IR 05000445/1979026
{{#if:11/08/1979|{{#if:05000445, 05000446|{{#if: | {{#invoke:Navbox|navbox}}{{#arraymap:|,|xx|[[Project::xx| ]]| }} | {{#if:{{#ask:[[{{#arraymap:|,|xx|xx|||}}]]}}|{{#if:{{#ask:document::IR 05000445/1979026[[Project::+]][[issue date::<{{#time:m-d-Y|11/08/1979 + 9 months}}]]|mainlabel=-|?Project=|link=none|limit=1|sort=issue date|order=descending}} |{{#invoke:Navbox|navbox}} }}
{{#arraymap:{{#ask:document::IR 05000445/1979026[[Project::+]][[issue date::<{{#time:m-d-Y|11/08/1979 + 9 months}}]]|mainlabel=-|?Project=|link=none|limit=1|searchlabel=|sort=issue date|order=descending}}|,|xx|[[Project::xx| ]]| }}{{#if:| | }} }} }} }}{{#if:| }}{{#ifeq:|yes||
{{#if:{{#if:|document id::}} {{#if:|name::|{{#if:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program|{{#Wiki_filter:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program }}[[title::{{#Regex_clear:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program }}| ]]}}}}|}}{{#if:|{{#if:{{{above}}} |
|{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}} }} }}{{#ifeq:|yes|{{#if:{{#if:|document id::}} {{#if:|name::|{{#if:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program|{{#Wiki_filter:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program }}[[title::{{#Regex_clear:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program }}| ]]}}}}|{{#if:|document id::}} {{#if:|
name::|{{#if:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program|{{#Wiki_filter:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program }}[[title::{{#Regex_clear:Insp Repts 50-445/79-26 & 50-446/79-25 on 791011-22.Three Allegations of Improprieties in Civil Const Phase Were Found to Be Factual But Had Already Been Corrected in QA Program }}| ]]}}}}}}}}{{#if:|{{#if: |
|{{#if:{{{subheader}}}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}} }}{{#if:|{{#if:
||{{#if:{{{subheader2}}}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}} }}{{#if:|{{#if:
||{{#if:{{{image1}}} {{#if:|
{{{caption1}}}}}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}} }}{{#if:|{{#if:
||{{#if:{{{image2}}}{{#if:|
{{{caption2}}}}}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}} }}{{#if:
||{{#if:[[Accession number::{{#if:ML20202B215|ML20202B215|{{#if:|}}}}]]
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:Person / Time
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#show:IR 05000445/1979026|?site}}{{#arraymap:05000445, 05000446|,|x| || }}{{#if:05000445, 05000446|{{#if:{{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}|{{#if:{{#show:{{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}|?icon|link=none}}| [[{{#show:{{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}|?icon|link=none}}|link={{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}]]}}}}}}
|{{#if:Site:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:[[Start date::Issue date::{{#if:11/08/1979|11/08/1979}}]]
|{{#if:Issue date:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#if:|Revision::}}
|{{#if:{{#if:|Revision:}}
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#arraymap:Crossman W, Taylor R|,|x|[[from::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]]}}{{#if:|{{#if:{{#show:|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:|?name|link=none}}|}}}}{{#if:NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)|
{{#arraymap:{{#replace:{{#replace:NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)|, LLC| }}|, Inc| }}|,|x|[[from::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]] }} }}
|{{#if:From:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#arraymap:|,|x|[[to::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]]}}{{#if:|{{#arraymap:|,|x|to::x}}}}
{{#arraymap:{{#replace:{{#replace:|, LLC| }}|, Inc| }}|,|x|[[to::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]]}}
|{{#if:To:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:Contacts:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#if:|contact::}}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#if:|Category:Press Release }}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:{{#if:ML18052B537|Shared Package}}
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#if:ML18052B537|List: {{#ask:in package::ML18052B537|format=ul}} }}
|{{#if:{{#if:ML18052B537|{{#arraymap:ML18052B537|;|xx|in package::xx}} }}
|
}}
}}{{#if:References
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#arraymap:FOIA-85-59|,|x|{{#Wiki_filter:x}}}} {{#arraymap:50-445-79-26, 50-446-79-25, NUDOCS 8607100241|,|x|{{#Wiki_filter:x}}}}
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:{{#if:{{#ask:Followed by::IR 05000445/1979026|link=none}}|{{#ask:Followed by::IR 05000445/1979026|?Issue date=|format=ul|sort=Issue date|order=descending}} }}
