IR 05000498/1978001
| ML20211F589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1978 |
| From: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Oprea G HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F241 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-378 ST-AE-HL-00551, ST-AE-HL-551, NUDOCS 8610310207 | |
| Download: ML20211F589 (6) | |
Text
,
y,.p.,
..
j';2 ct ruq ('
NUCl.E AR REGULATORY COMMISSIEN
,
s < 77
_ ;
- -
r i vs UNITED STATES V j
L
REGION IV
,
A' 8.. E 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 335 c
',
,
,
ARLINGTON TEXAS 76011
\\,
..
.
!
c i-
-
s, *. m. f March 3,1978
"**
..
I~
..
In Reply Refer To:
RIV ST-AE-HL-00551
-
Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 78-01 SFN: C-0570 50-499/Rpt. 78-01
,
-
i h
Houston 1.ighting and Power Company
- ,1 ATTN
- Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President
~'
Post Office Box 1700
.
Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen:
'
28, 1978, in response to our letter Thank you for your letter of Februaryand the attached Notice of Violation. We have no
.(i dated January 27, 1978, further questions at this time and we will review your corrective action i
l during a future inspection.
Sincerely,
.
?
)
-
.
W. C. Seidle, Chief F
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
/
-.
'.
i.
- .
- L -
.
'
,
(
MAR 07gg79
-@^UTY ASSUMNCE
'
.
DEPARTMENT J
l l
8610310207 860930 PDR FOIA GARDE 85-37e PDR l
- ' ' '
- * ' ' ' ' " ' ~
........... m~..-.-.-~- m - ~ ~ -- ~
-
j
.........
.
,
-
n
..
.
.
,
. -.
.
...
_ -. - - _...
.
.
..
_... - -..
- - - -
.. _. _.
,.,.
}.
,
-
_,....,,...,
Houston Lighting. & Power Company
.
.
.
%..
TELEPHONE MINUTES
< 0 e s.4 336
'
l N N 1894 TO H. L. Key
/, [
.
CORRESPONDENCE ST-HS-HL-00hT2
. PROJECT MANAGER SERIAL NUMBER SFN: A-0330
>
/
FROM T. K. Logan DEPTjalVISION Quality Assurance
-
v PROJECT South Texas DATE OF CALL _J_anuary 17, 1978
.
SUBJECT Infraction Cited on January 13, 1978
"
)
.
OTHER PARTICIPANTS: ( ej"Chyz2Eo$"o[EEcw)
N
- PRWARY R. G. Taylor, USNRC SECONDARY:
J. I. Tapia, USNRC t
5 /
PAGE
0F 1 Mr. -Taylor called and stated that Mr. Tapia had some questions regarding the
~
concrete placement he observed on Friday, January 13, 1978.
Mr. Tapia then asked
.
the following questions:
a
-
1.
What vere the physical dimensions of the placement?
2.
What vere the quantities of admixtures utilized in the concrete?
-
C Please verify that 35 F was the ambient temperature recorded on the QC
3 Inspection book.
-
'I h.
What were the slump and air content measured on the first test load for
,
this placement? (This is the test load which was h60)
I then asked Mr. Tapia hov long he observed the placement. He stated that he
,
was present for approximately 20 minutes.
'
!i I asked hi= if he actually observed improperly vibrated concrete buried in the
- C!
placement. He said no, and then clarified his description of the improper practices
,
he saw. He stated that on two placements he witnessed vibration beneath the tremis,
.
but no vibration in areas between tremis. He was not specific about the size of this i
area. He further stated that the underlying cause for the infraction was the improper
'
answer given to him by the QC Inspector regarding spacing of vibrator insertions.
I also indicated B&R's position that we vere not in cold weather at the time in question. He stated that he believed that the ACI definition vould apply. I informed him that we had placed a stop work on concrete placement activities and he ackncv-ledged that he had not known about it.
.
,,
Hethensaidheveuldcallbackat2:00p.m.torecepeansverstohisquestions.
{ 1/b (
TKL:pc
.
cc:
W. N. Phillips T. P. Gardner (B&R)
.--
.
,
F. D. Asbeck C. L. Crane (B&R)
-
'
l f
.
l
.
,
.
.
'
- _
_
_
_
-
l
.
_........;.. i
.
