IR 05000498/1983021

Intervenor Exhibit I-CCANP-135,consisting of Forwarding Insp Repts 50-498/83-21 & 50-499/83-21 on 850918-1031.No Violation or Deviation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Allegation Re Steel Supplier QA Program

ML20138J096
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	08/13/1985
From:	Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Oprea G HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
References
OL-I-CCANP-135, NUDOCS 8510290248
Download: ML20138J096 (6)

Text

. '

.

So- &f/VPP0L

'T 0C aA)/-l$ Q

-

-

s0V 251983 (t5 Ek

- )-

In Reply Refer To:

.

5)

Dockets: 50-498/83-21 50-499/83-21 - __

IIHQ FILE COPY Houston Lighting & Power Company ATTN: G. W. Oprea, J Executive Vice President P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen:

This mfers to the inspection conducted under the Resident Inspection Program by Mr. D. P. Tomlinson of this office during the period September 18-October 31, 1983, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-128 and 129, for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with mesbers of your staff at the conclusion of the inspectio Areas examined during the inspection included a review of previously identified inspection findings, site tours, and an allegation followup. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews and personnel, and observations by the NRC inspector. These findings are doctanented in the enclosed inspection repor Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identifie We have also examined actions you have takaa with regard to pmviously identified inspection findings. The status of these items is identified in paragraph 3 of the enclosed repor In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be p1 aced in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by

>

telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter, and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the mquirements of 2.790(b)(1).

l

'

h 8510290248 850813 CC ruJP /36 ADOCK 050 8 - )

{DR e un

-

A9 iI c"'c= > . . . . . Ml . ....................

...RE.B-Bh .....?,Q,4........ ..B?,B L g , ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...

~~'> . ... DT9!n..i.n.s.; nde.4............. ..V.cro.s sTdn . .. 2.'.?.5

... t ?.".* " . . ..EJ

. o hn son . . . . . . ............... .... .. ..... ........

• * " > .. 10/2s1.6 .................... ..14/MI.a3..... .11l.??.l.?.?......

.. ..LbLWLB3...... .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8:c ro:u aia no so,sacw ouo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. _ . ___

sw

1. e

• .

ik 4[/ '

/

,/9 /ge s' s /,/ //7',,p* .

• ,

/ /

s'//~/,,,pff

• $,s d#

4p s) '

/- p

/ y4 s

N **

r

. .

.

Houston Lighting .- ar -2-Company

.

NOV 2 51983

.

Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with yo

Sincerely, Origin:T . ,

E. Fi. hga E. H. Johnson, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 Enclosure:

Appendix - NRC Inspection Report 50-498/83-21 50-499/83-21 bec to DMB (IE01)

bec Distrib. by RIV:

RPB1 Resident Inspector RPB 2 Section Chief (RPS-8)

TPB J. Gagliardo, DRRP&EP J. Collins, RA C. Wisner, PA0 Annette Vietti, NRR MIS SYSTEM RIV File TEXAS DEPT. OF HEALTH RESOURCES ciricap ...... ......... . ..................... ........... ........ .. .. .......... .... .... ..... . .. . .................... ... . . . . .

a~ws) ........... ....... ....... ............. ..................... .. .. .......... ... ... .......... .... .. .............. .. . . . .. . .

car) .................. ................... ..................... .................... ................ . . . . . .. ...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l

.:creru m .io..o.~ac"

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t

r-

. .

,

APPENDfX

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fEISSION

REGION IV

NRC Inspection Report: 50-498/83-21 50-499/83-21 Dockets: 50-498; 50-499 Construction Permits: CPPR-128 CPPR-129 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P)

P.O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: South Texas Project, Matagorda County Texas Inspection Conducted: September 18-October 31, 1983 Inspector: ngnfo f ll - Y -tr'5 D. P. TomMeton~,~ Senior Resident Inspector Date Approvefp: h Nuh W. A. Crossman, Chief 8 4f/83 D&te '

Reactor Project Section B L

Inspection Summary Inspection Conducted September 18-October 31, 1983. (Report 50-498/83-21; 50-499/83-21)

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of previously identified inspection findings; site tours; and an allegation followup. The inspection involved 80 inspection hours onsite by one NRC inspecto Results: Within the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identifie DR ADOCK 05

r

. .

