ML19347E492
| ML19347E492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1980 |
| From: | Eric Turner HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16251A407 | List:
|
| References | |
| ST-HL-AE-441, NUDOCS 8104270488 | |
| Download: ML19347E492 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I sw.w ~ m m w m =-y= w r:w .r:..-. -t-r- ,.se Houston ~ Company Electnc Tower I ROBox 1700 f lI I Houston. Texas 71001 April 2, 1980 ST-HL-AE-441 SFti: C-OS70 Mr. W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76012
SUBJECT:
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT ELECTRIC GENERATING STATION RESPONSE TO NRC INSPECTION FINDING DOCKET NOS. 50-498/79-16 AND 50.*.99/79-16
Dear Mr. Seidle:
The following is tha sdditional information you requested on the item of noncor.plir stified in IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-498/79-16 and 50-4 ,.6, and addressed in your letter of March 3, 1980. Failure to Include Appropriate Quantitative or Qualitative Acceptance Criteria in Instructions, Procedures, or Drawings Corrective Action The Brown 6 Root Quality Construction Procedure A040KPCCP-3 has been revised to state that no standing water will be i allowed on construction joints. Recurrence Control l Procedural compliance shall be ensured through preplanning l meetings and scheduled surveillance activities. Training l has been scheduled to inform affected personnel of the l changes. l STAFF EXHIBIT NO. 44 8104270 M g veww-
,---g.n p--y-e 7-
-,e w--- y--w,---y w-- -w r
, y. g ...... s.:.=,. x 95m c..v h c. cren. -.- e ' *
- Houmon upung & Pouer Company Mr.'seidie April 2, 1980 Page Two
~, ~ Date Action Will Be Completed All retraining of affected personnel shall be completed by April 11, 1980. Very truly yours, Y J ", a.. l:: = x 1 E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction & Technical Services EAT:rka cc: Messrs. G. W. Oprea, Jr. M. L. Borchelt (CPL) R. L. Range (CPL) J. B. Poston (CPS) A. vonRosenberg (CPS) R. L. Hancock (COA) M. C. Nitcholas (COA) H. R. Dean R. L. Waldrop C. L. McNeese D. G. Barker R. A. Fra:ar l W. N. Phillips L. D. Wilson G. B. Painter M. D. Schwar: (Baker 6 Botts) C. G. Thrash (Baker & Botts) H. S. Phillips (NRC) J. R. Geurts (B4R) C. W. Vinceng (B4R) STP RMS 1 l l l i l .~
a
I UNITED STATES [, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ^ ], % '[, j REGION IV 1,' / 611 RYAN PLAZA oRIVE. Su!TE 1000 ARUNGToN. TEXAS 76011 In Reply Refer To: RI7 Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 30-25 50-499/Rpt. 80-25 Houston Lighting and Power Company Acts: Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr. F.xecutive Vice President Post Office Sox 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by our Resident Reactor Inspector, Mr. H. S. Phillips, during September 1980 of activities authori:ed by NRC Construction Permits No. C??R-128 and 129 for the South Texas ?roject, Units No. 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Messrs. C. W. Oprea, R. A. Fra ar, D. G. Barker and other me=bers of your staff during the inspection period. 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 items of noncompliance were identified. 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 appliation to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such infor=ation be withheld from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons why it is cla1=ed that the infor=ation is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary infor=ation identified is contained in an l enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Docu:ent 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. i STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 45 ol'A/90539 e,,.
Houston Lighting and Power 2 Company October 28, 1980 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we vill be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, - J' _ l l W. C. Saidle, Chief Reactor Coristruction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
II Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-25 50-499/80-25 1 1 i
c U. S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY CCMMISSION 5 0FFICE OF INSPECTION A.W ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-25; 50-499/80-25 Cateogry A2 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company Post Office Scx 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda, Texas Inspection Conducted: September 1980 Inspector- / Ms - /d
- d. S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector Da t'e
/// f/[$ b Approved: w w-W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date
- Inspection Sumary:
Inseection of September 1980 (Report 50-498/80-25: 50-499/80-25) .reas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) included follow-up inspections relative to noncompliances, unresolved matters, construction deficiencies reported, and Show Cause Order items. This inspection involved one hundred sixteen inspector-hours by one NRC inspector. Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 6 -nnn~w-~ ~ ~ v ,...,,g..~ _ut N DUPLICATE DOCUMENT I Entire document previously j entered into system under: m $O /kh$D$$// ANO of pages: f3 No. p:;
- t < ^ ~ =
~C (_q w e -, ' ;=< u c.W l'. : w
~- APR 3 01M0 Occket Nos. 50-498 50-499 Houston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr. Executive Vice Prasident P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to our special investigation of construction activities at the South Texas Project Units 1 and 2 which are authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-128 and CPPR-129. Our investigation was separated into two parts: (1) Investigation of current allegations relative to harassment, intimidation, and lack of support of quality control inspectors by QC management, and (2) Assessment of the effectiveness of the QA/QC program for ongoing activities. This letter and the attached report address the results of our investigation which was conducted between November 10, 1979 and February 7, 1980. f Based on the results of our investigation, it appears that certain of your activities at South Texas Units 1 and 2 wer-not being conducted in compliance with NRC requirements as described in the enclosed Appendix A. These items of apparent noncompliance ceupled with the substantiated allegations involving production pr' essure, lack of support by QC management, narassment, intimidation and threats directed toward QC inspectars indicate impairment of the quality assurance program at the South Texas Project. These problems were idantified in connection with the quality assurant.;e program of one of your principal contractors, Brown and Root, Incorporated. Further, similar items of noncompliance and substantiated allegations of narassment and lack of support of QC personnel have been the sucject of previous NRC correspondence with you and indicate that your past corrective action on these matters has been incomplete or ineffective. Although these problems have been to a great extent asscciated with Brown and Root quality assurance program implementation, as licensee you have prime responsibility for correction. The deficiencies in the Brown and Root program were so extensite that they should have been readily detected. CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 46 gaStm.