|{{#if:{{#if:{{#ask:Followed by::IR 05000445/1979026|link=none}}|Preceding documents:}}
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:
||{{#if:
|{{#if:
|
}}
}}{{#if:{{#if:ML20202B215|Download: [[URL::http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/{{#sub:ML20202B215%7C0%7C6}}/ML20202B215.pdf%7CML20202B215]]|[[URL::http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/{{#sub:%7C0%7C6}}/.pdf%7C]]}} {{#if:10|(page count::10)}}|}}{{#if:Adams|}}
{{#ifeq:|yes||| {{{above}}} | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| {{{label}}} | | | }}{{{data}}} | |
| {{{header}}} | |||
| {{{label}}} | | | }}{{{subheader}}} | |
| {{{header}}} | |||
| {{{label}}} | | | }}{{{subheader2}}} | |
| {{{header}}} | |||
| {{{label}}} | | |
}}{{{image1}}} {{#if:| {{{caption1}}}}} | |
| {{{header}}} | |||
| {{{label}}} | | |
}}{{{image2}}}{{#if:| {{{caption2}}}}} | |
| | | }}[[Accession number::{{#if:ML20202B215|ML20202B215|{{#if:|}}}}]] | ||
| Person / Time | |||
| | | }} | ||
| Site: | | | }}{{#show:IR 05000445/1979026|?site}}{{#arraymap:05000445, 05000446|,|x| || }}{{#if:05000445, 05000446|{{#if:{{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}|{{#if:{{#show:{{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}|?icon|link=none}}| [[{{#show:{{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}|?icon|link=none}}|link={{#show:{{#explode:05000445, 05000446|,|0}}|?company|link=none}}]]}}}}}} | |
| Issue date: | | | }}[[Start date::Issue date::{{#if:11/08/1979|11/08/1979}}]] | |
| {{#if:|Revision:}} | | | }}{{#if:|Revision::}} | |
| From: | | |
}}{{#arraymap:Crossman W, Taylor R|,|x|[[from::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]]}}{{#if:|{{#if:{{#show:|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:|?name|link=none}}|}}}}{{#if:NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)| {{#arraymap:{{#replace:{{#replace:NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)|, LLC| }}|, Inc| }}|,|x|[[from::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]] }} }} | |
| To: | | |
}}{{#arraymap:|,|x|[[to::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]]}}{{#if:|{{#arraymap:|,|x|to::x}}}} {{#arraymap:{{#replace:{{#replace:|, LLC| }}|, Inc| }}|,|x|[[to::{{#if:{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|{{#show:x|?name|link=none}}|x}}]]}} | |
| Contacts: | | | }} | |
| | | }}{{#if:|contact::}} | ||
| | | }}{{#if:|Category:Press Release }} | ||
| {{#if:ML18052B537|Shared Package}} | |||
| | | }} | ||
| {{#if:ML18052B537|{{#arraymap:ML18052B537|;|xx|in package::xx}} }} | | | }}{{#if:ML18052B537|List: {{#ask:in package::ML18052B537|format=ul}} }} | |
| References | |||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }}{{#arraymap:FOIA-85-59|,|x|{{#Wiki_filter:x}}}} {{#arraymap:50-445-79-26, 50-446-79-25, NUDOCS 8607100241|,|x|{{#Wiki_filter:x}}}} | ||
| {{#if:{{#ask:Followed by::IR 05000445/1979026|link=none}}|Preceding documents:}} | | | }}{{#if:{{#ask:Followed by::IR 05000445/1979026|link=none}}|{{#ask:Followed by::IR 05000445/1979026|?Issue date=|format=ul|sort=Issue date|order=descending}} }} | |
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| | | }} | ||
| {{#if:ML20202B215|Download: [[URL::http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/{{#sub:ML20202B215%7C0%7C6}}/ML20202B215.pdf%7CML20202B215]]|[[URL::http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/{{#sub:%7C0%7C6}}/.pdf%7C]]}} {{#if:10|(page count::10)}} | |||
{{#if:| <span|<div}} class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand navbar" style="background:none; padding:0; font-weight:normal;; font-size:xx-small; ">{{#if:1||This box: }}{{#if:|[}}[[{{#switch:
|#default = Adams
| =
{{#ifeq: |
| Template:Adams
| Adams
}}
}}|{{#if:1|v|view}}]] • [[|{{#if:1|d|talk}}]]{{#if:|| • [{{fullurl:{{#switch: |#default = Adams
| =
{{#ifeq: |
| Template:Adams
| Adams
}}
}}|action=edit}}{{#if:1|e|edit}}]}}{{#if:|]}}{{#if:| |}} | |||
}}{{#if:INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS|{{#arraymap:INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, INSPECTION REPORT, UTILITY, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS|,|x|| }}{{#if:{{#show:IR 05000445/1979026|?site}}|{{#invoke:Navbox|navbox}}
|{{#invoke:Navbox|navbox}} }} }}
|{{#if:ML20202B215|Download: [[URL::http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/{{#sub:ML20202B215%7C0%7C6}}/ML20202B215.pdf%7CML20202B215]]|[[URL::http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/{{#sub:%7C0%7C6}}/.pdf%7C]]}} }}
{{#invoke:Navbox|navbox}}
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I% , .&- '
