IR 05000498/1980034
| ML20008F399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1981 |
| From: | Driskill D, Andrea Johnson, Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008F394 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-80-34, 50-499-80-34, NUDOCS 8103130236 | |
| Download: ML20008F399 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . .. _.. . O ~ U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Investigation Report No. 50-498/80-34; 50-499/80-34 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company Facility: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at: Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas Investigation Conducted: October 27-31, 1980 and November 11-12, 1980 Investigator: MhM s - 2C;- 8l D. D. Driskill, I ivestigation Specialist Date . /h/[/ Inspector:
' [AllenR. Johnson Date /[[- A //u /H Approved by: W. C. Seidle, Chief Date Reactor Chdstruction & Engineering Support Branch Summary Investigation on October 27-31, and November 11-12, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/ 80-34; 50-499/80-34).
Area Investigated; Concerned Bay City, Texas citizens alleged that Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R), is utilizing personnel in the Electrical Department Termi-nation Shack at the South Texas Project (STP) who are not acquainted with the appropriate procedures and job requirements.
This practice is effecting recordkeeping and calibration of tools utilized in safety-related electrical work.
Allegations were also presented indicating that safety related pipe is not being stored, within Storage Yard M, in compliance with applicable procedures, and that safety-related piping maintained in the B&R Pipe Fabri-cation Shop is not being securely stored in compliance with applicaole pro-cedures. An allegation presented during the course of this investigation-alleged that some piping isometric drawings, sent to STP from B&R's Houston, Texas offices, differ from the STP specification sheets.
Results: The allegation presented indicating B&R is utilizing personnel in the Electrical Department Termination Shack who are not acquainted with appropriate 8108130 1 . _ .
- . . - . .
applicable procedures and job requirements, which precluded the required main-tenance and calibration of electrical equipment, was not substantiated.
Allega- _.- tions that safety-related piping maintained in Storage Yard M, and within the pipe fabrication shop, is not being stored in accordance with applicable pro-cedures were not substantiated.
The allegation that some piping isometric drawings differ from STP piping specification sheets was substantiated; howeve, the drawings do not pertain to safety-related construction and also were in the process of being corrected.
. h
i ? a
- _ __ _.
.
INTRODUCTION The South Texas Nuclear Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, is currently under con-struction near the town of Bay City, Texas.
Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) is the construction permit holder, Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R) is the architect / engineering and construction firm.
REASON FOR INVESTIGATION On October 23, 1980, two concerned Bay City, Texas citizens (Individual A and Individual B) telephonically contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV office, and related safety concerns regarding the operation of the B&R Electrical Department Termination Shack at STP and storage of safety-related piping at STP.
- SUMMARY OF FACTS . Subsequent to the previously identified telephone call from Individuals A and B, Individual B was telephonically interviewed on October 27, 1980.
Individual B related allegations which were received from a friend, who is employed in a position suitable to provide reliable information.
Individual B related the following allegations: 1.
B&R is utilizing personnel in the STP electrical department termination shack who are not acquainted with the applicable procedures and job requirements. This practice is effecting recordkeeping and calibration of tools utilized in safety-related electrical work.
2.
Safety-related pioing is not being stored, within Storage Yard M, in compliance with applicable procedures.
3.
Safety-related piping is not being securely stored, in compliance with applicable procedures, in the B&R pipe fabrication shop.
An additional allegation was presented during the course of this investigation which alleged: 4.
B&R piping isometric drawings, sent to STP, from B&R's Houston, Texas offices, differed from the STP piping specification sneets.
. ' ...E ^ --
_ . .
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Emoloyees
- G. W. Oprea, Jr., Executive Vice President
- R. A. Frazer, QA Manager D. Bohner, Project Electrical QA. Supervisor Present B&R Employees B. Frankum, General Superintendent, Electrical and Instrumentation J. Hawkins, Foreman, Electrical Department Other Persons Contacted
- Individuals A through G
- Denotes those attending exit interview.
-
- Denotes those attending entrance and exit interview.
2.
Investigation of Allegations Allegation No. 1 B&R is utilizing personnel in the STP Electrical Department Termination Shack who are not acquainted with the applicable procedures and job requirements.