Houston Lighting. & Power Company gg i
L TELEPHONE MINUTES sf.:.w 3 a" "
P u g"
~
'
'
CORRESPONDENCE ST-HS-HL-00h73
[)
i
. PROJECT MANAGER SERIAL NUMBER SFN: A-0330 TO H-L-hy
- FROM T. K. Logan f DEPTJDIVISION Quality Assurance V
\\
( PROJECT. South Texas DATE OF CALL January 17, 1978 I SUBJECT Infraction Cited on January 13, 1978 l!
OTHER PARTICIPANTS: ( oJEChnh'l'o',"5lEfe,,)
,
SUBJECT FILE NUMBERS: PRIMARY J. I. Tapia, USNRC
'
SECONDARY:
tj g
j PAGE
0F
Reference: Telephone Minutes, Corres. No. ST-HS-HL-00h72 s.
V Mr. Tapia called as indicated in the reference.
~}
I answered his questions, and we further discussed the subject infraction. The following statements reflect Mr. Tapia's thoughts concerning our response to the sub-
-
.k
'
ject infraction:
- g.
1.
The important questions to be answered are:
'
Y Corrective Action - we shoul1 include as much data as possible (if
'
l s
a.
l t!
applicable) that quality was not compromised.
l
.
i
.[
b.
Recurrence Control - what actions are va going to take to preclude l
l9, recurrence?
I I y 2.
Should our response be unacceptable for any reason, the severity of the f;
infraction vill not change in any manner.
!
'C l 3 The NRC does not wish to argue the validity of their observations with
}
'l B&R.
I Mr. Tapia asked for details of Stop Work Request #1.
I read the docunent to him.
He then asked why it was issued, and I answered that we felt that his infrac-tion finding was the "last straw" of a long-term problem with regard to effectiveness of the Civil QC program, and that although the infraction precipitated the stop work, it was not the sole cause.
I TKL:pe
-
cc:
W. N. Phillips j.
F. D. Asbeck T. P. Gardner (B&R)
l C. L. Crane (B&R)
,
l l
Houston Lighting & Power Company
'
-
-
336
.
W:
- .
//60 2WA'O
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
//(f k
C
'
g
-
.
To Mr. E. A. Turner August 1(,194
,
'k RE6UVED
%
From Mr. W. N. Phillips Subject Meeting with the NRC on August IS, 1978 g
Attendees:
W. C. Seidle -- Chief Reactor Construction 6 Engineering Support Branch FA10N W. A. Crossman -- Chief, Projects Section
.
[
W. G. Hubacek -- Reactor Inspector, Projects Section J. I. Tapia -- Reactor Inspector--Intern, Engineering i
Support Section W. M. Menger -- Mansger, Power Plant Engineering 6
,
Construction
.
D. G. Barker -- Construction Manager E. A. Turner -- Vice President Power Plant Construction
.
i l S. ( '.[
[
4 Technical Services W. N. Phillips -- Proj ects QA Manager '
~
t3
>
~
~~~I~
DISCUSSION i
There were three basic concerns expressed by the NRC:
i f
A.
Concern regarding low morale of Civil inspectors
_
.
and supervisors.
-
{
_
B.
Alleged weakness of implementation relative to the onsite Civil QC program.
.
C.
Adequacy in staffing level of QC people in light of
_
-
"
increased construction progress (personnel numbers).
(NRC observation, not allegation)
ii A.
Morale 1l 1.
Notice a very strong dissention between a QA/QC inspector
[
and his supervisor. Negative comments.
-
.
2.
QA/QC inspector feels like a second class citizen.
(Example: Gang-box not equal to construction)
3.
Complaint by Civil QC inspectors that comments (speci-fically nonconformance reports) aren't acted on.
(hhen e
- [
asked for a specific example, no example was given).
__)
4.
Comment that Civil QC inspectors were not given adequate
!
training in the new criteria / procedures, j
~~
l S.
QA/QC (Civil) was not given opportunity to co : ment on l
revision of procedures.
6.
QA/QC (Civil) was too busy--too much work to properly prepare for inspections.
,
'
__-.
HotSton Lignting 6, rower uunipany l
-
339
,
', - -
-
.
..
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
.
'-
-
To i
From Sub/ect Page two -- Meeting with the NRC
,
.
B.
Imolementation of Site Civil.QA/QC Activities
1.