@ U. S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COSMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-445/79-26; 50-446/79-25 Category A2 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Investigation at: Investigation conducted: October 11-22, 1979 // 2#7 6. 8 '. Mud-n db Inspector: Date p R. G. Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects . Sectica
r
- //!8
k Approved: Date W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Investication Summary: Investigation on October 11-22, 1979 (Report No. 50-445/79-26; 50-446/79-25) Special investigation of allegations by a former site Areas Investigated: construction worker of improprieties in the civil construction phase of this The investigation involved ten inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
facility. Three of the allegations were determined to be factual, but without Results: merit since they had been detected and corrected within the licensee's QA One allegation had no inerit and one could be neither substantiated program.
nor refuted.
F31A-85-59 8607100241 860630 PDR FOIA GARDE 85-59 PDR ~
% - s ,
INTRODUCTION Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 are under con-struction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas.
Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder with Inc. as the Constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. as the Brown and Root, Architect / Engineer.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION A person who visited the Region IV office made allegations of construction ~ improprieties at the Comanche Peak Station.
SUW.ARY OF FACTS A person who identified himself as a former Brown & Root employee visited the The person approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 9, 1979.
Region IV office at stated that he wished to discuss deficiencies in safety-related construction The person was then interviewed by personnel at the Comanche Peak Station.
The of the Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch.
interview developed the following allegations: Allecation 1: IntheL[ nit 1AuxiliaryBuildingatelevation807',rebarwasomittedin The alleger stated that he had acquired the s four columns in the EA wall.' site engineering personnel information from his general' foreman and that (names unknown) were aware of the omission.
Allegation 2: 1 Auxiliary Building, the concrete slab acting as the ceiling In the Unit above elevation (floor) at 832', in che area just before entry into the Unit 1 Safeguards Building, had a 20' x 20' honeycomb area which was The alleger indicated that he was exposed upon concrete form removal.
it had been simply dry-packed.
felt aware of the corrective action taken, but Allecation 3: The alleger / there had been a mixup in anchor bolts.
. k In Unit 1 Containment, indicated that 3000 anchor bolts had been interchanged, some having been bg/ s_,s3', furnished by " Boston Made" and others by " Southern Made."
Allegation 4.a: There is general cracking of floor slab concrete in the plant buildings.
Allegation 4.b: 1 Containment / Containment Wall.
Horizontal tie rebar was omitted in Unit-2-
r w b . . CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are based on review of various documents, technical literature, and observations by the NRC Resident Reactor Inspector.
Supporting documentation for these conclusions are referenced in the attached details.
Allegations 1. 2 and 3: These allegations were found to be based on factual events that had been '(etected and documented within the context of the licensee's Quality Two of three Assurance system as required by Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
alleged events were corrected in accordance with sound engineering practices, while the third was evaluated by the engineer and found to be adequate in the "as is" condition.
Allegation 4.a: ? This allegation has no apparent merit.
Hairline surface cracks in concrete considered to have any effect on structural integrity.
are not Allegation 4.b: This allegation could neither be substantiated nor refuted based on avail-able evidence but is thought to refer to an: event involving the omission of horizontal ties in the upper part of the Unit 2 Containment wall which is discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-445/79-18; 50-446/79-18.
-3-
kN . . DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Alleger - A person, referred to as the alleger in the text of this report, (B&R) at CPSES.
who was previously employed by Brown & Root Principal Licensee Employees _ Site Quality Assurance Supervisor Site Resident Manager Principal Brown & Root Emplovees Site Chief of Security '_s 2.
