IR 05000498/1978001

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Repts 50-498/78-01 & 50-499/78-01

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: IR 05000498/1977013 IR 05000498/1978001 IR 05000498/1978003 IR 05000498/1978004 IR 05000498/1978007 IR 05000498/1978010 IR 05000498/1980017 ML20150F239 ML20209B066 ML20211E985 ML20211F004 ML20211F025 ML20211F065 ML20211F072 ML20211F096 ML20211F114 ML20211F193 ML20211F216 ML20211F234 ML20211F262 ML20211F280 ML20211F398 ML20211F419 ML20211F435 ML20211F458 ML20211F473 ML20211F489 ML20211F500 ML20211F514 ML20211F518 ML20211F541 ML20211F573 ML20211F578 ML20211F583 ML20211G038
References
FOIA-85-378 ST-AE-HL-00551, ST-AE-HL-551, NUDOCS 8610310207
Download: ML20211F589 (6)

Text

,

.. y ,.p. , _ ;

-

UNITED STATES r i vs s < V77

• j';2 ct ruq (' NUCl.E AR REGULATORY COMMISSIEN

,

j L

, REGION IV

',

,

,

A' 8 .. E c 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 335

.

..

c i- !

-

ARLINGTON TEXAS 76011 \,

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, J .

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

during a future inspectio l:

Sincerely,

.

?

.

) -

W. C. Seidle, Chief F

Reactor Construction and

/

Engineering Support Branch

- .

'. *.

• L -

.

'

,

(

MAR 07gg79

'

.

-@^UTY ASSUMNCE DEPARTMENT J

l l 8610310207 860930 PDR FOIA l

GARDE 85-37e PDR

- ' ' ' * * ' ' ' ' " ' ~

j .. . . . . . . . ........... m~ . .- .- .-~- m - ~ ~ -- ~ -

-

,

n ..

. .

, . . .. _ . . . - - . . - - - -

. . _ . _ . . - . . . . . _ - . - - _ . . .

, . , .

}.

. _,....,,...,

-

.

,

Houston Lighting. & Power Company

.

% ..

TELEPHONE MINUTES

'

< 0 e l N N 1894

. CORRESPONDENCE ST-HS-HL-00hT2 TO H. L. Key /, [ . 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 J. I. Tapia, USNRC SECONDARY:

t 5 /

PAGE 1 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

~

.

a the following questions:

- What vere the physical dimensions of the placement?

- What vere the quantities of admixtures utilized in the concrete?

C Please verify that 35 F0 was the ambient temperature recorded on the QC

- Inspection boo 'I What were the slump and air content measured on the first test load for

,

this placement? (This is the test load which was h60)

, 7 I then asked Mr. Tapia hov long he observed the placement. He stated that he

' was present for approximately 20 minute !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, i

but no vibration in areas between tremis. He was not specific about the size of this

'

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 insertion 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 i Hethensaidheveuldcallbackat2:00p.m.torecepeansverstohisquestion { 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 TELEPHONE MINUTES gg sf .: .w i L

~

'

'

3 a" " P u g" CORRESPONDENCE ST-HS-HL-00h73

i TO H- L- hy [) . PROJECT MANAGER SERIAL NUMBER SFN: A-0330

FROM T. K. Logan fV DEPTJDIVISION Quality Assurance

\

( 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 j PAGE 1 0F 1 g

Reference: Telephone Minutes, Corres. No. ST-HS-HL-00h72 V Mr. Tapia called as indicated in the referenc ~

'

}

-

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-ject infraction:

.k

'

• . The important questions to be answered are:

Y Corrective Action - we shoul1 include as much data as possible (if

'

s a.

l l t! applicable) that quality was not compromised.

l *:

.

i .[ Recurrence Control - what actions are va going to take to preclude l l9, recurrence?

I I y Should our response be unacceptable for any reason, the severity of the f;

infraction vill not change in any manne !