o 0 APR s0 mod Houston Lighting and Power Company 3-Texas Department of Health ATIN: Raymond T. Meere, M.D. Ofrector 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 Office of the Attorney General ATTN: Mr. Mark White Attorney General P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Public Utilities Commission ATTN: Mr. George M. Cowden Chairman 7800 Shoal Creek Blvd. Austin, TX 78757 ATTACHMENT 14 w -r v m y y,- y,..-- ~,< - - - ---,-emg- --w w e ---ay .- e w w q y,p ---9% ,--g-e-,-i em-r--a-.-y-e .c
O O APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Houston Lighting and Power Company Occket Nos.: 50-498 50-499 l Based on the results of the NRC investigation conducted during the period November 10, 1979 through February 7,1980, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with the conditions of your NRC Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-128 and CPPR-129 as indicated below. A. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requires that licensees holding construction permits implement a quality assurance program meeting the criteria of Appendix B for all activities affecting the safety related functions of structures, systems, and components that prevent or mitigate the conse-quences of postulated accidents that cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Section 17 of the Soutti Texas Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report sets forth the Quality Assurance Program developed by the licensee to implement Appendix B. Contrary to the above, during the period of October 1979 through January 1980, the licensee was in continuous noncompliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B in that the licensee and Brown & Root (B&R), did not adequately control all activities affecting the safety related functions to assure that such activities were conducted in accordance with the Appendix B Criteria. This continuous noncompliance is evidenced by numerous examples
- in the subject area of Criteria I, III, V, VI, IX, X, XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII, as follows:
1. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion I states in part, "The persons and organitations performing quali*y assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems.... including sufficient independence from cost and schecul e.... " l The South Taxas Project (STP) Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) in Section 17.1.18 (througn Amendment 32, 10/17/75) states in part, "To assure the establishment and operation of the QA/ Quality ( Control (QA) Program, B&R has an organization such that those per-forming the QA/QC functions have the freedom to identify quality l problems, to provide means for obtaining solution to problems, and verify that solutions have been implemented. This organitation has sufficient independence, authority and technical expertise to carry out the program in an efficient and effective manner. This is assured by B&R QA Management reporting to Management lavels above and indepen-dent from pressures of production." pgg my7 .m 7 xm 7 - outside the October-January time period ~"^ Such examples suppo M de d ncings C at DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 1g the period for wnich the civil penalty .eing proposed for Dose examoles. Entire docuirent previously entered into system under: O 2005/30#9/ =0 lt. No. of pages: __ M O I Olu 2 GXG.a M UE
- A ~
e 0 APPENDIX 8 NOTICE OF PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENA'LTIES j Houston Lighting and Power Company Docket Nos. 50-498 50-499 . This office proposes to impose civil. penalties pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2282), and to 10 CFR 2.205 in the cumulative amount of One Hundred U.ousand Dollars (5100,000) for the aggregate items of noncompliance set forth in Appendix A to the cover letter. In procesing to impose civil penalties pursuant to this section of the Act and in fixing tne proposed amount of the penalties, the factors identified in the f Statements of Consideration puolished in the Federal Register with the rule j making action which adopted 10 CFR 2.205 (36 FR 16894), August 25, 1971, and l the " Criteria for Determining Enforcement Action," which was sent to NRC licensees on December 31, 1974, have been taken into account. i Tne Houston Lighting and Power Company may, within twenty five (25) days of the date of this notice, pay total civil penalties in the cumulative amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars (5100,000) or may protest the imposition of the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer. Should the Houston Lighting and Power Company fail to answer within the time specified, this office will issue an Order imposing the civil penalties in the amount proposed above. Should Houston Lighting and Power Company elect to file an answer protesting the civil penalties, such answer may (a) deny the items of noncom-pliance listed in the Notice of Violation in whole or In part; (b) demonstrate. extenuating circumstances; (c) show error in the Notice of Violation; or (d) show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting the civil penalties in whole or in part, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalties. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separttely from your statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but you may incorporate by specific reference (e.g., giving page and paragraph numbers to avoid repetition). 1 The Houston Lighting and Power Company's attention is directed to the other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205 regarding, in particular, failure to answer and ensuing orders; answer, consideration by this office and ensuing orders; reques*,s for hearings, hearings and ensuing orders; compromise; and collection. Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the amplicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, the matter may te referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless comoromised, re:itted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 23'c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (42 USC 2iS2). f 800C/W
APPENDIX C CROSS
REFERENCES:
NONCOMPLIANCE 5 TO REPORT DETAILS NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERION REPORT SECTION REPORT REFERENCE PAGE NO. A. 1................. I...............E.1.d................... 49 2.................. IX.............. E.3.a................... 61 3................. XVI.............. E. 3.c................... 64 V............... c.3.a................... el 5................. XVII............. E.3.d................... 65 6................. XVI.............. E.7.d................... 94 7................. XVI.............. E.2.b................... 53, 54 8.................. V............... E.2.c................... 58 9.................. VI.............. E.4.a................... 69 10.................. IX.............. E.4.c.(2)(c)............ 72 11a................. IX.............. E.5.b.(2)(a)............ 79 lib................ IX.............. E.5.b.(2)(b)............ 32 11c................. IX.............. E.5.a.(2)............... 76 12................... V.............. E.5.b.(1)(a)............ 77 13................. XVI.............. E.1. b. ( A l l egati on 10 A ).. 37 14................. XV I.............. E. 9. b. ( 3 ).............. 10 6 15.................. V............... E. 9. a. ( 1 )............. 10 3 16.................. XV.............. E.3.f................... 67 17.................. XI.............. E.3.f.................... 67 ISa............... XVIII............. E.8.c................... 95 ISa............... XVIII............. E.8.d.(2).............. 100 IS a............... XVI I I............. E. S. d. ( 3 ).............. 101 XVtt' e.a.d.s.)............... o.o., '.04 'a3............... .2
- 9. w w.
N T.Tt C. O. d. g# 9 )s l.v0 a 2 . A.............. 19................ XVI I I............. E. 8. d. ( 3 ).............. 10 0 20................... X.............. e. 4. .e.2 e 21.................. III............. E.4.c.(3)(d)............ 7A 5. 50.55(a).......... E.4.b................... 70
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-498 (South Texas. Project, Units 1 & 2) ) 50-499 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I The Houston Lighting and Power Company is the holder of Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-128 and CPPR-129, issuee on December 25, 1975. Tnese permits authorize, in accordance with their provisions, construction of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, in Matagorda County, Texas. II As a result of allegations that QC inspectors were being threatened if they identified unacceptable items during concrete placements, an investigation (Recort No. 50-498/77-08; 50-499/77-08) was conducted by the NRC Region IV (Arlington, Texas) Office during July 1977. Ten QC inspectors were interviewed, six stated they had experienced some harassment, but none stated that tne harassment led to overlooking unacceptable items. In December 1977, an investi-l gation (Recor: No. 50-498/77-14; 50-499/77-14) of an allagation that certain l raciogra:ns, mailed to a concerned citi:en, revealed faulty welds, was not l l suostantiated as the alleger was apparently the victim of a hoax. In Maren 1978, an investigation (Report No. 50-498/78-05; 50-499/75-05) was conducted _.m, okanAlega-JoM.-rynJa4"4%:u-felt ne would become a potentiai
- ~3..:
-_a DUPLICATE DOCUMENT y Entire document previously !? entered into system under: 0093o#99 ANO No. of pages: [f mm~, n _ _I' '_ _A '[ ~ 2ag[ A gm&x&n&wn. g-QQueyr. -L
. scapegoat for allowing the improper use of procedures; this allegation was not substantiated. In May 1978, an investigation (Report No. 50-498/78-09; 50-499/78-09) was conducted of allegations made by an anonymous individual that Cadweld records involving qualifications of QC inspectors were being falsified and QC inspectors were under pressure to violate inspection procedures and, theracy, not hold up construction work. There was no evidence that Cad-eld records had been falsified. Interviews with QC inspectors indicated that while there was normal pressure to get the job done there was no undue pressure to violate procedures. One QC supervisor stated that his " holds" (inspection hold points) had sometimes been overruled by higher authority, but he stated this was management's prerogative and did not result from construction pressure. In July 1978, an investigation (Report No. 50-498/78-12; 50-499/78-12) was conducted of allegatiens made by an individual that QC Civil inspectors were inadequately trained on new procedures; the nonconformance reporting system was inadequate; QC inspectors were not given adequate succort; uoper management was inaccessible; and construction personnel placed undue pressure on QC inspectors. The allegations, for the most part, could not be substantiated. The investigation results did indicate apparent low morale of some QA/QC Civil inspectors and some weaknesses in the Civil QA program. 1 In early August 1978, Region IV rereviewed the results of tne past several investigations and noted that althougn most of the allegations were not su:stantiated, low morale of QC personna'; was certainly evicent during the investigations. This coservation promoted Region IV management to concuct a -,,--r- ,w-n-- - - -, - - - - w--,- ,,,-~cv .-,---,,, - m,--, n,-r ,--v-,w-.
s U. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION ANO ENFORCEMENT HEADQUARTERS DIVISION OF REACTOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Report No. 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19 Occket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category.A2 Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Investigation At: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Investigation Conducted: Between November 10, 1979 and February 7, 1980 U V-&> Inspectors: 3 d/- 'Date 4.~ W. Hayfsg Cpfef, Engineering Support Section I, Region III ET#k 5d R. Herr, Investigator, Region IV Date (2 Mb 3 29-80 H. 5.~Pn'llips Resident Reactor Date Inspector, Region IV E. P. Jernigan,* Reactor Inspector Date Region I k d*Y' A n s R. M. Compton, C 6il Engineer Date Region II A D % M " E ;a dt LK W j ? Y 43. gg
- pector, Date
{j. DUPLICATE DOCUMENT lj .f Entire document previously tack and has not been asked to 3 entered into system under: ((3O8hb ApoENDIX 3 ANO U No. of pages: [3 k i b;.