Background Information At approximately 4:00 on October 9, 1979, a former Brown 6 Root employee " walked-in" to the RIV of fice indicating that he had allegations regarding During the deficiencies in safety-related construction at Comanche Peak.
ensuing interview, the following specific allegations were obtained: 1 Auxiliary Building at elevation 807', rebar was omitted a.
In the Unit This construction was completed in in four columns in the EA wall.
The omission of a portion of early 1978, probably in March or April.
the prescribed rebar was reported to him by his rebar General Foreman.
He also indicated that a Gibbs & Hill (G6H) or B&R engineer also was aware of the omission; however, he could not recall his name.
1 Upper Auxiliary Building, the concrete slab poured Also, in the Unit for the ceiling above the elevation 832' level, in the area just before b.
entry into Safeguards Building 1, had a 20' x 20' honeycomb area which He was not aware of corrective was exposed upon removal of forms.
it had simply been dry-packed.
action taken; however, he felt that This placement was made in August or September of 1978.
He there.had been a mixup in anchor bolts.
In Unit 1 Containment, indicated that 3000 anchor bolts had been interchanged, some having c.
been furnished by " Boston Made" and others by " Southern Made."
Two unsupported general allegations were also made regarding general cracking of floor slab concrete in the plant buildings and omitted d.
Without horizontal tie rebar in the Unit 1 Containment wall.
specifics, the alleger was advised that these could not be pursued.
3.
Investigation The above allegations were forwarded to the NRC Resident Reactor Inspector The RRI obtained and reviewed (RRI) at CPSES for review and investigation.
the alleger the Brown & Root personnel file on the alleger to establish that-4-
_ ._ _ _ . . _ _ __ _ _ a ' > . . could reasonably have some knowledge of the alleged improprieties.
It was established that he had been employed at the site during the occurrence of most or all of the alleged incidents.
The RRI discussed the allegations with the site QA Supervisor who then . informed the RRI that essentially the same allegations had been telephoned to the President of TUSI/TUGC0 by the alleger on October 4 1979.
The
allegations received by the President of TUSI/TUGC0 were forwarded through ' l licensee management channels to the Resident Manager for investigation.
! An interview of the Resident Manager indicated that allegations 1 and 2 l made to the NRC were the same as two made to the licensee.
The alleger apparently did not restate allegations 3 and 4 to the licensee but added two others involving a scheme for pilferage of "consumables"; i.e., non-safety material such as lumber and ice chests.
The licensee's site QA Supervisor was found to have initiated a search for data relating to allegations 1 and 2 based on the comparable allegations made to the President of TUSI/TUGCO.
His search revealed two Brown and p Root Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) bearing directly on allegations 1 and 2.
These will be discussed later in this report, The RRI asked that a comparable search be initiated relative to allegations 3 and 4 received by the NRC. A complete document package on allegation 3
was immediately offered to the RR1 covering allegation 3.
The search
' ' relative to allegation 4 was not possible due to the lack of specificity.
4.
Analysis of Allegations Allegation 1: Omission of Reinforcing Steel from Columns in the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building Reference to design drawings revealed that there are only four columns in the EA wall of the Auxiliary Building.
(See Figure 1,2-33 of the FSAR) These columns, as well as the entire EA wall, extend virtually from the building foundation to the roof.
Brown and Root NCR C-806, dated October 27, 1977, stated that it had been discovered, while erecting reinforcing steel for the EA wall above elevation 831', that ,' reinforcing steel in-four columns had been omitted in the preceding erection activity; i.e., between elevation 807' through 831'. The ' NCR stated that twelve bars, each one inch in diameter, were omitted from each column and that four separate earlier concrete placements were involved during a period from May through October 1977.
The NCR information was submitted to the Architect / Engineer for resolution which was provided by Design Change / Design Deviation Authorization No.
486, dated November 1, 1977, authcrizing not only the omission of the steel between 807' and 831' elevation, but further directing that it be omitted in the balance of the columns through elevation 873'. The engineer stated that the omission of the steel would still allow the column to accept all design loads with adequate margins.
The RRI reviewed the involved design detail drawing in conjunction with this analysis and determined that the omitted steel constituted 50% of_the vertical. steel on one of the four column faces and that the remaining steel is of the same spacing as the comparable steel in the wall face continuing from column to column.