'C l 3 The NRC does not wish to argue the validity of their observations with

} 'l B& I Mr. Tapia asked for details of Stop Work Request # I read the docunent to hi 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 caus I -

TKL:pe cc: W. N. Phillips F. D. Asbeck T. P. Gardner (B&R)

l C. L. Crane (B&R) ,

l l

' -

- Houston Lighting & Power Company .

336 W: .

'

.

-

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

//60 2WA'O//(f 9 k C

g

,

To Mr. E. A. Turner August 1(,194

%

From Mr. W. N. Phillips

'k RE6UVED 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

.

4 Technical Services i

W. N. Phillips -- Proj ects QA Manager ' l S. ( '.[ [

~

t3 >

~

~~~I~

DISCUSSION i There were three basic concerns expressed by the NRC: i f: Concern regarding low morale of Civil inspectors _ .

and supervisor _

{

B. Alleged weakness of implementation relative to the onsite Civil QC progra .

" * Adequacy in staffing level of QC people in light of _

-

increased construction progress (personnel numbers) .

(NRC observation, not allegation) i

i Morale 1 l

1. Notice a very strong dissention between a QA/QC inspector [

and his supervisor. Negative comment ;

- . QA/QC inspector feels like a second class citize ;

(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).

__)- [ Comment that Civil QC inspectors were not given adequate  !

training in the new criteria / procedures, j

~~

l QA/QC (Civil) was not given opportunity to co : ment on l revision of procedure . QA/QC (Civil) was too busy--too much work to properly prepare for inspection ,

'

__-.

l

-

HotSton Lignting 6, rower uunipany 339

,

',-- .

-

..

.

'- - OFFICE MEMORANDUM To i

From Sub/ect Page two -- Meeting with the NRC ,

. Imolementation of Site Civil.QA/QC Activities

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-lis , ! Specific example (cited by the NRC) reinforces the abov .

An example rebar was left out, and was subsequently caught by b

,

QC instead of Engineering or Craf l

.

.

3. No feedback on Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) prepared l l by QA/QC inspector l NCR's prepared but were not issued. This is of grave i r j concern to the NR i Inadequate distribution of the latest drawing from the QA/QC librar [

.

6. Telephone authorization of field changes are alleged j

'

,

+ to not result in Field Requests for Engineering Action ~

-

(FREA's) documenting the authorizatio l

. QA/QC inspectors were denied adequate technical assistance by QA/QC Supervisiors in certain situations; they were j-l

" chewed-out" when they called directly to Houston for hel [

• Staffing  ; i 9 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 leve [

• 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 personne :

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 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 control . - - - - - - . , - - . -, . - , - - - - - - , - - - ---- - - - . _

'.

- -

Houston Lighting a rower uompany

s'y .. :

.

-

340

~ '* '" OFFICE MEMORANDUM To 1 *

From Sub/cet Page three -- Meeting with the NRC

.

!

CONCLUSIONS BY NRC i There is a QA/QC inspector morale problem on this job, !

which can adversely affect the overall jo i

, Long punch-lists are evidence that the up-front work is not actually being done properl .

' 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 staf l i

