ML20029C158
| ML20029C158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1990 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029C132 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-90-361 NUDOCS 9103260319 | |
| Download: ML20029C158 (33) | |
Text
f.
L"m i b n1 Al t s
(
f ', p f,,h i
f.'UCL E AR REGUL A10RY COMMISSION J
S
- r. A smo t os. o. c. nns N,, ',, /
August 23, 1990 pcclet Nos. 50 499 thd bO-(99
'I d"*
1 M(gg3Q cerrbers of the NRC staf f ret with you and your counsel, to obtain all inforr.ation from you concerning potential safety <ssues which h not Lcen previously provided to tte hRC.
It was noted
- at that treeting that it was not possible for you to dif ferentiate between r.cw issues (issues that had not been investigated by the NRC) and old issues.
Ccnsequently, you attempted to identify all of yrur concerns regarding the South. Texas Project and to treak them out in a systematic eanner for presenta-tion to the staff. Your concerns were c_ategori ed into three groups.
One group consisted of 336 safety concerns. Jf c involve-The h p
otential including alleged harasserent and ' nt' midatio3 Enclosed with this letter are the results of the staff review of the safety concerns (Responses to Concerns).
The concerns are grou ed and presented in the sarre manner as they were presented to the staf f i The statements of the concerns are presented in surreary forit followed by the staff response. A nurber of the concerns had been previously addressed by the staf f.
They had been revie.ed either specifically or generically with other concerns of a sizflar nat ure.
The results were reported in the "NRC Safety Significance Assessment Team Report on Allegations Related to the $outh Texas Project. Units 1 and 2" (NUREG 1306), a copy of which has been previously provided to you, for those concerns, we have referenced the appropriate section of NUREC-1306.
Concerns 11 through 30 dealt with the engineering disposition of items as reported in the report titled South Texas Nuclear Project $ArE1EAM Concern Walkdown Summary, dated January 27, 1987.
You requested inforeation regarding the technical bases used by SAFETEAM for deternining the disposition of the items.
That information is provided in our enclosure.
Please note, as stated in our response to Concern 105, the SAFE 1EAM program has been reviewed by the NRC and found to be-acceptable.
Consequently, the staf f did not perfore additional reviews of those concerns.
h'ctr.di;; in 'c : r ::'d W d2Jd it :s: ara v.... ; ; in.L.: d ir }Mn i
A:t.Exc4Uns d d.-
S i
f01A.fd ol.6/ -
9103260319 910314 i
'JN(
-2o August 23, 2990 C: :( ts 1:0 thre v;5119 reisted to hRC Ir.5;utien it;or t !,D GE/67-30 and Ceri:trns 323 throv;h 136 which we re de veleped by you during a
- pre lockdo n" tour of Unit 2 in o t.t aA are also addressed in the enclosure.
%v: pl $ $ Y 3 M @g:ilI l I 71 pi n
w.ve, y
g b
l, y,,
llx
"}
m
\\
t N
i hi s
'd I t
5:
~
i d
)
M u
1 4
g i
T
- ,$f
.. [
{
Af 9.'
.p
'd
- g.,
k$" I b$'
d
\\-gyc 77.
plQp4. r-r.
s
+, q eg, c
w u,
,x s
1 -
41
,%qj;fs g;n 4
3 4
t Y
';bN h,,
- A-
- g w,.:. k, :
$,,$$a'hh.
g,g g
,d; x,
a....
~u gg
- 'fj.M.
kj'I6)n V
%mada, ppgjQi a_J 9
n A.;:r...as w aecsum me -
v v
August ?), 1990
~3~
u
- I c e rt/e d' Neff c%~ W
[7 r'~
v.
I 5
0 i
)
Based on our evaluation of the issues you raised, we consider the concerns identifled resolved.
Sincerely, origir.a1 Signed By Dennis H. Crutchfield, Director i
Division of Reactor Projects - Ill, IV, Y and Special Projects Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
L131D_ D1$1R18UT10N: This doeurent includes Responses to Concerns GDick inforn.ation which ETomlinson identiftes an alleger. -,
{ cc, w/ enclosure:
000 JLee DDriskill, Region IV
)
afor previous concurrences see attached ORC OFC
- hRR:PDlV 2
- hRR
- NRRiPDIY 2*
...... ;..........."... :...."....... :.............,.,. :; N R R i P 15 8 *
- 0GC P0iv 2"
............ ;... $g/. :; N R R :
........:............;.h..ph
- CGris>es NME :EPeyton ETomlinson :GDickt es
.1JLee
......:..............g...................p t
DATE' :7/16/90 17/16/90
- 7/10/90
"?6/90 8/k90 7/26/90 i
NE/R
._d OfC-
- NRR:AD/ PJ/,,
/p.... :....: R I V/Ol * : RR:R1V/ORP h:N SP :
......:..........................U.. Collins
- p,
NME :BBoger
- DDriskill A
- DC e d:
18/)/90 t?/26/90-882/90_
8#8/90 DATE 8
Of flCI AL RECORD COPY-Docun.ent Name: CORDER
Riso0NSES 70 CON tRN5 Concern 1: Counterfeit fasteners (bolts) were used at STP.
This concern is addressed in Section 5.4 cf NUR'EG 1806.
Concern 2: A hanger support lubricant plate was crushed.
No specifics wire provided to support this concern and the NRC staff was not able to substantiate the existance of a " crushed" plate.
However, the NRC staff reviewed Bechtel Significant Problem Description Report No. BB7D42Q (4/22/87) which addresses " coatings" on "lubrite plates".
The issue was raised by an NRC inspector which resulted in NCR SC-04042 and NCR SC-04D46. Subsequently, all lubrite plates were inspected in accordance with P1R BB7042Q, Rev.1 for improper coatings.
Ned there been any " crushed" plates, they would have been identified during this inspection and subsequently fixed.
However, the staf f did not lecate any information on any such repairs.
This concern could not be substantiated.
Concern 3:
Instrument panels are inaccessible for purposes of reading the instruments.
This concern is addressed in Section 5.1.7 of NUREG-1306.
Concern 4: - This concern has three subsections, each of which is addressed individually below; Potential for unacceptable pipe stresses because 300 feet of pipe was a.
installed on temporary supports with permanent foundations poured at a later date.
- There was only; limited information provided in support of this concern and the
- actual piping was not identified'by the concerned individual.
However, the staff was able to determine that the main steam line had been installed on -
temporary supports.
This issue was addres's'ed in Notice of Violation 8263-02 and in the HL&P response to the'NRC dated November 3, 1986. The issue was further addressed in NCR CS-04008 and found acceptable on the basis of Bechtel analysis RC-6548 which uswd computer design program ME-101.
On the basis that the piping addressed by the concerned individual was the main steam line, this concern is substantiated to the extent that temporary supports-
- were used. However, the portion of the concern dealing with pipe stress was not substantiated.
r---y'r' y
a n.v-r
.e r
v w
e e.
,m--
= - _.
b.
Adequate control of raterial in the Sort Yard.
Procedure S$P-13 contains provisions for controlling all esterials entering, leaving, or being returned to the controlled Material Storage Area (Sort Yard).
It also contains provisions for the disposition of caterials lacking adequate identification per ANSI N45.2.
This procedure has been in effect throughout construction of STP and implementation of this and other procedures has been inspected and found to be satisfactory by the NRC.
Therefore, the staf f concludes that there has been adequate material control at STP.
This concern could not be substantiated.
An area drain line was installed using homemade fittings.
c.
No specifics were provided with respect to this concern and the NRC staff could not locate any information pertaining to it.
From the information provided by the concerned individual, i.e., using a hammer and chisel to make a fitting, the NRC staf f concludes that the pipe in question was concrete drain pipe which would have no irnpact on saffi plant operation.
This concern could not be substantiated due primarily to a lack of adequate information.
Concern 5:
Galvanized pipe and screw type fittings were used in the instrument controlled air syste#
pipe will collect sludge and fittings are prone to leaks.
The NRC staff interpreted the above concern as one related to the safety grade compressed air system for use with reactor controls and safety systems. Using this interpretation, the NRC staff has determined that the concern, as stated, is not correct.
STP Specification SLO 19P5004, Supplement 1, Material Specif1-cation WA covers safety related instrument air systems.
This specification calls for carbon steel, ASME SA-306, Grade B seamless pipe with all welded fittings.
No galvanized pipe or screw type fittings are used in the safety related instrument air system, This concern could not be substantiated.
