ML19347E487
| ML19347E487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1981 |
| From: | Crossman W, Phillips H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16251A407 | List:
|
| References | |
| 50-498-81-01-01, 50-498-81-1-1, 50-499-81-01, 50-499-81-1, NUDOCS 8104270475 | |
| Download: ML19347E487 (18) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1981001
Text
.
_
. .
.
h
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
Report No. 50-498/81-01; 50-499/81-01
Category A2
.
Docket No. 50-498; 50-499
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:
January 1981
Inspector- _ [
--
8/
-
H.'S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector
Projects Section No. 3
Date
Approved:
[/
.f[2
8/
-
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section No. 3
Datd
Inscection Summary:
Insoection of January 1981 (Recort No. 50-498/81-01: 50-499/81-01)
Areas Inscected:
Routine, announced inscection Dy tne Resicent Rea: tor
Inspector (RRI) included follow up inspections relative to noncompliances,
unresolved items, open allegations, Show Cause Order items, and storage /
maintenance of equipment; storage and handling of reactor coolant loop and
safety-related piping; and holding of safety-related piping.
tion involved seventy-five inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.This inspec-
Results:
Of the three major areas inspected, no violations or deviations
were identified in two areas.
One violation was identified in one area
(violation - failure to follow procedures for storage and maintenance of
equipment
paragraphs 4 and 7).
8104270l(fs
l
.
.
.
.
..
. _ _ _ _
.
.
-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Emoloyees
- G. W. Oprea, Executive Vice President
"J. H. Goldberg, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
- R. A. Frazar, Quality Assurance Manager
- L. K. English, Project Manager
- R. A. Carvel, Project QA Supervisor (Civil / Structural)
T. J. Jordan, Supervisor Quality Systems
"D. W. Bohner, Project QA Supervisor (Electricai/I and C)
- L. D. Wilson, Project QA Supervisor (Mechanical)
D. Powell, Construction Engineer
G. W. Jaunaul, Construction Area Supervisor
Management Analysis Comoany (MAC)
- R. L. Hand, General QA Supervisor for Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P)
W. J. Friedrich, QA Manager for Brown and Root (B&R)
D. J. Harris, Quality Engineering Manager for B&R
-
- W. C. Leslie, Westinghouse Site Manager
Brown and Root Inc. (B&R)
- J. McIntyre, Assistant Project Manager
- F. W. Rothermel, PFM/ System Engineer Manager
,
J. E. Adkins, Receiving, Storage, Mcintenance QC Supervisor
D. Lehr, B&R Area Engineer
- F. G. Miller, Chief Welding Engineer
M. Hogg, Staff Engineer
V. English, Support Supervisor
J. Alford, Craft General Foreman
"J. Wood, Maintenance Foreman
W. Norris, lead Millwright
S. McCollough, Millwright
The RRI also interviewed other licensee and Brown & Root employees during
the inspection period including both craft labor and QA/QC personnel.
" Denotes those persons with whom the RRI held on-site management meetings
during the inspection period.
2.
Licensee Action on show Cause Order, Aor11 30.1960
The RRI reviewed Show Cause Order,Section V.A.,
Items 1,2,3,5,6,7,
8, 9 and 10 and determined that action had been taken or was sufficiently
complete to allow the RRI to recommend the resumption of placement of
safety-related complex concrete on a limited basis.
2
-
-
-
.
,.
,
-_
-
. _ - . . _ , .
. . _
-
.
.
The RRI continued the follow-up inspection relative to Show Cause Order,
Items 1 and 6 as follows:
(0 pen) Show Cause Order, Item V.A.(1): Management Consultant Review.
a.
HL&P Management of Program to Control All Aspects of the South
Texas Project; Revision of Organizational Responsibilities to
control the Design, Procurement and Construction Activities of the
Licensee's Prime Contractor, Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R), and HL&P
!
Overall Responsibility for QA/QC Program.
-The RRI reviewed objective evidence relative to commitments listed
in the licensee's letter ST-HL-AE-533, dated September 18, 1980, and
closed the following items:
Item
Basis for Closing
A4
HL&P Procedure PSQP-A8, Revision 1, January 5,1981,
describes the evaluation of data for trends.
A5
PSQP-A9, Revision 0 issued September 26, 1980, and
sign-in sheets for training were reviewed.
.
A10
Upper level management has participated in all
A18
phases of the project during the past months as
documented in meeting minutes in Brown & Root
correspondence, dated August 1, 1980, September 4,
1980, October 29, 1980, and November 12, 1980.
A13
The following courses have been conducted for the
QA/QC Management Team, which also included the
participation of Construction and Engineering
Management:
Subject
Date
,
Management Seminar, PEJS-710-BT
September 19-20, 1980
Oasis Motor Inn, Bay City, Texas
l
Philip Crosby Associates, Inc.
September 15, 1980
!
Quality College
September 22, 1980
Winter Park, Florida
October 6, 1980
,
l
October 27, 1980
Neva-"ar 10, 1c00
l
l
3
_ _ _ _ . _ . . .
.
-
~v-e
4-
. - -
--
,
y7
-y
ty
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ ____ ___ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _
_
. _ _ _
.
.
-
-Quality Improvement Program
September 22-23, 1980
South Texas Project Site
A126
Data Analysis Summary, performed by Brown & Root Inc. ,
was documented in correspondence SQA-4327, dated
November 25, 1980. This analysis was an evaluation
.
of nonconformance for trends in order for such non-
conformances and root causes to be corrected. Such
periodic reviews will continue during the life of
the project.
H1
The documents reviewed and listed in A10 above showed
a distribution to all key managers.
A monthly QA
Report, documented in correspondence ST-HS-HL-01383,
dated October 9, 1980, from HL&P Site QA Management
to top HL&P Management.
H4
Review of B&R minutes of monthly Project QA Meeting,
MS
dated August 1, 1980, September 24, 1950, and
November 12,19 0, showed reports being forwarded to
the cperating ci nmittee and board.
H11
Review of graphical presentation attached to HL&P
..
letter (ST-HL-AE-568), dated October 31, 1980.
This
graph shows staffing from 1980 - 1986.
M5
The HL&P letter (ST-HL-AE-533), dated September 18, 1980,
Item No. M6 named the committee and shcwed the
commitment to be complete.
.
b.
(0 pen) Show Cause Order, Item V.A.(6): The Licensee Shall Develop a
More Effective System to Provide for the Identification and Correction
of the Root Causes of the Nonconformances Which Occur.