Procedure CCC-P requires three levels of field inspection be satisfied prior to the placement of concrete.
It was felt on the part of the QA/QC inspectors that Field Engineers and Craft Foremen are not doing an adequate job. This results
-
in an inordinately long punch-list.
!
,
2.
Specific example (cited by the NRC) reinforces the above.
.
An example rebar was left out, and was subsequently caught by b
l
,
QC instead of Engineering or Craft.
.
.
3.
No feedback on Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) prepared l
l by QA/QC inspectors.
l 4.
NCR's prepared but were not issued. This is of grave i
j r
concern to the NRC.
i 5.
Inadequate distribution of the latest drawing from the
[
QA/QC library.
.
6.
Telephone authorization of field changes are alleged j
to not result in Field Requests for Engineering Action
-
,
'
+
(FREA's) documenting the authorization.
l
~
7.
QA/QC inspectors were denied adequate technical assistance l
by QA/QC Supervisiors in certain situations; they were j-
.
" chewed-out" when they called directly to Houston for help.
[
C.
Staffing
i 1.
Staffing level is 140 B6R QA/QC personnel of the l
4400 total work force, which is 21 short for the projected i
B6R QA/QC staffing level.
[
2.
HLSP staffing plan shows that HLSP has 10 of the 12 QA/QC inspectors shown on the staffing plan. This yields j
two short on HL6P's payroll. The total shortages are 21 m
for B6R and 2 for HL6P or a total of 23 personnel.
The NRC reviewed the South Texas Project enforcement history resulting in the following:
,
!
Twelve citations to date, seven of which are for violations of Criterion V.
Concern was expressed by the NRC that all required procedures
!'
are not being developed and implemented. This is indicative of a poor
attitude by Craft Foremen and/or Field Engineers toward formal procedural controls.
. - - -
- - -
., - -. -,
. -, - - -
- - -, - - -
- - -. _
'.
Houston Lighting a rower uompany
-
-
- s'y.. :
340
.
-
'*
'"
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
~
To
- From Sub/cet Page three -- Meeting with the NRC
.
!
CONCLUSIONS BY NRC i
1.
There is a QA/QC inspector morale problem on this job,
!
which can adversely affect the overall job.
i
,
2.
Long punch-lists are evidence that the up-front work is not actually being done properly.
.
'
3.
NRC has not observed QA/QC inspectors at a desk
.
(or drawingboard) studying drawings and preparing for
!
inspections; on this basis, NRC agrees that there is too much work for the staff.
l 4.
Staffing inader tacy (B6R -21 and HL6P -2) should be i
corrected soon.
}
.
i RESIDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM i
'Ihree years down the road from CP, the NRC will probably install l
i a resident inspector at STP. Bob Taylor is in residence at Commanche Peak at this time. The NRC prefers a separate building for this resident i'
inspector.,
.!
,
.
'
-
i
-
!
!
,
i, f
j hNP/cas
cc: Messrs. W. M. Menger
,
!
D. G. Barker
!
I
-_
i
!
!
i
l I
...
_ _
_,.
--,---r---
,
,,, - -,
> *i 's-n%Y i '.
'.......... -
~ ~T:
5*?~" : :.~. ~. ^-IB*U.?N'.~a' :
.y,.,,. 2- ' ;-4 * = i'-is~w..: --*^~'~"',:_;.--% --- ' :... - - ' -
-..... -
.r
..
....
..
-
r-- r-s. ;...
.- - -. -
~ ~-- ~
_.,
.:..
...
...
a "= - ' W". -* " " " " ",, ".' " -
-
.f^
}.
Q7
-
~
K
.s.
_3.,
.
..
.
.
.
-
.
.*,G
-
3 4.<t t_ -
'4 e*::y.
i
.J
--
I
.
f
~1 UNITED STATIS or 2.cRICA
'
-
'.
.-
-
NUCLEAR RECULATORY CO.". MISSION
'l
[:
1
'.".1
- -
,
,
)
hb f3
~
!'
b
.
c l
gS'
i t
'
f
"
ri'
E I e
'
SCOTE TIZAS PRC."0;
-
,
]
I
.
.-
%..lJ
'J
..
{
9 PUBLIC MEETING f:
.
.
. '
. -
.
. ~....
j 11
'
2.
.
"
_ jz a
y)
- .
/
'
l
'
y 12 j
ii
- .