Concern 6:
Repairs made to steam generator tubes by Bechtel are inadequate -
tubes should have been replaced. How was it documented?
As stated, this concern is partially correct. The steam generators for Unit I which were subject to flow induced vibrations in the cold leg of the preheater bundle region were repaired.
The vibrations were the result of too much clearance between the tubes and their c:pport plates.
This clearance was reduced by expanding the tubes in the support plate regions.
In addition, the steam generator tubes at the tube sheet (hot and cold legs) were roto peened to change the stress state from tensile to conipressive.
However, this work was the responsibility of Westinghouse, not Bechtel.
The tube expansion was covered by Field Change Notice (FCN) TGXM 30552 and associated Westinghouse document
I 3
50 00 0C 039.
Roto r(ening was revered ty FCN 1GIM D0f) and essecieted h itin,w se Tc; tt ei h pu t WM-)M 70.
lie etcie ect' cts were re,te ed and f ound acceptable by the hkC staf f and here theroughly inspected and documented by onsite personnel.
Bechtel was not responsible for any of the repairs, it ves strictly a Vestinghouse responsibility.
Concern 7: A ger.eral concern regarding adsquacy of raterials receipt inspection, with emphasis on the rain condenser not being level.
This concern was lacking specific inferr.ation tacept for reference to the rain condenser.
The rain condenser is part of the STP balance of plant and has no safety related function with regard to safe plant shutdwn.
This concern could not be substantiated due to 1sek of specifics. Additional review effort was not warranted because of the absence of any safety concere,
, Conc e rn 8:
Batteries for e trgency lighting were ordered too soon - detericrated in storage due to tir.e and inadequate caintenance.
The statecents t-ade relative to this concern are essentially correct; batteries for erergency lighting were kept in storage for an extended period of tire during which tice they deteriorated and had to be replaced.
This is covered in Problem Report 8903930.
However, prior to coc.tencing operation at STP, the energency lighting had to be operable.
Continued operation is ensured through mainter.ance and testing in accordance with Preventive Maintenance No.
FE-0-LE 67036344 which is part of the STP Preventive Maintenance Prog, ram (Reference OPGP03 2M 0002).
The NRC staff also verified emergency lighting operability by randomly testing installed fixtures.
This concern was substantiated with respect to batteries being replaced.
- Hewever, the problem was corrected by the utility prior to plant operation.
- Further, there is no safety significance associated with it.
Concern 9:
Pump TPN 7R301NPA111A is not accessible for raintenance.
The NRC staf f inspected the installation of the above pump and concluded that the pump is accessible for raintenance.
In general, pump maintenance beyond occasional tightening of the packing glandis accomplished by removing the pump to a shop.
Based on the size and weight of the pump and motor, the NRC staff concluded that pump removal and reinstallation can be reasonably accomplished.
In addition, the packing gland is accessible for tightening.
This concern could not be substantiated, y mg SON og gqy -
intern 11: This issue involves the cintrnum bend radius on flexible conduits.
This concern is addressed in Section 5.6.4 of'NUREG-1306.
i
i 9
c..
4-Concern 12:
This issue involves the corrective action taken by HL&P on 12 items identified by the concerned individual as having accessibility problems.
Accessibility issues and Safeteam handling of same are addressed in Section 5.1.7 of NUREG-1306.
Concern 13i What was the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" six air l
operated valves with exposed lugs?
i DCAR #743 (November 3,1986) determined that the exposed lugs were not a problem for operators because of operator knowledge and training.
The exposed lugs are required to operate limit switt.hes.
Concern 14:- Why did Safeteam accept "as is" five monorail installations that the concerned individual feels have travel path interferences?
The-installations-were evaluated and it was determined that the above five would work with careful execution of the lif t.
Concern 15:- Why did Safeteam accept "as is" two conditions which the concerned
~ w in'dividual considered to be drainage problems?
One condition is at Elevation 2' in the RCB and involves condensate from the air conditioning coils.. Should the drains become plugged, the condensets
- will cause a change in level in the containment sump.
3 This level is monitored s.nd the level indication will provide information-regarding plugged drains.
The second concern is. elevation 10' in the MEAB.
In this case, the overriding criteria is to curb the spread of radioactive liquid waste.- Motors will be allowed to short out should the drains become plugged. The motors could be replaced at some later date.
Corrective aLtion for the above concerns was not i
deemed necessary.
Concern 16:-. What was the Safeteam rationale for accepting;"as is" seven items identified by the concerned individual as being improperly supported or having-material compatibility problems?
Three of the items-of concern (F001. F002 and F007) were acceptable because-the temporary hangers would be replaced bylermanent hangers. Permanent hangers have been installed.
Two additional items (F0003 and F006) were acceptable' because they were-to be permanently installed subsequent to' flushing and startup.-
The remaining two items (F004 and F005) were acceptable because the licensee determined lthat they were adequately supported.
Therefore, no corrective action -
was required.-
' Concern 17:: The Safeteam did not provide a response to the concerned individuals issue regarding reinforcement for two inch nozzle' connections -
to tanks.-
This concern'is addressed in Section 5.1.3 of NUREG-1306.
e a 'n
,~e 4
m, 4
,-.--,E-o r-.
,,,~..,..._,__,,.e,m.,.
,.. ~. - - -. -
..-.... ~,-...
~..J...J.
. ~ ~..
I 5
l Concern IB:
What is the Safettam rationale for accepting "as is" a hanger which does not allow seismic actiord Stress calculation RC-7478 confirmed that the allowable stresses for this line l
connection are not exceeded in a seismic event.
Concern 19: What is the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" 14 is' sues regarding coatings?
Coatings, as a generic issue, are discussed in Section 5.8 of NUREG 1306.
Concern 20: What is the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" a room with no permanent lighting?
Safeteam did not accept the ropa in question "as is".
A review of Dwg.
9-E-56 0-E-3605, " Lighting and Communications Plan" clearly shows that i
permanent lighting was always scheduled to be installed in Room 031.
It had not been completed when.th9 concern was developed, but has been subsequently
-completed.
' Concern'ti: What is the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" a rubber hose attached to a control valve that will be affected by radiation?
This issue.is addressed in Section 5.2.3 of NUREG-1306.
Concern 22: What is the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" two runs of rigid conduit which the concerned individual thinks era routed too low *?
J The area containing these conduits is normally unoccupied 60 there was no reason to add additional bends to the conduit to raise its height.
In addition, the conduit is not routed in a walkway or area normally used for j
access..
1 Concern 23: What was the disposition of remote valve extensions which were contacting other. items and which were rejected by Safeteam?
l
- This-issue is addressed in Section 5.2.4 of NUREG-1306.
Concern 24 - What was the Safeteam rationale for accepting a single valve installation on primary instrumentation lines as opposed to a double valva
. configuration that the concerned individual thinks should have been installed?
l i
This issue:is ' addressed in Section 5.6.2 of NUREG-1306.
i t
concern 25: What was the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" an all reservoir without a drain valve in Room 417 The normal method of removing oil is by pumping from the reservoir to a barrel.-
A drain' valve was not necessary.
)
l
. j l
j
. ~.. -.. ~. - - -.
.. ~
6-Concern ?6:
k' hat is the $afettam rationale for eccepting a percanent spool in h:m 3! Aich the concerted individual thinks is tlocking r:norail access to equipment instead of installing a removable spool?
The tnonorail can be used for rer. oval of exchanger headers and can access the tube bundles in a two step process with the permanent spool in place.
Because of inf requent menorail use, a redesign is not vstranted.
Concern 27:
k' hat is the Safeteam, rationale for accepting "as is" the gearing rechanism of a remote valve extension which the concerned individual thinks is excessive?
The installation of the gearing r.echanise is in accordance with vendor design drawings and specifications.
C_opeern 28:
k' hat is the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" the lines coming of f LVPs seel water panel No. 9R302Z1P 710/N1VL2LP?
This issue is addrested in Section 5.6.P of NUREG 1306.
,C_oncern 29:
b' hat is the Saf ettam rationale for accepting "as is" five iterrs which the concerned individual thinks are obstructing walkways and constitute a trip hazard?
Two of the iterns (5001 and 5002) are located in an ares where access is inf requent and a change is not warranted.
The other three items (5003, 5004, and 5005) are not located in the egress path and a change is not warr' anted.
Concern 30:
b' hat is the Safeteam rationale for accepting "as is" two flexible conduit instelhtions which the concerned individual thinks are subject to damage?
Or? of the conduits is not in an aisleway or access area and is, therefore, em vbject to damage.