The RRI reviewed commitments listed in the previously referenced
letter (ST-HL-AE-533) and closed the following items:
A126 &
Reference the basis for closing Item A126 previously
A127
listed in their report for Show Cause Order Item V.A.(1).
A151
HL&P letter ST-HS-00603, dated October 14, 1980, and B&R
letter SQA-4327, dated November 25, 1980, transmitted
trend analysis reports to HL&P Quality System and Audit
groups.
H29
B&R letters, minutes of QA meetings, dated August 1,
1980, A";"ct !?, , cog,
e,-..--
a, ;;gg, un :73;p ;2,
1950, gave tne status of nonconformances, audit
deficiencies, and corrective action reports.
a
.
w
m
-
y-
-
e
~
4
.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(Closed) Open Allegation (50-498/79-19-04): Vertical Cracks in Structural
Steel Clips in the Boron Injection Room of RCB, Unit 1, Elevation 36'.
HL&P had investigated this item by locating the area described above and
,
inspecting the clips.
Inspection revealed that the clips had defects
and the condition has been identified in Brown and Root Nonconformance
Report No. S-C 4522, dated August 13, 1980.
The RRI reviewed this report to assure that the nonconformance was
identified and controlled in accordance with the B&R QA program.
The
-
defect will be repaired in accordance with routine repair procedures.
The allegation was substantiated.
The RRI had no further questions on this item.
(0 pen) Allegation (50-498/79-19-05):
Pipe Sleeve Weld Defect 1/4" Deep
at Az. 300 Degrees, Elevation 8' in RCB, Unit 1 Near Work Panel 15.
HL&P investigated this allegation by locating and inspecting.the area
described above. Visual inspection of the area and review of drawings
showel that there were no pipe sleeves in this area.
.
The LII visually inspected the area and observed that there were no
pi;e sleeves where welding had taken place. However, the RRI observed
that a pipe run passed through the wall at the alleged location and
requested inspection records and nondestructive examination of welds in
the general vicinity of piping run 2C 361P-SI-1205-KB2 (Revision 2).
This item will be reviewed after the examinations are made.
l
(Closed) Open Allegation (50-498/79-19-06; 50-499/79-19-06):
Classification
of the Containment Polar Crane.
This allegation was based on the
alleger's premise that the equipment should be classified as safety-
related. An IE inspector explained that the STP FSAR Table 3.2.A-1,
page 3.2-22 did not require the equipment to be safety-related.
Note 6
l
on page 3.2-29, Ammendment 2 (October 9, 1978), states in part, "During
and after a seismic event, the component and it's supports are designed
to retain structural integrity and prevent collapse and damage to safety-
related equipment and structures.
Operability need not be retained."
l
The RRI contacted the NRR Project Manager at NRC Headquarters to
i
determine if this matter of changing the FSAR classification should
be pursued by NRR.
The present classification is correct, therefore,
l
this matter is closed.
This allegation was substantiated, however, the classification will
remain nonsafety-related/ seismic.
The RRI had no further questions on this matter.
(Closed) Open Allegation (50-a98M 9-19-07; 50-299/79-19-07):
Storage of
Electrical /Mectanical Penetrations and Lack of Understanding by Warehouse
Electricians of Pegger Tests on Motors. The RRI visually inspected or
5
a
-
.
observed the storage of electrical and mechanical penetrations. The
penetrations were stored in accordance with ANSI N45.2.2 and Brown & Root
Procedure GCP 35, Revision 0, dated August 28, 1979. The electricians were
retrained in meggering equipment on August 25, 1980.
The above actions
were documented in B&R Memo No. ST-BC-HS-03528, dated August 25, 1980.
.
Minor maintenance problems were experienced relative to maintaining
the nitrogen blanket on electrical penetrations. The pressures on some
penetrations were decaying at a faster rate than desired, however, there
was no evidence to show that the condition was detrimental to the pene-
trations. As a precautionary measure, the frequency of inspection of
nitrogen pressure was changed from monthly to weekly. Maintenance
personnel were interviewed and they stated that they knew of no other
detrimental conditions. NCR No. SN-G1-4786 described a nonconformance
condition on mechanical penetrations.
In this instance, the minimum level
of storage required by ANSI N45.2.2 is Level "D"; however, B&R TRD A710G002-C
required Level "B" whicn exceeds the minimum requirement.
This allegation was substantiated in part, in that, there were scme minor
discrepancies that were identified and documented, however, they were
not deleterious to the equipment and had been corrected.
The allegation
that electricians did not understand megger testing could not be sub-
-
stantiated, however, all had received training in megger testing.
The RRI had no further questions on this matter.
(Closed) Noncompliance (50-498/78-16; 50-499/78-16):
Failure to Ins::ect
Storage and Maintenance In Accordance With Procedures.
B&R Proredure MCP-3,
Revision 3, dated August 4, 1978, paragraph 3.1.2.2 and Append x "C,"
paragraphs II.a. through d. required 100% surveillance of m.intenance on
Class IE equipment by QC personnel. This procedure was not being followed.
Brown & Root Procedure GCP-35, Revision 3, dated February 21, 1980, now
requires verification of in process maintenance and storage instructions
and QC is now required to perform ESMI implementation verification on a
minimum of 50 items per week. This requirement has been exceeded during
the last several months since QC was performing 100% verification to assure
that the system was operating properly.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-498/78-18):
Storage cf Charging Pumps and a
Positive Displacement
mp in Mechanical Electrical Auxiliary Building
(MEAB) No. 1.
During an inspection conducted December 19-22, 1978, the
IE inspector found these pumps and electrical motors to be stored in an area
where excessive concrete curing water caused excessive humidity.
Protection
of this equipment under these conditions appeared to be marginal.
The
6
_
-
.
IE inspector considered this item unresolved f.ince the licensee had
issued Brown & Root a memo to correct similar conditions.
The RRI inspected and observed this equipment on January 29, 1981, after
reviewing procedures and the quality history regarding storage and
maintenance.
This matter is upgraded to a violation.
See paragraph 5 of this report
for details.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-498/79-13; 50-499/79-13):
ESMI Cards for liigh
Head Safety Injection Pump No. 3 and Pump Motor Had Switched Equipeent
Numbers on the Respective Cards.
During an investigation conducted on
August 6-10, 1979, the IE inspector identified the condition described
above and considered this item unresolved since HL&P site discrepancy
memo (SDM) M-051 identified a similar discrepancy.