-5- - -- .. . _ ___ .
. - - - - -. . -. - _.. . , -- --..--_-
% ' ' .
j -
- '
The only unaccounted for disparity between the allegation and the
referenced NCR is that of dates of occurrence, a difference of five l The RRI has concluded that the the allegation and to six months.
the NCR are related to the same event since the allegation, as stated, , l was hearsay information and the construction of the columns involved ' Therefore the alleged time frame is in error.
was a one time event.
The RRI had no further questions regarding this allegation.
i Allegation 2: Honeycomb in Concrete Slab in the Unit 1 Auxiliary
Building . The licensee research revealed that NCR C-1034, dated July 19, 1978, l had been prepared to document the concrete honeycomb areas involved ' in this allegation.
The Architect / Engineer's direction was to remove
the honeycomb back to sound concrete. The void area was then to be . V filled with dry-pack concrete and/or small size coarse aggregate con-
crete, all in accordance with a standard, engineer approved, repair procedure for such work.
The RRI observed various phases of the repair l ' work from August 1978 through January 1979 when the repair was finally ' { None of the observations indicated a need for concern on completed.
the part of the RRI since the work was being done in a manner typical , of acceptable methods of repairing such concrete structures.
Allegatino 3: Mixup in Anchor Bolts , The hcensee's site QA Supervisor indicated a matter similar to this allegation had been the subject of a "possible" Significant Con-struction Deficiency Report to the NRC, Region IV office in 1977.
He offered a substantial file folder for the RRI's review.
The file , contained copies of Brown and Root Nonconformance Reports M-704 and
' ' M-722, dated July 18 and July 25, 1977, respectively. The reports describe a mixup in a group of about 2000 bolts and nuts used for embedded equipment anchorages which were supplied in part by Bostrom-Bergen Metal Products (Boston Made) and Southern Bolt Co.
, (Southern Made).
It was not significant who supplied the nuts and
, bolts but rather that each supplier had been authorized to supply nuts
and bolts of somewhat different steels in terms of chemical composition.
One composition was amenable to tack welding of the nut to the bole The NCRs prior to embedment in concrete while the other was not.
j describe a combined engineering and construction management solution to properly identify the differing materials and to utilize the , materials which could not be readily welded in a different method of i
assembly.
. [TheabovematterwasreportedtotheNRCandwasfollowedtoconclusion ^ as indicated in Inspection Report 50-445/77-09.
n u
The RRI had no further questions relative to this allegation.
,
-6- ! F _ - -.- . ... . . . . .. . ..
_._ _ % - < , . Allegation 4: As indicated under paragraph 2, this allegation includes two separate items which will so be treated in this analysis.
Allegation 4.a: General Floor Cracking During the past fifteen months, the RRI has toured all of the safety-related plant areas several times each month. The RRI has not observed cracks in the floors of the buildings that he would consider significant in terms of possible structural failure; i.e., cra'cks which are open to such an extent that awl or pick can be inserted to a substantial depth in the crack.
The RRI would expect fine hairline surface cracking to occur and normally not notice it.
Such hairline cracks are an unavoidable occurrence in heavily reinforced concrete structures, particularly in walls or floors with a relatively thick cross-section.
According to ,f recognized technical literature such as the U. S. Department of the Interior's " Concrete Manual," the cracking is caused by differing amounts of thermal expansion between the interior of the member and its exterior created by the chemical reaction process referred to as hydration and commonly called curing.
Such cracking is usually very tight and when investigated, extends only into the concrete to the most exterior layer of reinforcing - , steel, typically one to two inches below the surface. This type of cracking is not considered to have any effect on the integrity of the structure.
Allegation 4.b: Omitted Horizontal Ties in Containment 1 Walls The RRI has not been able to either effectively substantiate or to refute this allegation.
It is hypothesized that the alleger misconstrued an event which occurred in the Unit 2 Containment wall just before his final period of employment.
This event involved the initial omission of horizontal ties (more commonly referred to as shear ties) in the upper part of the Unit 2 Con-tainment wall and is discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-446 / 79-18.
This hypothesis is based on substantial indications that all of the allegations made were essentially based on hearsay information relative to events about which the alleger had little or no personal knowledge.
-7- - ,_- _ _ . _. - _
-_---- % ' . U%'f EJ 5f ATIS hu:LEAeatCut&TO M Covw$t.ON ,
foe. NoC 7;. INSP CTION & ENFORCEf.1ENT -ST ATISTICA1. D ATA F E e R J A R * 1978 , . __ _ L
- SPdCTO R:51 O A DOI P R i?.C iF AL INS'E CTbOA "V I U IN'.