The other conduit is associated with an infrequently useti valve and care will be taken when operating this valve.
A change is not warranted.
g,fgg g gar-b Q
Concern 32:
Unistrut and conduit is installed in direct contact with the floor in the reactor building and the MEAB, creating a housekeeping and radiation washdown concern.
This issue is addressed in Section 5.11.2 of HUREG-1306.
Concern 33:
Coatings at STP are not in conformance with the F$AR and have not been since 1982.
This issue of coatings is addressed in Section 5.8 of NUREG-1306.
7 Dacern34: Access to RHR punp RHR/ADC for r.ainterance is restricted.
All Rmr y;s in Urdt I sc re tattnsiuly cis e n er: bled since licensir.g. with significant portions of the punps rerr.oved to the rachine shop for rexachining.
The fact that extensive raintenance was perfortred on these purps is conclusive evidence that there is adequate access to the purps for this purpose. The p ep work was covered by C"Rs 5404, 5405, and 5406.
This concern could not be substantiated.gpgfg ggg g ggy i
e I
hY m
C_oncern 36: The polar crane had a defective wheel.
This issue is addressed in Section 5.30 of NUs.!G 3306. #d/4C 8Cc M gh{
Concern 40:
Is the raterial traceability correct for $200 pipe supports since these supports were originally procured by Prown & Root, subsequently scrapped, and replaced with supports procured by Bechtel?
The NRC could not locate any inforsation regarding 5700 pipe supports that ray have been scrapped by Bechtel.
Hewever, as stated in the respor.se to Concern #4(b), Procedure 55P-33 for controlling all raterials has been in ef fect for construction at STP.
Under the provisions of this procedure, all rnaterials are checked for proper traceability.
D'attrials with less than adequate traceability are scrapped.
Irtplementation of Procedure $$P 13 has been previously revie ed and approved by the NRC.
The staff believes that pipe supports scrapped would have been controlled by the procedure and adequate traceability would have been t.aintained.
This concern could not be substantiated, primarily due to lack of inforvation.
{
Ou YHo.c
- rcop c A
concern 43: While drilling a hole in the IVC vall, a void was found. The void
~
contained a chain f all and a corte along.
Is there adequate documentation covering patching of the void in an IVC wall?
\\
A search of STP records was conducted I.. an effort to locate an NCR or other doeurentation dealing with a void in an IVC wall which contained a chain j
fall and a enme along.
Several NCRs covering voids in the IVC valls vere found, but these were concerned with-surface type voids, not the deep void that vould be required to house a chain fall and a corte along.
There were
" block outs" included in the IVC valls for eain steam lines and it is possible the above items could have been lef t in one of these " block outs". How e ve r,
.c.
9 tit e d c.n ite infc.rr atien pre vided, the ht C st eif (:t s r.:t rcesic4 r this to te a credible event for the following reasots:
It is questionable whether or not a chain fall would fit between the reinforcing bars in a 2 foot thick wall.
It was stated that this void was discovered in the process of drilling a hole in the IVC wall, r.ost likely for installing an anchor of sor.e kind.
Identification of itees such as a chain fall or come-along would not be possible through such a relativ(ly stall hole - a substantial a t.ount of concrete would have to be removed for identification purposes.
The concrete would have fomed around the chain fall and cota-along to a laige extent anc would not have left a large void.
Remeval of the above rentioned itt s would involve subst6ntial work that w:vid cover rivch rore tir.e than ne few beurs stated.
This concern could not be substantiated due to. lack of specific inferration af,d for the riasons stated above.
Concern 44:
Acid was dripped on stainless steel pipe.
This issue is addressed in Section 3.1 of NUREG 1306.
Co v ent 45:
A question regarding use of the "Cockbook" for design and installation of HVAC components.
This issue is addressed in Section 5.3.1 of NUREG 1306.
Concern 46:
There was a 60% error rate in the computerized report used by scheduling and installation.
The concerned individual did not provide any specific identification of the report.
The NRC staff deterstned that the report in question could have been enociated with the Aaterials Labor Control System (MLCS).
The MLCS was a ranagerrent tool used to obtain information on plant status for contractual purposes.
It was not a quality related document, it was constantly teing updated and could easily have been in disagreement with records maintained for other quality related purposes. Any such discrepancies would not have had an impact on plant safety.
This concern could not be substantiated.
Additional effort was not warranted because of the lack of safety significance, ggq f
jg i
O b
_ Concern 48:
Bechtel changed paint colors for dif ferent types of r.aterials from Brown & Root colors because of concern for paint pigment contamination
_mm__.
-a---_--___..__.__-_-.m
_._...-.__m____-.__.._-_
9 ccepliance with ASut, but did not retrc fit tre.n & hc t g e M( t t i'tritis.
Al's, De sa f ated tte (ciors selected ty techtel which s;ade it dif ficult to detentine what the colors stre intended to signify.
Etchtel did not change the color schere used by Brown & Root, i.e., & green-gray inorganic 2inc (cating for ASME steel to be used outside contaiment and a red gray inorganic zine for ASME steel to be used inside containtent.
Therefore, no retrofit was necessary.
Bechtel added an epery coating for ANSI steel conponents to be used inside contaircent. The colors were used as an aid for quick identification of various types of steel, but color was not relied on for ensuring the proper raterial was used.
Specific e.aterial identification was used for this (starps, data plates, etc.).
The above colors were subject to fading in the sun, but not to the point of non recognition.
Etchte) s uperirented with hite and black ink on soe.e bulk steel as a resns of sirplifying rateria', traceability when the bulk raterial was febricated into specific ittas.
The ink did fede in the sun and the esperirent was atandoned.
The use of ink dU vat progress pest the ea;.erleental phase.
There are no ASM[ requirenee!.t regarding paint pigment.
There are coating requireeents for ASME and ANSI steel which were folle ed.
This concern could not be substantiated.
Concern 49:
Significant arovnts of raterial were scrapped because of code ciata plate problees or problems with identifying eaterials due to paint color fading.
There dces not appear to be a safety concern because the eaterial was scrapped, if any of the c.aterial had Questionable traceability, it was not a problem because it was scrapped.
If the concern is with regard to the cost of scrapping the raterial, it is still not a safety concern.
Ef forts to substantiate this concern were het warranted on the basis that there was no safety significance, agr77jg gg 05 L i
_ Concern 51:
Bechtel cleaned and used some structural steel that had been declared surplus bec:use of corrosion, but not all of the surplus steel.
Why was only part of the steel used?
It is correct that Bechtel cleaned and used some structural steel. Approxtr.ately 750 tons of steel was sandblasted and then inspected for effects of oxidation.
A very stringent inspection criteria was used and some beams and channels were found acceptable for use.
The remainder of the steel was scrapped because it did not confore.to the inspection criteria used.
1 i
--,,,,,a
-n-.
+r---
\\
- 10 =
Concern $2:
Substantial trounts of asbestos insulated ceble was screpp d et great ccst.
The ARC staf f was unable to identify any safety issues allociated with this concern since it was stated that the cable bas scrapped.
Efforts to substantiate this concern were not warranted o was no safety significance.
c;g71s'/s er-
- 40##
"l L
d Concern $4:
of titie without proper a,aintenance.The Unit I turbine generator was stored cu The turbine generator and any eatnter.ance conducted thereon is not cons to te safety related.
lycks safety significancfr. Efforts to substantiate this concern wtre not warra Coscern 55:
Unit 2 eain condenser tubes are out of aligreent.
This appears to be a repeat, or pessibly a different view of the sue issue raised in Concern 7.
This concern could not be substantiated for the sarr.e reasons response to Concern 7.
Concern 56:
proviced by k'estinghouse.51P used fasteners on k'estinghouse switchgear which wer This issue is addressed in Section 5.4.3 of K' REG 1306.
j g
Toncern70:
hurricanes and tidal waves?Is $7P adequately designed for 6uch events as flood During the licensing review, the t.fesign of STP had been evaluated with r to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and tidal waves,- and found to be accepta This concern could not be substantiated.