The licensee on January 30, 1981, verified that the equipment numbers now
match the proper ESMI cards.
The RRI reviewed objective evidence (ESMI
cards) and determined that corrections were made.
!
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-498/79-19-02; 50-499/79-19-02):
Licensee is
Correcting Problems Found in the Resolution of Old NCRs on Storage /
Maintenance.
During the NRC investigation conducted from November 19, 1979,
to February 7, 1980, an IE inspector followed uo on Allegation No. 9A
described in Investigation Report No. 79-19.
The IE inspector found that
the licensee's and contractor's system had identified the problems
desc.-ibed in the allegation and was in the process of taking corrective
action; however, the action was not complete.
Therefore, the IE inspector
left the item open pending final action and NRC review of the action.
The RRI reviewed Corrective Action Reports (CARS) No. 5-139, 5-149 and 5-157A
and confirmed that the licensee had required B&R to take corrective action.
A large file documenting corrective actions relative to HL&P Concern
!
Memo (CM-064) and Site Discrepancy Memo (SDM-051) was also reviewed.
l
The RRI performed routine and follow up inspection during November and
December 1980 and January 1981 and determined the in place storage of
I
equipment was not adequate.
This item is upgraded to a violation since in place storage has been a
continuing problem fron December 1978 until the present.
(See paragraph 5
l
of this report)
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-498/79-22):
MEAB 1 Centrifugal Charging Pump 1A
and Electric Motor Heavily Contaminated with Sandblast Grit and Dust.
l
i
During an NRC inspection conducted December 11-14, 1979, the above con-
l
fiti:n . :s id .nti fi.d t; the 'i::.nc:2.
h2 IE 'n: pct:r . :: '-f:- :d
!
7
P00R BRIGINAI.
1
.
,
_
that this condition had been identified on a B&R ESMI Verification
Report, dated November 29, 1979, and immediate steps would be taken to
correct the inadequate storage conditions.
On January 29, 1981, the RRI inspected the subject pumps in MEA 8 1.
The
area where the pumps were stored still had a large amount of sandblast
grit and dust.
This item is upgraded to a violation, see paragraph 5 of this repcrt.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-498/80-10-01; 50-499/80-10-01):
Essential
Cooling Pump Motors Did Not Have Current Applied to Windings.
During a
routine inspection in May 1980, the RRI observed that power to tha subject
motors had been disconnected.
Three subsequent inspections were made of
this area since that date and no further problems were found relative to
power to electrical motors.
(Cicsed) Unresolved Item (50-498/80-33-01):
Sandblast Grit and Dust in
the Reactor Vessel, Loop Piping, Reactor Internals and Access Control to
this Equipment.
The RRI identified this condition on approximately
November 19, 1980, and discussed the conditions with licensee site
representatives on that date.
The RRI further discussed the unresolved
-
item with licensee representatives on approximately December 19, 1980,
and advised that the unresolved item would be included in the NRC
Inspection Report No. 80-33, which described the November and December 1980
inspection findings.
In a meeting held on January 7, 1981, the RRI was
informed that the conditions described above were acceptable for this
stage of construction.
This item was upgraded to a violation on January 23, 1981, see para-
graph 4.b.
4.
Storace and Maintenance of Eouiement - Reactor Containment Building No. I
a.
Backoround
Unsatisfactory conditions relative to storage and maintenance of
safety-related equipment have been identified during NRC inspections
conducted from December 19-22, 1978, to January 1, 1981.
The licensee
informed the IE inspector that an HL&P memo had been issued to
Brown & Root, Inc. on December 19, 1978, to take action relative to
in place storage requirements for equipment and assure that requirements
were implemented.
The licensee subsequently upgraded the memo to a
Concern Memo (CM-064) on December 29, 1978, and then CM-064 was up-
graded to a Site Discrepancy Memo (SCM-M051) on August 7, 1979.
8
,
,
- -
,I
.
em
o
_
.
The Concern Memo (CM-064) documented the NRC inspector's unresolved
item relative to the inadequate protection of equipment in MEAB,
Unit 1 and subsequently the licensee determined that storage pro-
tection recommended by the vendor was not consistently maintained;
and additionally, maintenance information for the positive displace-
went pump was not on the maintenance card.
Site Discrepancy Memo 50M-M051 was opened as a result of unsatis-
factory corrective action on the part of Brown & Root, Inc. At
that time the licensee considered the problem to be generic.
Eleven letters or memos followed and documented partially adequate
responses, extensions and inadequate corrective action until finally
Corrective Action Report No. 5-157 was issued on November 7, 1979.
It was closed out in B&R correspondence (BC-25991), dated April 15,
1980. HL&P correspondence (ST-HS-BC-01809), dated June 16, 1980,
closed out the B&R memo (SDM-MOSI) which had identified a generic
problem in B&R storage and maintenance.
The items identified in NRC reports from December 20, 1978, through
January 1,1981, were reviewed and inspected by the RRI for corrective
action as described in paragraph 3 of this report. During an exit
meeting held on January 23, 1981, the licensee was informed that all
open unresolved items pertaining to storage and maintenance would be
reviewed to determine if a generic problem remains and to close out
items where satisfactory results were found.
Subsequently, unresolved
matters 78-18; 79-19-02, 79-22 and 80-33-01 were upgraded to violations
as a result of the findings described in paragraphs 4 and 5.
b.
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), RPV Internals Main Coolant Loco (MCL)
Pioing and MCL Pumo Volutes
On approximately November 19, 1980, the RRI identified unsatisfactory
storage conditions in the RPV, MCL piping and in areas where the
internals were separately stored.
Licensee representatives were
informed that the RPV, MCL piping (upper and lower) and the internals
i
had fine sandblast grit and/or dust inside. Also, the RRI informed
!
the licensee that access was not controlled since the RRI was able
l
to enter the vessel unchallenged and without shoe covers. The licensee
was informed on November 19 and December 19, 1980, that these matters
would be documented as unresolved items in NRC Report No. 50-498,
80-33; 50-499/80-33.
On January 7,1981, the RRI was advised that the HL&P QA Manager
l
of the South Texas Project and the Westinghouse Site Manager
!
considered the previously described conditions to be acceptable
I
and he was advised that they wanted to meet with him.
During
l
tha -aatirq that was bald tha
d 'y , + h e t'a c t '
"a"e e a ';e r
e*-a
!
stated that the conditions were totally acceptable, commensurate
with the status of construction.