4. Staffing inader tacy (B6R -21 and HL6P -2) should be corrected soo }

.

RESIDENT INSPECTION PROGRAM i

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, j hNP/cas f

cc: Messrs. W. M. Menger ,

!

D. G. Barker  !

I

-_

i

!

!

• i l

I

. .. _ _

_ , . --,---r--- ,

> *i 's-n%Y i '.

.. . . . . . . -

r-- r- ' s. .. ;.... .. . . . . . - - . . . . . - .r ~ ~T:

.y, . ,, . 2- ' ;-4 * = i'-is~w. .: --*^~'~"',:_;.--% --- ' :... - - 'a- "= - ' W". -* " ".:.". " " , , " .' " - .- - - . - ~ ~-- ~ _.,

.f^ 5*?~" : :.~. ~. ^-IB*U.?N'.~a' :

-

. . . . . .

- }. Q7 K

. _3.,

.

. .

. .

~

.

- .

.* ,G '4 e*:: .<t t_ -

i 1 .J --

I .

'

~1 UNITED STATIS or 2.cRICA f -

'. .- 2 -

NUCLEAR RECULATORY CO.". MISSION

'l [:

5 4 1 '.".1 , ,

)

f3

- -

hb

.

l c

~

!'

gS' Ei I b

'

t

"

f e ri' '

SCOTE - TIZAS PRC."0;

.

] I

,

..

.-

%..lJ 'J 9 PUBLIC MEETING {

f:

.

.

. . '-  :

.

'

.~.... j 11 . "

'

_ jz a y)

.

/

'

y 12 j l ii  ;.

-

i E 33

.

t.~; }"*:1 .

• !

.

E. ~

k,. .. .g w

- .

.. = g 14-i ,  ! !

_: .d *

.,'j

'

. -l - E IS a Municipal Service center r 1 i '~ k ". g 2105 Avenue M M

• - Say City, Texas - t

[. ' g 37 {s-

,

iE 5 l F~ 7 ,a t 18 i

(..  ;: . [

4 -F t j [ C 4

.

39 Tuesday, August 19 , 1980 1

'

, g

,. '

20 2:00 .,

f r ({ !

21 p 7 j. (

a m

p].J.,

-

22 l

.. 513 Y . j' , i 1

• i .l n 1

-  ?'

,

'

I

{,-~..:w, = s }.

~ )v .

q 241 ,

- A ccoaa  !

!5 $ f,,, . "l [&675,2// '

i t  :

.,

k

.

..

.O

_____..___...._.._........_

. g . .

>6 l 2(>/

I

r - ' ..

/ 4  !

,i 4 / e

{

l- e e+o od y

_,_ .,_,. __..__ . . . . . . . _ . . . _ - . . . _ - - -

e Is -

L LL g. 7,- ,

r...-..... ..

,

i

. ^

.

. . - - - O e

( ..

- - - - - - - - - - -. - ~ ~, -. _., _ _ _ . . _

_ .

Y FMQpG : A N%1..-.:.,..:.g.4.Q. g.. g ; g . _ .

...

....u... ,2

'

~~

(. .c ;

. 3 plant, we won't f.esitate to take appropriate action to insure that an unsafe plant is not allowed to operat h

"

.

3 MR. CII. RAY: I'm John Gilray representing

,

' -

4 ...

C=ality Assurance and Quality control of trR ,

- . 8 I've had the opportunity of seeing the CA f-H ('.] .e h, . pregra=s of most of the plants that exist. And without a doubt,

.n * 1

,

, f

• the realign =ent of the organi=ation and canagement techniques r 2 s }

h

{},J] '

! 8 here is p.cbably at the top of the lis !

'

.

f l ' .s c , Cf course, the test is going to come in the ,I

,

ar

$

$j 10 preper i=plementaticn. Tire will tell about tha g' ; a MR. RAAS: My name is Walt Haa ;

E'

.

d I'm involved in the Quality Assurance Branch at rr i j 2

~

z 12 .

'

. .?.l 2  :- 9

Eethseda, Maryland. As such, we are respcasible for the review ,

kl j I# of quality assurance programs for applicants, for CP's and

'

F

,

L I 9 13 operating license c 7' c. . '~ ". '

Since my involvement in the South Texas recent

,,

4 l1 g -

events, I think I can say that I have seen nany pcsitive steps j ,

h a

II And, of

-

' [ ti 18 that have been taken and are planned in the futur II course, our final judgments will rest on how those steps are [

,

t 4 (! g , .@ og

' com:plete L 2 :,j (f 'lr-(J

~

J 21 of course, that's a function of our inspection -

{ , ], *

-

. [ g g'

.. .

.,

" people - cur inspection and enforcement peopl ?

-

[". f

-} .U But I think I can gay categorically that"I:see .,

.-

-

,

1 _

2 .d z. . - .s

' r.any positive steps, and I'm encouraged. .

. .

\

'

-

-