I
21 -
dvT5/CE
.fdep6
"~
TQ *.,, cf.. y :g,r# m. 4; q g ql;)p Q %",y "'tf f' f n-~,y-7
- w v r e v " y P r w
"~n- <. C, q,y,4 y; - gggg{gggy1, ? fjf?'f k.hh: k u 7 r 4 g g g gk? f j [g' g$L dA.S,d2 f q g ~ Ccncer+5 67 301: The se cenct-rns all relate to c>t'servations c ade on high soltage s itti; tar in tr e Unit 2 turbine t.vilding. All cf these concerns are addressed in A;tendix C to N3[G 1306. (&,7CQQ"IQW! Qh?ORh,f. f a 5 @/ ~4syftaQL. + 3L"QTQWWQiX,k3Ak%:.'.beM $5n $$8L&hi$$Mk b parstOd' L O P Q: 3 (c.c e n 103: fit c:e s ret ts e an ecce; tame, wcr6 4ble, s alid er ess plan fcr tte[iIcie:, Froc eLre ClfiDI 2 A C07 ( Accevnt ebility/f w acuatic'ns) is a rane;er(nt plan of
- .'at to ec wi t n pe rs onnel are a s s e"H e d f c11c1 i t.; a sig*al.
Gent ral firpleyce Trainir; I and 2 t rcside instructicr's re;arding saricus e ergency signals and what to do in the eient a sigral is st unded. On the jcb training prcvidts plant fa-iliarity and egress frcm all plant areas. In additicn, tre licensee is i reavired to condsct e ergency drills on an anrus) t. asis and ccnducts ite sa e drill c n a c.a r t e rly t a s i s tg their o. procedures. The ann.al emergt ncy drill i s g4 6 c e d t y U e h 3 C a n d F E KA. All grad:s to date have Leen satisf actory. This cen:ern cevid nct te substantiated. d vT.5 / o 4~ 26,e ( l n ~ Cc nc e r n 105: In the opinion of the ccncerned individual, the Safett et program j is/.as not effective. 1 As stated this concern empresses the *c; inion" of the concerned individsal. The hRC taf f has re,ie.ed the Safette program and found it to te an ef fective program. The NGC conclusion is Lased on n erous audits of Safeteam activities, j conducted by hRC resident inspectors, HEC Fegion IV inspectors, hRC hRR personnel, and the SSAT. The results of these inde;endent audits are consistent; the I Safeteat progra.m is effective. I This concern could not te substtntiated. I hpTJ: Concerns 106 throu;h 119 refer to HEC Inspection Feport 50 499/67-30. Ccncern 206: 'ey was iter E-C6 under prevhus allegation 4-80 A 311 rc.crked af ter it had Lt en dis;csit tened "use as is'1 I l l l l l 4 l l
.w- .~.n.~.,--- w-+-w..sw--~.- --ma,,---- - r a.a.:-. m a..s,. s,->w mma r 1p. The original engineering evaluation of this ites was "use-as is" because i accessibility to the room in question was adequate. As a result of hot functional testing, it was decided to move the valva extension brace in question from one wall to another in order to enhance accessibility to the ropa. The decision made during functional testing was made independent of the engtheoring evaluation, but is not in conflict with it. Concern 1_07: What was the new corrective action identified during the review of original Concern 112277 4 Item No. H-14 involved a support at the top of the stairs leading to Aoon 206. The support was relocated to preclude personnel from running into it. l Concern 108: What was the rationale for the statement in Inspection Report 47 30 (page 9) l ~ that the itens addressed in Concerns 11445 and 11447, if lef t undetected, none of the items identified could affect the safe operation or safe shutdown of the plant? No technical basis was cited. - t i Th'e determination that' none of the items identified in Concerns 11445 and 1 would affect plant safety was made on the basis of an engineering evaluation done by personnel who were knowledgeable in the areas of nuclear power pitnt design and operation and who had specific knowledge of the STP design. The personnel responsible for the engineering evaluations knew what systems / components were safety-related and which were not. The NRC agrees with tM conc 3usions reached. The licensee reviewed each concern and then had an ino= pendent 4 consultant conduct an overview of the engineering review and each disposition. The approach to this engineering review by the licensee ja detailed in Inspection Report 50 408/87 07, a copy of which is in the Public Document Room fer South Texas located at the Wharton County Junior College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas. Concern 109: On page 10 of Inspection Report 87-30, there is 4 reference to reconciling the engineering resolutions with field inspection results. % hat does this mean? 4 An independent consultant reviewed the con'c' erns and the engineering dispositions. Additionally, the' consultant conducted a field inspection of the concerns. The reconciliation was that the field observations and th;. enf ietting dispositions -.were. found to have followed accepted operation and maintenance practices.. The consultant also reviewed and concurred with a set of criteta used for the engineering' dispositions,salso as part of the reconciliation.- Concern 110: In Report OFE STP-03, dated May.4, ~1987, there is a conclusion that all concern resolutions (either rework or remain-as-is) appear proper, reasenable, and in line'with acceptable engineering maintenance, or operation practice., What is the rationale behind this conclusjon? The above conclusion was that of the independent consultant that conducted an overview of the disposition of Concerns 11227,11445, and 11447. It is based e-- +'g_t-g e---% 9,^ u-- s-s5*2y*,wp .gui9,.rg--yp-- +1,ymy=-gsyegm -g-W%4.a,- ---Meg-gr ep-e-w ey nigg -_ ygee w. FM-T - 9-W'N' W-W'W W r' 1*'-'-Y*'F-* D w-N=f*-Ma W ' ' - '"WN-""''"* ' ' ' 'Y"*
- W*'"'W*WWNWT ' *W
ew+ esi'twwweryw<-
. - - _ ~ - - - -.-~-- 33 i l on the reconciliation de!,cribed in the response to Concern M at:vve. This reconcilietion included a review of the approach taken to rev 4w of the concerns. This approach is described in ih nection Report 50 498/67 07. Concern Ill: Why was the dinosition of {4 s B 35 changed from corrective / action required to accept as is, as st4ted on page 10 of Inspection Report 87-307 Item B-35 relates to a valve which is osed to isolate other valves which in turn, isolate hose stations, etc., in the fire system. The originsi disposition was changed o i the basis that the use of the valve wouW be infrequent and requiremenis for meintenance would also be infrequent. Therefore, a correctin odion was not justified. It should be'noted that the normal position of this valve is open and as long as it is open, the fire system is or can b9 ectivated. Therefore, valve accessbility is not 4 concern from an operctional perspectiva. Concern 112: Why was iten B 49 redispositioned as stated on page 10 of Inspection Report 87-30? Th'e original disposition did not include th correct room number for item B 49. When the correct room number was provided, the engineering evaluation was reviewed and :edispositioned to ensure that the correction had no impact. There was no impact. t ~ . Concern 113: How can an item in a concern be dispositioned on something that will happen in the future? (See page 10 of Inspection Report 87 30). In addition to the review of the items in Concerns 11227,11445, and.u447 by Safeteam, an independent consultant, and NRC, the Safeteam developed matrices which-show that these items had been or would be reviewed by various organizations during the conduct of 27 project activitiest in some instances, items had been or would be reviewed by up to 316dditional organizations. -The stated concern about dispositioning items in the present based on something that will happen in the future apparently stems from a misinterpretation of Inspection Report 87-30. All concerns were reviewed and dispositioned by Safeteam and the matrices were intended to show the extent <af additional reytew they would receive during the course of project activities. Concern 114: The concerned individual questions use of the tore "and the like" on page ID ef Inspection Report 87 30. . The_ term in question was used in a portion of Inspection Report 87-30 which describes the additional reviews to which the items in Concerns 11227, 11445, and 11447 will be subject when the plant progresses to a point where the review is warranted. The use of the term does not negate' the complete review of concerns conducted by $afeteam and others, nor does it impact on the disposition of-the concerns. The staff views this concern as an editorial comment that is not associated with the original Concerns 11227, 11445, or 11447, and did not conduct any review regarding it. q-5 ,_,,.-...,--,n. ,,,, -.,. ~,. -
