ML19341B797

Interim Deficiency Rept 1 Re Electrical Cable Insulation Damaged During Pulling Process,Initially Reported on 800313. Condition Is Reportable Under 10CFR50.55,due to Generic Implications of Damage.Final Rept by 810519

ML19341B797
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	02/20/1981
From:	Mcgaughy J MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, AECM-81-72, NUDOCS 8102270612
Download: ML19341B797 (4)

Text

t S. . < c p(

. . .- (, s. OC;A MAO MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY b b Helping Build Mississippi Emassammand P. O. B O X 18 4 0, J A C K S O N, MISSISSIPPI 39205 TsY0Tc M,"$d" February 20, 1981 r4 -*

Office of Inspection & Enforcement \. '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission 8 <

Region II 101 Marietta Street, N.W. $ gE { [([y gh h Suite 3100 a IE52 j gN ** -

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 J. u,s va ,%;;;m Attention: Mr. J. P. O'Reilly, Director

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

4} @$I

. . . . .: /

SUBJECT:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-416/417 File 0260/15525/15526 PRD-80/05, Interi= Report No. 1, Electrical Cable Insulation Damaged During Pulling Process AECM-81/72

Reference:

AECM-81/51, 1/30/81 On March 13, 1980, Mississippi Power & Light Ccepany notified Mr. F. Cantrell of your office of a Potentially Reportable Defi-ciency (PRD) at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) construction site. The deficiency concerns electrical cable insulation damage sustained during the cabJe pulling proces,s.. _

This report will serve to correct erroneous information from our previous report. The erroneous infc,rmation was previously ex-plained to Mr. J. K. Rausch of your office via telephone with our Mr. T. E. Reaves, Jr., on February 11, 1981. Mr. Rausch asked that, although our next scheduled report was due May 19, 1981, we should supplement our previous report by February 18, 1981. Due to the ongoing inspection process and the need to provide currently accurate infor=ation, we subsequently requested extensions frem Mr. P. A. Taylor until February 20, 1981.

We have determined this condition to be reportable within the a meaning of 10CFR50.55(e) because of the generic implications of the damage. We expect to provide to you our final report on this matter by May 19, 1981. Our findings and corrective actions, to date, are su=arized in the attached status report.

Yours trulv, 610227 08 6

p p V J. P. McGaughy, Jr.

TER:st i Attachment Member Middle South Utilities System g cc: See cage 2

r MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

- Mr. J. P. O'Reilly AECM-81/72 NRC Page 2 cc: Mr. N. 1. Stampley Mr. R. B. McGehee

'Mr.-T. B. Conner

-Mr. Victor Stello, Director Division of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. G. B. Taylor South Miss. Electric Power Association P. O. Box 1589 - - ~+

Hattiesburg,.MS 39401 ,.

h #

9 @ 8' g.p

. ~

I j

e

.m

Attachment to AECM-81/72 Page 1 of 2 STATUS REPORT NO. 3 FOR PRD-30/05 I. Description of the Deficiency Cable damage was sustain 2d during the cable pulling process.

Two constructor Nonconformance Reports (NCR1 have documented this condition in two noted cases of cable damage. In both cases, the damaged cables are associated with Control Room HVAC System (2511 The initial findings have indicated that the cables were damaged by the polypropylene pulling rope.

The nature of damage ranges from jacket chafing to insulation cut through to the conductor. The condition was noted when all cables were re=oved from their co==on conduit to allow the pulling of an additional cable in that conduit.

We have determined that the genaric implications of the deficiency are such that the condition is reportable within the meaning of 10CFR50.55(e).

II.

Approach to Resolution of the Problem / Status of Proposed Resolutions The damaged cables identified in the above mentioned construc-tor's N"T's have been replaced. This matter is documented and filed '

er Bechtel Management Corrective Action Report (MCARl-GGNS . 54. This file is available for your review at the const;uc. inn site.

To deter =ine the extent of ds= age, the Architect / Engineer tested the 20 conduits most likely to contain cable which could be dam-aged as a result of the pulling process, i.e., are the most, con-gested, contain the most bends, have long pulls, etc. The conduit was filled with polywater and the cables hipot tested. Of the 20 conduits selected, 141 cables were hipot tested with 11 cable failures noted. Three of the failures could be attributed to rope burns. Four failures resulted from construction damage.

Three of the cables which failed were removed and visually inspected with no visual da= age noted; thus, the cause of the failures is unknown. One cable was abandoned in the conduit because it hung in a duct bank during the removal process;..thus the cause of failure could not be deter =ined. An additional 20 conduits were then selected for testing. These conduits represent the next group most likely to contain damaged cable. [

To date, 8 conduits, containing 56 cables, have been tested with no failures noted.

To preclude recurrence of this deficiency, the Project Field Engineer issued an Infor=ation Bulletin modifying cable install-ation practices. A training session was conducted for respon-sible Field Engineers to identify the problem and provide in-structions for the =odified pulling practices. This bulletin precludes the use of polypropylene pulling rope.

Attachment to AECM-81/72

- ,- . Page 2 of 2 III. Reasons for Delay in Final Report Constructor / Architect / Engineer's investigation not complete.

IV. Projected Date of Fit.al Report We anticipate filing a final report on or before May 19, 1981.

MA ' .g> e ,,

w 6

-