F I'm a =acher 1 25 MR. m :A My nace is Joe Tapi l .

00'1003  :

b. ,

i ,j ,

ALCERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY.!N . ~ .

~,

,

.

-t . . _ . .

-- .

, . , -, , , 3

_

I

!

-\ k-l

..

- -

, ,

l

.

i .

b r

l i

l . T 5' ,

l,

~

.

t

_ .-

_

.. /

- _ _

y a. . . . . - -.-

I i NGlC , O ~ O ' $ ' $ ' U E

-

-- i -- ~. .!

.-

-- . .

-i

,

b -

,

.. . - . .

. ..

-

'

}' .

2% *.,& x_. , b.Eks.$$.$i: -: 4.;., .fjg, pg,% ,3,., "gy.g.q*. .$y-j,'{.f._3 .h- .

• . L 3 t

, S., :c 343 z>>  ;

'

!

jg

- ' '

af the Engineering suppor: staf I have airsady been involved in two follow-up p

,

,

~, inspections of the corrective action that the licensee cossaitted i 4 in response to the investigt:icas along with the three years and i j 3 ten months that I've been c=cing to this plant and d ucting .

b'

t-f..- '

.,

i

regular inspections, I've also noticed a difference. I also [

t' '1 -

7;

,

have that ceufidence,

] "

i L

) j a 8 MA. srT?RI": I'm Karl Seyfrit, the Cirector of e C3p

^

e, ,

- me,1on I.,.

• r

.

-

le 10 I guess I wetid have to say that what I have '

?

l j ;  !

l g II heard here today gives ce =nason for cptimism. But I remain o

s- 12

'g

,

somewhat skeptica g'gJ ,,

' I There are a great many things that have to be

'~

,

l :

-

t u/

,y done, and the chore of getting these things done is an aveseme

,

'

,

jl- 5 15 ene, both for the licensee, his contractor and for u I G'

.

16 I think that : vould not be in a position to say b

-

.

. .

{

-- h ,g f 17 that the cptinism is really yreat, until these things begin to f5

-

-

. -El

-

8' ;g be imple.ented in a real way that we can measur L t

h. hL '

~

E ' ,

19 (Applause.)

g ,

-

-  ;

.

20 3,. sECM"'s Hy name is Bob Show=ake I's i ,

h '!L 21 the Senior structural Engineer in the Headquarters cf Inspectica ',

< ;./  :. and Enforcer.en .

i

,

3*. . .)

< ,

23 .I've been i=rolved with the plant sL=ce basically ' l,'

[ { '

'

.{ .b 2 24 the investigation beva ~  ; P

.' r 25 My rain ec=cern is that we hava a sit =ation where [

f. : 1 ! ,

.- C@l .- 000000 ' !4 l '

'-'

A1.CERSC.N REPCRTING COMP ANY, IN W'W

,

1 '

.~r

' }l s

n

- . , , . , - .

w ...

cj

..

.r-

.

..." m s

---

,

,

,.

, i . . -

.

p--

s k

~

.<

d

.

1 I l 't

.- .- _ _ _ __ _ __

..

,W

.

J . . _ . - - __  : ,

.,go O.*Oi4'Afae9:

'

- .. . . ..-

-- - -

_-

?

--

- . _ ,

,

-.._ .

'

p~

i - . . ..

, .. , ...

.. .#. .

.

, , }' -

..

-.-. . -__. .

\

.

- ' ~ - - ~ ~ - ._ _ - _ _ _ ___... g i i

&D(p&l7 Y t 0066175

_

-

I . . . -

17.5. MUCttAR aEGULATORY CopeitSSION }

0FFICE CF IMSPECTION AND ENTORCEMDIT

. REGlut IV t

-

-

.

Report No. 50-498/81-10; 50-499/81-10

.

. Category A2 '

,, f'

M Docket Mos. 50-418t 50-499 p r Houston Lighting and Power Company  ;

Licensee:

Post Office Som 1700 Houston. Texas 77001

.

Fact 11ty Mave:

South Texas Project. Units 1 and Z '

! South Texas Project. Natagersfa County. Texas Inspection 4t:

March 30 - April 2 and April 6-9. 1981 Inspectica conducted: .

6*7* N Inspector:

sb apit Reacg* Inspector, tngineering and Materials Cate

• J. I

'4 5e on

.t Other Acc:ppanying W. C. Seidfe. Chie Engineering Inspectfon Branch L Personnel: (April 2-3,1981) @

-

l *

U ( , ,

'

C. E. Johnson. Reactor inspector. Engineering and Naterf ats secti -

f (training)  :

I' 7Y date Approved: A. L. Han . Acting citef. Engineering anc Materials ' 5cctien