0: y r
- ri)l5:
V' at is the r aticule for n ceptir g # s is tLe s t.1,e im t alle tices a drcssed in item B 34 of Concern No. 31??? when 6 f wd in 'Hght o/ potential radiation exposure to workers who will have to pe forn r.aintenersce in the atea7 (See Irispection Report 87 30, pt ? 11). Tt.e are A in question is not now a radiation area. The radiation levels are reasured in millirem. Should the area become more contaminated, all vork done j in it will be covered by a radiation work pera.it (RdP). This TVP will deterv.ine j the radiation levels present and e.stablish the raximum tire a worke.t' can spend in the area without exceeding the ruircum allooble exposure. Cor4cern 116: This is a repeat of Concern 21. Concern 117: This is a repeat of Concern 28. d Concern 118: This is a ra; tat of Concern 32. ,Ce nc e rn_119,: What is the ratior. ale for eccepting as-is the RHR purp instsilation .htn vic.ed in light of potential radiation exposure to workers who wiil have to perform ttaintenance on the pump seals which are locatud nine feet ebove the floor? (see Inspection Report 67 30, page 12). Any work done on RHR pump seals will be covered by a WP and worker exposure will be controlled through the RWP es described in the response to Concern ])S. MTE: Overall accessibility to the RHR p ops for raintenance is discussed in the respense to Concern 34. ggy g og i Ok Concern 121: The concerned individual questions the corpetency of HL&P rariage.ent with respect to o ntracting with Vackenhut for STP site security. This issue is based on the incorrect view that hs&P contracted with Wackenhut 'o provide site security at 51P without determining whether or not Vackenhut had qualifted fireates instructors. In point of fact, HLAP did not solely rely on Vackenhut for this purpose. HlLP employed their evn qualified firearts instructors who trained Vackenhut personnt). The training progras utilized by HL&P was consistent with the requirements of 10 Cf R 73, Part $5, Appendix B. This program has more stringent requirements than iba Texas state prografn which is what Vackenhut would have used had they provided the firearts training. This concern could not be substantiated. Cor.cern 122: The concerned individual has received epproximately 40 concerns regarding STP from another person and questions how these concarns might be reviewed. I I
)$. o In the transcript it is statrd thet the ebeve 40 (cra a r ris u re in thN file s and u rt e. ail # U c. fcr rt it-ty tfe !!A. I bt se c onc t i r s w e r ekch idt r e d process to dis esition the concerns in tho[sety the tic'f t.ecause the 55AT re les. At no tire during the review of th files was the identity of any concerned individual rade known to the SSAT and e SSAT was also not alle ed to identify concerns relative to file numbers. Consequently, the $$AT vorking documents did not include anythin that would allew identification of any individual concern or group of concerns.g The lack of any concerned individual's identity precluded any direct correspondence between the 55AT and them, so the SSAT review was conducted such that all concerns were encto;>assed by the results reported in NUMC 1306. If, homever, the originate of the above 40 concerns feels there is new infortation regarding those concerns which has not previously been available, the concerned individual should contact the NRC and provide this inforcation for consideration as detailed in NRC Hanual Chapter :1C 0517. Concern U 3. A (circuit) bretu r panel tr$ the Unit 2 security buildirig was open and anyone could have operated the switrJes. This observation was eade av. ing a tour of Unit 2 jprior to construction coepletion and initiation of g full security. As a result, some clarifying statemeots relative to the t obsersation are as follows. First, there is no breater panel in the area of the security building (West Cate) where this observation was cade. The panel in question is an alarm panel. Second, at the time of the observatio'n, STP Unit 2 was not 100% complete, there was no fuel in the reactor and full security was not in ef fect. Third, the panel in question was open to allow termination of alarm circuits as p?rt of plant construction cortpletion. The panel today is inside the protected area, is padlocked with approved security locks, ary has tarrper aiares. There was not and is not any security concern relative to the observed panel. This toncern was not-substc-tiated. Concern 124: The peer outlet for a retal detector in the Vest Cate is located flush with the floor and is vulnerable to Yeing kicked or shorted out through collection of debris. The NRC staf f inspected the reta' detector installations in the Vest Gate. The NRC staf f did not find any electrical outlets located flush with the floor, nor did they find any outlets in a location that would tr.ake them vulnerable to being kicked. This concern could not be substantiated. Concern 125: The concerned individual questions the adequacy of egress from the containment air lock. 3 - - ^ - - - - - - - - - ^ -
~ s The observations rade by the concerned individual relative to the re:te t*!en to < >it -the contaireent are a 5:< ntirl'y cor rect. it.e c ha ract(ritatic s thet it is it.a dequate. bc.c s e r, is a ce tt t r of opinion. It is the HkC staf f's judgment that egress is adequate and becores even more so in light of plant familiarity on the part of personnel. This concern was not substantiated. Concern 1?6t The toncerned individual feels there should be a walkway between the turbir.; building and the roof of the HEAB. The MCAB is separated from the turbine building because the former is a vital-area and the latter is not. Access to the MEA 3 is core tight?y controlled than is access to the turbine building, a concept that is consistent with a good security program. - The NRC staf f finds this acceptable. This concern w:e not sub.tantiated. Cu r r t, 227: There were tripping hazard > on the operating deck in the ca 1 ini..ent building around the steam generator shield vells. At the tine of the NRC staf f visit to STP, Unit 2 was at power. Therefore, the NRC staff did not have access to the containn.ent in order to review this- ' concern. Hosever, additional efforts to substantiate this concern were not -varranted because' there was no significance to plant safety. 3 This-concern was not substantiated. Concern =128: There were tangled cables on the fuel handling platfort hoist-(inside containment). This observation was rada of Unit 2 prior to plant completion and. fuel' load. Subsequent to the observation, fuel was successfully loaded using this equipt.ent. The fuel leading process was observed oy NRC personnel and no tangled cables were:in evidence. This concern could not be substantiated.- . Concern 129: A telephone in Unit 2 control room was covered by r.anuals. As stated previously, this observation was ende prior to plant completion. The manuals observed were in all probability, being ur.ac in terminating circuits in the control room. The telephone was not required for any safety purpose.- - During their visit toLSTP,-the NRC staf f went to the Unit 2 control room and observed no interferences between the manuals and telephones. Additional' efforts to substantiate thisiconcern were not warranted because there was no safety significance. ' t 0 5 i - ~ - -, - ' c
