ML20010C960

Final Deficiency Rept Re Potentially Reportable Const Deficiency Involving Acme Embeds,Initially Reported 810422. Item Found Not Reportable Per 10CFR50.55E

ML20010C960
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, 05000355
Issue date:	08/10/1981
From:	Martin T Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8108210274
Download: ML20010C960 (3)

Text

-

@p(p Thomas J. Martin Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newark, N.J. 07101 201/4304316 v.ce P:esident Engineering and Construction August 10, 1981 b~h Mr. Boyce H. Grier, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

y $'A Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region 1 9h' k.

4 y 631 Park Avenue -

ng\N

" #'g _

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 .r y -

,s.Qlh U

Dear Mr. Grier:

, g g,h POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY ACME EMBEDS y /jg @ \

NO. 1 AND 2 UNITS HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION On April 22, 1981, a verbal report was made to Region 1, Of-fice of Inspection and Enforcement representative, Mr. E.

Greenman, advising of a potential significant construction deficiency. An interim written report was submitted on May 26, 1981. The following information is submitted per-suant to the commitments in the interim report.

1. Background During field modification of a few embeds in April, 1981, our Architect / Engineer observed that some of the welds on these embeds exhibited undercut, porosity, and undersize conditions. The suspect embeds were supplied i

by Acme Steel Engineering Company of Baltimore, Mary-land. Al;though a significant number of embeds from Acme were already encased in concrete, some were still in storage and available for inspection.

The following investigations were initiated:

a. De termine if the weld variations are unique for one release (shipment) or generic to all embeds supplied by Acme, f[

b. Evaluate the impact of the weld variations on the S embed capacity.

IO

c. Review the embed capacity against the actual design loadings to determine what repairs or modifications (if any) may be required.

8108210274 810810 T PDR ADOCK 05000354 S PDR.

.. a B. H. Grier 8/10/81

d. Determine if similar problems exist in embeds fabri-cated by other suppliers.

l

2. Results of Investigation of Acme Embeds l

a. Based on 100% visual examination of a large number of Acme embeds from several releases, we concluded that the weld variations observed were generic for all Acme embeds. These variations were observed in limited areas and consisted of porosity, undersized

welds, and undercut in excess of the AWS Dl.1 Code j allowables.

b. Only approximately 1% of the welds examined showed out-of-specification weld varictions.

c. The effects of porosity were determined by destruc-tive tests performed by Lehigh University. The test results indicated that the effects of porosity were i insignificant. A portion of this testing was wit-nessed by a Region 1 Inspector (50-354/81-07),

d. The effects of undersized welds and undercut were analytically evaluated. As a very conservative as-l sumption, the effects of maximum porosity, un iercut ,

i and undersize were combined and the effect on embed

! capacity was reviewed against the actual design

. loading. It is concluded that adequate design mar-I gin is present to accommodate the slight red uc tion I of embed capacity.

3. Investigation of Embeds from Other Companies l

Other suppliers' embeds revealed minor weld variations.

These variations included undersizes and undercuts.

These variations are enveloped by the variations fcund on Acme emb_ds and are therefore acceptable.

4. Conclusion Based on sampling, te sting , and analysis:

a. All Acme embeds will be used "as is".

b. All other embeds will be used "as is". j l

l l

B. H. Grier 8/10/81 (

c. If the weld variations had gone uncorrected, they j would not have adversely affected the safe operation of the plant and therefore are not considered re-portable under 10CFR50.55(e).

Detsiled reports of the testing and evaluation of the embed problem are available for your review at the jobsite. Based on these reports, we withdraw this item as a potential significant deficiency.

Very truly yours,

/

CC: Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Washington, D. C.

NRC Resident Inspector - Hope Creek Hancocks Bridge, NJ B02 1-3