'.

,sa I _Insoection fuemary: 9 1981_ '

$ f ascection conducted durino March 30 April 2 and April ii 6 ,

g

Report No. -0-49e'781-10. M.499/81-iQ)itoutine. unannounced inspection of construction

' Areas inseected:

l -j

< .

relative to tne Itaited restart of complex concrete pThe inspection involved ftfty-sis

/ $l unresolved f tees and show Cause Order items.

i .$ '

inspector-hours Results:

try cne MRC inspector.In theofareas for air content grout - inspected. one violatio .

concrete placement (violation failure to test 1

-

paragraph 3).

.

l .* ' ,

l

. ,f d

.

i ._ --...- ,-

I -- -

i -._____.___ t i ,, ,,,,_ _. _ _

.

-

j

- .,

- /p ..i..a .

'

-

. .. ./ . $. .

-

] t

-

L

~ <

j Fr o 6 t oc sg 5 fy' -

-

'

--

_

- . - .

E- 5 J

-_

..

I . t c , l y ,. .

,0H91 I

.., .

.

.. . .

. . .

.'

.. .. ~ .. . . . .

.

. . _ _ _ _

'C ,. .

.

.

.. _

_

.

• .

345 n i,

P l

CETAIL5_

.m 6 I 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 e R. Rotier. Area Chil Engineer . RC8.I. 8&A .

l G. Cook. Field Engineer. S&R  ;

.

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 ,

'

.1

'

The NRC inspector also contacted other Itcensee and contractor personnel including members of the CA/0C and engineering staff . ' Denotes attendence at the entt interview., *

, Licensee Actien en.Pm vicNs leseettien Findines I . During tMs inspection itcensee action taken to resolve the foltewing 50 498/79 19;

'

l

.

unresolved item it.antif teo in Investigation Rtport N [. ,

..

g 50-499/79 19 was reviewed: i l

'

4[ Records '.

,

e *l (C1csed) Unausolved Ites (50 41C/7919 23; 50 499/7919 23): .

i of Fill Lif ts Tersus Location in Order to Reconstruct Fill Placemnt Procedure Lacking. The subject unresolved ite* has been incor; crated 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

been devote:e The closure of the Show Cause Crder Iten in car j ,, grach 4 of this report resolves the issue originally generated by this

.. unresolved ite . Centrete Place-ent By letter, dated January 8.1981, the ifcensee reouested a ilmited restartAttachme '

of complex concrete olete-en 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 a

~

i

'

.,

. s

!

,

J' * i ,

.!

i

!

__

.....---.-..-F.- ,

t

,

s m . ..

.. .

[-

'

t

. - e g

.-a .

r

.

I  :

9

[.

) #4

.i

--

.

m_

,

!Od s O 3. If _. .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ .-. ._ . . _ ,

.

..,

. . . . _ . ..

,

.

,.

'

.. -

. . . *

--

-

-. -- - _ _ - _ __

. __ ^-

.

'

- - -

348 <

l

.

i

This placemnt (No. CIS W18) cenststed I The of the eighteenth observed placem ntlift andon the ,

Unit 1 Reactor Containmnt Building. consolidation techniques were found f to be in acco l

3 Control Construction Procedure No. AQa0KPCCP.25 and consistent standard industry practices for the successful placemnt of concret g with g '

A review was conducted of the evality control reco'rds for the first 8 sin complex concrete place *ents. From this review and through dis.-

I cussions with cognizant peronnel, it was determined that no testing s

'

i f

for air content of Grout Mis Identification No. A 0-3-15 had been .

f perfor ne Brown and Root Interoffice Memorandum Mo. GM.4666 j **coroved Concrete Mikes.* requires that the air content This memoran.for Grout ' r

Mia Identification No. A-0-bl5 not exceed 10 percen ?