. r 8 6 I Reviewed: K. E. Shewmaker, Kenior Structural /0at4 Engineer, Division of Reactor Constructior. Ins ection I Approved: H. D. Thornourg, Director, 01 sion Date Reactor Construction Inspecti Investigation Summary: Investigation November 10, 1979 through February 7, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19). Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegations concerning lack of QC management support, intimidation and harassment of quality control inspectors and the assessment of the effectiveness of the quality assurance / quality control program at the South Texas Project. The investigation involved 1113 inspector-hours by one investigator and five NRC inspectors. Results: Nine of the initial 12 and 10 of the 19 additional allegations were suostantiated. One of the initial 12 allegations was partially substantiated. Eight of the additional allegations require further investigation and are con-sidered unresolved. A total of 3 allegations were unsubstantiated. Twenty-two items of noncompliance were identified: The quality control inspection function lacked support and organizational freedom, caragraph E.1.d; failure to complete the special process of back-filling in accordance with the qualified procedure, paragraph E.3.a; failure to take prompt corrective action on nonconforming test equipment, paragraph E.3.c; failure to establish procedures for sampling as part of a systematic testing program, paragraph E.3.a; failure to maintain records, paragraph failure to take effective correction action, paragraphs E.7.d, E.2.b; E.3.d; inspection and testing personnel not qualified per procedure, paragraph E.2.c; failure to maintain controlled documents up-to-date, paragraph E.4.a; welding activities not adequately controlled, paragraph E.4.c(2)(c); failure to provide adequate control of special processes, paragraphs E.5.b(2)(a), E.5.b(2)(b), E.5.a(2); radiograpny not performed to code, paragraph E.4.b; failure to take proper corrective action, paragraph E.1.b (Allegation 10A); failure to take action on repetitive deficiencies, paragraph E.9.b(3); deficient conditions not documented per procedure, paragrapn E.9.a(1); knowing use of equipment identifi'ed as nonconforming, paragraph E.3.f; inadequate test control, paragraph E.3.f; failure to conduct an effective audit program, paragraphs E.8.c, E.8.d(2), E.8.d(3), E.8.d(1), E.9.a(3), E.8.d(R), E.8.d(3); inadequate inspection, paragraph E.2.b; welding procedures and specification enanged without proper review and approval, paragraph E.4.c(3)(d); and interim changes to procedures not controlled per requirements, paragraph E.5.b(1)(a).
APPEN0?X 4 l The Light Compy nou ton 1.ishting & Power P.o. sox 1700 Houuon. Texas 77o01 i713) 22S 9211 March 24,1980 ST-HL-AE-433 SFN: V-0100 Mr. Karl Seyfrit Director, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Comission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76102 Cear Mr. Seyfrit: South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 First Interim Report on Camage to l The Steel Liner Plate in the Unit 2 Reactor Centainment Buildino In a previous letter (ST-HL-AE-429), Houston Lighting & Power Ccmpany comitted to provide a first interim report on the liner plate bulge by March 28, 1980. The attached logic for the liner bulge repair is provided in. response to this comit:nent. A second interim report will be submitted by June 6, 1980. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Shawn Rodgers at (71 3) 676-7953. Very tz Jly yours. .y / \\ ? r '/ ) e' u. f a r. Exed.Jti v ice President MP:bf Attacnment h I s e
h 14 4 & N Cmyer ' ML-AE-433 oge 2 CC:.E.A. Turner D.G. Barker C.L. McNeese H.R. Dean R.L. Waldrop G.B. Painter A.J.' Granger R.A. Fra:ar M.D. Schwar: (Baker &Botts) R. Gordon Gooch (Baker.& Botts) J.R. Newnan (Lowenstein, Newnan, Reis, Axelrad & Toll) Director. Office of Inspection & Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 M.L. Borchelt Executive Vice President Cantral Power & Light Company P.O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 R.L. Hancock e Director of Electrical Utilities City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 J.B. Pos*an Assistant General Manager of Operations City Public Service Board P.O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78296 R.C. Mecke City Public Service Board P.O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78296 M.C. Nitcholas City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, Texas 78767 R.L. Range Central Power & Light Company P.O. Box 2121 Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Charles Bechoefer Escuire Chainnan, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
mpsum ST-HL-AE - 433 'e 3 Dr. James C. Lamb, III 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Or. Emeth A. Luebke Atarsic Safety & Licensing Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l l Washington, D.C. 20555 Steven A. Sinkin, Esquire 116 Villita Street San Antonio, Texas 78205 Citizens for Equitable Utilities c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn Route 1, Box 432 Brazoria, Texas 77422 l l Richard W. Lowerre, Esquire 1 Assistant Attorney General for the St1te of Texas P.O. Box 12548 Cacitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 l l Henry J. McGurren, Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 l 1 a I 4o _ a O ;%
i l l saa scalitti g,,, ten Actletts LMtLMetJhrette._ertty,jij,,il
- l et t.e te l
l Aspeet Belge le $lle laesettleie Dr Repelr of MO velde lesse att f580819 8 lesse Liner bg. Itowstem tagleeerlag tagineevlett att #1 Cl448 Perettled g,ge, age aest,. se (e.itrocile. Isose m e es.sollt4 8 t-3.letee(cellees p eenged lesteen), i , p) r theme , n lattlete uts _ n le tentlawe (Il ,n #$.(3759 _ n(theaped le Cervett,se.) n teetsige le lat aeerleg t t l Limer Belpe D s v v v v v v 1 l le se 1-84 se I-85 08 1.ll-se I.le-se B-It ce B-84 08 3-4-te ~ l sinterial proceeement Llaer Bepelr 39 te,tred (4), febelcelles (toetlightaats) 3 see.e snes.*[5] I et.' 3 =ts.* t43 I au elve Liner b f. el asse e ammeteleg Settlen Fest fle=e Office sad 18 segelsed and prefere Propers ICAR Centrets Repolt gg pg.sg3){gg settry og 1. 00 s a. - -, _IPer.lt u nl, _El=r me,lecame=y gl.e s,wil, cie,eest go,,es,s.,lete), j go tl.ee gneere ther be *e 144 tl,seen ea,es 2 ***' use.. d 8 "'
- 6 cp 3
ran(Lease S i j, g %, y.,e,,,, m,igt a seder C s e as.- ,e et, ne 4, ,,ntes,,, t ii.e, .e t t..ettea eccerred deslag K5 sold eepoltwi = a ie.e refo e- = i ss ct m f. 6 Defoem I lat asw las fell Sl89H III'* l ler to gleseest of 3448 Peettel Olspeellten Liner teacrete inspecties Eveleellea of MR d) (,laer Belge to be discotted le the EI Telde fleet D I. of a(4 (I) h .ellit !s an. A 2 esis + 2 63.+ I et.' 8e**' t l' "'( '"*' " ** 8 *r 'a 8** Ha l '"'d [ [ 0 y g,t,. j (3). Propese $* e=er free asalaue seen bewadery I CT3 r* Concrete Peeperstlee [ lite Subcontescts. g I [3]. Det Constrectlee to oestet es spelf tsble e.* mous Geneeste Estre y g,. seen authertuttee
- en
- lite.