This practice is effecting recordkeeping and calibration of tools utilized in safety-related electrical work.
Investigative Findings On October 28, 1980, Individuals A and 8 were interviewed in Bay City, ! l Texas.
Individual 8 stated that the safety concerns presented were based ! on information obtained from another person (Individual C) who is employed l in a position suitable to provide reliable information.
Individual B l stated that B&R is utilizing unqualified persor.nel in the STP Electrical Department Termination Shack, the location from which tools requiring frequent calibration and inspection are issued for use in safety-related electrical work.
Interview of Individual C On October 29, 1980, Individual C was interviewed.
Individual C stated ! that the B&R STP Electrical Department Termination Shack is the location from whicn various electrical termination tools, electrical testing equip-ment and torque wrenches are issued to Electrical Department personnel.
l Individual C stated that various records relating to the frequent calibration ! ! .
-
- l
and use of these tools are maintained at the termination shack.
Individual C stated the personnel assigned to work in the termination shack should be familiar with the various tools issued there as well as applicable procedures for the use and maintenance of records reg'rding the tools.
Individual C stated B&R has formerly utilized full time personnel in the termination shack; however, in recent weeks, subsequent to the transfer of the last permanently assigned worker there, B&R has used various Electrical Depart-ment personnel who are permanently assigned to other duties to conduct the operation of the termination shack.
Interview of HL&P Supervisor On October 30, 1980, Individual D, an HL&P Supervisor, was interviewed, Individual D stated that to date no safety-related electrical work has been done at STP.
Individual 0 stated that some safety-related electrical equipment may be in place but no safety-related cable has been pulled or - safety-related terminations accomplished at STP; therefore, qualifications of personnel working at the termination shack have had no safety-related significance on the project.
. Inspection of STP Termination Shack On October 30, 1980, an examination of equipment and review of STP Termi-nation Shack records was conducted.
Examination of termination kits disclosed that required equipment maintained there was present and that necessary calibrations of each item of equipment had been appropriately conducted as required.
Review of maintenance and calibration records maintained in the termination shack disclosed all items were well main-tained and no documentary shortcomings were noted.
Lastly, the cleanliness and orderliness of the records systems, equipment and the termination shack was noted by the IE inspector to be exemplary.
Inspection of equip-ment and records of the STP termination shack disclosed no basis to support allegations that unqualified personnel are being utilized in the termination shack.
Interview of B&R Supervisor On October 30,-1980, Individual E was interviewed regarding operation of the termination shack.
Individual E stated that equipment problems have been experienced; however, required calibrations of equipment in both the termination shack and by the calibration lab have been maintained in accordance with applicable procedures.
Individual E stated no safety-related electrical work has yet been done at STP.
Individual E lastly stated that to date no formal audits of the termination snack have been conducted by the licensee.
Allegation No. 2 Safety-related piping is not being stored, in Storage Yard M, in compliance with applicable procedures.
- - -
. . i
Investigative Findings On October 28, 1980, Individuals A and B were interviewed at which time Individual B stated that safety related piping stored within Storage Yard M at STP was not stored in compliance with applicable procedures.
Individual B stated that safety-related piping and fabricated piping with fixtures are being stored on railroad ties in Storage Yard M, where it is subjected to mud and water contamination during bad weather.
Individual B stated that B&R procedures require that safety-related piping be stored on a hard surface such as concrete.
Interview of Individual C On October 29, 1980, Individual C was interviewed and also stated that safety-related piping stored in Storage Yard M was stored on railroad ties, in a manner not conducive to maintaining cleanliness and avoiding - contamination of the piping.
Individual C stated that B&R procedures require that safety-related piping be stored on a paved surface.
Review of Procedures On November 12, 1980, South Texas Project Technical Reference Document No. A710GQ002-B entitled, " Storage Requirements for STP EGS Engineered Equipment" was reeiewed. This document commits STP engineering require-ments for storage of safety-related engineering equipment to meet standards set forth in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Procedure N 45.2.2 (an industry standard published by the American Society of Me-chanical Engineers).
