ML19343D363

Transcript of Testimony Re Alleged False Statements in Fsar.Related Correspondence

ML19343D363
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	04/27/1981
From:	Pettersson C, Jason White HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105040346
Download: ML19343D363 (16)

Text

p.

1,

1. • p@ g s; #

6i 7i 8 i 94 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA yg l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 11 1 2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEI! LING BOARD J.3 ' ,

14 3 In the Matter of: 5

.i. 6 , 5 17 i HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER 5 g' COMPANY, ET AL. 5 Docket Nos. 50-4980L 39 ; 5 50-4990L 20 ' 5 3 (South Texas Project, 5

'g !~

Units 1 & 2) 5 5

23 4l

.5 26 ' .

TESTIMOF'~ ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, ET AL.

7!

8l OF 29 -

0j MR. C. BERNT PETTERSSON

_1 } MR. JON G.- WHITE REGARDING 32l'3 ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE FSAR 3s ! i

'6, '

7I

(( s s

• O /$.' t p0 #'

4} l l /e? 8fua l

z ....

2 3i MAY 011981* 7 s. g -

44 l p. o... """" .#3 weuonut*

.h' s#Ay> N9,d#'s @$#'

'S I ps s: 99 e ,

47 I / m, , y 48 l m &

9i 20 .

41 i

! t *g \

\

T 8I os04 0 3% _

.m 3

I 1

2, 3l

4. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6

7:

g! BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9(

ha 2 In the Matter of: 5 5

• 2 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER 13 l . COMPANY, ET AL.

S 5 Docket Nos. 50-4980L

'4 5 50-4990L

.5 5 16 (South Texas Project, 5 1.7 ' Units 1 & 2) 5

.g 5 19 .

90

,3

TESTIMONY OF BERNT PETTERSSON AND JON G. WHITE j ON ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS Id THE FSAR 23 <

!4 ! Q. 1 State your names.

25 26 . A. 1 C. Bernt Pettersson and Jon G. White.

17 l 28 j Q. 2 Mr. T uttersson, by whom are you employed and what 29 io ! are your job 7 asponsibilities:

n i 32 l A. 2 (CBP): I am employed by Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R) 3, I' as Assistant Discipline Project Engineer (Civil Structural l 3j l Discipline) for the South Texas Project (STP) and am responsi-i io i .

' .7 ! ble for geotechnical engineering including development of 38 !

l 19 I the FSAR Section relating to geotechnical engineering. I

0 i 41 l have been in charge of soils work on the STP during the 9 i 3l construction phase of the job.

' 44 !

, ., g Q. 3 Please describe your education and job experience.

6 47 .

18 l I 19 50 51 i a

1 2

3 .

4 A. 3 (CBP): This information is set forth in A.4 of 5

6 my testimony on backfill verification.

7 g O. 4 Mr. White, by whom are you employed and what are 9

10 y ur j b responsibilities?

.2 A. 4 (JGW): I am employed by Ecuston Lighting & Power 13 Company (EL&P) as Licensing and Technical Coordinator for

'4.

.3 the STP. My responsibilities include supervision of the 16 1,7 Licensing staff which coordinates EL&P's response to questions

.3 19 arising out of NRC's technical review of the FSAR and ER and

?O resolving special problems as assigned by the Project Manager.

-j 4.

Q. 5 Please describe your educational background and

' work experience.

23 26 A. 5 (JGW): I received both a Bachelor of Science and 23 a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from 29

c the University of Texas in Austin in December 1972, and May

.I,I* 1974, respectively. I worked for ten (10F months in the sw Energy Production Department of Flower Power Corporation at 30 their Crystal River Nuclear Plant. I joined EL&P in November, 16 J7 1974, as an Associate Engineer in the Nuclear Licensing 3S 19 Division and was assigned to the STP. In June 1977, I was i .0

, 41 named Lead Engineep and made responsible for nuclear licens-3> ing activities on STP. In June 1978, I was promoted to 44

, Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Licensing Division and assumed

,6

, responsibility for supervising activities for both EL&P

%i 13 19 90 51 1

_3_

i

L I:

j nuclear projects - STP and Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station. In August, 1980, I was named to my current position.