The licansee was advised by
the Westinghouse Manager to do nothing, but since it is the
,
l
licensee's vessel, they could do as they wished. He further
advised that the vessel was not in a storage condition.
The
1
9
l
l
t
_.___ _
_
_,
D
-
.
,
RRI stated that the vessel had been stored in place since being
placed in Unit 1 Containment. Also, the RRI pointed out that
little or no work had been performed inside the vessel or
loop since welding had ceased in early 1980 continuing through
December 1980.
On January 12, 1981, the RRI informed the HL&P
Manager QA STP that protecting the vessel from sandblast dust
or grit and access control to the vessel are required per
ANSI N45.2.2, paragraphs 2.7.4 and 6.2.1, respectively.
The
RRI again stated that the in place storage was inadequate.
On January 21, 1981, the RRI and the RRI's supervisor met
with the HL&P QA Manager, Project Manager and Discipline Project
QA Supervisor to discuss the conditions. HL&P representatives
stated at this time that access control would be improved;
however, dust was not considered a problem.
On January 22, 1981, the RRI and the RRI's supervisor performed
a follow-up inspection and found that the area around the top
circumference of the vessel had not been sealed with Griffolyn.
The area was open and allowed dust, grit anc rodents to enter.
Access to the internals was not controlled as stated it the
previous days meeting.
At a meeting, the HL&P Manager STP
-
was advised of these conditions. He stated the vessel would
be sealed and access would be controlled.
On January 23, 1981, the RRI performed another follow-up
inspection at 8:30 a.m. and found that the vessel had been
sealed but several holes in the old covering, about one foot
in di3 meter remained at approximately 9:30 a.m.
The RRI
advised the HL&P QA Manager that unresolved Item No. 50-498/80-33-01
had been upgraded to a violation.
Reactor coolant pump casings 1A, 18, 1C and 1D are in place
and welded to loop piping which is connected to the reactor
vessel.
These casings had plywood protective covers, however,
one-half or three quarter inch gaps between the plywood covers
and nachined surfaces allowed sandblast grit and dust to enter
the casings and loop. This equipment was not sealed well enough
to meet Level "D" storage requirements.
The RRI subsequently performed a follow-up inspection and found
that the reactor vessel, piping loop and reactor coolant pump
l
casings have now been properly sealed.
The protection of thimble
storage guides and racks meets Level
"D" storage requirements.
This reactor vessel head was adequately protected to level
"D"
storage requirements and access was controlled.
ihe failure to acaquately protect equipment storea in piace and
to adequately control access as de:-cribed above and as required
by B&R Procedure GCP-35, Revision 3 (February 21, 1980), para-
grschs 3.2.1, and 3.5.4 is a violation of 10 CFR Part 50, Ap;encix B,
Criterion V.
10
,
__
-
.
- ,
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Pumps
On Janaury 26, 1981, the RRI continued the inspection of equip-
ment stored in place in Reactor Building, Unit 1 to determine
the effects of the sandblasting operation.
Residual Heat Re.moval (RHR) pumps 1A, 18 and 1C were stored
in an area where heavy sandblasting had taken place.
The
pumps were covered with Griffolyn.
Pumps 1A and IB were not
protected in such a manner that would preclude sandblast grit
and dust from getting into the bearings.
Pump 3C could not
be inspected because sand was piled outside of the door which
was sealed.
The RRI determined that a Nonconformance Report had not been
written to identify the inadequate protection of this equipment.
This equipment was stored to Level
"B"
requirements until it
was moved to the Reactor Building and stored in place.
The
protection now given will not meet Level
"D" requirements
for protection against airborne contamination.
This failure to identify that the RHR pumps were contaminated
and issue a Nonconformance Report as required by Brown and Root
Procedure GCP-35, Revision 3 is a violation of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B Criterion V.
d.
The RRI visually inspected the outside appearance of the Steam
Generators.
In an interview with the cognizant engineer, it was
noted that the nitrogen purge was removed from the shell side
(secondary) exposing carbon steel matarial to atmospheric
conditions with openings sealed.
Special equipment was pur-
chased to control the environment, however, it'had not been
connected because Westinghouse did not want to expose the
Steam Generators to the present environment.
l
This matter is an unresolved item pending further review.
{
(No. 50-498/81-01-04)
e.
Safety Injection System Accumulators and Pressurizer
Three Safety Injection System accumulators are stored in place
and have a nitrogen blanket.
Protection of this equipment meets
Level "0" storage requirements.
This Pressurizer was stored in olace and had a nitracan bl='kat.
The storage met Level "D" requirements.
~
'
!
No violations or deviatiens were identified.
11
i
_
__
_. .
.- ~.
-
,
,
-
5.
Storage and Maintenance of Ecufpment - Mechanical / Electrical Auxiliary
Builoing
On January 29, 1981, the RRI inspected the in place storage of equipment
in Mechanical Electrical Auxiliary Building (MEA 8), Unit 1.
Pefueling
Water Purification Pump (M-0410), Centrifugal Charging Pumps (M-0370),
Baron Recycle and Waste Pumps, Letdown Chiller / Reheat Heat Exchanger
(M-0396/0395), Sealwater Heat Exchanger (M-0366), Tnermal Regenerative
Demineralizer Tanks (M-0389 through 0393) Closed Cooling Water Heat
Exchangers (M-0570 and M-0571) and Recycle Holdup Tanks (M-0019 and
M-0020) were inspected.
The nitrogen pressure on one of the Closed Cooling Water Heat Exchangers
(M-0571) was noted to be lower than required (actual 1 psi versus the
required 3 psi).
There were no covers on the Recycle Holdup Tanks while
work such as painting was being performed (immediate corrective action was
taken to replace the covers).
These matters are considered unresolved and
will be reviewed during future inspections by the RRI.
NRC Report No. 50-498/78-18; 50-499/78-18, inspection conducted December 19-22,
1978, identified inadequate storage of Centrifugal Charging and Positive
Displacement Pumps because of exposure to curing water.
NRC Report No.
-
50-498/79-22; 50-499/79-22, inspection conducted December 11-14, 1979,
identified inadequate storage because sandblast material was contaminating
the Centrifugal Charging Pumps.
The RRI found that B&R had initiated an NCR on September 9, 1930, which
was almost nine months after the NRC identified the problem. NCR
No. SG-2691 idantified this pump as nonconforming and indicated that
the condition of moving parts was considered indeterminate. Additionally,
the NCR identified'the same nonconforming conditions for Chiller Pumps,
Reactor Coolant Purification Pumps and Refueling Water Purification Pumps.