A review of ANSI N 45.2.2 disclosed " Level 0 items" (which includes safety-related piping) "may be stored outdoors in an area marked and designated for storage, which is well drained, preferably gravel-covered or paved and reasonably removed from the actual construc-tion area and traffic so that possibility of damage from construction equipment is minimized.
Items shall be stored on cribbing or equivalent to allow for air circulation and to avoid trapping water."
Examination of Storage Yard M On November 12, 1980, an examination of Storage Yard M was conducted.
Storage Yard M is an enclosed area, designated for the storage of safety-related piping, removed from construction areas, and segregated from all other storage areas.
Storage Yard H has been leveled and topped with a gravel surface.
It was noted that measures for drainage have been imple-mented.
Safety-related piping located within Storage Yard M was propert-placed on 6" x 6" timbers (cribbing) and all piping was noted to be capped to preclude contamination of the piping.
Storage Yard M was also noted to be exceptionally clean and orderly.
Allegation No. 3 Safety-related piping is not being securely stored in compliance with applicable procedures, within the B&R Pipe Fabrication Shop.
cca se -
. . .
, Investigative Findings On October 28, 1980, Individual B stated that safety-related piping, stored within the B&R pipe fabrication shop is not maintained there in the required secured manner.
Individual B stated the safety-related piping is stored withir a fenced area, but security measures are not in force to preclude other non-safety related piping becoming mixed with that which is designated as safety-related.
Examination of Pipe Fabrication Shoo On No" ember 12, 1980, an examination of the B&R Pipe Fabrication Shop was condt.ted.
The pipe shop was found to be a large building where fabrication of required piping and piping fixtures is conducted.
It was noted that the building was organized into two separate sections, divided by a wall.
One of these sections was exclusively designated for fabrication of safety- - related piping. Within this area was a fenced area where fabricated safety-related piping was stored.
It was noted that the two gates to this area were locked at the time of the examination, precluding the entrance of unauthor-ized personnel.
Interview of B&R Pioe Shop Emoloyee On November 12, 1980, Individual F war interviewed regarding the safety-related pipe fabrication area and security measures utilized there.
Individual F stated he had worked in this area for 1-1/2 years and during that period strict control and security of piping storage was observed.
Individual F stated he was not aware of any instruction relating to the security measures; however, the fenced area, where safety-related piping is stored, is always attended by an individual who works there or is locked.
Individual F denied having ever observed any unauthorized personnel in that area or being aware of there ever having been any problem with accountability of safety-related piping.
Interview of B&R Piping Supervisor On November 12, 1980, Individual G, a B&R piping supervisor, was interviewed.
Individual G stated that all safety-related piping fabrication is conducted within the appropriate section of the pipe fabrication shop.
Individual G stated that the area is controlled and always secured.
Individual G further stated that safety-related piping which requires an upgraded storage environment is maintained within the closed (fenced) areas within the pipe fabrication shop and that this area is always either attended or secured.
Individual G stated that no unauthorized personnel are allowed within this area and that safety-related piping stored in that location is accounted for.
Allegation No. 4
B&R piping isometric drawings, sent to STP from B&R, Houston, Texas, offices differ from STP piping specification sheet. ._ . ) . . '
Investigative Findings When interviewed on October 29, 1980, Individual C related having overheard concerns of Individuals employed within the B&R Pipe Fabrication Shop.
Individual C stated these persons had stated some piping isometric drawings, prepared by B&R Houston, Texas offices, differed with STP piping specifi-cation sheets.
Interview of B&R Piping Supervisor On November 12, 1980, Individual G was interviewed.
Individual G stated that on two occasions piping isnmetric drawings, which were prepared at the B&R Houston, Texas offices, contrasted with the STP piping specification sheets sent to STP.
Individual G stated that on both occasions, appropriate documentation identifying the differences in documents was prepared and forwarded to the B&R Houston, Texas corporate offices for resolution.
- Individual G stated that no safety-related piping was involved in either of these incidents.
Individual G stated that to date, no safety-related piping isometric diawings have been reviewed.
Individual G stated that, in the event differences are found in the safety-related piping isometric drawings and STP piping specification sheets. these too will be forwarded to Houston for resolution. }}