II 1: Q. 6 Mr. Pettersson and Mr. White, what is the purpose I

of your testimony?

I

. A. 6 (CBP, JGW): We are responding to concerns expressed

] by the NRC, which led to item V.A. (10) in the order to show 1

3, Cause (April 30, 1980), that there were " apparent false .

f statements" in section 2.5.4.5.6.2.4 of the Final Safety I

)

Analysis Report (FSAR) regarding the frequency of laboratory i 3

tests for the relative density and gradation, and in section J

! 2.5.4.5.6.2.5 regarding the extent of inspection of backfill 3'

1 placement and compaction activities. (Sections 2.5.4.5.6.2.4 3, and 2.5.4.5.6.2.5 are also referred to in this testimony as

'7 3

"the FSAR sections in question").

Our testimony will explain that the purpose and intent b

1, of the FSAR sections in question was to describe the applic-3i able QC methods for the STP Category I backfill placements,

i and that the statements in question were truthful and accurate i

5-7l programmatic descriptions.

3 3 In addition, our testimony will describe certain devia-

)i  !

tions from the program requirements set forth in those FSAR

)-

3i sections, which occurred during implementation of the program, 8

, but will explain that these were isolated deviations and incon-2 3 sequential from a technical viewpoint.

7i 3!

3I

]i i:

i L

L.

3i 1i Q. 7 Mr. White; how did your responsibilities in the I!

ji Licensing Division relate to the preparation of the STP Tl g FSAR?

Il

)i A. 7 (JGW): From 1976 to 1978, I was responsible for Ll ensuring that the FSAR was prepared in an accurate manner in

)l 3' preparation for its submittal to the NRC.

1

$ Q. 8 How did you carry out this responsibility?

i 7; A. 8 (JGW): In late 1976, HL&P and B&R met to discuss I!

j the planning for preparation of the FSAR. We prepared an f FSAR Preparation Manual to assure that adequate review I cycles and schedules were provided.

11 1; The various sections of the STP FSAR were prepared i, initially by HL&P, B&R, the NSSS supplier, or other consul-r I tants. Each FSAR section received several inter-discipline

)

and. inter-company reviews, and HL&P reviewed and approved i each;section before it submitted the FSAR to NRC on May 10,

,Il s1 1978. The intent of the review and comment cycles was to

( ii ll ensure accuracy and consistency of information.

l .

Q. 9

! l Mr. Pettersson, how were the FSAR sections in i

i !

i ! question drafted, r'eviewed and approved?

i i i A. 9 (CBP): I was the B&R employee directly respon-1 -

sible for the preparation and drafting of these FSAR Sections.

iI I commenced work on the FSAR in March 1977. Between March

'j

. t 1977 and May 1978, three drafts of the FSAR sections in l I 6

l l

l .

-p-

question were reviewed by B&R; the second and third drafts were also reviewed by HL&P and Woodward Clyde Consultants

(WCC). The primary purpose of the FSAR reviews was to j assure consistency between the applicable engineering design

documents and the proposed FSAR program descriptions, and to assure compliance with applicable industry and regulatory requirements.

, The first draft of the FSAR sections in question were prepared by directly extracting the pertinent provision of the engineering design documents and arranging them in accordance with FSAR content requirements. In May 1977, the first draft was issued for B&R in-house review, which included reviews by on-site engineers having first hand experience of the construction operations. Editorial comments regarding 1

t the style and form of the section were received and resolved,

, however there were no substantive comments or questions.

l i The second draft was issued in August 1977. This was I

subjected to review by B&R, HL&P and WCC. No comments were i

received on the second draft of the FSAR sections in question.

l The final FSAR draft was prepared, which for these sections i

was identical in content and language to the second draft.