The recommended corrective action response was due from the Westinghouse
Site Manager by October 30, 1980.
The Westinghouse Site QA Manager
responded to the Material Review Board with corrective action on
January 29, 1981.
l
A follow-up inspection on January 19, 1981, revealed that Centrifugal
Charging Pumps still were not properly protected since sandblast grit
!
and dust were in the storage area.
The Charging Pump area was covered
(
with a Kelly Closure and the roof was damaged, but was covered with
l
Griffolyn.
This means that the pumps have either been rotated without
l
removing the sandblast grit and dust or t!'ey have not been rotated
because the NCR was not initiated or dispositioned in a timely manner.
This matter will remain unresolved pending review of the corrective
action by the RRI.
l
l
l '.
-
.
.
6.
Storace and Maintenance of Egaiement - Warehouse
The RRI accompanied a maintenance foreman who performed maintenance
of equipment selected by the RRI.
The equipment selected was that which
was previously identified by HL&P Site QA in a letter, dated March 12, 1980,
as improperly maintained. The RRI inspected the following equipment for
proper maintenance:
Reactor Make up Motor Pump Motor, 3R272NPAZ01A, ESHI-M-3088C
a.
b.
Auxiliary Lube Oil Pump Motor, WP0 274413, ESMI-M-3088C
Regenerative Heat Exchanger, WPO 274472 (maintenance not
c.
required)
d.
RHR Pump Motor, WPO 248002, ESMI-E-0742
e.
Butterfly Valve, WPO 299859 (maintenance not required)
No violations or deviations were identified.
7.
Surveillance /Inscection of Eouipment Maintenance and Storace -
Reactor Containment Building No.1
The Brown & Root quality assurance / control, housekeeping and storage
maintenance procedures require surveillance / inspection of the above
areas and records (ESMI cards).
The RRI reviewed QA Examination Check
Sheets relative to the RPV and RPV internals Housekeeping Zones.
These sheets documented inspections which showed satisfactory results
from October 14, 1980, through January 16, 1981.
These findings ao not
'
correlate with the actual conditions previously described.
B&R ESMI
Verification Reports document satisfactory storage conditions on RPV/
RPV internals from October 21, 1980, through January 1981, and these
inspections do not correlate with ac^ual conditions previo: sly described.
These verifications are based on the ti.'t! card data / instructions and
.
i
this may account for the satisfactory results since these instructions
are not entirely adequate.
ESMI Verification Report 539 (December 1980),
447 (November 1980), 425 (November 1980) reported satisfactory storage
conditions for the RHR pumps.
identified, but have not been corrected. Inadequate storage conditions have been
The RRI reviewed B&R Housekeeping Inspection Report, HIR 42, dated
March 28, 1980.
This report stated that the interior of the vessel
was not well kept, in that, sunflower seed (food), trash (paper) and
used grinding wheels littered the bottom of the Unit 1 vessel.
Even
though reinspection, performed by B&R on April 18, 1980, documented
correction of these conditions, this instance is highlightad to
e ph2:i:2 thit :cc;ss c;atrol and :acterial accountability must be
improved when work resumes inside the vessel.
13
- . _
,_
._-
._. . . _
.
.
-
The RRI reviewed Equipment Maintenance and Storage Instruction (ESM
cards to determine if adequate instructions are available for maintenance
and inspection personnel.
maintenance was performed. The cards were also reviewed to determine if
The following was found:
No instructions were given relative to access control, material
a.
accountability or assuring that the RPV (ESMI M-0321C) is pro-
tected from airborne contamination.
The comments on the back of
the card on April 17,1980, July 12,1980, and October 9, 1980,
indicated a problem with airborne contamination and residue
left from penetrant testing,
b.
" Westinghouse Recommended Storage Criteria" recommended that
RPV internals (ESMI M-0427/M-0428) stored per Level "C" be
covered with dust cover which is fire, tear resistant and
waterproof.
No cover was observed.
The card did not have
instructions on it relative to this covering.
Sandblast grit
and dust was in this area; therefore, level "C" requirements were
not met.
The card does not state that shoe covers were required;
however, Westinghouse criteria recommended the use of shoe covers.
The notes on the ESMI card indicated dust in the area on July 28,
1980.
.
c.
RHR Pump:
instructions indicate level "B"
storage is required whileA, 6, and C, (ESMI, M-0344
in the warehouse; however, once they are stored in place, the
instructions state, " protect frcm detrimental environment."
The notes on the ESMI card for Pump A indicate that level "B"
storage could not be maintained because of sand and water as
of July 31, 1979.
On August 22, 1979, the notes indicated that
the shaft could not be rotated quarterly as required on the
card, however, the Westinghouse representative stated that the
requirement would be deleted.
Similar notes relative to dirt,
shaft rotation occurred on April 17 and 24, 1980, May 22, 1980,
and July 17, 1980.
Similar notes were found on the ESMI cards
for Pumps B and C.
with Level "0" requirements.These pumps are not stored in accordance
,
This failure to develop adequate instructions and procedures that incor-
!
Revision 3 (Februaryporate vendor maintenance, ANSI N45.2.2 and B&R Pro
21, 1980)
,
j
violation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V. requirements for in place storage is
!
8.
Receivina and Storace
The RRI reviewed South Texas Project Monthly Site QA Activity
Report No. 43, December 1980, and made the folleving ahec~e-ti:r.s:
14
-
~
.
.
.
a.
Receiving
Eighty-three inspection reports were generated for receipt
inspection activities during this reporting period.
Eighteen of
these reports reflected unsatisfactory conditions resulting in
fourteen NCRs being issued (all eighteen are covered by these NCRs).
One hundred ninety-one warehouse requisitions were approved for
issue to construction.
Present inspection backlog as of December 27,
1980 is nineteen.
b.
Storage
Storage and maintenance requirements, as indicated by ESMI cards,
were verified on 1,548 items.
Sixty-four unsatisfactory conditions
were noted and placed on " suspense hold." Thirty-one of the
seventy areas inspected and documented on storage inspection report
forms showed unsatisfactory conditions.
No NCRs were generated
as a result of unsatisfactory maintenance / storage inspection
reports.
Only four percent of the 1,548 items that were inspected for
storage and maintenance showed unsatisfactory conditions.
However, forty-four percent of the storage areas inspected
were unsatisfactory and no nonconformance report was issued
nor was a trend identified.