-
i t.~; }"*:1 E 33
.
.
E. ~
!
k,.
.
-
.
=
w g 14
...g
!
!
..
-i
_.d
,
'
., ' j
. -l E IS Municipal Service center
-
a r
i
'~ k
".
2105 Avenue M M
g
5 Say City, Texas -
- -
[.
t
.4 g 37
{
'
i E
s-
,
l F~
t 18
[
i
(..
,a
.
C-F t
.
j [
Tuesday, August 19, 1980
g
'
,
,.
2:00 P.M.
'
f
.,
j.
({
r
p 7 j. (
!
p].J.,
m
-
a
.. 513
Y. j',
i
,
n
-
?'
- i.l
~ )v
{,- :w,
}
'
s
=
241
.
- A ccoaa
!
~..q
.
$s.h
"l
[&675,2//
,
!5
'
i f,,,.
t
g
.. _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _.... _.. _........ _
.
.,
k
.
.O 2(>/
.
.
>6 l
'
r
-
i.
/ 4
!
..
,i
/
e
{
l-e e+o od y e
L Is L
L
-
_,_.,_,. __..__
....... _... _ -... _ - - -
g.
7,-
,
r...-.....
..
i
,
^
.
.
_.
.. - - -
O e
- -
-
m
.
.
.
(
..
_ _ _.. _
_.
-
- - - - - - - - -
-. - ~ ~, -.
_.,
Y FMQpG : A N%1..-.:.,..:.g.4.Q. g.. g ; g.
....u..._..
...
_
.
342 1,2
- '
plant, we won't f.esitate to take appropriate action to insure
~~
(..c
.
h
.
that an unsafe plant is not allowed to operate.
"
I'm John Gilray representing
,
- ' -
C=ality Assurance and Quality control of trRc.
...
-.
,
v.
I've had the opportunity of seeing the CA f-('.]
h,.
H
,
- ,
pregra=s of most of the plants that exist. And without a doubt,
.n
.e
f the realign =ent of the organi=ation and canagement techniques r
}
h
s
{},J]
!
!
here is p.cbably at the top of the list.
'
Cf course, the test is going to come in the
,I
'
c
,
f l '.s
.
r
,
a
$
$j
preper i=plementaticn. Tire will tell about that.
g' ; a MR. RAAS: My name is Walt Haas.
E'
.
I'm involved in the Quality Assurance Branch at r
i j 2 d 12 r
.
~
z
'
..?.l kl j
Eethseda, Maryland. As such, we are respcasible for the review
2
- -
,
'
of quality assurance programs for applicants, for CP's and I#
F
,
L I
9 13 operating licenses.
f.
7'
c s.
c.. '~
".
Since my involvement in the South Texas recent
'
l1 g
h II events, I think I can say that I have seen nany pcsitive steps
-
,,
j
,
[
ti 18 that have been taken and are planned in the future.
And, of
-
a
'
[
course, our final judgments will rest on how those steps are II t 4 (!
g
,
(f 'lr-(J
.@
og com:pleted.
~
,
L
'
s.
2 :,j of course, that's a function of our inspection J
{, ],
-
people - cur inspection and enforcement people.
?
.,
[ g g'
"
.
...
-
[". -}
But I think I can gay categorically that"I:see
.,
.U
.-
f
..
-
,
2.d z..
.s
-
\\
-
-
r.any positive steps, and I'm encouraged..
1
_
-
'
F
'
I'm a =acher b. b.
25 MR. m :A My nace is Joe Tapia.
l 00'1003
.
-
i
,j
~,
,
ALCERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY.!NC.
,
m..
. ~.
,
- t
.
..
_..
,
., -,,, 3
.
--
_
I
-\\
!
k-l
-
..
-
,
,
l
.
i b
.
r
l i
l
.
T 5'
l
~
,
,
.
t
..
/
- _ _
_
.-
_
y a.
.... - -.-
i
-
NGlC, O ~ O ' $ ' $ ' U E I
.!
i
--
~.
--
.-
- i
--.
.
,
b
-
.
-
e-
,
. -
..
..
.
..
-
}'
'
.
pg,%
,3,., "gy.g.q*..$y-j,'{.f.
.h-
.
2%
- .,& x_.,
b.Eks.$$.$i: -: 4.;.,.fjg,
_3 L
.
t S., :c 343 z>>
,
'
jg af the Engineering suppor: staff.