-U- ) Conce rn 130: The concerr.e d individual obst rved control room op rate rs.ith s c f t c* irs s and qa stict.s wh the r or n:t t!(se liqMs cculd t.e spilled on the contre) coriole s and ceuse equiptnent talfunctions due to short circuiting. Since control room operators are not allowed to leave the control room during their work shif t, they are allowed to have food and drinks in the control room. It is a policy at STP, he ever, that food and drinks be confined to the desk area in the center of the control room and away frem the equipment consoles. Adherence to this policy precludes spilling of any liquids on the consoles, as well as the potential for short circuits. The NRC staff has not observed any violations of this policy and is una.are of any problems resulting from allowing food and drinks in the control room. The statement regarding possession of food and drink in the control room was substantiated. However, it is controlled and ir not a safety concern. Ccnc ern 3 31: Control panels in the Unit 2 control room vere lef t open, cre ating a potential for debris entering the panel and ceasing electronic problees. Tbis eservation was made Contro% As stated previously, Unit 2 vas-not complete at that tiee. l paners were lef t open because they had to be -open in order to allow completion and testing. All panels were citaned and tested for ralfunctions prior to Unit 2 going critical. This concern could not be substantiated. Concern 332: This concern deals with alleged inadequde mounting of ' fire extinguishers in the Unit 2 control room. The Unit 2 control room has a fixed fire rotection system. The portable extinguishers observed ere there on a temporary basis until the fixed fire protection system becue operable. This concern could not be substantiated. Concern 133: This concern deals with alleged inadequate fire protection for the deatrator building. There is-no deaerator building at STP and there are no fuel tanks adjaunt to the east vail of the diesel generator building. It would _ appear that the building in question is that portion of the turbine building which supports the moisture separator reheaters. There are two transformers adjacent to the turbine building and to the _ north of the diesel generator building. These transformers have a fire vall around their west and north sides and are equipped with a deluge system. The structural steel of the turbine building in_ the area of the .transforcers has fire protection r,aterial covering it from a point several feet-below the-top of the-transforcer fire wall'and extending upward approximately 40_ feet and to the : north (away from the transformers) approximately 60 feet. This added naterial provides adequate protection against structural steel deformation or f ailure~ in the' event of a transformer fire. Additional protection is not required because of the transformer fire wall and the fact
- IL - 7.< - that the tanks in question contain non-flammable demineralized water and water - treatment chemicals. This concern could not be substantiated. . Concerns 134,135,- and 136: The concerned individual is of the opinion that egress -f rom the NEAB and the diesel generator building is not adequate. The NRC staff conducted a "walkdown" of the egress routes described in these 4 The NRC staff acknowledges-that the routes described are essentially concerns. correct, but does not agree with the charactertration of these egress routes as being inadequate. In the NRC staff's view, these egress routes are adequate and this view is supported hy the sucetssful cond<4t of on site emergency drills. These concerns could not be substantiated. a ss i 4 1 e. l l l 't
s p. ~ g + ,.s;; 9 / g' y [a. ~~ L s 1 F u ALL L E G A'T_.I;O;N M A N A G E M E NJT - S Y $ T.E M LALLEGATION NUMBER - NRR-8T-A-0021 RUN DATEi 890518' DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT:205000498'/ SOUTH TEXAS 1- /1' DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000499 / SOUTH TEXAS 2 /2 DOCMET/ FACILITY / UNIT: /
- DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT
/ - / / ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES - -FUNCTIONAL' AREAS 1'- OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION - SITE MANAGEMENT IS TELLING EMPLOYEES NOT TO TALK'TO NRC EMPLOYEES OR EX-SITE EMPLOYEES AND TO MEPORT ANY CONTACTS-BY NRC EMPLOYEES TO SITE MANAGEMENT. CONCERMS - 1 SLURCE - -4 )- CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 871209 B'Y - J.CAlv0 / NRR ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - P OCONNOR- - (3011492-9406 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN ~ BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO SYATUS'- CLOSED 'SCHED COMPLETION,-- 890131 DATE CLOSED - 890516 ALLEGATTON SU8STANTIATED - NO ALLEGER NOTIFIED - NO Of ACTION - YES OI. REPORT NUMBER 88-006 REMARKS ,ALy GATION RErEIVED.IN PHONF CONVFRSATION WITH 1:fLIDENTIFIED ALLEGERJ c' 'THI LINE WHE b LLEGATION WA'S MADE. WERE ON 2/a8. RIV OYADVISES CASE INITIATED. 4-88-006: PRIORITY: HL: CCD-4/58. S/16/89n NRR OAC CALLED D:OIR4 WHO ADVISED 04-88-006 WAS-ADMINJS QATIVELY CLOSED 3/22/89 BY MEMO OIR4 TO.EDO. ADVISED THAT . HIS nut [ UNABLE -TO CONTACT ALGR HE WILL SEND OAC COPY OF 4 TO EDO FOR.NRR.ALGTN FILE, (REC *D 5/18/89) t 4 . STATUS: 5/89 CLOSED 'ADMINISTRATIVEtY CLOSED 8V-01. . }- ENTERED SYSTEM - 871210- CLOSED. SYSTEM.- 890518 RECORD CHANGED - 890518-b6 Minm;recogm a g e ~ _-u.,.,. A,j a c{ h, ~~ : Q N CX:.W'idwti.; f[ j &ymggg } jg;yfe.ygy + e 4 .m.~ -a -.a . m ,~.- s
i A L L E G A T I O N-MANAGEMEN T SYSTEN AltECATION NUMBER - NRR-88-A-00> RUN DATE: 880321 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000498 / S..H TEXAS 1 /1 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR L MATERIAL LICENSES - FUNCTIONAL AREAS - OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION t DESCRIPTION - SOME BURIED PIPE WAS INSTALLED WITH DEFICIENT MECHANICAL JOINTS. CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE - CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 871130 BY - J CALVO / NRR ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - PW OCONNOR - (301]492-3026 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO SYATUS'- CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 880809 DATE CLOSED - 880321 ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - NO ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES OI ACTION - NO OI REPORT NUMBER - REMARKS - THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED IN THE ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS RrPEESENTATIVE OF A GROUP OF ALL HAT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAI r TO THE THROUGH THE WITHIN THIS GROUP r1t a t a MA CIFIC ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED BY THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM. 3/21/88: ALLEGATION CLOSED BASED ON SSAT REVIEW OF CONCERN AND PUBLICATIO OF NUREG-1306. COPY PROVIDED TO ALLEGER'S REPRESENTATIVE ENTERED SYSTEM - 880209 CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 RECORD CHANGED - 880321 h u u!: m in gy a, a, W 0rd was gefgggg .e fl. ncr$rk;g~.&3fic,i0130f1 form 3jng k
- UiA YMis, f)
ALLEGATION MANAGEMEHT SYSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - NRR-88-A-0005 RUN DATE: 880321 DOCKET /FACILITV/ UNIT: 05000498 / SOUTH TEXAS I /1 DOCAET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / / DGCnET/ FACILITY / UNIT; / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT. / / ACVIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES - FUNCTIONAL AREAS - OPERATIONS "NSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION - TWENTY (20) PERCENT'0F THE VALVES ARE ALLEGED TO'HAVE SEEN INSTALLED BACKWARDS. CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE - CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 871130 BY - J CALVO / NRR ACT20N OFFICE CONTACT - FW OCONNOR (301)492-3026 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO STAYUS - CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 380809 DATE CLOSED - 880321 ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - N0' ~ ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES O! ACTION - NO OI REPORT NUMBER - RLN",WKS - THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED IN THE t.LLEGATTON MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A GROUP OF ALL CATm e T +4 T HAVE Bf
- A A T L A tt L E TO C THROUGH THE tt! THIN THIS.itsCN1Pfl0N GROUP t a
<w ECIFIC AltfGATIONS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED BY THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM. 3/21/88 ALLEGATION CLOSED BASED ON $$AT REVIEW or ALLEGER S CONCERN AND PUBLICATION OF NUREG-!306 A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ALLEGER'S REPRESENTATIVE. M ENTERED SYSTEM - 880209 CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 RECORD CHANGED - 880321 9