In view of the RRI inspection
findings, it appears that a trend should have been identified.
These matters will be considered unresolved pending further review by the
RRI.
9.
Review of Open Nonconformance Reoorts
The RRI reviewed the January 27, 1981, computer run which listed
all open Nonconformance Reports.
As a result of reviewing several
l
Nonconformance Reports in detail, it was found that approximately
forty-nine nonconformancas, which were controlled by the Brown & Root
nonconformance system, had been closed out by letters from the
Westinghouse Site Manager. The letters stated that the Nonconformance
Reports (NCRs) were closed on this Westinghouse equipment because no
i
l
nonconformance ever existed.
1
'
The subject nonconformances dealt with the following equipment:
a.
Computer Cabinet
l
b.
Four-inch Dischram Actuatad Control Valve
c.
Reactor Coolant Pumo Internals
l
15
l
I
l
l
!
_ _ _ _ _ _ -__ _ - ____ - - ______-______
_
,
_
-
d.
Pressurizer Relief Tank
e.
f.
Reactor Trip Switchgear
The above examples appear to be valid nonconformances
testing, design criteria and reports should have
The description of
.
a
Westinghouse site operations dJes not have a
.
m procedure to
This item is unresolved pending further inspection.
.
10.
B&R Maintenance and Storace Orcanization
.
Section 3.1 describes responsibilities of the PQA S
, 1980).
house Department, Storage and Maintenance (S&M) Department
, Ware-
Discipline Superintendent and S&M Technicians.
, Area
The RRI was unable to obtain an up-to-date organization for the
-
site construction organization and has unsuccessfully attempted to
obtain such charts since August 1980.
a February 1980 chart; however
The only chart available was
correct the condition when appr,oved and distributed.a draft was available whi
Engineering Manager to discuss how the organizatio
RRI was given an organizational chart, dated October 27
The
.
Maintenance Procedure GCP-35, Revision 3, dated
, 1980.
The RRI found that GCP-35, Revision 3, dated February 20
That is, they perform duties relative to receipt inspection
, 1980, does not
maintenance and ESMI records for safety-related equipment.
, scheduling
of an updated organization chart and a description o
appropriate procedure (GCP-35, Revision 3 (February 19
11.
Veldina of Safety-Related Pinino
The RRI visually inersc+
ater piping, CC-1103-WA3 (Sheet 1) Spool 1, in MEA 3-1 at elevat
25'.
.
No violations or deviations were icentified.
16
_
.
.
12.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violation,
or deviations.
Six unresolved items disclosed during the inspection
are discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10.
13. Management Meetinas
The RRI met with one or more of the persons identified in paragraph 1 on
January 7, 9, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28 and 29, 1981, to discuss inspection
findings and to discuss licensee actions and positions.
.
17
.
. .
. _ _ . . . _ .
_]
. . , . . _
.
_
Ixsnc Io a.
II Inspection Report No. 50-498/81-01; 50-499/81-01
Licensee:
Houston Lighting and Power Company
Location:
Matagorda County, Texas
Tacility:
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2
Type of Licenses:
}{,1250 I*de, PWR
Opa of I: spec:1en:
Pesident, routine, announced
Dates of I:spectica: January 1931
Ca:es of Previous I: spec:ien:
tiovember - December 1980
I: spec: ors:
HSPhillips
SCCPE OF I'ISPECTION
Resident inspection program for construction
<
'T
. ~ . -
../ , ,.
.
.-
.. .
'
"
-
?aactor I: spec:or
Ca:e
g . ,,-
_,
,
,
Approved
Oa:e
_
'
_ ~ . .
_
4.
.
j#C'D
84
UNITED STATES
yj
NUCCEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N
1
s
.
t
neosos rv
% ,,,..
sit avam et.aza on ve, surre isos
i
AnuwoTow,Taxas mii
,
January 27, 1981
In Reply Refer To:
"
RIV
'
Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 81-02
50-499/Rpt. 81-02
-
9
Houston Lighting and Power Company
ATTN:
Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President
Post Office Box 1700
Houston, Texas 77001
_
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. D. P. Tomlinson of our staff
during the period January 5-9, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC Con-
struction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Project, Units
No.1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. R. Hand and
other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the
enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted
.
of selective examination of procedures and representative records, inter-
views with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations were identified.
We have also examined actions'you have taken with regard to previously
identified inspection findings. The status of these items is identified
in paragraph 4 of the enclosed report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2.
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed
inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Occument Room.
If ^he
report contains any infonnation that you believe to be proprietary, it is
necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days
i
'
of the date of this letter, requesting that such infonnation be withheld from
public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons
l
why it is claimed that the information is proprietary.
The application should
be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an
enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will
also be placed in the Public Document Room.
If we do not hear from you in this
regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public
Document Room.
STAFF EXHIBIT f40. 84
DM E d
0o90097
..
-
- .- -
-
--
-
-
-
.
.
- -
-. .
6
-
.
'
.
.
Houston Lighting and Power
Company
-2-
January 27,1981
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will he pleased
to discuss them with you.
Sincerely.
l }f
=E"
_
W. C. Sei
e. Chief
Reactor Co truction and
Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/81-02
50-499/81-02
.
_
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION IV
.
Report No. 50-498/81-02; 50-499/81-02
Docket No. 50-498; 50-499
. Category A2
Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company
Post Office Box 1700
l
Houston, Texas 77001
Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2
i
Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas
Inspection conducted: January 5-9, 1981
Inspector:
wf
l-24-al
D. P. TomlinsdrrtTeactor Inspector, Engineering Support
Date
Section
Approved:
/
//27/8/
a=_-__-
W. A.~Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
.
/ /'
l- W H
R. E. Hall, Chief Engineering Support Section
Date
1
Inspection Summary:
'
Insoection on January 5-9, 1981 (Report No. 50 408/81-02; 50-499/81-02)
Areas Inscected:
Unannounced follow-up inspection of construction activities
pertaining to the resumption of ASME welding, re-examination and repair of
existing ASME welds; and review of responses to NRC Inspection Report No.
l
50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19 findings. The inspection involved thirty
inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
i
Results: No violations were identified.
1
l
l
l
OwPE of
l
$1o310o34E
1
_
..
.
_
.
. - . -
. .
- -
- - ----
--
-
---
.-_
-.
. _ . . .
-
. _-
-
-.
___
-
,
.