. ??C CUie.
_ "Il e _ @ F ACsuT D N A*/E k'Acrossman p: R.i uCE.sEE. VENDOR Texas Utilities cencrating ca.
R EviE,a R TRANS-OOC A E1 f*JvaE R (A) FiEPORT NO D A T E S INO,INVt ST/INSF R E GIO N FROM CONOUC'ING AC TiO. N
9
74 ACTIVITY lolslololo k k is 1 iC,1 11 ol ll ll 7 l9] yyp' ,,, i
18 M M D D Y Y '31 ' "8,C[' ag OR LICENSE NO 19Y PRODUCT) l7l9l2l6l To
14
33
.e
bc l ll 1IIIIIIIIII ioil ll ol 2l 2l 7l9 ] M M O O Y Y . jiNSocCT:ON PE A FCRv!S 9 7_ 1 C REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF
R ESIDENT INSPECTO R
F 3 O PERFORMANCE A8'PR AISAL TEAM-TvPE 05 ACTivlTV COND ATEO 80dEC< ONE eCr ONLvl OTHER INS 8ECTION 33 34 I C5 0 VANAGEVENT AVOli 03 C M ATL ACCT.
13 O lvPOR T to INOVIRY I 1' V ESTIG ATION C o C2C SAFETY C6 C M AN A0EV ENT VtSIT 10 C PL ANT SEC.
11 O INV E NT. V E R t F.
l (IF INVEST, ALSQ CNECC C3 CINCIOENT 07 3 SPECI AL C4 C ENFORCEMENT C8 O VENDOR 12 C SHIPMENT, EXPORT g stoC4 si , , INS *ECTiON On INVESTIG ATiON W ARNING
ANNOUNCEO 2 0 UNANNOUNCEO g 55EC TION 5**iFT i 3 AY SHIFT 2 COFF SHIFT 3 C w E E KE ND/HOLtD AY INS 8 E CTi3N>iNV E ST.G ATiON NO TIFsC ATiON ICwECK QNE eO_x_ONLVI J 3; 10591 2 REGtON AL OrssCE LETTER 3 C REFER PED TO HOS FOR ACTION 4 O RFGION LETTER & **05 FOR ACTION N5PECTION iNWSTICATiON F eNotNCS iC*ECK ONE 80x ONLYl.
g 32 \\f a1CALEAa 2 C NO?.COMPLI ANCE 3 O DEVI ATION 4 C NONCOMPLIANCE & DEvi ATION L iEWOR;Er/ENT CONF ERENCE HELO.1 C 39 M r.UvSER OF NONCCYPLI ANCE ITEMS IN LETTER TO LICENSEE
- h
- '
NOTE CaaNGE eusT sE $USWTTED } ON 766 fr=1NEVE a PREveOusty CITED ITEM O5 NONCouPu ANCE 42 43 is OSFICI ALLY CELETED FROM .hv?/8ER 05 DEVI ATION ITEVS IN LETTER TO LICENSEE.
Rll TnEmECORD N i 44 45 O NUYSER OF t.lCENSEE EVENTS l { j 46 INSPECTION F EE ' 1 O NOh-POUTINE/V ENOOR (No Fe.)
