
- TREECE ATTACHMENT D
- e. (Cicsed) Noncompliance (50-454/82-17-06; 50-455/S2-12-C6): During a previous inspection it was identified that the licensee -as not icentifying._ controlling, and correcting cable separation violat ons i inside of parels, . cabinets, motor control centers, swit:nges , et:.
As part of the corrective action, during the latter part of 1952 a-d early 1953, a concerted ef fort was mace by CECc, riECo ar: SI.' to .
ice-tifj all :acle se:aration violations inside of e:ui; e.t. Tnis in's- atic .35 c:r.oi t e: a"d a aiy:.ed by 52.t. Tre ::rre:ti,e a:t : :-
we e: (1) re'::ste/rer:ete ore or mere of t'he ca 'es is ::'1s:: --
. vioia:!:n. - (2) install fire barriers :et-een the ine:'se: 01:'es:
or (3) rc e : e ;f the invohe: ca:le insice a : -cuit *.* n .!' #-
fies as a f' e :2reder; or ( ) based on the arijsis, a::e:t t e insta' ?nien as :rs:a' led; and '(5) estab'ish a tr:;*s- : 'u- I I. .
of f uture <io;at'- > 53. that they.could te anal,:e: a : ::-re:*.' e a-*.#:n assis i!.
Duria; tris re::-kih; ;er od, tre insce:::-s:
i (1) *e.'i e: Pe e ;i ee 's a ai fsii h.*: fours it : be a:e-. ate: (2) re.'E e: ~e eis: ':21 :: .tanter's (HE 0) tenir.ni:- irs:e:.f: :-::ir. e a :
ice niffe: t~at tre OC inste:::e -as rec.i e: to. ins e:*. f:r s ice-tify se:3-nier vio'atst,s tet.ee 'ssfetj-relate: an: 90 -si'in -
reined :a: es are tet.ee, re:.-:e-t es:1es; arc (3) ve-ifie:
i :'e e-:st': of tn's ;r ;-sn :y rev'e.3 ; ca:1e se:1 ati: :-::'i-re::-ts u n e e :e' g 'cr.e-de: to tre e ;ireer f:r era' s'L Te cc- e:t'
- 3:t :.s a : c e ::rre:ti.e 3:ti: s to pre.e-t ei:.- e :e a::ca-e: 10 te a:+: .sta. inis item is c1: sed.
f (:le:1 N: :: :tia e M-jia 53-37-01): C.-fr; a : e.': ! 3 : ' '.
. it .n+ 1:e-tffie: nn re CE:r " ara;er ' O.aiit, 2is. a :t 3 enn'is e: 1- :-,e '- Lea: Id t:r certificni:". ;r:; 1-
- i*. -!!
rc :::. e-te: in P.e "E o Qus;ig Assura :e Ma .si, or in P* 'E': "
70:::a' Re::#; n:r is it perr tted by AN3: N ' 5. 2. 2 3 - l ~-7 5 , - l';1-ti:n of .s'ity Assi.rar:e Progran Audit Pers:. vel f er NL: lea- D-e-Pls tt.' This infor e* progratnad, been esta:liked ith'n "E:: to ce-ti f.7, an i9dividual as an Interim Lead AL:it:r ,*e- Pe/s e :': t meet the cualification require ents of a lea: audit:. as s;e:ifie:
in AN51 N45. 2. 23-1978.
As part of Ceco's corrective action, 'the Interim Lead Audit:- cc-:e:-
was discortinued, the personnel holding Interim Lead Auditor ce-ti-fications were de-certified, and records were revie ed to dete*-ine the names of persor.nel that had been certified that did not meet t'e minimum' qualification requirements. The records revie. incicate:
~
that between 1977 and 1983, eight (8) CECO personnel had teen certi-fied as Inte-im Lead Auditors by the CECO Panager of Qualit, Ass'--
ance. The audits performed by these 8 peeple were revie-ee an:
evaluated by qualified Ceco Lead Auditors. With a few excepti:ns, the audit reports and the objective evidence and the audit de'icien:y close outs were in compliance with tre Ceco audit program. During a review of these audit evaluations, the most significant audit deficiencies observed by the Region Ill inspectors were:
(1$ One item on the cher.klist hao insufficient objective evidence for acceptance. This attribute was adequately covered cn a subsequent audit by a different auditor and found acceptable.
D-13 9
~*
TREECE ATTACHMENT D (2) One item as relating to records storage was marked acceptat'e and from the information documented iTi the report, it shoc1C have been listed as a deficiency. This item was subse:;uently icentified and corrected. -
The c:f rective action and c:rrective a:tien te pre.ent recurre . e a;; ears to te adequate. This ite: is c!csed.