The final FSAR draft was reviewed in meetings held in November 1977. These meetings were attended by B&R, WCC and HL&P personnel. No comments were received on the FSAR sections i,

4

_o_

I in question and the FSAR sections were subsequently finalized and submitted to the NRC in May 1978.

Q. 10 Mr. Pettersson, what engineering design documents and regulatory requirements were utilized in preparing the FSAR sections in question?

. A. 10 (CBP): The applicable engineering design docu-ments are the B&R Structural Backfill Specification and the

, B&R Earthwork Inspection and Testing Specification, both of

! which were prepared in 1975 for the purpose of defining applicable construction and quality control requirements for STP backfill activities. These specifications were written based on recommendations from WCC, and reflected industry practice in both technical provisions and language. These i

specifications were reviewed and approved by EL&P. The FSAR sections in question were drafted in accordance with the

requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 2, which j defines the standard format and content requirements for l Safety Analysis Reports. In addition, the review procedures i -

and acceptance criteria contained in NRC Standard Review Plan 2.5.4 were considered in preparation of these FSAR i

l

sections. The Standard Review Plan indicated that the FSAR I

sections are to contain descriptions of general quality control methods, rather than discussions of how the program

requirements are individually implemented.

l -i-

l 1

Q. 11 Mr. White, after the FSAR is docketed by the NRC, is there any method to ensure that the FSAR remains accurate?

A. 11 (JGW): Yes, any change to a basic design document is compared with the relevant provisions of the FSAR to determine whether there is a need for an FSAR revision.

Q. 12 Does a deviation in field construction necessarily i entail FSAR revision?

A. 12 (JGW): No. The FSAR is a description of the design basis of the plant, including analyses and evaluations showing that the design basis or criteria result in an acceptable plant. Individual deviations in construction are not reflected in the FSAR unless the correction of the deviation involves changing the design basis. The FSAR would then reflect the new design basis. The majority of

deviations are either corrected to bring the as-built design back into conformance with the design basis or an engineering evaluation is performed to show that even with the deviation

the design basis of the plant is maintained.

! Q. 13 Mr. Pettersson and Mr. White, the NRC Inspection i

Report 79 19 (pages 64-65) contained findings regarding noncompliances in the areas of backfill laboratory testing and inspection. On the same subject, the NRC's Order to

, Show Cause (page 11), contained the statement by the NRC 4

-3

4 1

that "during the review of backfill installation and testing activities two apparent false statements in the FSAR were l identified regarding test and observation work actually I

l performed. (Sections 2.5.4.5.6.2.4 and 2.5.4.5.6.2.5)".

i l What is your reaction to the NRC's statement that l=

because certain backfill field activities were not strictly in accordance with backfill program descriptions in the FSAR, there were " apparent false statements in the FSAR"?

l A. 13 (CBP, JGW): We view the questions concerning l backfill raised in the NR2 Inspection Report and Order to Show Cause as reflecting isolated instances where personnel l

did not adhere to project procedures and not as involving

" false statements in the FSAR."

i Paragraph 2.5.4.5.6.2.4 of the STP FSAR as filed in May l 1978, read as follows:

i

"At least one relative density test (ASTM I

D2049) and one gradation test (ASTM D422) wera performed for every fourth field test to insure compatibility between field and labora-l

! tory tests."

i In Inspection Report 79-19, the NRC identified a period

! between November 17, 1979 and January 7, 1980, in which i

l Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories (PTL), the QC inspection l agency for backfill at STP, was not performing labcratory 1

I e

i i

9_

l I

i 1 1

i  !

i

testing for determining maximum density of the backfill l l (pursuant to ASTM D2049), because a vibratory table was not i

i functioning. Hence, the required laboratory testing could l not be performed for construction work in progress. Although l

the table was not operational, samples designated for labora-tory testing were taken and were subsequently tested when the equipment was repaired. Nonetheless, it was acknowledged i by HL&P and B&R that the failure to perform the required l laboratory tests as the work progressed constituted a noncom-pliance.

