IR 05000498/1980022
| ML19345B137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1980 |
| From: | Driskill D, Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345B134 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-80-22, 50-499-80-22, NUDOCS 8011260197 | |
| Download: ML19345B137 (6) | |
Text
-
.
M' u.
i
P
'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.TIISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFCP. CEMENT-REGION IV Investigative Report No.
50-498/80-22; 50-499/80-22 Docket No.
50-498; 50-499 Category 2
.Licensse: Houston Lighting ~and Power Company Facility:
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at:
Bay-City, Ma'tagorda County, Texas-
,
_
Investigation conductedi -July 29, 1980 h
Investigator:
A ici-it SC-D.l N rifkill, InvestigatTon Specialist Date
/'
l O
f NcC[ /
b+T
/(
Approved by:
-
Q
"
_
K. V. Seyfrit, D'irector, gi n IV Date Summary f
Investigation on July 29, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/80-22; 50-499/80-22).
Area Investigated:
Investigation concerned allegations that designers of South Texas Project (STP) piping systems were incompetent, that supervisors responsible for
'
approval of piping system designs are not competent, and that Nuclear Power Service, Inc., is the worst contractor at the STP site.
An investigation was also conducted relating to the statement "Please investigate B&R stress evaluation on piping," which was provided as one of_various statements /
allegations made regarding STP.
This investigation involved eight (8)
investigator hours by one (1) NRC investigator.
,
Results:
t Allegations that designers and approvers of STP piping systems and-designs
~
were incompetent were not s'ubstantiated.
No facts were identified which would support the claim that Nuclear Power Service, Inc., is the worst contractor at STP.
A rev'/w of B&R's stress evaluations on safety related
piping at STP will be conducted during an NRC, Region IV, Vendor Inspection q
Branch inspection at B&R in October 1980.
'
,
-
)
18 0112.60 /9b :
,
.
..
.
_
_-
-
2
.
.x n-a..
,
e
. =. _
e~
a-
,.,
..
-
,
-
_.
'
.
n
?
,
INTRODUCTION
.
.
The Soutn Texas Nuclear Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, is currently under construction in the town.of Bay City, Texas. Houston Lighting and Power
' Company (HL&P) is the construction permit; holder; Brown and Root, Inc. (B&R)
{
is the architect / engineer and construction firm.
_
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION On June 13, '1980,- an anonymous letter was received at NRC Region IV Office which enumerated ten existing genera 1' concerns of the writer at STP.
In closing, this'1etter contained the statement "Please investigate B&R's
'
stress evaluations on piping." On June 27, 1980, the NRC Headquarters Duty Officer received 'a telephone call from an anonymous' caller who alleged that, i
" designers of piping systems for STP are incompetent, that supervisors who approve piping system drawings are -incompetent, and that Nuclear Power Service, Inc., is the worst contractor at STP."
sum 1ARY OF FACTS On June 13, 1980, an anonymous letter was-received at NRC's Region 1V office which identified ten existing general concerns, of the writer, at-STP.
An
,
i eleventh concern was identified in the-letter with the statement "Please investigate-B&R's stress evaluations on piping." On June 27, 1980, the NRC Headquarters Duty Officer received a telephone call from an anonymous caller.
j who alleged.that the designers of-the piping systems for the South Texas Pro-ject are not competent and that they do not know the basics of civil engineering.
,
The caller went.on to-say that supervisors who are signing drawings for' approval
+
are not competent and that Nuclear Power Service, Inc., is the worst contractor
,
-at the STP site.
,
+
,
a
,
4 J
. --.
,
e
. -, - -..
,
..,,,
.. _,.
_-
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted
'
Principal Licensee Employees R. A. Frazar, QA Manager J. W. Briskin, Project Manager, Houston Operations A. J. Granger, Project Engineering Manager 2.
Investigation of Allegations Allegation No. 1 Designers of the piping systems for the Soutn Texas Project are not com-petent in that they do not know the basics of civil engineering.
Allegation No. 2 The supervisors who are signing piping drawings for approval are not competent.
Allegation No. 3 Nuclear Power Service, Inc., is the worst contractor at the STP site.
a.
Interview of J. W. Briskin On July 29, 1980, J. W. Briskin, Project Manager, Houston Operations, HL&P, was interviewed regarding the foregoing allegations.
Briskin prefaced his comments by stating he had no knowledge of serious problems regarding installation and/or design of STP piping.
Briskin stated he was aware that B&R was responsible for design and installt-tion of piping, however, they did not have enough qualified personnel to complete the project on time and were, therefore, contracting with a firm named SAI to provide supplemental personnel for piping stress calculations and design.
Briskin was unable to provide any additional pertinent info rma tion.
b.
Interview of Arnold J. Granger On July 29, 1980, Arnold J. Granger, STP Project Engineering Manager, HL&P, was interviewed.
Granger stated that during.he early stages of STP development, HL&P and B&R mutually agreed that B&R would not per-form the STP piping AE functions, due to B&R's lack of in-house expertise in tnat discipline.