A L L E G A T'I O N % A'N A G E M E N Y. S Y $ T'E M ALLEGATION NUM8ER - NRR-88-A-0006 RUN DATE: 880321 ~ DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000498 / SOUTH TEXAS 1 /1 00CKET/ FACILITY / UNIT: -/ / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: /. / 00CKET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / / ACT2UITY TYPES - REACTOR MAYERIAL LICENSES - FUNCTIONAL AREAS - OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION - THE ALLLGER STATED THAT HVAC WELDS WERE POORLY DONE. ~ CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE-[ CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 871130 BY -J CALVO / NRR ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - PW 0CONNOR - (3011492-3026 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION'- NO SYATUS - CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION -- 880809 DATE CLOSED - 880321 A_tEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - NO ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES O! ACTION - NO .01 REPORT NUMBER ~ - HEMARKS - THIS ALLEGATION 13 ENTERED IN THE ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A GROUP CF ALL ATTONS THAT HAVE REFN MADE AVAILAMLE TO THE NaC THROUGH THE u! THIN THIS DLLLM UN GROUP .cLac ANL APPM Ra it Av L ECIFIC ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED BY THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE' ASSESSMENT TEAM. 3/21/88 THIS ALLEGATION CLOSED BASED ON SSAT S REVIEW OF ALLEGER'S CONCERNS AND PUBLICATION OF NUREG-06 A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ALLEGER S REPRESENTATIVE ENYERED SYSTEM - 880209 CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 RECORD CHANGED - 380321 S
1 //// O N 1 1 2 E P 3 2 3 E T V U 0 M 8 I E 1 H R M, 8 0 T N A O Y 8 8 S D 2 GEA P E I 6 3 TT RE O S F 2 0 NA AT C T E A N 0 8 EH F D OAg T N X O 3 8 S MT TT EG S A O E C E E AN W N D I T 2 Y GS HE Y T 9 AN TM E A I6 H N C H 4 D - NO M S V0 C S U U T 1 E AI CSS R R U R 1 S D MT SNE E3. D T O R 0 O O E A EOS R1E S S N 3 N L I N DIS V R C F O TA SGI O T N ( ET C O E / I ILESA N C H E T TLHIGE TRA E T N T O AATHEC AUt R E O A N G TLN SNs T I D EFH LA S E M A T R LOGMAC FS 1 1 A E L UI I NOE 2 E D C G APOHCF O R 3 S E I E UPTII N' 0 G A S F 9 L EOHI N DOL 8 I X U I 0 L HRTWIG EIW 8 A E T 8 A TG CI ST T E O 0 ES AAS N R N 8 NA BC' H E 8 I Y IR M A T W D F T DLE E U R RDOE E EBG T M O S A EE H F SUR S S R R O N BRET A OPE Y 7 E O O B O MEV S L L S 0 //// S N V N I UTIO CDL N 0 N E L N T NNTT E NA D 0 8 O T A O E EA H NA E O - 9 I S C C N L O T TE AT O E S A 4 T A O W P N RSNL M ISH O I 0 A F O M OIES 1Y TNT L 8 0 R J W N O P SA xB AR C T 8 0 E T P M C ENEt O GEO 5 R P I N D RORf RD ECT A R 0 O O E - U D E IPA PE LN 9 R T F Y E T ITEV PW LOD 0 C R B T - H A DARA AE ACE 2 G N TTTT A E C C I G I D 0 E IIII E T A E S T ESF LV SI 5 NNNN R N T C N -LAD RE ' V 8 L R UUUU S U 0 N N A L A AR 8RO E //// - E S O 3 O A T AMM 8ER L B YYYY S A C 1 C C D S E iG /GP M TTTT S N E 1 I E B OSTN aN 1E M A U IIII E E R 7 E F S U NISE tI 2LS E N LLLL P C A 8 C I O S H*F nE /LA T IIII Y I N I N L TSB iB 3AW S N CCCC T L L O F G C N Y O AAAA A I S F I O N-S I FFFF Y L N T N1 - D O S - I O T //// T A O P R E T IS D A TTTT I I I I E E V N Y S A TA E G EEEE V R T R C C I C T U G CR R E KnMA I E C C N R E I E T E AA E L CCCC T T N S O U C T F A L M T S L OOOO C A U E C O E C A T L 1E N A DDDD A M F D S D A S S A 0P E
A L L E G A T.I O N MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - NRR-88-A-0008 RUN DATE: 880321 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000498 / SOUTH TEXAS 1 / 1 DOCRET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / /- 00CRET/ FACILITY / UNIT: '/ / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / ACVIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES - FUNCTIONAL AREAS - OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION - THE ADE00ACY TRACEABILITY AND QtfALITY OF THE WELDING AT THE SOUTH TEXAS SITE IS QUESTIONABLE 8ECAUSE BAD WELD ROD WAS USED. CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE - CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - S71130 BY -J CALVO / NRR ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - PW OCONNOR - (3011492-3026 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO STATUS - CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 880809 DATE CLOSED - 880321 ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - NO ALLEGER w3TIFIED - YES O! ACTION - NO - OI REPORT NUMSER - i RLMARKS - THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED IN THE ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS HEPRESENTATIVE OF A GROUP OF ALL ATION*, THAT HAVE ttf f N MA90 AVA F y C TH900GH THE W11HIN THIS CMI UN GROUP SPECIf2C ALLtGATIONS THAT ARE- .ntat Amt arenoxiMA6tiv 3 BEING REVILWED BY THE SAFETY SIGNIF ICANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM. 3/21/88 AttEGATION CLOSED BASED ON SSAT*S REVIEW OF THE ALLEGER'S CONCERNS AND PUBLICATION OF NUREG-1306 A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ALLEGER'S REPNESENTATIVE,[jpg(J ENYERED SYSTEM - 880209 CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 RECORD CHANGED - 88032I
1 //// O N 1 1 E 2 2 H E P 3 D 0 3 T T V U E 8 0 N A O M 8 T E 1 H R M SD 8 8 A D 2 GEA II E I 6 3 TT RE HV S F 2 0 N NAT TO T E E N 0 8 E 0 R D T N C O 3 8 S M 1TT rP E S A O I C E E 1AN O G D I L 2 Y G PHE S N Y T P 9 A ITM WA A N C S 4 D - N M S EW H ) E A CSS I C S U U R R M R 1 S D M sNE VY T E R 0 O O E tOS EP D S H N 3 N L I N IS RO R C F O TA C O T' N C ( O / I ILESA S C A E N C Y E T TLHIGE A N T O AATHEC T R E R O A N G TLN A I D EFH LA S S;*g 1 M D T R LOGNAC 0 2 l E A E L UI I N3 3 E T C G APOHCF O1 0 S C I E URTII G A E F 9 L EOHIFN 8 X P I 0 L HdTWIG DG 8 A E S T 8 A TG CI EEE T N O 0 C ES SRV N I N 8 NAR AUI H 8 I N ,Y BNT M A T Y D F T A E U L R R DCF aE DFT T M O R A EE F EON S S O R O N BRE A S E Y '9 O O O B O MEV YS ONS S 0 //// S P V N I UTI L LOE L N T NNT LE CIR D N 0 N 0 8 O RE A O E EA TH TP E O - 9 I OT C C N L O T TF AT NAE S A 4 T I O W P N RSN M OCR O I 0 A DS O M OIE IY II L 8 0 R A J W N O P SA AB TLS C T 8 0 E BS P K C ENEL O AB" 5 R P A N D RORY MD GUR A R 0 O O EX - U D E IPA FE EPE 9 R T RE Y E T ITEV W L G 0 G N
- : : C AT B
T H A DAWA aE LDE 2 TTTT A C C I G I ANL 0 E IIII E EH A E S T ESC LV AL 8 NNNN R RT T C N LAO ME A 8 L R UUUU S EU 0 N N A L A AR 8N E //// - E S HO 3 O A T AMM 8RE L B YYYY S A TS 1 C C D S E tG /EH M TTTT S N E 1 I E B OSTN NN 1CT M A U IIII E E R 7 E F S U N!St tI 2N E N LLLL P C A 8 C I O S HYt nC /OO T IIII Y I N I N L TSt 3 3CT S J N CCCC T L L O F G C N Y O AAAA A I S F I O N-S I FFFF Y L N T N1 - D O S I O T //// T A O P R E T IS D A TTTT I I I I E E V N Y S A TK E G EEEE V R T R C C I O T U G CR G E KnnK I E C C N R E I E T E AA E L CCCC T T N S O U C T F A L M T L OO0O C A U E C O E C A T L IL N O A DD0D A M F D S R A S S A OR E
A L L E.G A T I O N MANAGEMENT $YSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - NRR-88-A-0010 RUN DATE: 880321 DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: 05000498 / SOUTH TEXAS 1 /1 00CnET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCnET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / / OCCKET/ FACILITY / UNIT: -/ / ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES - FUNCTIONAL AREAS -- OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION - CONCRETE DRILLING OPERATIONS RESULTED IN CUT RE-BAR. THERE IS A CRACK IN THE BOTTOM OF THE FUEL HANDLING BUILDING. CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE - CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 87II30 BY - J CALVO / NRR ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - PW OCONNOR - (3013452-3026 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO STATUS - CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 880809 DATE CLOSED - 880321 ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - NO ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES 6 O! ACTION - NO OI REPORT NUMBER - r RLMARKS - THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED IN-THE ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS PE PRESENTAT IVE OF A GROUP Of ALL ATIONS THAT HAVE Bf F N VA A9 TO He C THROUGH THE WITHIN THIS vos_ reA GROUP e nt <L ANL xvPN MAI LY b PECIFIC ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE BEING RLVIEWED BY THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM. 3/21/88 ALLEGATION CLOSED'8ASED ON SSAT*S REVIEW OF THIS CONCERN AND PUBLICATION OF NUREG-1766 A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ALLEGER S' REPRESENTATIVE g ENYERED SYSTEM - 880209. CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 RECORD CHANGED - 88032I i e
- m.