2 O ROUTINE (f.o Fee) 3 C ROUTINE (Fee) 4 O ROUTINE { Fee Recuced) s O 47 CONTENTS 2 79C0 INFORVATION O T YES REGION AL OFelCE LETTER OR PCPORT TR ANSMITT AL DATE FOR INSPECTION OR INVESTIG4T ON 5910m LETTER ISSUEO TO LICENS~ E REPORT SENT TO HOS FOR ACTION IMMEDI ATE ACTION LETTER g
53
59
DATE
1/1/ le l+ 17151 III!III IIIIil 1 M M D D Y Y M M O O Y Y MM O O Y Y SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION (CHECK ONE box ONLY)6667 MISC TYPE A 1C CF R 20 4C3 TYPEB 1,. CF R 2C 405 01 C INT E RN AL OVERE xPOSURE C6 C 11 C INT >VEPExPOSURE 15 O CRITIC AL)TY 21 n QUIP. F AILUR E C2 O ExTE R N AL OVERE xPOSUR E 07 0 12 C ext. VEREXPOSURE 16 C LOSS / THEFT 22 ALLEG ATION-S 03 C RELE ASE TO UNREST. ARE A C8 0 130 EXCES; R AO LEVELS 17 0 MUF COMPLAINT 04 D LOSS O5 F ACILITY C9 C 14 C EXCES '.ONC LEVELS 18 0 TR ANSPORTATION 230 PUBLIC INTEREST 19 O CONTAM/LE AKING 240 SA90TAGE , C5 C PROPERTY O AV AGE 10 C 250 ASNORMAL OCCUR SOURCE h 20 0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVENT 26D OTHER e HEADCUARTE RS ENTHiES ' NOC ACTION ON INS 8 INVEST REF ERRE D BY REGION l l l y ,5-. a.. -. t.. C,
75 NOT E - BLOCKS K TO N YUST BE - U DATE HOS ENFORCEYENT LETTE R. NOTICE. ORDER ISSUED l ll l l ll ( VERIFIED Bf IE HOS M M D D Y Y WHFNEVER ENTRIES ARE
M ADE IN BLOCKS T. U ~ y AND V V Civil PtNALTV ISSUEO
80 - 1IIII AITS W DATF 766 ENTEREOINTO COMPUTER FILE tvC/YRL y y y y REFERENCE
_ _ _ _ _ h
. U%1t o lTAtts hW:.t AS SE CW.Afom? Covwrt$10N INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT - STATISTICAL DATA ' Q"Q*,$ 7,3,6, !
bMN bN ML M wSegC; ORTS * # IOl' P Rif4CIPAL ifMEd,h 0 5 f)@), tv0 C535-l fj; {.;} F A0rg T y r. A vi UACrossnan $: u0sNsti vin OR Texas Utilities Generating Cv.
REVitnER is REPORT NG Q At iS INQ'6N v t ST/sf.58 R E G s cr.
A
- TRANS.
00C<tT huveER FROM CONDUO*NG O 7' ACTaviT* ACTsON
' loIslolo lo k h k I <Cil 11 of 11117191 TYPE i
18 M M Q D Y Y
C"g$
Ag OR L10ENSE NO. (6Y PROOUCTI { 7l 9l 2] y
g to
30 De re
J.J., IIIIIIIIIIIIII mi ll ul 2l 2 l7 l91 " M M OO Y Y - j '
- N53ECTiON 8E 81508vf o ev -
1 O REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF
RESIDENT INSPECTOR
,
p 3 O PERFORV ANCE APPRAISALTEAM l Type Os A;Te%ITY CO*.Ou TEO ttwEC< CNE 80x ONtvi_
OTHER INSPECTION JJ 36 I C5 O MAN AGEMiNT AUDIT C3 OMATL ACCT 13 O IMPO RT 14 " tNOui RY j I 15 ~.vESTICAT40N C C2O SA8ETY c6 C MAN AGEVENT VsSIT 10 0 PLANT SEC.
11 C INVENT VERIF-I e isvast A s:c-s:4 C3 C IN0iD ENT 07 C S'ECI AL 04 O Er.FORCEMEr.T C3 O VENDO R 12 O SHIPMENT / EXPORT I elo;< si - . ., NS*E0 TON On 'NVESTt0 ATION WARNING-ANNOUNCED 20 UNANNOUNCEO - g 3 O WE E KENO /HOLID AY 55 E C LO'. Sm s T
AY SHIFT 2OOFFSHIFT INipf cts &. INVESTeG AY TON NOTipiC AIlQN iCHECK CNE BO x ONL' 6- ) ! J
4 O REGION LETTER & HOS FOR ACTsO*. 1 0 $91 2 REGIONat C5CatE LETTER 3 C RESERRED TO HCS FOR ACTION iNsaECTiON IN/iSTsGATION FINDINGS #CHECir ONE BCx Omty,_ / 4 0 NONCCMPLI ANCE & DEVI ATION %/ i K 1_yCLEAR 2 C NONCOV8LI ANCE 3 O DEVIATION l . L lEf8CROEVENT CONFEPE4CE NtLO.10 32 40 41 hoTe cmascs.uusi et suswiTTED, ffu?.*BER CF NON00VPilANCE ITEMS IN LETTER TO LICENSEE:l010l os m -3~evsn enevioust M > CITEo iTEw of hoNLoV8LlaN05 42 43 is os piciatty osteTto F now NuvaER OF DivlATiONITEVSIN LETTER TO ttCENSEE.