Sids were solicited and EDS Nuclear (EDS), a well known San Francisco firm having expertise in the piping
,
'
field, was selected for the "in containment pipe stress analysis.
pipe hangers stress analysis, and pipe whip stress analysis work."
Granger stated B&R was to maintain design and engineering responsi-bilities for all outside piping.
He stated that Nuclear Power Services, j
.,
.
.
..
-
.
.
4-Inc. (NPSI) obtained_the contract to provide the estimated 9,000
'
hangers necessary for STP containment for Units 1 and 2.
Granger stated NPSI agreed to open a facility at Austin, Texas, which would
do all. fabrication work on the hangers.
He stated the design work for the hangers was being done at the New York office of NPSI and was a joint effort conducted by NPSI and EDS.
When questioned regarding problems relating to both piping design and installation, Granger explained the following problem areas, any one of which could lead person (s) to believe that designers of Lne piping system at STP are " incompetent," that supervisors approving the piping drawings are incompetent and that NPSI is the worst contractor' at STP:
(1) The whip restraints designed by EDS for STP are massive structures which have created a current installation problem in that their installation.at this point in construction will require that a number of items will have to be partially-disassembled,'within Containment Unit 1, to facilitate their installation.
As an example, Granger pointed out that the upper bracing on the steam generators will have to be removed to allow a whip restraint to
-
,
be'placed between the generators.
He stated that this and other related whip restraint installation work will require much construction effort and will receive considerable criticism.
Granger stated much of this work would have been eliminated if the whip restraints had been. completed and available for instal-
-
lation prior to the building of Unit 1.
Granger stated that HL&P was aware several years ago that the restraints would not be available for an optimum construction sequence and they have planned for the problems-that the late delivery has created.
(2)
Granger stated that some NPSI pipe hangers were received and concern was expressed that the threading on hanger bolts was inadequate for the service proposed.
He stated NCRs were written and the concerns were favorably resolved subseq':ent to further evaluation.
-(3) Granger stated that a recent concern was expressed regarding the material characteristics (cnemical properties) of NPSI manufactured
~
<
pipe hangers. He stated the problem was not a serious one, how-
ever, an NCR had been submitted and the concern is currently i
being evaluated.
(4)
Granger stated that recent problems have been experienced by
,
construction personnel due to a " lack of tolerances" on pipe.
!
hangers. EHe stated this problem, which he described as a "Construc-tion Beef," was prohibitively restrictive design specifications
'
which.have resulted in numerous complaints by construction
,
personnel involved in the installation of the hangers.
l l
l
,
.
.
_
-
.
-
_
.
'l
-(5) Lastly, Granger related details of a problem concerning NPSI
manufactured pipe hangers which is well known at STP and may well be the factor contributing to the allegations of incompetency regarding NPSI.
Granger stated that steel strips were imbedded
,
into the concrete walls of the containment unit to provide a surface to which the pipe hangers could be affixed once they were designed, manufactured, and received.
Granger stated that when the hangers were received it was found that the locations of the imbeds did not match the hanger-designs.
This created a problem insomuch as the planned welding of the hangers to many af the imbeds was impossible. He stated that installation of many of the pipe hrngers then required.that HILTI bolts be placed in the contain-ment walls to facilitate the " hook-up."
Granger stated that p_
construction personnel encountered a serious problem with the placement / installation of the HILTI bolts due to the numerous
'
rebars in the wall, which has resulted in the drilling of numerous holes in the containment unit wall to find locations to put the HILTI bolts. He stated that in some cases as many as 20 holes are drilled to find a location for the bolts not blocked by rebar. He stated this problem is one about which construction personnel have been vocal in their criticism. He also stated that NPSI, who designed and manufactured the hangers, is the firm believed by many to be responsible for the problem.
Granger stated the holes will'not affect the structural ir.tegrity of the containment unit and that he expects the holes will be grouted and sealed to improve the aesthetic appearance desired.
Granger stated that HL&P and Brown & Root recognized this as a possible problem area several years ago and efforts to avoid it were affected with the installation of the imbeds, however, the design of the hangers unfortunately did not conform to the imbed placement (in some cases).
Granger stated this sort of problem is inherent in interface between so.many groups being involved in large construction projects.
-
In conclusion, Granger stated that this has been a highly visible problem which, in all likelihood, has been responsible for any allegations made regarding NPSI work.
He stated there have been no other problems with NPSI.
J c
Photographic Coverage
'
On July 30, 1980, photographic coverage of readily visible examples of numerous holes being drilled in the internal walls of STP containment Unit I for installation of HILTI bolts was conducted.
These photographs
~
are maintained in the investigative files at NRC Region IV office.
-__
.
..
Allegation No. 4
"Please investigate Brrwn & Root's stress evaluation on piping."
Investigative Findings On June 16-20, 1980, during an NRC Region IV Vendor Branch inspection at Brown & Root, Houston, Texas, a brief review of B&R's piping stress analysis was conducted.
This review disclosed B&R had recently established an engineering group to conduct small pipe stress analysis.
A more
-
detailed Vendor Branch inspection of Brown & Root's piping stress analysis has been scheduled for October 19, 1980; the results of which will be reported in B&R Inspection Report Docket No. 99900502/80-03.
i
.