,
!
- '
'
I have airsady been involved in two follow-up p
~,
inspections of the corrective action that the licensee cossaitted h.
,
i
in response to the investigt:icas along with the three years and
_.
i j
ten months that I've been c=cing to this plant and d ucting b'
.
t-f..-
t' '1 i
regular inspections, I've also noticed a difference. I also
[
.,
'
,
-
7;
]
have that ceufidence, i
"
L
) j
8 a
MA. srT?RI":
I'm Karl Seyfrit, the Cirector of
^e C3 e,
,
p
- -
me,1on I.,.
n.
r
-
I guess I wetid have to say that what I have
?
l
.
le
L.
'
j ;
l g II heard here today gives ce =nason for cptimism. But I remain
!
o g'gJ
'g somewhat skeptical.
-
s-
,
,,
,
There are a great many things that have to be l
I
'
'~
-
t u
,y
,
/
done, and the chore of getting these things done is an aveseme
'
,
I G'
jl-
ene, both for the licensee, his contractor and for us.
b
.
I think that : vould not be in a position to say
-
.
{
.
.
h,g f 17 that the cptinism is really yreat, until these things begin to f
--
.
-El
-
-
-8'
- g L
t be imple.ented in a real way that we can measure.
E
~
'
h. h
,
'
g (Applause.)
,
-
L
-
.
3,.R. sECM"'s Hy name is Bob Show=aker.
I's i
,
the Senior structural Engineer in the Headquarters cf Inspectica ',
h
'!L
< ;./
- .a.
and Enforcer.ent.
i
,
.
b.
3*.
.I've been i=rolved with the plant sL=ce basically '
l,'
.
<
,
[
{.)
'
'
.{
.b
24 the investigation bevan.
~
P
My rain ec=cern is that we hava a sit =ation where
[
.'
r f. : 1 !
000000 '
!
,
C@l
.-
l
'-'
A1.CERSC.N REPCRTING COMP ANY, INC.
,
.-
'
'W'W
' }l
-
.m.
,,., -
.
.~r s
w...
n
..
.. m s
,
."
,
c
.r-
,.
j
.
---
,
5.
i
.
. -
p--
.
k s
.<
~
d
.
I
l
't
..
,W
.-.- _ _ _
__ _
__
.
J
.. _. - - __
,
'
-
.,go O.*Oi4'Afae9:
..
.. -
..
_-
-- - -
?
--
-. _,
,
-.._
.
'
-
-
-
p~
i
-....
..
.#..
..
...
,
,
}'
.
,
,
-
..
-.-.
.
-__._.m
.
g
.
\\
i
-
' ~ - - ~ ~
-._ _ - _ _ _ ___..._.
i
&D(p&l7 Y t
0066175 I
-
_
17.5. MUCttAR aEGULATORY CopeitSSION
}
... -
0FFICE CF IMSPECTION AND ENTORCEMDIT REGlut IV
.
t
-
-
50-498/81-10; 50-499/81-10
.
Report No.
. Category A2
'
.
M Docket Mos. 50-418t 50-499 p
, f'
,
Houston Lighting and Power Company r
Licensee:
Post Office Som 1700 Houston. Texas 77001 South Texas Project. Units 1 and Z
.
'
Fact 11ty Mave:
!
South Texas Project. Natagersfa County. Texas Inspection 4t:
March 30 - April 2 and April 6-9. 1981 Inspectica conducted:
.
6*7* N sb Cate apit Reacg* Inspector, tngineering and Materials Inspector:
J. I
'4 5e on
.t Other W. C. Seidfe. Chief. Engineering Inspectfon Branch Acc:ppanying L
Personnel:
@
-
(April 2-3,1981)
C. E. Johnson. Reactor inspector. Engineering and Naterf ats secti
-
l U
(
,
, '
f (training)
I' 7Y date A. L. Han. Acting citef. Engineering anc Materials 5cctien Approved:
'.
'
a
,s I
_Insoection fuemary:
9 1981_
$
f ascection conducted durino March 30 April 2 and April 6,
'
ii No. -0-49e'781-10. M.499/81-iQ)itoutine. unannounced inspection of construction g
Report relative to tne Itaited restart of complex concrete pThe inspection involved ftfty-sis
Areas inseected:
l -j
'
unresolved f tees and show Cause Order items.