- g. (Caen) Non::..oliance (50-454/82-49-04). During a previces ins:e:-
tien, it .as identified tna: <ellem tge est'e gr :s (use: :: s. :;-
e electrical cables in ca:1e ::an rise-s a-c in serti:a' c: :;4: r. 5) were not ins alled in ac:or:n ce with tne ele::ri:a' s e:'fics ': 3 Tnis.ite, is 31so icentifie in ;0 C R 5].55(e) re;:r:s 254 '52 ':-EE .
and 45~ 52 ' -55. Du*ing this re;;r*.ing pericc, the Ee;f , II:
ins:e:: rs ::ser.e: tnat the insta11atien of caole g-ics in sa'e j-re' ate: rise: s R 77, R3:5, R355, and R259 were cefi:iert in : a the/ '.ere rc su ;:eting the cables in a:ccr ance itn tre des';-
s:e:i'ita;':'s. Pending ve ificatien of the licensee's ::r e:; .e a::ict, :n's i;s re ains ::er.. This ite . has been assig e: :ste;;r
.1 a : ns: :e :lesed ::rier to fuel load,
- h. (Close:) C:e . Ite- (5;-154/54-02-03; 50 *55/54-02-02): C.-in; : e ASL3 nea-ir; for 5,r:n Station, Unit 1, the licensee stated tna: tre can'e ;ull re::rts for ca:1es alrea:/ installe: are teing re<ie-s:
to eas re inst tre maximu 1 all:.a:1e ca:le pulling tensic, ar:
- made., alle.aele ca:Te side all pressu*e ha: n: tee en:ee:+:. As d:: e .ted in Ins:e::len Re::- N . 50- ~-2.'52-03 a : 5 -455,i -:',
tne Re;4:n I:I ins;e:::r re<ie.e: t*e on-site re::r:s a : .* :e es:e;;ien (*,: :: pif ar:e 45 '52-;5-0 ; 255 54-:7-;2;, .rese +:: :3 ae e foer: to be a:e:: ate. C.,rir; this re::rting :e-i::, ne Regi:n III ins:e:::rs revie.e: tre er;ireering :al:.'at': i a: :+
e ;i eer's f a:iittics. The ergineering analysis as ;e-f:r e:
utili:ing one or 2 re of the following met.t::s:
(1) Cal:alati:ns for an assumed worst case cen: it co ,figurauer containing a worst cable configu*ation, i.e. cen uit rur .i:n four 90 terds with minimu i benc radius (273* total ':e :s allowed at Byron Station) and witn the maximum cable censity.
Utilizing this methodology, a critical conduit lengtn was calculated for each conduit size. Using this information, a review of .the approximate 2600 conduit runs was made. If the actual length of the conduit run approached the calculated critical length, that run was flagged for further analysis Ce*
paragraph (2) below. Worst case accepted, as observed by the inspectors, during this first cut, had a safety factor of approximately four, i.e. allowable pulling tension 4C;# versus calculated of approximately 100#.
(2) Calculations for an assumed worst case conduit configuration (4-90' bends) containing the actual insta11eo cable configura-tion. The worst case accepted, as observed by the inspectors, had a safety factor of approximately 3.3. Again, questionaole conduit runs were flagged for analysis per paragraph (3) below, g D-14
a
-* N TREECE ATTACHMENT D (3) Calculations. for ectual conduit configuration,containing the actual-cable _ configuration. Worst case accepied, as cbserved by the ins'aectors . had a safety , factor of approxicately 4.7.
Upon completien of this three step analysis .three genduit rurs-were questionable. They were anity:ed by Okonite Company, cable manufacturer, as des:ribed in paeagra;n (4) Delc..
( 2 ). The . folle.'n; d nfor at':n .as f:n.e-tid to 'Ck: nite te assis:
- in treir e.s'.stica of :3:1,5 in3:3.ie:-in.co :;i:s C: -5 53, .