- 14). weillie eilstias Star ptete suttu e site III poulble) tulate test of 8 d*r.
tl.er me.st k j or, der erset I (g). Rev liner plate settlee 3 1,e,el,ed eu elve m e. r =W"A':""'i'i r
- O ii...siin,n-,,iete.e.ii-.tue
'aa-I ut.. , ens.. 'O i,i. comite,ea ,.i -..fi.. e...i.i e, ~.. i i.n ,,,, t
APPENDIX 5 Implementation of the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program at the South Texas Project Jobsite I I. l !///# k Y\\ f/ / / / 5 ) \\ T T T \\ ' \\A Kr e i .I J \\. wn-ga .s - 7,, ~. ...._ x -. .s b; 'dj I DUPLICATE DOCUMENT 4-Entire document previously ,4 entered into system under: !) Soo S/SoSor j l nNo No. of pages: /k [ ~
- ,e
$.b;;c.) 4, : 4 4;;s ' i ..e.- .u,- ,fl :
t AGENDA BROWN & ROOT CONSTRUCTION AND QAAC SEMINAR STP JOBSITE JANUARY 4.1980 ? I INTRODUCTION II. THE ROLE OF QC PERSONNEL AT SOtJTH TEXA5 PROJECT III. CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT FOR STP QA PR0 GRAM IV. CONCLUSION l 1 e e t l h e e ,e ---m
1 b ,[' 4 - ficnjstcg1 ll 8 iC r (OW)80] ( n:y.m I .f Electric Tower RO Box l700 r""' "r '< 3 ' ! 4:s --I HoustonTexasn001 J t May 23, 1980 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement s Re: Docket Nos. 50-498 50-499 Gentlemen: This is in response to Appendix A (Notice of Violation) to your letter of April 30, 1980, transmitting your Investigation Report (50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19) covering the results of your (. inspection of the South Texas Project (STP) in the period November 10, 1979 - February 7, 1980. Attached is a reply to each item of noncompliance addressed in the sequence specified in the Notice of Violation (keyed to the relevant Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) track-ing number) and providing with respect to each item an explana-tion in the form specified at page 19 of the Notice of Violation. Each response is preceded by a Summary which provides a brief description of the item, as perceived by the NRC, based on our j review of the Investigation Report and Notice of Violation. l In some instances our review identified differences l between the Notice of Violation and the Investigation Report; l in other cases, the Report provided valuable amplification i of the Notice of Violation. In preparing the attached reply l an effort was made to address the Notice in the context of .he underlying Report. I In some instances, it has proven impossible to affirm I or deny statements of fact in the Report because of the absence qq.r- - . nf,,information,which,l' ~would identify persons, places and dates ~;' scompliance. This was especially f ' 2 'd " '
- darising out of the alleged
~" I DUPLICATE DOCUMENT .lation and lack of support of 4 4 Entire document previously j entered into system under- 'I Kr BIT N0. 47 No. of pages: )($f ^ 3 g ;. - .~ Cis '[ 4 .e c... ,o
Houston 14 ting & lbaer Company 5 Nucionr RCgulatory Commiccion May 23, 1980 Page quality control inspectors by quality control management. Nevertheless, our review indicates that such instances probably did occur. As indicated in the reply to Item 1 (79-19-08), important steps have been taken in recent months to assure that QA/QC personnel have the requisite freedom and authority to identify problems and determine that they are adequately re-solved, free from production pressures. Our inquiries of site personnel suggest that this concern has been brought under control. We plan further steps to reinforce our commitment to an independent quality organization with clear authority backed l by management. Although we share the NRC's view that these problems did not create major deficiencies in construction already completed, we recognize that vigilance is required to assure that the underlying conditions (e.g., production pres-sures, insufficient QA/QC visibility) Lee not permitted to recur. As to the remaining 21 instances of noncompliance, our review confirms, with minor exceptions, I&E's specific findings as set forth in the Notice of Violation. Pursuant to the Order to Show Cause, Section V, paragraph (3), a review is being made of safety-related welding and concrete structures to determine if such work was properly performed. O.tr reply describes the corrective actions taken or to be taken with respect to each item of noncompliance but, in our review, we have tried to focus on the underlying or " root l causes." As a consequence of that review, we have identified l several areas where performance can and will be improved: 1. Translating specifications and requirements into clear and simplified procedures down to the job level. 2. Improvement of systems for documenting non-conforming conditions and systematic trend analyses to identify programmatic weaknesses. 3. Upgraded training and indoctrination of personnel at all levels in quality-related tasks with special emphasis en the project goals of reliability and safety. 4. Stronger system controls, reflected in procedures which assure that quality-related activities are initiated, controlled and properly documented. (
e l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In The Matter of S S Docket Nos. 50-498 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER S COMPANY (South Texas S 50-499 Project, Units 1 & 2) S LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE July 28, 1980 ~q .. - ~ _ cc.,,, .v. m 9,
- .h
'e DUPLICATE DOCUllENT 9 Entire docur.ent previously j ; EXHIBIT NO. 48 entered into system under: 1r 00%O#do%l y e ANO - 303 46 No. of pages: .w k%4'JSA%N:* 5%5 0-l A ~, t.s fi !Xt ):-kl.a sdwa 6 \\
e nry
- c, UNITED STATES
) e E,Y, f f j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .{s, "
t REGION IV s %.. j/ s11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, sulTE 1000 8005070 .R ei~orou, rixas,s01, In Reply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 60-498/Rpt. 80-01 50-4997Rpt. 80-01 Houston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Pcwer Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 Houstos, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: .l j This refers to the inspection activities performed by our Resident Inspector, Mr. H. S. Phillips, of activities authorised by NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-129 for the South Texas Project, Unit 2, and to the discussion of the findings by the inspector with members of your staff on February 12, 1980. During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license l appear to be in noncompliance with Part 50 Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The item of noncompliance and refcrences to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosed Notice of Violation. Details of l this item will be included in an inspection report to be issued in the near future and identified as Inspcetion Report No. 50-498/80-01; 50-499/80-01. This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice " Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 30 days of your receipt of thir notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including: (1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. I ? STAFF EXHIBIT fl0. 49 l l i .0 met of Soc 607073r;
( Houston Lighting and Power Company February 13, 1980 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, kb=* W. C. Seicia, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
Appendix A. Notice of Violation t _. - - -. ~. - - - - - -, - -. - - - - -. - - - - - -
50-499/80-01 g ()() 5 01r 0 Appendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on February 12, 1980, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with the conditions of your NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-129 as indicated below: Failure to Provide Timely Notification of a Construction Deficiency 10 CFR 50.55(e), "Londitions of Construction Permits," states: "The holder of a construction permit shall within 24 hours notify the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection and Enforcement Regional Office of each reportable deficiency." Contrary to the above: The Houston Lighting and Power Company did not promptly inform (within 24 hours) Region IV that the Unit 2 Reactor Containment Building steel liner was inadvertently damaged on January 14, 1980, while making volumetric determinations of concrete voids by injection of water under pressure. This deficiency was documented by Brown & Rdot Nonconformance Report No. S-M3769-A which was initiated on January 16, 1980, and approved on January 24, 1980. The NRC Resident Reactor Inspector was informed of this deficiency on February 7,1980. This is an infraction. l l t
[sa ac[*'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 31 naciouav . n. n( p/ j iT$ i sit nyan m.aza onws,suita " 2 800567n anuuorow,rexas 7 sos: ' % ',1* l March 25, 1980 In Reply Refer to: RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-01 50-499/Rpt. 80-01 Houston Lighting and Power Company l Attn: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by our Resident Inspector, Mr. H. S. Phillips, during the period of December 1979 and January - February 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Conscruction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the l South Texas Project, Units No.1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings l with Mr. L. D. Wilson and other members of your staff during the inspection period. Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective arm =4 nation of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with Appendix B to 10 CPR 50 of the NRC Regulations, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." The item of noncompliance l' and references to the pertinent requirements reported in paragraph 4.b of the enclosed inspection report are identified in the enclosed Notice of Violation. j The Notice of Violation for the item of noncomplianes reported in paragraph 4.s of the enclosed inspection report was forwarded to you by our letter dated February 13, 1980; therefore, this letter does not require further response regarding this matter. Two new unresolved items are identified in paragraph 4.c of the enclosed report. j t This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Pederal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 30 days of your l receipt of this notice, a written sestament or explanation L reply including: (1) corrective steps which have been tsken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. f on t of %005071123
Bouston Lighting and Power Company 2 March 25, 1980 In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