To my knowledge, these facts discussed in the NRC Inspection Report were the only basis given for the " false statements in the FSAR" referenced in the 1TRC Order to Show l

Cause. It should be emphasized that the two month period

, between November 1979 and January 1980, in which.the vibrat'ory i i table was not operational, occurred nearly two years after the filing of the FSAR section in question.

Paragraph 2.5.4.5.6.2.5 of the STP FSAR as filed in May l -

l 1978, read as follows:

l "The testing agency provided continuous inspection of the placement of all backfill

material and tested the material in the field I

for degree of compaction. The inspectors I

observed the type of material, lift thickness, I

i

i I ,

i operation of compaction equipment, and all i

l other pertinent material or construction I conditions affecting the quality of work and i

compliance with the specifications....".

I I

j To my knowledge, the NRC Inspection Report 79-19 did

! not directly cite any deviations from this section of the FSAR. However, the NRC identified a noncompliance in which i neither the applicable procedure nor the inspection form l

! required that the actual backfill lift thickness and the

! number of passes of the compaction equipment be documented.

l This apparently caused the NRC to question the level of inspection effort, and to question whether " continuous l

i inspection," within the intent of the above FSAR section, i was being conducted.

I j In fact, as stated in the Licensee's July 28, 1980

Response to the NRC's Show Cause Order, the QC inspectors i

! from PTL were on duty during the backfill placements.

i  !

l  ! Inspection was performed with the objective of assuring that the criteria of the specification and construction procedures were satisfied. For example, the PTL QC Inspectors checked i

to make sure that the lifts were within the 18-inch maximum thickness and that the minimum required number of roller passes were performed. The QC Inspectors recorded the

observations on their Inspection Reports. Observance of the

! minimum required 8 roller passes was recorded as " acceptable",

i l

l il l ___ ,_ _ , .- -

i.

l l

l without notation of the actual total number of passes.

t

[ Likewise, the lift thickness was recorded as "18-inch" l indicating that the specification limit was satisfied even i

though the actual thickness generally was much less than 18 l

i inches. Furthermore, this interpretation by PTL, B&R and EL&P of the FSAR "continous inspection" requirement is consistent with the accepted industry usage of this term, which is not a requirement for 100% direct observation of l

all field activities. Thus, as previously stated, we have understood questions raised by the NRC regarding FSAR Section

, 2.5.4.5.6.2.5 solely as concerning the interpretation of the backfill inspection program implementation requirements, and not as involving " false statements in the FSAR".

i Q. 14 Mr. Pettersson, were previous QC field activities

! in the area of backfill inspection and testing, related to i

the sections in question, reviewed in the course of responding l to the NRC's Order to Show Cause. If so, please describe i

the results of the review.

A. 14 (CBP): Yes. As stated in the Licensee's Response j to the NRC Order to Show Cause the actual number of maximum /

l l minimum relative density laboratory tests were compared to l

l the actual number of in-place density tests for the plant area. " Plant area" includes the backfill for the main structures, but excludes the Essential Cooling Water System I

= ,- - - . . ,-

(ECWS) piping and structures. On the average one maximum /

minimum laboratory density test was obtained for every four in-place density tests, in the plant area. However, the laboratory tests were not always made for at least every l fourth field test, but they were performed in varying inter-vals depending on the work schedule and placement sequence.

These variations are not signficant since the acceptance i

criteria are based on the average of 20 laboratory tests.

The variations took place in a minuscule number of the lab tests (less than 2%), and there were never more than seven field tests between laboratory tests.