e CCA-61:-2 ar: CC'-5193: ,
Co cu't si:e all 5' C rc i t c:nfiguratien free as- c": ces.3 ;5 Ca::e ::n'iguention ft: . :stle ;ul' :ar:s C: :;i: C'A-5:53 1/.C-750 ':C.", 5Ct. ca:1es Conds'; CCA-5;i2 an: 6193 1/~-750 " ", ECt. ::: 'es
. Ca::e? pull dire::icr. s_ ,
r The 93 = ' ?. . catie v?!i ; te isi:n for tre s.tfe:t es:tes .as :: 3-questicn ' f:r t ese inree tcs:3 'a:icss- in tna; :ne rav u al':.5: 'e tensten fer the 2-L C 7s0 P:M ca:le ull is 120,CC;= anc 150,:::: fe the 3-1.'C-750 MCM car'e pull e .D. e to c:r:;it c.cnfig.-3: cr. Cs: ';e was re:.ests: to ;e-fa ,'an a a'jsis for pessi:?e car'e si:4.a
pressure violatic s, Og:ni:e'3 1s ;e- cf C :: der 11, 1933 i :::a,es tra: trey perforTe: their. ar aiysis ara f c*: to sice-all crass.-s viciations.. It SPc.ld be noted that ea:*. cs:le 73 u'a::u ee esti:-
-lisres tre7ma=4 ;.5 ca:'e!si e.all t pressure tra: t'ei ca:1es 3-e desi; e: :: '
11 s:3: .i: :.: :3.s'n; ta a;s :: e :: :.:::-
insalat :-J Base: c r. :. e res.:::v ef ;re. :.5 i.s:5::i: s e : ::: -
i cert.ation re/ie-e: curir; tni; ins:e::icn.' :ne ins:e:::rs a.e a rease ,acie assura ce that there 'sa'et -related ca-les wili ;e-f:--
their ?nten:+:' fun : ion ;This iter,-is closec.
- i. (Closed) Unresolved It,en (50-452/34-09-C1; 50-255/E 01 P C1 " ;
- a pre.icus ir.spe::icn, it was ceserved that there were se.erai cu -
standing NCRs thaf were prepafed to docurent possible over tensienir; of saf ety-related' cables during initial installatien or carin; ee.:-k
'(pull back). During nis reporting period,- the inspectors revie-e:
the disposition and implementation of CECO. NCRs F838, F839, F2:5, F864, and F865. -The inspectors also reviewed the uack up data for these NCRs ar.d found'it to be adequate. Thi's item is closed.
J. (Closed) Noncompliance (5C-454/84-09-02; 50-455/84-07-C2): Du-in; a previous inspection it wes identified that HEco DR 3382 was inace-qeately dispositioned, resulting in 12 cables being ;installec wnese qu&lity was indeterminate. Subsecuant to the inspectors fincings, HEco prepared NCR 841 to document the. overstressed cables. During this inspection, the inspectors yerified that the cables had been replaced, and action to prevent recurrence had been implemented.
This item is closed.
e
- 11 D
_-15
p TREECE ATTACHMENT D 3.
Lice-see Action on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Re: rts (Closed) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Report (354/82-C7-EE and 455/92-07-EE): Dire:t currer.t (CC) control pt.er cable failures. Several single cbnduct:- :.3.'
- 2 DC certe:I cc-er cables, whicn run fr:m the auxiliary building to tre essent.a1 to g-:u 0.
se . ice . ate cooling t:.er in an unce ground duct, have fait e; The f ailures o::; ed after tre 03:195 nac been teste: a:
pla:ed in se vi:e.
fail rs T. e ins:e:t: s revie e: t5e licensee's actic : t e 073, 2 C: 07 f "C ca::e5 1 CC 073 as: 1 :C 075 in Unit I a : 0 :a:'es 2 ::
are 2 : ;;5 in Uril 2.
Re::r:s incicate: tne f:' ':.:,;.
m.lti-::
. tor caties 2 3: 242, 2 0C 235 and 2 C: 223 res: :: .'eL.
- c. T.: r tefa
- -': 3 :e e::rts (N:R) E 5 ar.d 732 e e .ritte ::: + t; :
eia: 00t9 N R's .ere closed cut on ;ril li, 1~32 ~
- d. A sa-.'s f t e can'es .as pulled a9d testad tj tre a .#1:!; e-7 e sa 'e 'ai'e: a p ::vcti:n test (e.g. a 13,i:: .::: 3:1. teit;
'a - # : - it 3: ; a :-i s : p-iOr to s'i: ent.
- e. Ire O* :i 'e f3 #i.*e to pass the test wa3 due 10 eler;3;i n of t -
Ca 'e insJI3ti:9 Ire i .5;e:t rs deter- e: f--
a re.#f. Of inst!'lati: re:: 5 t i ; *. :
ca 'es -e e re ' ace: ' 3 ::r:n 9 .d t* a:p rc.e: ::-::e: -ei .
~- i ti-is c,.050 .