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 crete and grovt eine ,

in order to assure compliance with the ~ design maximum* amount *

allowable ,

represents a f ailure to meet the requiremnts of Criterion 11 of ,

Appendix 8 to 10 CfR Part 50 and is therefore a violatio * ,

, *

,

,4 ticensee Response to Show Cause Order _

1 I The NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's response 30. 198 to The the show Cause Order transmitted to Ht1P by NRC letter, dated April ,

.

h) following items were addressed:

] Provide Information to  ;,

.'. (Closed) the Address $ hew Cause Order Sequence Iten VA(2)(c):

of Constructica of Esisting sackf til including The

'

pi

>

,

i

the toose Lift Thickness and Ntraer of Passes of the.*,3 30. 1981,

[, Coutpoen .

cause Order Item 2.* dated JanuarySection a.$ of the Ccmittee's report addresses k. n*% '*~ tMir f s' .t inscettie review of the B&R/Ht&P Soccial fask Force effort in addrtssteg *.his $~

ihr>e Cause Order ! te It was the Canittee's detemination that tne T *

'i F s l

r bacitfill record place *ents can te reconstructed from t'e quality 3(gcontrolT Occument No. 3A700GP0018. " Category I Structural Backfill Placamnt .

and Quality Control Data.* This docunent which was alsc reviewed

-

. .; ,

.

'

e during this inspection reports eight representative cross sec '

.[ Inspection Report Sotis inspection Checklists and censity [ TestT j Report s

~j compacted lift thickness of 15 inches which is based on the Solis J Inspection Checklist notations that the lift thicknesses were 18 inches The lift nutering secuence establishedThe for each reportplacemnt further 4 or les I area also gives the particular lift elevation. states fa that, the total numte

,

was such that the compactive effort satisfied the requiremnt om

]I U1 * i

. 4,  ;

.e

.b *

.

m

..

i

..-..--.-- .:.

. .- y"

\ , .

. . - . ,..-=

_

e >

I

, b

- '

F

. i

'

E l

• ' --

- - ..

W p

'E O/ h y.. Q l - _

..

. . . . ..

,

,

• * .

. _ _ _

. .

347 n_

• L I

i

.. density testing. The development of the cross sections from the '

quality control records is used as a basis to demonstrate that the backfill was placed in a determinate sequence. Based on the review i

of this docurentation perforved during this inspection. the NRC (r inspector concluded that the licensee has satisfied the Show Cause

Order to provide information to address the sequence of construction -!

of entsting backfill including the loose lift thickness and nuseer .

.

of passes of the equipmen I

.

.

This 1 tem 1 close (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 density of the Category I structural backft11. Their evaluation

is based on considerations of the backfill material propeetle the construction techniques. the in. place density test result I and the boring progra The Cosmittee has concluded that "a dens l I

homogenecus compacted structural baC1ft11 resulted which isadequa specification requirerents.* Four small. 1solated tones detected 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 [

s for three tones and a minimum factor of safety of 1.35 for the fourt :

The Corir.ittee further concluded that, since the boring locations wert d selected in an unbiased manner, their nureer is adequate to provideThe actual field control *

.

a representative sarole of fill condition F i*

<

precedures for placement of the fill and The for determining relatived

