ML20211P333
| ML20211P333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1986 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NLR-N86091, NUDOCS 8607230106 | |
| Download: ML20211P333 (3) | |
Text
..
6, r' Public Service Electric and Gas Company Carbin A. McNeill, Jr.
Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Vice President -
Nuclear June 13, 1986 NLR-N86091 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention:
Mr. Richard W.
Starostecki, Director Division of Reactor Projects
Dear Mr. Starostecki:
ALLEG ATION - RACEWAY SUPPORTS HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 Pursuant to the request made in your letter to Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) Company dated May 14, 1986, PSE&G is providing you with the results of our investigation of the subject allegation (See Attachment).
This allegation, concerning quality control of raceway hangers, was transmitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I office via an anonymous letter dated April 29, 1986.
As stated in the Attachment, this j
allegation is factual.
However, the deficiency had been identified and documented and corrective action initiated under the Quality Assurance Program.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
13 Sincerely,
%f 4
S
~
Attachment C
Mr.
D. H.
Wagner Licensing Project Manager Mr.
R.
W.
Borchardt Senior Resident Inspector I
t
1h ATTACHMENT An anonymous letter dated 4/29/86, concerning raceway hangers was provided to PSE&G by the NRC Senior Resident Inspector.
The letter raised three issues:
1.
A number of electrical hangers were not inspected by Quality control.
2.
Bechtel Field Engineering incorrectly marked several hanger cards " deleted", when the hanger actually exists.
3.
The uninspected hangers may be overloaded.
inspection deficiency was identified and documented under This the construction quality assurance program on Quality Action Request F-313, issued 3/19/86.
Two problem modes were identified.
It was found that some Raceway Hanger Installation Cards were lost at the time of installation and that Quality Control was, therefore, never notified that the supports were ready for inspection.
It was also determined that cards were deleted in error, at the time of facility turnover walkdowns.
At that time, composite drawings were not available and some cards did not clearly indicate the location of the supports.
When Field Engineers performing turnover walkdowns were unable to locate the supports, they marked the cards " deleted".
Walkdowns were conducted to support as-built revisions to the In the process of these walkdowns, the composite drawings.
inspection status of each conduit support was verified.
For supports found not to have valid Raceway Hanger Identification Cards, new cards were issued to OC and the supports were inspected.
Even though some supports had been previously inspected, it is more expedient to reinspect the support than to attempt to revalidate the deleted cards.
The walkdowns included approximately 40,000 supports, of which 119 requiring QC inspection have been identified.
The inspections identified 33 supports as nonconforming or inaccessible for complete inspection (i.e.,
fireproofing).
Two overloaded hangers and three excessive span conditions were identified.
In addition, three questionable load conditions were also documented.
The nonconforming conditions are identified on fif teen ( 15) Deficiency Reports which will be 1986.
evaluated and dispositioned by Engineering by June 27, The disposition process includes a review for patentially reportable conditions.
The program for design and installation of conduit supports was unique, in that identification numbers were assigned concurrent with installation and that layout drawings showing the location of each support were not utilized.
Quality Control inspections were scoped to individual supports rather than to an area or a For other field routed commodities, such as small conduit run.
supports were identified on drawings, pipe and instrumentation, prior to installation.
Quality Control inspection included
verfication that all components within scoped boundaries were installed and accepted.
the allegation is factual.
It had already been In conclusion, identified and was limited to field routed conduit supports.
further corrective Therefore, because construction is complete, action to prevent recurrence is not necessary.
O
{
_