-

This item is considered close Item of Concern in Report 498 and 499/82-14. The NRC inspector noted that there were no procedures in-place for the control of coatings for plant components and other shelf-life materials. Bechtel Procedures WPP/QCI 27.0, Revision 3, and WPP/QCI 27.1, Revision 1, have subscquently been issued covering this situation. Shelf-life data received for bulk purchases is now being transferred to the individual items or containers in that lot. Tags or labels, as appropriate, are being affixed to individual cans and/or packages of paint, sealers, curing compounds, thinners, industrial coatings, solvents, and all other time sensitive products. The NRC inspector toured the warehouse area to verify that this labeling was being accomplished. Approximately 20 lots of protective coatings were observed to have the required tags. Of this sample, one lot had a " hold" tag applied to it because of an expired shelf-life date. All other lot identifications exhibited future expiration dates. Shelf-life dates will be monitored in the future as a part of routine inspections but no further actions are deemed necessar . Followup of an Allegation An allegation was received via telephone by the Region IV office concern-ing the quality assurance program of a major supplier of steel to the STP site. The alleger stated Sheffield Steel Corporation was supplying large quantities of structural steel to the STP construction site although the company had no quality program to assure that the material shipped con-formed to the purchase order specifications. An insoection by the flRC inspector proved this allegation to be without meri Purchase Order 35-1197-6001 was issued to Armco Steel in 1975 to supply large quantities of reinforcing steel bars to be used in concrete struct-ures. Prior to issuing this purchase order a review was made of the Armco Steel Quality Assurance Manual, coments were incorporated, and the program was accepted as being in compliance with all requirements. Armco Steel was sold and the name~was changed to Sheffield Steel. No major changes were made in the Quality Assurance Manual other than the company nam The Sheffield Steel Quality Assurance Manual was reviewed by the NRC inspector and was found to be complete and comprehensive. Personnel responsibilities, document control, program requirements, personnel qualifications, training, audits, nonconfonnances, corrective action and vendor requirements are delineated in detail. The NRC inspector also reviewed several of the Sheffield Steel procedures utilized in the testing, storage, and shipping of reinforcing steel and all were found to be in compliance with the QA Manual. The NRC inspector reviewed a sample of the test records received for various lots of reinforcing steel. Each contained quantitative results for yield, tensile, elongation, and chemical analysis of each heat of materia This purchase order has been in effect since 1975 and encompasses vir-tually all of the reinforcing steel that has been used and that will be used through the construction of the plants (Units 1 and 2). The received test data is routinely reviewed by quality engineering for the acceptability

!

I

i l

L

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

'

,. o

! 7

.

t of the test results and no significant discrepancies have yet been

' '

. note Based upon the NRC inspector's review of the Armco/Sheffield Steel

'

Quality Assurance Manual, a review of randomly selected test data

'

l packages, and the Quality Engineering Acceptance, this allegation is determined to be without meri . NRC-Site Management Meeting

) On August 24, 1983, the Regional Administrator of NRC Region IV pre-

sented a talk to key management officials at the STP site. In attendance i at this meeting were representatives of the HL&P, Bechtel, and Ebasco organizations. The general topic of this talk was the responsibility and concern for quality in the construction of nuclear power plant , Although this does not appear to be a problem at STP, the general subject of intimidation of inspection personnel was discussed and it was stressed i that this should not be tolerated by site management and will not be i tolerated by the NRC. Also stressed were the various lines of communi-l cations open to those who believe they have knowledge of substandard or nonconforming conditions. These range from informal discussions with l first-line supervision through formal notit'ications submitted to the NRC for <

investigation. It was further stated that under no circumstances will there be any disciplinary actions against any employee for reporting these i

nonconformance .

i Management Meetings j Meetings were held periodically with licensee management personnel during i the course of this inspection to discuss inspection scope and findings.

I

!

t i

I

!

!  !

I i

d

)

i i

I

!

I i

i l

!

,

!

l i~

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