1010j T,accono t.
44 45
NUYSER OF LICENCEE EVENTS l g g 46 IP.SPECTsON FEE 1 O NON ROUTINUV ENDOR (No Feen 2 O ROUTINE 8No Fee) 3 O ROUTINE (Feet 4 O ROUTINE (Fee Recacedi , C*5*YES O 47 CONTENTS 2 7903 INFORM ATION REGIONAL OFFICE LETTER OR REPORT T R ANSVITTAL D ATE FOR INS *ECTION CR INVESTIGATION 59104 LETTE R tSSUED TO LICENSEE PEPORT SENT TO HOS FOR ACTION LUMEDIATE ACTION LETTER g
E7
59
OATE E5 1/ V i@l?h l i IIIIII IIIIII I M M O O Y 'v e M O O Y Y MM D 0 Y Y SUBJECT 08 INVESTIGATION (CHECK ONE BOX ONLY) 6&67 MISC.
TYPE A 10 CFR 20 403 TYPEB 10 CFR 20 405 ' Ol C tNTE RN AL OVER EXPOSURE 06 0 11 C INT. OV E R E x POSUR E I5 O CRITICALITY 21 " E " IP FAILURE 02 O E X T!PNAL OVERE xPOSUR E 07 0 12 O EXT. OVE R EXPOSURE 16 C LOSS. THEFT 22' ALLEC ATIO?. COMPLAINT S 03C RELEASE TO UNREST. APEA C8 0 13O Ex ESS R AO LEVELS 17 C MUF 04 O LOSS OF F ACILITY 09 C 14 O EXCESS CONC. LEVELS 18 O T R ANSPOR T ATION 230 PUBLIC INTEPEST 19 0 CONT AM/LE AKING 240 SABOTAGE 05 C PROPERTY D AM AGE toO 250 ABNORMAL OCCVR SOURCE . 20 C ENvlRONMENTAL EVENT 26C OTHER HE ADQUAR T E RS ENT RIES ' HOS ACTiO*4 CN INS * lNVEST REFERRED BY REG 60N l l l y es-. we=.m.L.csa, coon
75 t40T E BLOCKS K TO N vuS' SE ---' U DATE HOS ENFORCEVENT LETTER. t OTICE. ORDER ISSUED l l l l l ll VERiflED E.Y IE h3 " I # AI
M ADE IN BLOCKS T. U ~
ANOV V Civit PFNALTY ISSUEQ
80
-- 1IIII AITS W DATE 765 8.NTEREO INTO COYPUTER FILE WO/YRl-y y y y REFERENCE.
l . -- - _, -. _. - _ _ - -.. __ _ - - _ - - ___ -. _ _ - _ _ _ _.. _
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - C Allegation Summary 1.
Category No. M/P 38 TRT Member: V. Ferrarini 2.
Subject: Improper installation procedures for anchor bolts (AB-ll) 3.
Summary of Allegations: (Alleger unknown). AB-ll - The anchor bolt components manufactured by Boston-Bergen (BB) were intermixed with the components manufactured by Southern Bolt Company (SB).
The anchor bolts furnished by BB were to be installed by tack welding the A-588 plate to a A-540 nut which was welded to the A-540 bolt.
The bolts furnished by SB were to be installed using a A-588 plate with a A-194 nut on ,. ? either side of it then the threads were upset near each nut.
When the bolts were assembled, nuts and bolts were mated with no apparent material control.
The result was that tack welding was perfomed on A-194 nuts and A-320 bolts for which no weld procedure existed.
4.
Region IV's Conclusion: The Region IV conclusions are as stated in Inspection Reports IR-77-26 and -09.
Corrective action was taken to solve the problems and prevent their recurrence.
5.
What TRT had done: The TRT reviewed the Region IV report and proceeded to investigate the NCR's written against these bolts. The TRT agrees with the corrective actions taken by Brown & Root and with the measures instituted to prevent the future mixup of these bolts.
6.
TRT's Conclusion: (a) Not valid - N/A l (b) Valid - The separation of materials manufactured by different suppliers was not maintained, however, there was no violation of procedures since there was no procedure that covered this type of installation.
. (c) Safety significance and generic implementation - None.
(d) Relation to past and present hearing - This is not a hearing item to the best of our knowledge.
F01A-85-59 con . }}