'
,
,
i
I
DETAILS
i
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Encloyees
__
_
- T. J. Jordan, Supervisor, Quality Systems
- L. D. Wilson, Project QA Supervisor
Other Personnel
- R. Hand, Project QA General Supervisor, Management Analysis Company (MAC)
R. McCarra, Welding Engineer, Brown & Root (B&R)
G. Genzer, Welding Supervisor, B&R
F. G. Miller, Senior Welding Engineer, B&R
The IE inspector also contacted other licensee and centractor employees
including members of the QA/QC and engineering staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
I
2.
Site Tour
The IE inspector tound several areas of the site to observe construction
operations and general housekeeping. Areas visited were Reactor Building
No.1 MEAB No.1, MEAB No. 2 and several storage areas.
No violations were noted.
3.
Resumption of ASMEsWelding
The IE inspector reviewed the B&R Ten Week Work Plan for resumption of
ASME Code welding.
A tour was made of MEAB No. 1, cubes 3E, 3F and 3J
to visually inspect completed welds and to observe welding activities in
progress.
Of the twenty-two piping welds completed, four wem randomly
selected for visual inspection. The four welds, all in the component
cooling system, were: CC 1425-FW 0008, CC 1428-FW 0005, CC 1428-FW 0008
and CC 1428-FW 0011. The weld surfaces and adjacent base material were
!
visually inspected for conditions such as undercut, excessive reinforce-
ment, por:,sity, cracks, arc strikes, proper contour and general weld
appearance. All four appeared to meet the Code recuirements. The IE
inspector witnessed part of the joint edge preparation repair operation
The weld prep area had been damaged during
l
handling and required minor repairs prior to welding.
A review of
documentation showed that work was being performed in accordance with
MECP-4, Revision 11 and was being accomplished by a qualified welder.
Portions of the pre-weld fit-up and tack welding operations were observed
on welds CC 1410-FW 0002 and CC 1435-FW 0004.
The operations observed
appeared to be in accordance with MECP-4, Revision 11 and Code require-
ments.
-2-
-
l
- - . . . . - -
- .
.
- -
. . - - -
. - .
-.
.-
. _ - - - .
~
.
i
.
.
During a tour of the fabrication shop, the IE inspector observed several
small bore piping assemblies in various stages of completion, but no
work was being accomplished on them at the time.
Control of tools and
handling equipment for stainless steel, material appeared to be adequate
in the fabrication shop.
The IE inspector observed reinspection operations being performed on
three circumferential welds that were part of the ECW system. These
joints were located in the material lay-down yard and were being liquid
penetrant inspected as part of the ongoing re-examination and repair
program. The IE inspector did not determine the identificacion numbers
j
of these joints, but observed the inspection techniques from a distance.
Observation from a distance was utilized, in this instance, to verify
that procedural times and techniques were being complied with when the
' inspection personnel were unaware that they were being observed. The
remote observation indicated that the inspections were being conducted
within the parameters established by inspection procedure ST-NDEP-4.1,
Revision 9.
Qualification verification of the personnel perfonning the
l
inspection was accomplished by having the area supervisor identify the
inspectors and reviewing the qualification records of each. This review
indicated that all three inspectors were properly qualified in accordance
!
with the provisions of SNT-TC-1A.
l
l
4.
Status of Previously Identified Items
The status of remaining open items from IE Inspection
port No.
50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19 and from the response to the resultant Order
to Show Cause related to welding and NDE was reviewed.
None of the
remaining open items have been completed and documented a.uch that
corrective action could be thoroughly verified.
No items were closed
during this inspection.
5.
Exit Interview
The IE inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph
1) at the conclusion of the inspection on January 9,1981. The findings
of this inspection were discussed with emchasis on the need for closure
of the remaining open items.
I
-3-
_
. .
_
.
- - . _ . _ - - .
-
_
. . .
.
-
Ln . ' -
l 'L
>N .. a s %4 .,
'4NITI:
A*Is
e
- e
'
.- .-
-.
NUCt2AR AEGULA 06v COMMISSICN
f-
-
o*
.=.<-*-"-4
t
e r.- n.a ..
gi
"O ~7* .t
$11 RY AN DL12.,a Alv E. SulT! W
.,,,..Y
- < .
......e....
..vge
-e
.
.
.
'
.
...
.v. ' . :: ]
.: .
...
- . , i. s. . : . J. , . , .
- .
. . .
. . . . . .
.
...
. . .
- . x. o. . .1. . :.r 2 - / :.. . . . . . . ' .
..
- -
..
..
.. ... ..
.. ..
. . - ~ . . . . . .
. . . .. ..
.
- ..
.
. .
4.
,,,
- . ,J .e . . . ........
__
. . . . . . . .
.
-
......y
.-
. . . .
. . . .
- i . 't
v.
.:
.
.
. e e.
.s
.
a
. ..
.
l.
....
,.
.... . . .
- . .e . . J. 'J..
- A
7, - -
. ..
..
. . . n ,;
.
-cust:n, iexas
i v. e
cent.iemen:
.
'
.
-
. n i s r =. - a. . s .o .. e i n s ; a. . . '. r. .-- . . .' .- . . . ".< '.s. .c . . e. . .. ..
..e..
2. n ." '. . s . c. d. . ' e- . .
.e:
>
.
.
..
.
,
Of Our staf' during :ne :eri:: .'anu:rv
10..--
- 7. , .3
.
.e.v4..
=.= =. ". . *. e d. . =. . v
.., ...
.
.
.
.
.
NRC C:nstructicn Permi s No. CP::.-123 anc 129 f:r Scu n Texas F- je::, Units NO.
1 anc 2, arc to the ciscussien :# cur fincines witn Mr. R. A.
ra:ar anc ::ner
tem:ers of your staf# a :ne c:nclusien of :ne ins:ec-i:n.
Areas examined curing :ne ins:ecticn and Our fincings are ciscussac in :ne
enciesec inscection report.
Within :nese areas, ne ins:ecticn c nsis:ac Of
' selective examination of prececures and recresentative rec:rcs, interviews
'
w1:n persennei, anc coservattens :y ne inspec::rs.
.
.
.
I
l
. the ins:ecticn, no vic,iatiens were 1 cent- Sec.
Wi n. .in :ne sc ce of
.
. . .
