IR 05000498/1980010
| ML19321A396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1980 |
| From: | Crossman W, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321A391 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-80-10, 50-499-80-10, NUDOCS 8007230292 | |
| Download: ML19321A396 (6) | |
Text
g-
.(
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-498/80-10; 50-499/80-10 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
,
Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda, Texas Inspection Conducted: May 1980 Inspector:
-
6//7/80
'
hH. S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector Date
Projects Section Approved:
/
0 /7 8d
~
w-W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
'Date Inspection Summary:
Inspection During May 1980 (Report 50-498/80-10; 50-499/80-10)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) included independent inspection performed during a site tour; follow up inspections relative to 10 CFR 50.55(e) Deficiency Reports; structural backfill; structural concrete; containment tendon sheaths and trumpets; safety-related embeds and anchors; storage of safety-related components; and maintenance of equipment.
The inspection involved twenty inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
i 8007230 2.G 2___.
-
-
-
.
-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees D. W. Bohrer, Lead Electrical Specialist T. J. Jordan, Supervisor, Quality Systems D. G. Long, Lead Civil Engineer
- W. N. Phillips, Projects QA Manager G. A. Marshall, QA Senior Specialist J. W. Soward, Lead Mechanical Specialist L. D. Wilson, Site QA Supervisor
- Denotes management meeting with the NRC Resident Rcactor Inspector (RRI)
during the inspection period.
2.
Follow Up on Construction Deficiencies (CDN) (10 CFR 50.55(e))
The RRI reviewed the status of construction deficiencies as follows:
.
a.
RCB-2 Liner Plate Bulge Repair The RCB-2 liner plate bulge was described in Report 50-498/80-06; 50-499/80-06.
The RRI inspected this area several times during the removal of the damaged liner.
The work was closely monitored by llouston Lighting & Power (!!L&P) and Brown & Root (B&R)
construction, engineering, and QC personnel.
B&R engineering is evaluating the damaged area and will develop a repair procedure.
The target date for completion is Oc'.ber 1980.
This item is still open.
b.
Voids in Concrete Behind Sh711 Wall Liner Plate in Reactor Containment Buildings, No. I and 2 The voids in lift 15 of Unit I were initially reported as a CDN on October 20, 1978, and the final report was submitted for lift 15 on August 7, 1979.
Lift 8 voids were reported as a CDN on June 18, 1979, and a final report was submitted on February 18, 1980.
Correction of Unit 2 voids, which were far less extensive, was addressed in the February 18, 1980, report.
All of the voids identified by mechanical sounding have been repaired except as described in paragraph 2.a above. The RRI has verified that all other areas were repaired, however, this item has not been closed out in a report because of concrete placement activities described in the Notice of Violation (Item A-7, Failure to Correct In-adequate Concrete Practices) in Investigation Report 50-498/7t 19; 50-499/79-19 and the stop-work order on complex pours which was imposed by llL&P on December 1979.
.
This item will remain open until corrective action is complete.
That is, the stop-work order is lifted; the bulge area is repaired; and assurance is given that no other significant voids exist in the containment structures.
3.
Site Tour The RRI performed several site tours during the subject inspection period which included Units 1 and 2 Reactor Containment, Mechanical / Electrical, and Fuel Handling Buildings; various lay down and storage areas; and the Essential Cooling Pond area. The RRI identified and informed the licensee of isolated storage conditions which were considered minor deficiencies.
However, on the spot corrective action was taken, and the RRI has no further questions regarding this matter at this time.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Structural Backfill, Units 1 and 2 The RRI reviewed the test results in Woodward Clyde Consultant's Report ST-WC-BR-5654, SFN: D-054/P-0087, dated May 8, 1980, regarding relative density of the backfill around safetv-related foundations and walls.
The test was conducted between January 28 and April 11, 1980.
The following is a quote of the summary of the report which indicates no discrepancies around Unit 1 structures, but minor discrepancies around Unit 2 structures:
"The structural backfill observed in both field investigations, was found to be homogeneous in nature with no other soil types encountered below surficial soils and above subgrade soils.
The grain size distribution of samples obtained during standard penetration tests was judged by visual observation to be consistent with the structural backfill being classified as a medium to coarse, yellowish brown, well graded sand (SW).
"Within Unit 1, results of standard penetration tests indicate that the structural backfill equals or exceeds construction quality control criteria of 80% relative density.
Four small areas at Unit 2 have densities less than construction quality control criteria.
The extent of zones with low densities within Areas 2, 3 and 4... are limited to one, compacted lift thickness (approximately 16 in.) and are judged to be approximately 6 ft. wide because of the drum width of vibratory rollers used at the STP site.
The length of the zones is small, generally on the order of 10 to 11 ft.
Areas 2 and 3 have only one zone with a density less than construction quality control criteria while Area 4 has 2 zones separated by approximately 18 ft. of structural backfill with a density that exceeds the construction quality control criteria.
Area 1, as shown in Figure 3, has an extent somewhat larger than any of the other areas and the zones of low density are somewhat more scattered within the area both areally and vertically.
..
.- -
.- - - -
.- -
-
- -.
-
. - _.
_ -
<
.
J
"At the meeting held on April 21, 1980, with Dr. H. B. Seed the following conclusions regarding liquefaction potential of areas
,
with a density less than construction quality control criteria were reached.
Zones within Areas 2, 3 and 4 show no potential for liquefaction and high factors of safety against liquefaction.
