ML20082B716

Interim Const Deficiency Rept Re Altered Expansion Anchors. Initially Reported on 830816.Former Craft Employee Deliberately Circumvented Expansion Anchor Installation Program.Supports Will Be Reworked

ML20082B716
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, 05000355
Issue date:	10/28/1983
From:	Martin T Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8311210299
Download: ML20082B716 (2)

Text

- - - .

w =

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Thomas J. Martin 80 Par k Plaza, Newar k. NJ 07101 201-430-8316 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 570, Newark, NJ 07101 Vice President Engineering and Construction October 28, 1983 A

Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

Dear Dr. Murley:

POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY ALTERED EXPANSION ANCHORS HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION On August 16, 1983, a verbal report was made to Region I, Of fice of Inspection and. Enforcement representative, M r. E. C. McCabe, advising of a potentially significant con-struction deficiency concerning alteration of expansion anchors. On September 14, 1983, an interim report was sub-mitted to your office describing the deficiency and'the;re-sulting investigation. The following information is pro-vided in accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e).

Safety Implications Inspection of the two suspect raceway supports revealed one contained six altered anchor bolts out of eight installed, and the other contained one altered anchor bolt out of four installed.

The'two suspect raceway supports were designed and installed l per seismic requirements but will not support any safety .i

! related circuits. It is unlikely that the' condition of-

! these supports would have had any direct effect on safe j~'

j operation.- 3-

! -/

'~

Corrective Action ,

~

The specific supports involved will be reworked to bring I them in conformance-with design requirements. K,%

(a f

.L

% A F311210299 831028

• bj\

PDR ADOCK 05000354 M# fe .) O-G PDR c. .j

, g

Dr. Thomas E. Murley 10/28/83 The craftsman who had installed the suspect anchors was laid off and had left the area prior to identification of the deficiency. Interviews were conducted and documented with the responsible Superintendent, General Foreman, Foreman, and a welder who worked with the installation crew. The interviews indicated the problem was confined to one crew due to personal conflict.

In order to confirm that the problem was isolated to the two identified hangers, 397 additional anchor bolts, which were installed by the same crew, were ultrasonically inspected with no problems identified. In addition, 96 hangers in-stalled by other crews were selected for ultrasonic inspec-tion. This inspection of 203 expansion anchors found no problems.

Conclusions Based on this information, we concluded that the former craf t employ'ee deliberately circumvented the expansion anchor installation program. Due to the nature of this de-ficiency, PSE&G considers it to be significant and thus reportable.

Very truly yours, plaKA@

i i i 1

, \

CC: Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement Division of; Reactor Construction Inspection WashingtddysD.C.

NRC Resi nt Inspector - Hope Creek P.O. Box 241 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey- 08038 t

iw t ,\,

_Q _