<.
inspector-hours try cne MRC inspector.In the areas inspected. one violatio
/ $l for air content of grout -
.
i
.$
.
concrete placement (violation failure to test
'
Results:
-
l.* ',
paragraph 3).
l
.,f d
I
-- -
._ --...-,-
.
i i
i
.
-. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _..
-
/p.
a
.
t,,,,,,_ _. _ _
j
.i..
'
]
..../. $..
-
-.,
-
t
-
L
-
~
<
j Fr o 6 t oc sg
-
5 y' -
f
'
E-5 J
_
-. -.
--
-_
I,0H91
. t c, l y,.
.
..
I
..,
.
'C
~
.'
.
.
.. _
.
.
.
..
..
.
.
......
..
..
.. _ _ _ _
,..
345 n
_
.
P
.
i, l
CETAIL5_
.m
I 1.
Persons Contacted
,
Princiest Licensee Emotoyees
,
>
R. A. Fratar. Manager. Quality Assurance
. *R. A. Carvel. Project GA Supervisor - Civil t
r L. D. Wilson. Project QA Supervisor - Welding t
R. J. Viens. Senior CA Specialist i
.
8. R. Schulte. Civil CA 5pecialist T. H. McGriff, Civil QA Specialist G. W. Steinmann. Lead Site Engineer. Civil
.
Other Personnel 8. C. Pettersson. Lead Geotechnical Engineer. Brown and Root (81R)
f i
R. Rotier. Area Chil Engineer. RC8.I. 8&A e
.
G. Cook. Field Engineer. S&R
l C. Younger. Project 5tte Engineer - Civil / Structural. 84R l -
.
.
P. Ste;er. Lead Site Engineer - Civil / Structural. 8&R
C. P. Singleton. Civil CC Superintendent. B&A
,
,
'
The NRC inspector also contacted other Itcensee and contractor personnel
.1 including members of the CA/0C and engineering staffs._
s.
'
.
' Denotes attendence at the entt interview.,
,
Licensee Actien en.Pm vicNs leseettien Findines 2.
I
.
During tMs inspection itcensee action taken to resolve the foltewing 50 498/79 19; unresolved item it.antif teo in Investigation Rtport No.
[.
'
l
.
,
50-499/79 19 was reviewed:
..
g i
4[
'
Records
'.
(C1csed) Unausolved Ites (50 41C/7919 23; 50 499/7919 23):
.
l of Fill Lif ts Tersus Location in Order to Reconstruct Fill Placemnt e
- l
,
The subject unresolved ite* has been incor; crated
'. '
.
i
, '
Procedure Lacking.
Plan in tSe licensee's res::nse to shew Cause order Item VA(2)(c).
views and profiles to show the sequence of backfill placemnt have
'
The closure of the Show Cause Crder Iten in cara.
- grach 4 of this report resolves the issue originally generated by this been devote:ed.
j
,,
unresolved ites.
..
.
3.
Centrete Place-ent By letter, dated January 8.1981, the ifcensee reouested a ilmited restartAttachme
'
of complex concrete olete-ent.
The review of corrective of work as seven scecific placerents by nureer. actions taken by the Itcer.see, as concurrtnce with the re: vest for a Ilmited restart of coreles concrete
'
)
-'
'%
i
~
a
'
.,
.g.
s
!
J' *
i
,
,
.!
!
.....---.-..-F.-
i
.
,
__
t m
...
..
[
s
,
-g
'
t
. - e
.-a
.
r I
.
[.
1
)
- 4
.i
--
.
,
m_
!Od O 3. If c.q.
s
_..- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.
. -
. _ _ _ _ _ _ -.
_
.-.._
.
. _,
.
,.
.
..,
.
... _.
..
,
'
-
..
..
.
.
-
__
^-
-.
--
- _ _ - _
__
--
.
'
-
-
-
348
<
l
.
i This placemnt (No. CIS W18) cenststed of the eighteenth lift on the
,
I
The observed placem nt and Unit 1 Reactor Containmnt Building. consolidation techniques were found to be in acco f
l Control Construction Procedure No. AQa0KPCCP.25 and consistent with g
standard industry practices for the successful placemnt of concrete.