In addition, an investigation of the placements of Category I structural backfill for the ECWS piping has revealed that the required maximum / minimum laboratory density testing was not implemented for the placement of.such backfill due to a misinterpretation by PTL personnel of the applicable specifications. However, the backfill used for the ECWS was the same backfill macerial which was being used at the same time for the plant area and which was being subjected to laboratory tests in connection with that use.

Q. 15 In light of your answer to Questions 13 and 14 why was the decision made to modify the language of the two

! FSAR sections in question, as explained in the Licensee's July 28, 1980 Response to the NRC's Order to Show Cause?

i

4 I

i I

i A. 15 (CBP): In the case of Section 2.5.4.5.6.2.4,-as i

l I have indicated above, the review of backfill test results l

l identified isolated cases of deviation from the absolute "one laboratory test for every four field tests" requirement.

I i

Since tne laboratory tests had been performed on the average of every four field tests, and our engineers and consultants determined that such frequency was more than adequate, it I was decided to revise the FSAR to set forth this broadened

, criterion. Thus, as amended, the pertinent portion of Section 2.5.4.5.6.2.4 now reads, "One relative density test (ASTM D 2049) and one gradation test (ASTM D 422) were

performed on the a'rerage for every four field tests in the plant area to ensure compatibility between field and labora-j tory tests". Nonetheless, although the FSAR criteria have been changed the backfill program being implemented today i

, still satisfies the previous criteria of performing one

laboratory test for every four field tests.

l In the case of Section 2.5.4.5.6.2.5., minor language

modifications were made to clarify the intent of the " contin-l l l uous inspection" requirement. The pertinent portion now reads, I

"The testing agency provided QC inspection of the backfill, the

! placement and testing of the material in the field for degree i

l j of compaction. The QC inspectors observed the type of material, i,

lift thicknesses, operation of compaction equipment, and all other pertinent material or construction conditions affecting i

the quality work and compliance with the specifications".

l l

Q. 16 At the time you prepried the FSAR sections in i

i question, what knowledge did you have of the deviations

discussed in Answer 14?

A. 16 (CBP): Placement of backfill in the ECWS trench area did not start until late 1978, after the filing of the

, FSAR; hence, the nonconformance in this area did not take place until after the FSAR was prepared. At the time I j wrote the FSAR sections in question, I was not aware of the i

l instances in which the actual frequency of laboratory testing deviated from the precise specification requirement of one laboratory test for every four field tests.

i Q. 17 In your opinion what is the technical significance I of the backfill testing and inspection matters raised in

, Inspection Report 79-19 and the NRC Order to Show Cause, and i

j of the deviations identified during B&R and HL& Pts investiga-i tion following the NRC Order to Show Cause?

l A. 17 (CBP): With respect to FSAR Section 2.5.4.5.6.2.4,

! l as indicated in Answer 15, we have concluded and our consul-t tants have confirmed that the deviations in laboratory 1

l l testing frequency were inconsequential from a technical l

t l viewpoint. Because the backfill used at ST7 is extremely l

uniform, and laboratory test results are likewise uniform, j the frequency of laboratory testing--which is performed i solely for the purpose of determining the soil density i

i i

l i

criteria by which field tests will be measured--is less significant than it might be elsewhere. In particular, I

l there were inconsequential differences between testing at a frequency of one laboratory test for every four field test, as stated in the FSAR, and the widest frequency actually noted, which was one laboratory test for seven field tests.

Furthermore, field acceptance criteria were based on an l average of 20 laboratory tests, which further diminished the l sensitivity of laboratory testing frequencies.

l Although the failure to conduct laboratory testing on l the backfill for the ECWS piping trench area was not signifi-cant for the reasons just stated, i.e., STP backfill uniformity

{

and averaging of laboratory tests, the backfill in this area t

I will, in any case, be removed down to the bedding as part of I

l a re-examination program of ECWS pipe welding and will i

j subsequently be replaced, inspected and tested. 3 i

TH:12:B I

I l

i l

l i

i l

I k

i