- .le 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Docsment Room. If the report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to chis office, within 20 days 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 I
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.spplication, 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. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased i to discuss them with you. Sincerely, 2 n --- W. C. Saidle, Chief Reactor Construction and l Engineering Support Branch I l
Enclosures:
. Appendix A, Notice of Violation 1. 1 2. IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-01 50-499/80-01 l l l 1 l
8005079 50-499/80-01 Appendix A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on February 12, 1980, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with the conditions of your NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-129 as indicated below: Failure to Follow Test Procedure criterion V of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requires that activities affecting quality shall be accomplished in accordance with instructions, procedures or drawings. Brown & Root repair procedure RCB-1, "Shall Lift 15 Investigation and Repair Criteria," No. 2C801CQ002-C, paragraph 8.2 states in part, "To make a water pressure test, water from the grout pump through the skid mounted pressure sage and co.itrol valve was connected to the lowest hole at a bracket. Navinnun gage pressure was limited to 30 to 35 psi to protect the liner." Contrary to the above: On February 7,1980, the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) determined, through interviewing the licensee's lead civil engineer cn site, that approximately 60 psi of water pressure was accidentally applied to the void areas behind the RCB-2 liner plate and a 10 x 14 feet section of the liner bulged approximately l 4-5 inches toward the center of the containment. Additionally, the RRI found that no safety relief or " pop off" valve was in the test line to protect the liner against excessive pressure. l This is an infraction. l 1 04% of gpoSo7o?2'7
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-01; 50-499/80-01 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 I and 2 Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda, Texas Inspection conducted: December 1979; January and February 1980 Inspector: N?.bd 3M O u [4 H. S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector Date Approved:
- . 1 - -
3[3I!80 W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Inspection Sun: mary: Inspection of December 1979; January and February 1980 (Report 50-498/80-01; 50-499/80-01) Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) included independent inspection performed during a site tour; follow-up inspections relative to noncompliances; unresolved matters; and 10 CFR 50.55(e) Deficiency Reports. The inspection involved thirty-five inspector-hours by one NRC inspector. Results: In one of four areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identified during the inspection period (infraction - failure to notify RIV NRC Inspection and Enforcement Regional Office of 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable deficiency - paragraph 4.a; infraction - failure to follow test procedure - paragraph 4,b). e g g,, mm mm r._-~ m - g DUPLICATE DOCUMENT !) Entire dccument previously f[l J! l entered into system under: $00$Q 90 N) f A ANO j No. of pages: 7 bil G L. Z E h._IC?f.HedaJau h dE3, _ - _ _ _ _
DETAILS SECTION 1. Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- T. J. Jordan, Lead Mechanical Engineer
- D. G. Long, Lead Civil Engineer
- W. N. Phillips, Projects QA Manager G. A. Marshall, QA Senior Specialist J. W. Soward, QA Specialist
- L. D. Wilson, Site QA Supervisor
- T. Logan, Civil Engineer (test borings) on Special Assignment Brown & Root Employees T. Gamon, QA Manager C. Vincent, Project QA Manager B. Petterson, Geotechnical Engineer G. T. Warnick, Site QA Manager The RRI also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the subject inspection period.
- Denotes management meeting with the NRC Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) during the inspection period.
2. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Several meetings were held with the Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) Projects QA Manager and the Site QA Supervisor relative to the licensee responses to findings in NRC inspection reports No. 498/79-13, 499/79-13; 498/79-15, 499/79-15; 498/79-16, 499/79-16; and 498/79-20, 499/79-20. In his discussion of the subject responses, the RRI pointed out the areas where the responses failed to adequately address requirements of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.201 which includes: "(1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved." I 2 t I l l
.a** "%'g ,T uni'ED ST'ATES i g' a., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I 5 REGION IV k
- f A
d11 RYAN PLAZA oAlVE, sVITE 1000 ,g ,/ AR LINcToN. TEX As 7s012 In Reply Refer To:
- "# #7 RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-02 50-499/Rp t. 80-02 Houston Lighting and Power Company nTTN:
Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. G. Hubacek and D. P. Tomlinson of our staff during the period February 5-8, 1960, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Pemics No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Project, Units No. 1 and 2, and to the discussion of ou.r findings with Mr. T. D. Stanley 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 inspectors. Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance 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 2 of the enclosed report. One new unresolved item 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 vill be placed in the NRC's Public Docu=ent Room. l l report contains any infor=ation that you believe to be proprietary, it is If the necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The application =ust include a full state =ent of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should i I l STAFF EXHIBIT NO. 50 t Duf8 of go0H10214 l
j Houston Lighting and Power Company February 21, 1980 l 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. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely,
- f..
' //. ,/ W. C. Seidl( Chief Reactor Cons 4ruction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Repor~t No. 50-498/80-02 30-499/80-02
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV This Report Contains Investigation Inforsation (?aragraphs 4, 5, 8 & 9) Repoit No. 50-498/80-02; 50-499/80-02 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: Seuth Texas Project, Units 1 & 4' Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: February 5-8, 1980 Inspectors: 1-8D W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 & 11) D 2- /7u~ 'g.P.Tomlinson,ReactorInspector,EngineeringSupport Date Section (paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 8 & 9) Approved:
- c 2.dd W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date l
l L c '2 R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Date / l 77770: ?~3?wgpx;mmigg.gA b;D M L @ L KSia3e: -' a .w. -MJ } N J DUPLICATE DOCUMENT ~N a u ( Entire document previously 4 ? entered into system under: kNO 00h)$0h)$ f No. of pages: f , is m.m _ m,.w.w u a% -
4 Inspection Summarv: Insoection on Februarv 5-8. 1980 (Recor No. 50-498/80-02: 30-499/80-02) Areas Insoected: Unannounced inspection of construction activities including: review of procedures and observation of work related to reactor coolant piping; revie'; of licensee actions on previous inspection findings; and investigation cf matters that had potential impact on quality of construction. involved forty-eignt inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors. The inspection Results: Nor items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. i i p l k +y yr, e 9 -r- +w--r- =----r9 -e-- rr -wr= -wr
1 a h5H4 UNITED STATES B 0 0'4 30 0 0 2 8 -/ 9:o,, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION $V RECsoN IV 3o 811 RY AN PLAZA D RIVE. 5UITE 1000 7 3 f2 1 E ARLINGTON TEXAS 76012 5 D' ' {/,8 o March 11, 1980 In Reply Refer to: RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-03 50-499/Rpt. 80-03 Houston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. L. D. Gilbert of our staff during the period February 26-29, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits Fo. CPPR-128 and 128 for South Texas Project, Units No. I and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. L. D. Wilson and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the insp'ection. 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 items of noncompliance were identified. 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. I,f the report cont.* ins any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The application must includa a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should be prepared so that any proprietary infor=ation 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 paced in the Public l Document Room. k STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 51 l DdE # 500%oooM
W* Houston Lighting and Power Company 2 March 11, 1980 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ) f g W. C. Seidle, Chief ) i Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-03 50-499/80-03 i t
4 800.4300035 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-03; 50-499/80-03 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: February 26-29, 1980 Inspector: _ J!h!@ p. D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector 8Date Engineering Support Section . ' ('/. .fMM& ~% ( Approved: ' / W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section /Dpte vr / R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Date Inspection Summary: Inspection on February 26-29, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/80-03; 50-499/80-03) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities including site " ur; observation of work related to welding of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping and other safety-related piping for Unit 1; and review of records and procedures for fabrication of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping and other safety-related piping for Units 1 and 2. The inspection involved twenty-four inspector-hours by one NRC inspector. Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. (s ORPE of Soo43oo<o35
4- - i DETAILS l 1.. Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employees
- L.