The majority of soils within Area 1 having a density less than
construction quality control criteria do not have a potential l
for liquefaction even though relative densities, as determined
by the Gibbs & Holtz relationship, indicate relative density values less than the construction quality control criteria of
80%. Two or three small zones within Area I would have moderate j
excess pore pressures during and following an OBE event; but
these small zones would probably not liquefy nor cause lique-
faction."
l
,
The RRI observed the test location of a structural backfill test which HL&P voluntarily committed to perform in order to give added assurance
of adequate compaction using the equipment and procedure used on previous backfill. This test location was abandoned because of heavy i
rains which prevented its use. A new location was selected, however, this test was abandoned because during the test someone made unauthorized
passes with the roller during the backshift. The third location selected l
has a guard posted to prevent tampering with the test area / equipment.
The test is to start June 3, 1980.
The above tests / data / reports will be reviewed by an NRC Civil engineering team to verify that soil requirements were met.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
'
5.
Structural Concrete The RRI inspected the batch plant for the following: material control, temperature control, batch records, inspection and testing, equipment, aggregate handling / separation, moisture control and mix design.
The RRI determined that scales and admixture dispensers had been cali-brated but minor paper work deficiencies existed as follows:
i i
Scale tolerance and deviation of actual from the cali-
.
j bration standard were not clearly expressed.
Admixture certification was not signed by the certifier j
.
but was notarized and signed by a notary public.
i Both conditions were corrected during the inspection period, therefore the RRI has no further questions regarding this matter.
J
i
,
,
.
'
,
,.,
,,
,
- - -
-,._--- -. - -.
,..
-,
-,-
.-
- -,,, -.
-_
.
The RRI observed the cleaning, fit up, and Cadwelding operations for Cadweld No. 85H114, sleeve No. sis 50, powder lot No. N753.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
6.
Containment Tendon Sheaths and Trumpets, Unit I and 2 The RRI observed tendon sheaths and trumpets which were recently installed. The RRI found that work activity in this area was low at this time.
Since PRESCON, the prestressing contractor, was not on site, only a brief inspection of this area was performed.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
7.
Fabrication of Safety-Related Embeds and Anchor Bolts The RRI observed selected embeds as per WO Item No. AX 2-13-4901-5968-0, Heat No. A8005 which were being fabricated or had been fabricated.
Work Order No. 152 for 500 embeds was nearly complete.
The following were observed:
Current drawings were at the work location.
.
QC inspector was performing inspection.
.
Inspection records indicated that the embeds fabricated
.
met the requirements.
Traceability was maintained.
.
Approximately a dozen 24" anchor bolts, P15-16 FMS 1155, had been fabricated per Drawing 1-C H145.
The RRI inspected selected bolts to determine that they met dimensional tolerance by the use of go-no-go gages.
It was noted that the scrap bolts were segregated from conforming bolts but were not tagged.
The shop foreman placed a barrel, marked " scrap," adjacent to the area to be used in lieu of tagging. The inspector has no further questions on this matter.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
8.
Storage of Safety-Related Component and Equipment The RRI observed safety-related equipment and components in Warehouses A, B, C and D.
Hundreds of pieces of electrical equipment (safety and non safety-related) are located in these areas.
The general conditions for all equipment were observed to be good.
The following equipment was inspected:
125VDC Distribution Switch Board (1) 7E231 EPL125A
.
Electrical Penetration (12), Typical SN800204 EP-32
.
5.
..
- - -.. - -.
-
..
.-
.. -
-- -
- -.
... _ - -
t
.
...
RHR Pump (2) SN 51734
.
i
.
Component Cooling Water Pump (3), SN804103
.
Auxiliary Feedwater Turbine Pump, SNT40749B
.
Lower Internal Stand, MO 128
.
Essential Cooling Water Pump Motor (2) STQ6480
.
I l
Reactor Coolant Pump Internals, MRR102868
.
,
'
i Rechargeable Carbon Filter Storage Tank, Tag No. 3V120VXV001
.
4160 Electrical Switchgear, E0337-a-A
.
,
i l
30" Mainsteam Stop Isolation Valves, Typical Tag No. 30IA66R
.
Other miscellaneous equipment observed for which no serial numbers were
!
recorded included inverters, motor control panels, reactor control switchgear, reactor building chiller, 511 KW duct heater control, i
6" gate valve, 8" gate valve, hangers and snubbers.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifled.
9.
Maintenance of Equipment i
Several electric motors, ESMI M1232, in air lock "C" did not have electric current supplied to the windings because someone had removed the power i
cord.
Essential cooling pump motors (STQ6480), M-1486 and M-1487 were not l
heated.
The condition was immediately corrected.
j This matter is considered unresolved.
The licensee had previously identi-fied this item as a site discrepancy and is taking action to correct the
problem.
The IE inspector informed the licensee representative that this matter would be reviewed in subsequent inspections.
(0 pen Item No. 50-498/
80-10-1; 50-499/80-10-2)
,
10.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of
,
noncompliance, or deviations.
One unresolved item is discussed in
]
paragraph 9.
'
11.
Management Meetings The RRI discussed the areas inspected and described in the foregoing paragraphs.
The senior licensee representative was informed that no items of noncompliance were identified, however, one new unresolved
iten was identified. The licensee concurred that this area needs further evaluation.
!
I i
._,
c
..
-
- - _, _,....-
., -
--.
,. --
- - - - ~