'. / '. density of 95 percent with a standard deviattun of f.8 I l1 * '#l **

"1 1p <*Ng i

..

i . statistical analysts further shows, with a go percent level of confi '. ^

s j. "o ~T ,

'

density 70 sercent, less than 80 cercent. and that 0.05 percent is 1*ss thanassed on the -

! - .r 7 if portiens of the structural backfl11 have relative densities asindicat

• there is no risk of liquefaction." A similar conclusion was reached for the analysis of thfn layers intnediately belcw The factor mat foundations of safety against at I a relative density of 45 percen The '

s (* liquefaction for this analysis wes found to be in excess of 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 comea *

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

i .4

!.

I - - . . , - - - - - - -- p a _ _ . . . . .

m

.

-- ,

f, ,

,.

, T*

-

1, h

.

J

,

>

'

r i

- - -

-- ._

__

.

__

% 4

., .

- _

'*

.. . , ,

,

EE4 .

-

,

.

-

.

-

.

- - --

. , , . , a

-

.

~~ . ._ sL -

- _ _

^-

-

" ~ ~ ~

-

-

_ _

,

,

' -

348 ,

i

. * L

. .

Based on the reviews perforved *

) to corvnence acceptance testin l during this inspection of the Independent Espert Review Comittee's

• Final. Report Corcerning'Show Cause Order Item 2* and of the Task 41 Reference Document, the licensee has concluded [

Force's Technl:

that the t.zistir.g backfill material satisfies the design inten I

,

The above noted Independent Empert Review Comittee's * final Report e Concerning Show Cause Order Item 2*.was also reviewed during this L

I inspection to confirm that itees previously closed by the NRC11ttee's inte Inspector, based on the Cor: There were no differences

were consistent with the (fnal repor ,

noted between the interim and status and final reports wnich affect At the recuest of IE Headquarters, the

)

l

crtvious item closures. final report will also beInreviewed partic by the Geotechnical Branch I the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

-

jl lar the Costeittee's succorting the Itquefaction conclusions potential,relative the adequacy to the calculations of the siethods [

f, previously utilf red for backfill place =nt and ccroaction a values reported in the f5AR will be evaluated by NR .

-

This item is close . Show cme order Cemit=nts ,

d The NRC inspector reviewed the imolementation 13. 1960.of the comit.-ents described s2 s ' in the attach ent to HL&P letter $T.HL-AE-533, dated Septeebec

,

.,

The following cormitrents, utilizing the identificattoa purtpers in the _

attachment to the f.H&P letter were reviewed: t (Closed) Items A20 ,.A21. A25. A27. A28. A29. A30. A31. MS. M . ft1 M11. M13. and M16:

The listed Stars relate to and serve as the ..y basis for the closure of tae Show Cause Order Items ilstedJ'inIn addition, t et and 5

i paragraph 4 of this report.eents were individually reviewed and found to have been m

j were theref:ry close ' -

.a ,

W

- ,

,

' - i l '

l ;

. Exit faterview

-

-

!

'

l n The NRC inspecter set with the licensee Moresentative denoted in ,_,

-

paragraph 1 cn Aprit g.1931, for* the purpose of sursariting the ,

scope and the firdings of the inspectio ,1

.

. . .

1.

,-e J

'

l .

i

--  ; _

~

-

.

,

1 L-5 ,

1

--~

' -

__

_ ,, _ ___ . 'f q

{j , , ,

- ~ ,

, - t

? -

f f I W

. ,.

I r

. r

, _ _. -_ . - < _

-.

m191 .

.

. 1 - . . *2 i .

- - ~ - - - -. _ - - _ . . _ _