4 C:-d.ct:- E it 3rli es Ot.e to t'e p :ble s e ::cntered wita cr.d.:t:r b tt splices at etre-Nuclear Plants, the ins;e:tcrs queried the licenste as to . hat a:t'c 5 had been taken or were. planned to verify the acceptability of the Datt splices at the Byrcn Station. The inspectors were inforced that CE:: CA initiated a review of approximately 11,0C0 cable termination reports at:
identifie: 646 of these reports that documented the installation of butt splices.
Between March 13-16, 1984, Ceco QA and HEco QC randemly checke:
221 safety related and 78 non safety-related conductor butt splices.
F_ollo.ing are the results of the checks made on the 221 safety-re'ated butt splices as do:L ented in CECO QA Surveillance Report 5 44, date::
March 27, 1954:
27 splices were not inspected because they were covered with ta;e or heat shrink material.
194 splices were visually inspected and 72 were " tug-tested".
I butt splice failed the tug-test and was replaced.
16 splices were identified as defective and replaced. Failure attributes were not provided.
All 194 butt splices were installed with the proper crimping tool.
D-16 12
TREECE ATTACIIMENT D CECO NCR F899, dated April 5,1984, was preparad to document that the conductor insulation on cables provided by Okonite Company .ould not fit inside the insulation barrel of Arp butt splice con.ectors. This NCR has been for.arded to Ceco Project Engineering Ce:artment (of f-si.te) fcr resolution. As of May 4, 1984, a resolution /cispcsition had not tee.
received on-site.
To understa-d .sj the c:-ductor ei. : 531 ices ,er, reje::ee, :ne ir :e:::,3 requested the a;;ii:ssie ins:s: tion crecilists/terminatic reports for revie.. The ins:e:::rs revie,ed the folicwi .g Cacle Irs:e: tion Te ' a-tion Re orts (CITR) ar: E:;gipmen; M ific3;j - Inspe: tic 9 Rei.esis (E:9):
Re :et NO. Carte N . No. c e ie:ts Re 3-<s CIRT 12318 25:.C33 1 Butt Spli:e Re:la:e:
CITR 12130 1Rr:53 2 Butt Solice os :1 3:!:
CITR 12119 1Rr:52 1 Bu:: solice Re: a:e:
CITR 121:3 1R-:53 3 B a t 5:' ice RE: 3:e:
C!M ,,
C I ,4 s jjjgjj 2 g. : 5::i:e a3::3:3:
...-- - ..- 2 Eu - 531::e ser a:#:
CITR 12131 10-:53 3 gu;; 5:li:e Re:'3:e: CITR 12150 1 -:22 1 2:
. 5: lice Resta:e:
CI'R 12:23 19r:23 ; 2 :: 5:11ce Re:la:e: EY:R 5950 1C:155 1 Cut insulation bet.ee-B . t: 5;1 ice and te ." a lug- e:la:ed. EP:R 5955 1~C155
. Cc: ins.;1a;i:-- e: 3' e:
.itn sn '-i- fi: a:e a
'- ~ ^ '. 2 7 1 Ea: cri : : ::- e:::--
re:la:e: 1R:17 3 Cut insulatice-resia:s: 1R:'55 - 1 Er;: sed cepper at s; ::e replaced IRC170 1 E=;csed ceper a: 5:'i:e-replace: 10G157 1 Butt splice repla:ed 100:53 1 Cut insulation-re: aire: with shrink-fit material ICG163 J Butt splice repla:ed 27 Total
/
From the above information, it would appear that an addition ten butt splices were rejected and repaired during the repair of the 17 refe:ted by CECO QA. Utilizing this latest information, it would appear that the reject rate 27/194 is 13.9%. During interviews with the Ceco and HECo personnel involv:d in this reinspection effort, the inspectors were informed that the largest number of rejected butt splices were because the conductor (copper) was not visible at the connector crimp. The inspectors also performed a general review of the 646 CITRs identified by the licensee that doucmented butt splices. It was observed that a large percentage of these splices were associated with the terminaticr. of 13 D-17