ALLEGATION -MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ALLEGATION NUMBER - NRR-88-A-0011 RUN DATE: 880321 DOCKET / FACILITY /UNfT: 05000498 / SDUTH TEXAS'1 /1 00CnET/FACILITV/ UNIT: /- / DOCMET/FACILITV/ UNIT: / / DGCnET/ FACILITY / UNIT: / / ACTIVITY TYPES - REACTOR MAVERIAL LICENSES - FUNCVIONAL AREAS - OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION - THE COATINGS USED ON THE ORSITAL BRIDGE ARE FEAKING OFF. CONCERNS - 1 SOURCE - CONFIDENT - NO xECEIVED - 871130 BY - J CALVO / MRR ACTZON OFFICE CONTACT - PW OCONNOR - (3011492-3026 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNowM BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO SVAVUS - CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 180809' DATE CLOSED - 880321 ALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - NO-ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES OI ACTION - NO DI REPORT NUMBER - MANAGEMENT REMARKS - THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED IN THE ALLEGATION SYSTEM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A GROUP Of ALLF HAVE BL E N MADE AVAILABLE TO THE NRC THROUGH THE WI1HIN THIS M1P GROUP [EUAllNGS). THE SAFETY SI'U57YICANCE A$5ESSMENT TEAM RECElbED AND REVIEWED A. NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS. 3/21/88 ALLEGATION CLOSED BASED ON SSAT*S REVIEW OF THIS ' CONCERN AND PUBLICATION OF NUR EG-l ~t 0 6. A COPY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ALLEGER'S REPRESENTATIVE M ENTERED SYSTEM - 880209 CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 - RECORD CHANGED - 880321 O
~ T Efd Y J. Y 6 1 E M. ~~ [A L LLE~G A T-I O AT M A-f A.G ~ E ._ ALLEGATI0H NUMBER :- NRR A-0012 BON DATE: 800322- ' DOCK ET/F.ACI LI'l Y/ UNI T : 06000498 / SOUTH' TEXAS 1 /-1
- DOCK ET/FACIIM Y/ UNI T
/ / ibOCEETiFACll:TY/ UNIT- / DOCKET /FAC)LiiY/ UNIT: / / ACTIVITY TYI'E0 - bEACTOR MATERIAL LICENSES - OPERATIONS C011STRUCTION - FUNCTIONAL 'AT.EAS ... 4(COL: ).. 20....+.. 30....+.. 40....+.. 50.(00TPUT: HIT ENTER),...+.. 3 CMD: F0FWAFD ELOCK 1 OVERLAF ( B'MJ L2011 A,a F22C6 'T for ATtes.tlon, Home to Switch Captbre off int t ric 'DF$CRIPTION - THERE ARE INADEQUATE AND ERBONE005 N-0 ASME CODE DATA REPORTS"AND INCONSISTENCY WIT 11 AS-BUILT CONFIGURATIONS. CONCERNS -- 1 ~ SOURCE'- CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED .871130 BY - J CALVO / NRR LACTION OFFICE CONTACT,- PW OCONNOR -(301)492-3076 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE-~- UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - NO i -STATUS -DCLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 880809-DATE CLOSED - 880321-LALLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED -NO ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES 'OI ACTION --NO. OI: REPORT NUMBER - ....'+(COL:' 1)+.. 20....+.. 30....+.. 40'....+.. 50.( OUTPUT: HIT ENTER)....+...U CMD:- FORWARD' BLOCK .1 OVERLAP-' : 01 .B-MJ L2011-A, a-R2206- .. Numeric 'T!for Attention,_Home to Switch-KCapture~0ff 'REMARKSJ-THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED.IN THE ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT = SYSTEM AS REPRESENTATIVEt0F A-GROUP OF. ALLEGATIONS THAT-HAVE .BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.TO THE NRC-THROUGH THE W WITHIN THIS DESCRIPTIONTGROUP THERE ARE-APPROXIMATELY 14 SPECIFIC:ALLEGATI0HS.THAT ARE .BEINGL REVIEWED BY THE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT; TEAM. 13/21/88 ALLEGATION CLOSED BASED ON SSAT'S REVIEW OF THIS CONCERN AND PUBLICATION OF NUREG-1306. A COPY WAS'PROVIDED' .TO THE ALLEGER'S-REPRESENTATIVE, M r
A L L E C'A T I O N MANAGEML M T SY ST EM ALLEGATION NUMBER - NRR-88-A-0013 RUN DATE: 880321 DOCMET/ FACILITY / UNIT: 05000498 / SOUTH' TEXAS 1 / 1 00ChET/ FACILITY / UNIT: /- / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / DOCKET / FACILITY / UNIT: / / AC?IVITY TYPES - REACTOR MAVERIAL LICENSES - FUNCVIONAL AREAS - OPERATIONS CONSTRUCTION DESCWIPTION - SEVERAL DEFICIENCIES WITH THE POLAR CRANE AND ORBITAL BRIDGE DESIGN ANO USAGE HAS RESULTED IN DAMAGE TO THEM AND HAS' NOT BEEN CORRECTED. COWCERNS - 1 SOURCE - CONFIDENT - NO RECEIVED - 871130 'BY -J CALVO / NRR ACTION OFFICE CONTACT - PW OCONNOR - (3011492-3026 SAFEVY SIGNIFICANCE - UNKNOWN BOARD NOTIFICATION - N0 S?AYUS - CLOSED SCHED COMPLETION - 880809 DATE CLOSED - 880321 SLLEGATION SUBSTANTIATED - NO ALLEGER NOTIFIED - YES OI ACTION - NO DI REPORT NUMBER - REMARKS - THIS ALLEGATION IS ENTERED IN THE ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A GROUP 05 ALL ATION AT HAVE BEfN MADE AVA!LABLE TO THf M*C TnMOUGH THE WITHIN THIS 08 GROUP intkt AME'THitl (3) SPEC W ", ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE BEINS REv!EVED BY THE' SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT TEAM. 3/21/88 ALLEGATION CLOSED OUT AS A RESULT OF SSAT'S REVIEW OF THIS CONCERN AND PUSLICATION OF NOVEG 306 A COPY WAS PHOVIDED TO THE ALLEGER'S REPRESLNTAf1VE ENVERED SYSTEM - 880209 CLOSED SYSTEM - 880321 RECORD CHANGED - 880321 9
= L 12 //// O A N 3 2 D I D 8 3 M B8 E; .E 0 2 IT T U8
- NG T
0 0 NE E 3 S-SON NIA 9 8 TC N M 0 IJ D 2 S R TDI OOI 9 B I 3 8 S YR N D C T E DU F 5 0 ENLN:IYL . &N NS N 3 0 RIS SOLE: A D T E A O 1 9 S D U TJRWR SSVT E T R C E DSOSC O A&ERIS G 2 Y ANIOELOFB IE B N S A SO OVNJAPOEECGNU A 4 D - OIE BC RTNEOS H D EF 9 Y U TTRNUISY AELIN C 1 E N SW S U SO R 1 S D CPOSNDTTUILGU R IL R 0 O O E TI I ALIUQCAE D E N 3 N L I PRDTGHELCEI RS R C F MTAANCWA DFO N O T A / I ESHGIE U;AETYO C { LB E T TE EWMCQSND BI E N IK N t O TRRLO A EI E T R CS O A N A ELLTV&C ESTA I D 4 OGALNH I;NNUG NR E' HA T R 1CTE OE YLEAOPE 3 A E 0R LDFI.TPGRPNL 2 g CM 8 g M EE 12 C G NELE CSISDCSIL
- 7 E
I E 6 UANEIDL I E A 0 TH 3 .GHFRIMRRt9 D 0 g F 1 L 8FD SS ITEABEBA N 9 SE C AA I 3 L O T 7 A 4 YRS DWAH LGA g ga UE XX - OS 0TLESD MECLON 0 ef 7e n A EE-O 0 R( LSVAEHCC APIC9 y j E UUE-RTAAYT RG/ M TT N 0 g f 9 SOWEEIBRAI;AO3 E g c N HH M. D U REIORVW TRBAP 2 T UU-N A ERVHEO D RTEf/ S g n R A TT - NT g 3' Y O N B E-W C DE ;D O A R U8 SS EM. B O MSR ELSE DP .S wd M OO SE] 2 //// S VSS K I UAP.YDLLRTF ED D d ' SENLAECFERCE ED r ' 3 DDTHAATNEODRNU SE o N LSN C K T N 0 89-O OAR I C E I VRE D I L O TEENT TSEP ONAS OS N 0 A 44 T NRC D P N RCTE 3SNTSGC TS LO M OATM 1NISNN .S I CL O - 99 I C M,g 0 00 R HO G O - PFIE 0I AIIE .I 00 A IAN _ T 9 00 E S C G C ERMES0 SF MM0SR 55 R P ND O D RUBRN EE YAS9SE g s SUGRHPVTLLA/AT 05 ni e n - A R 00 O O ONF 'N D E IAO Y E T I SAEGILIOF S T 91 o omtNg i T B T - H A OS CUPAEO SIHE /6 c R T TTTT A ANR C C I NTTNO VFPSU/TL 80 i C d t OONORD R GO6I 0 G N 3 r E - IIII E GOE A E S T T C N INECHEFERNE WT 9 L R UUUU S LTT 7 N N A - T M TIOTOINT .U % M , NNNN R EIT E //// - E S LAA 2 O A T ASED R N TOE O S-0 U A L B YYYY S A ADM 3 C C D S SGELE4R%UDARMSE TM f I 0 I T B EEUTT0U0OAOR NS M TTTT S N E YLSTT0B2CBCE6RO AE D I A U IIII E E R 0 E F S
- J REL TT 9 C I
O S LSEI - N I N L AISMA ACC SS N LLLL P C A Y N CCCC T L L O F G C N S IIII Y I O AAAA A I S F I O N-T N6 - D O S - I O D I FFFF Y L N T IS E T //// T A O P R3 E A TTTT I I I I E1 E V N Y S A TK R N'P G EEEE V R T R C C I O T U C CR E E MKKK I E C C N R E I E T E AA T L CCCC T T N S O U C T F A L M N L 0OOO C A U E C O E C A T L IE E A 0DDD A M F D S R A S S A OR ,}}