A review was conducted of the evality control reco'rds for the first g
'
sin complex concrete place *ents. From this review and through dis.-
cussions with cognizant peronnel, it was determined that no testing
i I
s for air content of Grout Mis Identification No. A 0-3-15 had been.
'
f Brown and Root Interoffice Memorandum Mo. GM.46667.
f
- coroved Concrete Mikes.* requires that the air content for Grout '
perfor ned.
r This memoran.
j Mia Identification No. A-0-bl5 not exceed 10 percent.
dum is an attachment to approved Field Change Request No. 0-C-0063-A-8
to trown and Root Specification No. 21010C3001-G..* Concrete Supply.'
,
?
s The Field Change Request served to documnt the current approved con.The fa
'
in order to assure compliance with the ~ design maximum amount allowable crete and grovt eines.
,
represents a f ailure to meet the requiremnts of Criterion 11 of
,
Appendix 8 to 10 CfR Part 50 and is therefore a violation.
,
,
,
,
ticensee Response to Show Cause Order _
,4
The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's response to the show Cause
30. 1980. The I
Order transmitted to Ht1P by NRC letter, dated April h)
following items were addressed:
.,
]
Provide Information to
- ,
(Closed) $ hew Cause Order Iten VA(2)(c):
Address the Sequence of Constructica of Esisting sackf til including
.'.
The pi
'
the toose Lift Thickness and Ntraer of Passes of the Coutpoent.
[,
>
,
30. 1981,
.*,3 i
cause Order Item 2.* dated JanuarySection a.$ of the Ccmittee's report addresses tMir
.
k.
n*%
f
'
.t review of the B&R/Ht&P Soccial fask Force effort in addrtssteg *.his inscettien.
$~
'*~
s It was the Canittee's detemination that tne T
bacitfill place *ents can te reconstructed from t'e quality controlT 3(g ihr>e Cause Order ! tem.
F s
'i l
Occument No. 3A700GP0018. " Category I Structural Backfill Placamnt
-
records.
.
r This docunent which was alsc reviewed and Quality Control Data.*
..;
during this inspection reports eight representative cross sec
,
.
e
'
Inspection Reports. Sotis inspection Checklists and censity TestT
'
[
.[
compacted lift thickness of 15 inches which is based on the Solis j
s Reports.
Inspection Checklist notations that the lift thicknesses were 18 inches
~j The lift nutering secuence established for each placemnt J
The report further
or less.
area also gives the particular lift elevation. states that, the total numte fa I
was such that the compactive effort satisfied the requiremnt om
,
]
I U1
i
. 4,
.e
.b
.
i
y" m
..-..--.--.:.
.
.-
..
.
.. -.
,.. - =
\\
_
,
e
>
I
,
b F
-
'
i
.
'
E l
W
- -
..
- '
--
p
'E O/ h y.. Q l
.
.
-
_
_ _.
..
.
.
.
..
.
,
,
- *
_
.
. _ _
347 n_
.
.
i.
- L I
i The development of the cross sections from the density testing.
'
..
quality control records is used as a basis to demonstrate that the
Based on the review i
backfill was placed in a determinate sequence.
of this docurentation perforved during this inspection. the NRC (
inspector concluded that the licensee has satisfied the Show Cause r
Order to provide information to address the sequence of construction
-!
of entsting backfill including the loose lift thickness and nuseer
.
of passes of the equipment.
I
.
This 1 tem 1 closed.
.
.
(Closed) Sh w Cause Ceder item VA(2)(d): Provide Information to
>
Address the Adequacy of taisting Backft11 Material Including That
/
Under Structures Founded on 8ackfill. The ladecendent Espert
,
Review Cemittee's * Final Report Concerning $hou Cause Order
'*/
Item 2* also addresses the engineering adequacy of the in place Their evaluation density of the Category I structural backft11.
- is based on considerations of the backfill material propeetles.
the construction techniques. the in. place density test results.
The Cosmittee has concluded that "a dense.
l I
and the boring program.
homogenecus compacted structural baC1ft11 resulted which isadequ I
Four small. 1solated tones detected specification requirerents.*
by the boring program, which indicated a relative density less than T
construction quality control criteria, were anlayted and found to have a factor of safety against liquefaction of greater than 1.5
[
for three tones and a minimum factor of safety of 1.35 for the fourth.