i TREECE ATTACHMENT D metal shielding braid or tare-shield on control or instra ent cables as addressed in S&L Stancard EA-215. The inspe: tors made a detailed revie. of 34 of these CITRs. Follcwing are the results of inis review: CITR No. Cable No. No. of S:lices Re a-ks 119 1M5523 1 11942 1AF151 1 11921 1AF190 1 11940 1AF179 1 11933 1AF170 1 11935 IVA053 1 Re:iate:-da a;i: :: :_:::- insaistier 11933 IVA533 1 11913 1CC2 5 1 119:6- IVC 550 1 Repla:ed-da a;e: c :.:::r
' insalati:n 11905 1CV5 5 2 Re:la:e:-da s; : ::-:_:::-
irselati:n IliC ICVail 2 Repla:e:-ca a;e: c: :_:::- insalati:n 11591 1C 5 '. '.5 2 11550 15::'25 1 Re:1a:e: buti s: lice 11553 15:523 'l Re:' aced tut; s:t ice 11555 IV :23 1 Re ia:e: tut; s:i':e 1155' IV;1:2 1 Recla:e catt s:'i:e 1C5:-3 IN:.225 1 Snield traid s: lice 1Cli? l',:::' 1 Shiel: ire 5::e 1:5:-i 1.',:225 1 Sniel: .i e 3::e 5:37 IV A 5'.3 1 E;23 IVA7 7 1 7925 IVA709 1 795; IVA705 1 7963 IV 317 1 - 5554 1NR;14 1 In process ins:e:ti:n 5550 1C:010 1 5549 1CC001 1 In process inspe: tion 5534 1FW218 3 5528 1RC439 1 In process inspecticn 5527 1NR102 1 In process inspection 5526 1RC43G 1 In process inspection 5272 IFW221 5 4561 1M5308 4 4391 IFWO55 1 Crimp tool not calibrate:- replaced butt splice. Dates of these inspections ranged from March 3, 1982 thru February 25, 1984 It was observed that all of the inspection reports randomally selected were for Byron Station Unit 1. In the 34 reports reviewed, it appeared that there were five defective butt splices and six examples of damaged / cut conductor insultation identified. 14 D-18 L.
TREECE ATTACHMENT D
?
c6 To determine if all QC termination inspectors were documenting butt splices on CIRTs, the CECO Electric 1 Field Engineer interviewed the HECo Electrical QC terminatien inspe: tors and determined that only appr:xi-
~
mately150% of these intervie-ed documented their inspe tion of butt Splices. In vie- of the information obtained by CECO during'thei revie - of potential tutt sali:e pr:blems at the By on Stat cn (i.e. ,13.3% i reject rate), the Re ;:n III inspe: tor ex:eessed his conce-n as to w . i Ceco splices. f ailed to i cle e t a ICC% reins:e:ti:n/ ins:e: tion of cc d.::: : tt As a result of the ins:ect:r's cor,ce-n, CE o, By-:n station, proviced a ver:a1 netificatien to Region III of a pete-tial 10 CFR 50.55(e) re;:rt en May 10, 1954, relative to ele:trical cert. t:r : it 5:lices. As a result of tete:rcre conversatiens bet-een M . R. Tuetie-(CECO'Syrcn Staff) and vr. C. C. Williams (Region III) en .va ) 10 a : 11, 1952, CEC: ce.etceed an ins:ection plan for tre reinspe: tion of eis:trica' conductor butt s:lices at tre Eyr:n Station, Units 1 an: 2. This ir.s:e:-
' tion plan is :::. ented in '4r. D. .Farrar (CECO Dire:ter of Nc: lear Licersir;) 'etter to '.'r. Ja es G. <s:;:er (.',
C Re; :nal Acminist s*:P), date: "aj 17, 1954 Re;f:r III 5as !!sig 4: ar i.'s:e:::- 1: : nit:- tre c:rc.:t:- : it i::s reins:e:ti: pr:; 3, C:: c: siet :. of tre rei s:e:ti:n :r:; i-sera ste -ins:ecti n rer:-ts (El- E . ! -29 a : 51-455, -21) ii! :+ issce: to-00:. ent tre ficci ;s a : :: re:t.ve a:t':n ta e-
- 5. Exit Irte v i e--
The ins:ect:rs et with tre lice see re: ese-tatises (de' tes in parages:n_1) at t e :: :;.si: Of t e : -site :crti: Of tre ins e:t :- # on May 4, 19E*, a : c s::sse: tre s:::e a-d :: ce-rs of th's ins:e:t':- i As state: in Oa a; 3:5: :f tr.is re::rt, Fe;ien III pers:nnel cis:.sse: tne ccncerns of inis irs:e: tic, itn Mr. R. Tuetten en Maj 13 ar: 11, 1984 by teie:n:ne. On w ay 25 4 1952, Mr. R. Lo.e tele:nonically cre-sentec'the fincirgs of this ins:ection to Mr. R. B. Klingler (CEC: Sj n Station staff). The licensee acknc.iec;ed this inf:r:ation. 15 D-19}}