D. Wilson, Site QA Supervisor W. N. Phillips, Project QA Manager
- G. A. Marshall, QA Specialist Other Personnel t
- F. Miller, Chief Welding Engineer, Brown & Root (B&R)
- W. Abrams, Supervisor, QA Engineer, B&R
- R. R. Gunter, Assistant Site QA Manager, B&R
- G. T. Warnick, Site QA Manager, B&R
- H. O. Kirkland, Senior Construction Manager, B&R
- K.
M. Broom, Senior Vice President, B&R
- M. Barnes, Welding Coordinator, B&R L. Tofte, QA Training Coordinator, B&R G. Adams, Welder Qualification Training Coordinator, B&R W. C. Leslie, Site Project Manager, Westinghouse The IE inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor employees during the course of the inspection.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
\\ 2. Site Tour The IE inspector toured the Unit 1 Containment and Auxiliary Buildings to observe construction activities in progress and to inspect house-keeping. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 3. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping a. Review of Procedures The IE inspector reviewed three welding procedure specifications (WPS) and their supporting procedure qualification reports (PQR). WPS 2024, Rev. 1 - Gas Tungsten-Arc Welding of Stainless l Steel I PQR 0808AA204, Rev. 5 and 0808AA114, Rev. 3 - Qualification Reports for WPS 2024, Rev. 1 l 1 k 2 s, 1. I
a$k WPS 2034, Rev. 2 - Automatic Gas Tungsten-Arc Welding of Stainless Steel PQR 0808AA208, Rev. 4 - Qualification Report for WPS 2034, Rev. 2 WPS 2037, Rev. 1 - Shielded Metal-Arc Welding of Stainless Steel PQR 0808BB112, Rev. 1 - Qualification for the Shielded Metal-Arc Welding of WPS 2037, Rev. 1 In the areas reviewed, no discrepancies with the requirements of ASME B&PV Code, Section III NB or Section IX were noted, b. Observation of Work l The IE inspector observed the welding on two field welds in the reactor coolant loop piping. The welds were FW 0021 and FW 0029 identified on drawing FSP-0239. The welders using the automatic gas tungsten-arc welding units were welding in accordance with WPS 2034, Rev. 2 and qualified by B&R to requirements of ASME B&PV Code, Section IX. The welding wire being used was identified type 308 (Control Heat 0083) and traceable to the certification test report. The QC welding inspectors who had performed inspections and documented their results on the Weld Documentation Cards were certified by B&R to have completed the requirements of the B&R STP Personnel Training Manual. Welding filler material was observed to be stored and controlled at Material Distribution Station No. 3 as required in the B&R ( procedure for control of welding materials, MECP-8. Three welders were observed taking performance qualification tests in the B&R Welder Qualification Testing Center. The welding position, material and welding process being used were consistent with the requirements specified in welder qualification procedure MECP-1 for qualifying to ASME Code, Section IX. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 4. Other Safety Related Piping The IE inspector observed a partially completed weld in the Boron Recycle System identified FW 0011 on drawing 3M361P-BR1022-UB3. The welding rod used for welding the pipe was type 308 (Control Heat 0079) as required by the welding procedure WPS 2024 and traceable to the 3 s
44.. certification test report. The QC welding inspector performing the required inspections designated on the Veld Documentation Card was certified by B&R to be qualified in accordance with the B&R STP Personnel Training Manual. No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 5. Exit Interview The IE inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph
- 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on February 29, 1980, and sum-marized the purpose, scope and findings of the inspection.
i i l t I '~ 4 l . ~.
a [, n * " 6 %, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!SSION UNITED STATES O a* r R EGloN IV
- n l
y l$, l ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 c 811 RYAN PLAZ A oRIVE SUITE 1000
- .g,-
c. g.-Q f. April 4, 1980 in Reply Refer To FJV Docket No. 50-498/80-04 50-499/80-04 Houston lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: 1 This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. A. Crossman and W. G. Hubacek of your staff during the period March 4-7 and 11-14, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. W. N. Phillips 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 items of noncompliance were identified. One new unresolved item is identified in paragraph 2.e 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 repe:t 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 20 days 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 why it is claimed that the infor=ation is proprietary. The application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this regard vithin the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Docu=ent Room. ( i STAFF EXHIBIT NO. 52 8005270[hO k 1 - ~,,...
