ML20039G090
| ML20039G090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1981 |
| From: | Kemper J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8201150272 | |
| Download: ML20039G090 (2) | |
Text
_
l g
0 Q
d
,N PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY J/
- 5CEtVED
\\
23O1 M ARKET STREET J AN 1 ~31982> 'e i P.O. BOX 8699 g, 8%m 1881 -1981 PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101 N
12151841-4502 g
. _. = ::: = _ _
DEC 2 919 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Director Office of Inspection and hforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19h06
SUBJECT:
Significant Deficiency Report No. h2 Final Report for Nonconfoming Concrete Anchor Bolt Installations Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2 NRC Construction Pemit Hos. CPPR-106,107 FILE:
QUAL 2-10-2(SDR#h2) m m MCES: a) Telecon of May 19, 1981 H. R. Walters (PECo.) to J. McCann (NRC) b) Interim report dated June 19, 1981
Dear Mr. Haynes:
Attached is our final report on the above subject deficiency which was reported to the USNRC per the above references in accordance with 10CFR$0 55(e).
If there are any questions on the matter, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Copy to: Director of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulator /- Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 J. P. Durr, USNRC Site Resident Inspector Attachment c
0 S&
Sn 1
1 L -- J
Significant Deficiency Rsport No.142
~
Nonconfoming Concreto Anchor Bolt Inntallations Limerick Generating Station - Units 1 and 2 Description of Deficiency In our interim report dated June 19, 1981, we indicated several instances of nonconforming spacing between supports mounted with expansion anchors that have been identified and documented by both PECo. and Bechtel in accordance with site procedures. These nonconformances were subsequently evaluated by Bechtel and have been accepted with a "use as is" disposition.
If, in the future, additional nonconformances are found, they will be dispositioned on a case by case basis.
The last paragraph of the same report indicated that we have not determined if similar nonconformances exist between expansion anchors and other embedded items such as plates, channels, and unistruts with welded studs and grouted-in bolts since these items were not specifically covered in the specifications.
Corrective Action A criteria has been developed to establish the minimum center to center spacing required between expansion anchors and grouted-in bolts and other embedded items, such as plates, channels, and unistruts with welded studs. This criteria will be implemented by December 31,.1981, covering all future work.
A field survey was perfomed by Bechtel engineers of installed work to determine if the existing spacing between expansion anchors and other embedded items satisfies the recently established criteria. The results of the survey, indicated that there were no violations of the new requirements. It was also confirmed that for all anchors $/8" in diameter and smaller, the requiremente of the criteria cannot be violated due to the small distances established by the criteria when compared to the distance requirsd from the center of the embedded anchor to the edge of the plate and the clearance required for the work tools for proper anchor installation.
Conclusion Based on the engineering evaluation of the above mentioned sample survey and the requirements of the criteria, we have determined the installed anchors meet the design safety factor. Consequently, had the condition gone undetected, it would not have impaired the safety of the plant and, therefore, is considered to be not reportable under 10CHt$0.5$(e).
CED/dmc