We nave also examined acti:ns ycu have taken wi n regarc :: Orevicusly icenti-
ried Inspection r,incings,
ine status of :nese items is icent 7,ec in :aragracn
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
2 of :ne enclosed recort.
p
In accordance witn Secticn 2.790 of :ne NRC's " Rules Of ?ractice," Par: 2,
i
Title 10, C:ce of Federal Regula:icns, a :cy of :nis letter and :ne enciesec
ins:ecticn re cr: will :e
iacec in ne NRC's Fu:lic Jacumen: R:cm.
f ne
i
r?cor: c:n 3 ins any informa:1cn :na; ycu :elieve
be Or:crie ary, it is
necessary Ona; ycu succit a wri :en a: lica:icn to : Mis of' ice, wi nin 25 days
...e
=t
s.
9. i s l a. . .=. . , . =. . ". e .e . . . , . . .= . :. ". - . . i . '. . . .. = .". . r. . =. .v i . n a. l.
- -....
.w
,
e
,e
.
.
.
. .
w.
- uclic cis !:sure.
The a:: icati:n rus: inciuce a #ui' sta amen: Of ne reascns
. r . r ". .= . ' . ' r ..
..e .=....c....n
2..c".i.-
-'-
[
w n v '. . '. s '. .m '. .. .ee.
.. . a *. * *. e '. n #. . --. . ..= . . .~. .
.'2
'
-
.
.
.
.
.
- e recarec so nat a.ny Or:crie ary inferra:icn icenti#iec is c:ntainec in an
,
.
aiso e ciaced in :ne
c.on, since -ne acclica-icn witncu- ne enc. sure wil.
.
.
3
. i
anc csure. : :ne aco 1 cati
.
.
.ccumen
Recm.
.- we do not near fr m you in :nis
..
-u il:
.
.
.
(
.ro.a .. wi . .4. n ..ne s . e . d. '. '. s. . .e
d..
,
. . e r =. .-- . w i l. l .' e
l a .- =. . '. r. .. . e :u .d i d .
-
..
.
.
.
.
JcCument a,:Cm.
{
,
STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 85
l
Osts of
wmm
P00R ORIGINAL
- . - .
. -
_
.
.
.u.......
<, .<..,. .. : ,..
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C:=ary
-E-
February 11, 1981
-
.
I!cuid ycu have any cuss ::ns ::ncer-ing nis ins ecti:n, we will be :leasec
... .. .... j...
. o . , w. .. . . ,..
.,e
. ...
.
..
( f P. .c S WC. $. / .
.
..
.
.
e.
$.
f.sv
.*
7/
/
/
,
/,
/
r
- *
. r ' : .
_- -
__,
.
.
s,
.
..
.. . .
. . . ..
- =...e, u. .u t
React:r unstruction inc
Engineering Su::cr; Sranen
Encicsure:
E :ns:ecticn Re:cr; .'ic. 5C-GE/31-03
- v ~a. n - 1 -v..:
.. . ..
.
.
O
9
1
1
.
I
a
..
6
1
i
f
\\
_
.
.
U. S. NUCLEA? DEGULATOov C0=ISSION
OFFICE CF IN5;ECTION AND ENFCCCEMENT
..,
e. .r r. . r. . ,
. . ..
De:cet No. 50-495/51-03; 50-499/51-C3
Oc:vr: *:. 50-49:: 50-uis
Category A2
-
^
Li cer.s ee:
-cesten Lignting anc Fewer Comeany
~
?c:: Cffice E:n '7:0
Hotst:n, Te.sa s
7 C;i
.
a:." i y ,:..c:
- . :. . . ~ c x:. : :'r:f:::. ..i :
an: 2
Inspection at:
Scutn Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas
Inspection Concuctec:
January 19-23, 1981
-
-
e
. '
r
1,
WN, 9".%j /. um
- / > / /.
.
'
Insoect:rs:
Section
Cate
g J. I. Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Supper:
(Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5)
.
.
0&,W AE
Pb!IT!
/
L. D. Gilbert, Reacter Inspector, Engineering supper: sec 1on
Cate
(Paragrepns 1, 3 & 5)
l
Other
i
Accompanying
Personnel:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
l
,
_-- -
8!8[
Approved:
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
Date
l
t
WO 8l
=m-
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Sucoort Section
Date
.
'-
,,M
l ;fCA__'*N" " I \\
--,-,7
j"
.e
- +
t
- u_ _a*
' ' > k" 'l
-. -
.
"'
-7'
..'"
- -
)
_
~^
s
.,
~
l .
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT
,
, ,
i .
Entire docum nt previously
entered into system under:
q
'
b h
bf
, l
l j
I
.f
No. of pages:
//
',1
u ,,,
.
- -
-
t
,->^r0 'i ; 4
. : -;&_ U
- [
iv
'
i
i;^'. " ;/4 ,l
_ _ _
- . - - - . _
s
e
UNITED STATES
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c-[ b ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
y ;~
- ;f
$ 4. . ~,
/
REGION fV
-[
811 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
.,
ARUNGTON. TEXAS 76011
,
March 12, 1981
In Reply Refer To:
RIV
Docket Nos. 50-498/Rpt. 81-04
50-499/Rpt. 81-04
.
Houston Lighting and Power Company
ATTN: Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Executive Vice President
Post Office Box 1700
Houston, Texas 77001
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by our Resident Reactor Inspector,
Mr. H. S. Phillips, during February 1981, of activities authorized by NRC
Construction Pennits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Project,
Units No.1 and ^, and to the discussions of our findings with Mr. R. A.
Frazar and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the
enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted
of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews
with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identified.
We have also examined actions you have taken with recard to previously identified
inspection findings. The status of these items is identified in paragraphs 2
and 3 of t:.e enclosed report.
l
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed
inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If the
report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is
necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 25 days
I
of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from
!
public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons
,
, The application should
l
why it is claimed that the infomation is proprietary.
l
oe prepared so that any pmpriei.ary iniorr.auon icenurled is contained in an
ancicsure to the application, since the applicat.on without the enclosure will
also be placed in the Public Document Rcom.
If we do not hear from you in this
I
recard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public
l
- ocument Room.
I
i
STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 86
p -
$
N
,
>
,
- . - - ,
_.
.
.
-
.
Houston Lighting and Power Company
2
March 12,1981
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased
to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
f
.
& W. C. Seidle, Chief
'y
Engineering Inspection Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/81-04
50-499/81-04
,
. - . . . , .
_ _ , .
. , _ _ _ _ _ _ , .
_ - , - . . _ _ - - .
-
. _ . . . _ _ . . . . - .
,.
, - ~ . - _ . .
, _ , . . _ - ~ . . . . - . _ . . _ . - . - - -