Houston Lighting and Power Company 2 April 4, 1980 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we vill be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, l' J Y A /c/ W.C.Sehe, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-04 50-499/80-04 l l l l w.- ,,7-- 7- ,,+ ,w. .g.q.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-04; 50-499/80-04 I Locket No. 50-498; 50-499 Categoray A2 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 Mategorda County, Texas Meeting at Houston, Texas Inspection conducted: March 4-7 and 11-14, 1980 Inspectors-M-- F 8
- u _-
h W(Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 C. 6) . G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date V VfYfg4 l W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date (Paragraph 2) Other Accompanying Personnel: W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch (Corporate Meeting in Houston-March 11, 1980) (Tour of South Texas Project-March 12, 1980) Approved: M 80 W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Inspection Summary: Inspection on March 4-7 and 11-14, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/80-04; 50-499/80-04) a--* Inenacted: Special inspection of implementation of the licensees nine i g . ; ;7 - + l l DUPLICATI' DOCUMENT ?.. Entire document previously 4 entered into system under: $00$2 Y&&_ ANO No. of pa /) be s s a.ges: m. -
e point action plan for resolution of concrete placement problems described in the licensee's letter dated December 28, 1979; and a meeting with licensee 4 representatives on March 11, 1980. The inspection involved one hundred twelve inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors. Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. i 2
o ..e 4 0 UNITED STATES
- /
c, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e nacioNov r-e s11 RY AN PL AZ A DRIVE, sulTE 1000 e a AnuNGToN,TEXA5 76012 c E w 9 ,o April 4, 1980 in Reply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-05 50-499/Rpt. 80-05 Houston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection activities performed by our Resident Inspector, Mr. H. S. Phillips, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Project, Unit 1 and 2, and to the discussion of the findings by the inspector with members of your staff on April 4,_1980. During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with Part 50, Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The items of noncompliance and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosed Notice of Violation. Details of this item vill be included in an inspection report to be issued in the near future and identified as Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-05; 50-499/80-05. This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. ( Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 30 days of your receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including: (1) corrective steps which have been taken by you, and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance vill be achieved. k gk STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 53 8006130194 l
Houston Lighting cod Power 2 Company Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, . C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
Appendix A, Notice of Violation L
c APPENDIX A Notice of Violation Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted March 1980, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with the conditions of your NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 as indicated below: A. Failure to Provide Timelv Reply to the Transmittal Letter for an l Jtem of Noncompliance l The Region IV letter dated February 13, 1980, which transmitted the Notice of Violation, related to an ites of noncompliance for failure to provide timely notification of a 50.55(e) item concerning a bulge in the containment liner. The letter requested that a written reply be provided within 30 days from the receipt of the notice as required by Section 2.201 of the NRC's Rules of Practice. l Contrary to the above: The Houston Lighting and Power Company failed to provide a written reply to the Notice of Violation within the 30 day period. The RIV l ' letter dated February 13, 1980 was received by HL&P on February 18, l 1980. The reply from HL&P was signed March 18, 1980 and according j to Mr. Frazar cf HL&P mailed to RIV on March 24, 1930. This is an infraction. l l B. Failure to Provide Timelv Notification of Construction Deficiencies 10 CFR 50.55(e), " Conditions of Constructics Permits," states in part: "The holder of a constrretion permit shall within 24 hours notify the appropriate Nucle r Regulatory Commission Inspection and Enforcement Regional Office :,f each reportable deficiency." Contrary to the above: 1. The Houston Lighting and Power Company did not promptly inform (within 24 hours) Region IV that failure of polar crane stud welds was considered reportable in accordance with the requirements l of 50.55(e). This matter was considered reportable at 0730 hours on March 18, 1980 but was rot reported to the Region IV Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) until approximately 3:45 p.m. on March 20, 1980. 2. The Houston Lighting and Power Ccmpany did not report as a significant construction deficiency an apparent breakdown in the Brown & Root QA program for welding. A Brown & Root audit found l that Brown & Root welding Engineering documents were corrected by the use of liquid paper; dates of revisions were applied by tape; and signatures were applied by Xerox. In addition, an c&. g 8006130203 l
L o unapproved vendor was used for NDE procedure qualification; mechanical tests were not properly signed and annotated by the test laboratory; and procedures were not qualified to the applicable ASMI Code. This natter was called to the NRC's attention on March 18, 1980 when a stop work order affecting ASMI welding was issued by Brown & Root on that same date; however, the licensee did not report this breakdown in the welding QA Program as a deficiency in acccrdance with 50.55(e). This is an infraction. C. Failure to Provide a Timelv k'ritten Report for a Construction Deficiency 10 CFR 50.55(e) " Conditions of Construction Permits," states in part: "The holder of a construction pet %it shall submit a written report on a reportable deficiency within thirty (30) days to the appropriate NRC Regional Office. Contrary to the above: The Houston Lighting and Power Company did not provide a written report within 30 days concerning low relative density of backfill which was initially reported as a construction deficiency (considere! to be a reportable deficiency under 10 CFR 50.55(e)) to the RRI on February 4, 1980, but was not issued until March 21, 1980. This is an infraction. i
4
- ge49'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES
.:' N s t, REoioN ev I ?W() o 611 RY AN PLAZA DRIVE, sulTE 1000 j ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 % Cf4[ April 25, 1980 In Reply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-05 j 50-499/Rpt. 80-05 i I Houston Lighting and Power Company Attn: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and i Technical Services Post Office. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 j Gentlemen: l s. l Tliis refers to the inspection conducted by our Recident Inspector, Mr. H. S. Phillips, for the period of March 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Project, Units No. I and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with l Mr. L. D. Wilson and other members of your staff during the inspection l period. ( Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection con-sisted of selective a - hation of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) of the NRC Regulation, " Conditions of Construction Permits." The items of non-compliance and references to the pertinent requirements were identified in the Notice of Violation transmitted with our letter dated April 4,1980. Therefore, this letter does not require further response regarding this l matter. 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 l report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written application to this office, within'20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withbeld from public disclosure. The application must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should Cd 3 8006130 N l
~ Houston Lighting Cnd Power Company April 25, 1980 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. Should you have any quastions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, ,/ ~ W. C. Seidl, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-05 50-499/80-05 i l
e U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-05; 50-499/80-05 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company l Pc::t Office Box 1700 I Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda, Texas Inspection Conducted: March 1980 l Inspector: N $'/d9'/F6 / H. S. Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector Date Projects Section Approved: IU ~ W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Inspection Summarv: l Inspection During March 1980 (Report 50-498/80-05; 50-499/80-05) Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) included follow-up inspections relative to 10 CFR 50.55(e) construction deficiencies; and the structural backfill (soils) test program. This inspection involved forty inspector-hours by one NRC inspector. Results: In one of three areas inspected, three items of noncompliance were identified during the inspection period (infraction - failure to provide timely reply to transmittal letter for an item of noncompliance - paragraph 2a; I infraction - failure to provide timely notification of construction deficiencies paragraph 2b; and infraction - failure to provide a timely written report for construction deficiency - paragraph 2c). y .. ; - ys.w.3,, ymmy r. ~, DUPLICATE DOCUMENT
- i Entire document previously entered into system under
l R OO(nl$ O Q ) Y ANO N o. of pages: [ , og ~f. g,vh s1 ewM M A I
DETAILS SECTION 1. Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Employeel
- E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services
- R. A. Frazar, QA Manager
- W. N. Phillips, Projects QA Manager T. D. Stanley, Project QA Supervisor
- L. D. Wilson, Site QA Supervisor
- D. W. Bohner, Lead QA Specialist
- T. J. Jordan, Lead Mechanical Engineer (QA)
- T. Logan, Civil Engineer (test borings) on Special Assignment D. G. Long, Lead Civil Engineer (QA)
G. A. Marshall, Senior QA Specialist (Mech)
- J. W. Brishkin, Project Manager, South Texas Project (STP) Mouston
- E. G. Barker, Manager, SIP
- L. R. Jacobi, Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Safety & Licensing Brown & Root Employees K. M. Broom, Senior Vice President, Power Group U. D. Douglas, Construction Project Manager C. W. Vincent, Project QA Manager G. T. Warnick, Site QA Manager The RRI also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the subject inspection period.
- Denotes those attending Houston management meeting March 11, 1980.
- Denotes those attending Houston meetinF March 11, 1980, and routine inspection meetings with RRI.
- Denotes those attending RIV exit meeting on March 14, 1980.
- Denotes those attending Houston meetinF March 11, 1980, and routine inspection meetings with RRI.