The Corir.ittee further concluded that, since the boring locations wert
s selected in an unbiased manner, their nureer is adequate to provideThe actual field control d
a representative sarole of fill conditions.
precedures for placement of the fill and for determining relatived
.
F i
The I
density of 95 percent with a standard deviattun of f.85.
'. / '.
l * '#l 8.
<
statistical analysts further shows, with a go percent level of confi
. ^
1" 1p g i
..
i
.t.
'
<*N density less than 80 cercent. and that 0.05 percent is 1*ss thanassed on the
-
j. "o ~T s
70 sercent, if portiens of the structural backfl11 have relative densities asindicat
,
'
.r
!
-
A similar conclusion was reached there is no risk of liquefaction."
for the analysis of thfn layers intnediately belcw mat foundations at
The factor of safety against I
a relative density of 45 percent.
The s
liquefaction for this analysis wes found to be in excess of 1.8.
'
need for this analysis resulted from the results of the June 1960 test (
fill program in which it was shown that there is uniformity of comeat.
- tien througnout the backfl11 placed in 18 inch Ilf ts, escept for theThe test fill prog uccer portion of the too lift.the density testing depth below the backfill surface is
-
factor and that eignt roller passes is a satisfactory starting point i
i e
.4 i
!.
I p
f,
.
__.
_.....
- -.., - - -
- - -
--
a
--
,
m
,
,
T*
,.
h
-
1,
.
J
,
>
'
r i
- - -
__
--
._
.
__
%
-
.,
_
.
'*
,
,
..
.
,
- EE4
.
,
.
.
.
.
,,.,
-
a
-
-
-
-
--
-
.
.._ s
-
-
- _ _
~~
"
L
~ ~ ~
-
-
^-
_ _
,
,
348
'
-
,
i L
.
Based on the reviews perforved
.
.
to corvnence acceptance testing.
- during this inspection of the Independent Espert Review Comittee's l
)
- Final. Report Corcerning'Show Cause Order Item 2* and of the Task 41 Reference Document, the licensee has concluded
[
that the t.zistir.g backfill material satisfies the design intent.
Force's Technl:
I The above noted Independent Empert Review Comittee's * final Report Concerning Show Cause Order Item 2*.was also reviewed during this
,
e L
inspection to confirm that itees previously closed by the NRC11ttee's inte I
Inspector, based on the Cor:
There were no differences were consistent with the (fnal report.
noted between the interim and status and final reports wnich affect
)
At the recuest of IE Headquarters, the
crtvious item closures. final report will also be reviewed by the Geotechnical Branch
,
l In particv.
the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).
- lar the Costeittee's conclusions relative to the calculations I
succorting the Itquefaction potential, the adequacy of the siethods jl previously utilf red for backfill place =nt and ccroaction a
-
[
f, values reported in the f5AR will be evaluated by NRA.
.
This item is closed.
-
5.
Show cme order Cemit=nts d
The NRC inspector reviewed the imolementation of the comit.-ents described
,
13. 1960.
in the attach ent to HL&P letter $T.HL-AE-533, dated Septeebec
_
s2 s '
The following cormitrents, utilizing the identificattoa purtpers in the
,
attachment to the f.H&P letter were reviewed:
.,
(Closed) Items A20,.A21. A25. A27. A28. A29. A30. A31. MS. M. ft10.
t The listed Stars relate to and serve as the basis for the closure of tae Show Cause Order Items ilsted inIn addition, t J'
M11. M13. and M16:
..y et and
paragraph 4 of this report.eents were individually reviewed and found to have been m Y.
- i
' - i
-
j were theref:ry closed.
' -
W
.a
,
,
,
l
.
l Exit faterview
'
6.
The NRC inspecter set with the licensee Moresentative denoted in
-
-
-
'
!
,_,
paragraph 1 cn Aprit g.1931, for* the purpose of sursariting the l
n scope and the firdings of the inspection.
,
,1
-
.
...
1. J
,-e l
'
i
.
_
--
~
.
-
,
L-5
,
1
'f
'
_.
-
__
--~
_,, _ ___.
{j
,,,
- ~
,
q
, -
t
?
-
f f
I W
.
E.
,.
I r
.
r
. - < _
_.
,
-.
_ _. -_
1 -.. *2 m191
.
.
.
i
.
- - ~ - -
- -.
_ - - _.. _ _