2. 10 CFR 50.55(e) Construction Deficiencies A management meeting with licensee management personnel was held in Houston on March 11, 1980. Nine agenda items were discussed licenseecommunicationswithRegionIVpersonnel.2ndtheRRI.-{ylativeto 10 CFR 50.55(e) reporting was discussed by the Region IV Construction and 1 Engineering Support Branch Chief. The RRI subsequently met with Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) site personnel on several occasions to discuss reporting methods in more detail. I I' IE Report No. 50-498/80-04; 50-499/80-04 2 I
e #?'%q, UNITso STATES j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f REOloN IV 011 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000 ARUNGToN, TEXAS 70011 March 2, 1981 In Reply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-08 50-499/Rpt. 80-08 1 Houston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. G. W. Opma, Jr. Executive Vice Pmsident Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 l Gentlemen: This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. W. A. Crossman, W. G. Hubacek and L. D. Gilbert of our staff during the period January 19-23 j and February 20, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Pemits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Project, Units No.1 and 2, in regard to alleged deficiencies appearing in a Houston Post article, dated February 24, 1980, concerning in-service inspection equipment. The investigation and our findings am discussed in the enclosed investigation report. Within the scope of the investigation, no violations or deviations were identi-fied. 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 investigation report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. I7 the report contains any infomation that you believe to be proprietary, it is l necessary that you submit a written applicatioT to this office, within 25 days of the date of this letter, requesting that sudi infomation be withheld from l 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 pmpared so that any proprietary information identified is ccntained in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will l 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. I STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 54 'Duf t of Slo 4200599
e Houston Lighting and Power Company March 2,1981 Should you have any questions concerning this investigati to discuss them with you. on, we will be pleased Sincerely. W. C. Seid, Chief Reactor Construction and E.aTosure: Engineering Support Branch IE Investigation Report No. 50-498/80-08 50-499/80-08 l l i l _s w=, wT** ,.m*--
) 7/ O
- '%'Y\\7///~#@
%4 !///k'S d \\\\\\V IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4 1.0 gm aza '!IfHE i I,IQ5 N=2a S8 1.25 .l.4 l 1.6 l / 6" l l /(% ///// 4% W d,>,, %,,.(4 4,,
l
- kkW k.h TEST TARGET (MT-3) l.0 M m DM 5
l# nu Lu w l,l ,,$
- b b
/ .8 l I.25 1.4 1.6 i / 6" 4 f(A %,, / 4% 3 F Axxx W.)i;h + 3,,,//
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-08; 50-499/80-08 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston Lighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Investigation conducted: January 19-23 and February 20, 1981 Inspectors: M n: / W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date YN l F W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section Date s/24/8/ C D. Gilbert, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section I Approved: m g/ W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date~ l A/34/// R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support 5ection Date 1 g, ~~-. c DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under: ONOOhOf ANO u No. of pages: / ~ w=_ __ _. -. _ _ _~__..__ _ _ _._w._. _ _ _ _ _ _., = ~
o. Investigation Summary: Investication on January 19-23 and February 20,1981 (Recort No. 50-498/80-08; 50-499/80-08) Areas Investigated: Special ceficiencies and inaccuracy o,f an in-serviceinspection device. unannounced tion involved sixty-six inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors.The investiga-Results: No violations or deviations were identified. e i i ?. --.-y.9-- -.-.-e, ,-y-,--e 4 e-d-ey'ye------w-------P ---*u-eg -w*w-- v==-wa-w--- - + - --=x=+--. --e.wwwwe
,p "' coq'o, UNITED STATES / NUCLEAR REuuLATORY COMMISSION ,?.' i R EGloN IV I,- ' b 611 RYaN PLAZA oRIVE. SUITE 100o ) ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 3 % '5
- f
- 4 sN.,,,.
June 23, 1980 In Reply Refer To: RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-09 50-499/Rpt. 80-09 Ecuston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. E. A. furner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Sox 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. D. D. Driskill and P. E. Baci of our staff during the period April 15-18, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for the South Texas Proj.ct, Units No. 1 and 2, concerning allegations of acce: pts to inti=idate QC inspectors and other e=ployees; and that the ternination of these employees was for reasons other than those stated by the contractor, Brown and Root. The investigation and our findings are discussed in the enclosed investigatica report. Within the scope of the investigation, no items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 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 investigation report vill 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 20 days of the date of this letter, reqs.esting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The application =ust include a full statement of the reasons why it is cla1=ed 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 vill also be placed in the Public Document Roem. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Roo=. STAFF EXHIBIT tt0. 55 f 5007250132. __.-..,.---+-.em-v
Houston Lighting and Power Company June 23,1980 Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we vill be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely,
- /
,,Y ',' -- 4 K.V.Seyfrit i Director b
Enclosure:
II Inspection Report No. 30-498/S0-09 50-499/80-09 4 b f i l I
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tHISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV REPORT NO. 50-498/50-499/80-09 DOCKET NO. 50-498; 50-499 LICENSEE: Houston Lighting and Power Company FACILITY: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 INVESTIGATION AT: Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED: April 15-18,1980 INVESTIGATOR: .Y M -A l /-I 'O
- 0. D. Driskill, Investi- $ffnSpecialist,RIY Date W( 4 Gt b E
/ b.,,
INVESTIGATOR:
P. E. Baci, Investigator, IE:HQ Oate f
~
f.
Q. /
/,,-
' %. T.
!. /
i i
APPROVED BY:
.& c 0
' -7 / C' O Xarl V. Seyfrit, Direct $, Iegion IV Date e m r-~~ w m m. w m e:
? m m.n
}~ :
J L."E". Marti Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
/Da(e (Paragrap 1, 2, 5 and 6)
Approved:
&j&0Uwefo T/D 2/70 W. A. Croissaan, Chief, Projects Section Date b FED R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section
' Date p-
.;f
,c--
.a f.;
>-i DUPLICATE DOCUMENT
(
~~
Entire document previously 7
entered into system under:
TOO 7/Od3#6
.,i
!*[
ANO No. of pac,9s:
b s
cla=,sa,;
- a w ;s.:s w z x 'e
~+ %. A..-..
v. Inspection Summary: Inspection on May 5-8, 1980 (Report No.50-498/80-11; 50-499/80-11) Areas Inapected: Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities including site tour; stop-work order for welding of reactor coolant pressure boundary piping and other safety-related piping for Units 1 and 2; observation of work related to welding of the reactor containment liner dome for Unit 2; and electrical cable and raceway installation. The inspection involved forty-two inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors. Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. l l i l 2 l l 4 ,.,y.,--,...,_,-e,,._-,-,,...w
l - ~. ~l i I y / e a'c,'o, UN!TED STATES oc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -l* N REGION iv 7.i7. V' k l o 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE.$UITE 1000 I % k s.' ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 g v f.,$ n.....f June 3, 1980 In Reply Refer to:- RIV Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-12 50-499/Rpt. 80-12 Houston Lighting and Power Company ATTN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and Technical Services Post Office Sox 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen: ~ This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. J. I. Tapia of our staff during the period May 12-15, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-128 and 129 for South Texas Project, Units No. 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. D. G. Long of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. Areas examined dtiring 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 3' with personnel, and obssrvations by the inspector. Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance were identified. i 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 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such information be withheld from public disclosure. The application must faclude a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The application should i STAFF EXHIBIT N0. 58 onP B d So07 MOM
Houston Lighting and Power Company 2 June 3, 1980 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 pericd, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, = ; = - - ^ W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-498/80-12 50-499/80-12 I m..,y.y,. _ ,-.+ -+. ,9 9 y -e.._ .._,,e .y y ,, _ _._.+,.,_.,y, ,%,p-,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMDT REGION IV Report No. 50-498/80-12; 50-499/80-12 Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 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 Proje.ct, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: May 12-15, 1980 Inspector:,,.ffb lJl@.
- p. I. Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Date Support Section Appro ed:
M d/8 86 e W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section 'Date b 'R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Uark i 4 M Tey"]F + <.<'"* - 4 *f' ) ^> 5' ' 7 % " "- ! i ;'} ~
- ->>s* :: ; M. A " j E' r.*S Gy'yyr
^ DUPLICATE DOCUMENT ~ Entire document previously ] entered into system under: $DO]0 00 Wl ANO I No. of pages: [ b m d i 80 ' 4 2 d-
- N
- N.M e 2+4. w k.% 'A wu,E# &n2.e 5 A. r
- v. A :-'
Inspection Sununary: Inspection on May 12-15, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/80-12; 50-499/80-12) Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities including observation of work and review of records related to earthvork and concrete, including a review of reported 50.55(e) items. The' inspection involved twenty inspector-hours by one NRC inspector. Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. w% 1 2 _ _ _ _}}