ML20031A000

Motion for Admission of DE Swayze Deposition as Exhibit. Swayze Has Been Under Pressure & Involvement in Controversy Has Caused Personal Difficulty So That Deposition Would Be Fairest to Deponent

ML20031A000
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	09/10/1981
From:	Jordan W CITIZENS FOR EQUITABLE UTILITIES, HARMON & WEISS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8109180256
Download: ML20031A000 (8)

Text

.

/{}

k I.

[

b ll

~%@

c

[ q

$7 H' -l 9l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEP 1 1198[ >

qy

\\

z.

(['37 I

p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(/

N E THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/

4 C

G

)

In the Matter of

)

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER COMP ANY

)

Docket No. 50-498

( South Texas Proi ce t, Units 1 and 2)

)

50-499

)

CEU MOTION FOR THE AL. MISSION OF THE DEPOSITION OF DANIEL E. SWAYZE AS AN EXHIBIT In order to assure a complete record in this proceeding while expediting the hearing itself, Citizens for Equitable Utilities roves that the Deposition of Daniel Edward Swayze taken by the Applicant on June 19, 1980, be admit ted as an exhibit and consi.-

dered by the Board as if taken as evidence in the proceeding.

CEU's motion is conditioned on the appearance of Mr. Swayze at the hearing pursuant to subpoena and is subject to the resolution of objections by the NRC Staff, the Applicant, and CCANP, except for objections based on the use of the subpoena itself, which we address here.

There is no ques tion that Mr. Swayze is one of the most impor-tant figures in the his :ory of the South Texas Project and of this proceeding.

His inf ormation formed the basis for most of the con-tentions and f or mor.t of the nationwide publicity concerning the pro j ec t.

He has also already been the subject of considerable testimony by Applicant witnesses, including-Jack Duke, who was permit ted to testif y concerning Mr. Swayze's allega tions with less than a full day's notice to the intervenors that he would do so.

• 0 8109180256 810910 PDR ADOCK 05000498 f

G PDR bg {a

v_

-2 3.

The Board has consistently indicated considerable interest in Mr. Swayze's allegations and in having him testify.

From past representations and from information in the two depositions that he has given, it is clear that Mr. Swayze has been under considerable pressure at least since he was fired by Brown and Root, and that the continuing controversy over the South Texas Project and his involvement in it have caused him considerable personal difficulty.

In addition, we have been informed by his attorney that he will resist the subpoena that CEU is n ew attempting to serve, and we expect him to be a thoroughly uncooperative witness at the hearing.

For those reasons, it would serve the interests of a complete record and of judicial economy if his deposition were admitted as an exhib.it.

For its part, CEU is prepared to accept his deposition tes timony with only a minimum of additional direct teatimony,

primarily to clarify points that may be unclear in ti.e deposition or to allow Mr. Swayze to speak to charges that have been made against him in previous testimony in this case.

.At this point, we would not expect our direct examination to last more than half a day if this approach is taken.

If this approach is not taken, we note that the deposition itself took more than an entire day, and perhaps twice as much time can be expected to elicit the same information during the hearing when time for objections and argument is considered.

We recogn e that this is an unusual procedure in that prior testimony of this sort is normally admissable in court proceedings m

b t

only if the issues involved are identical, the same parties parti-cipated in the prior examin tion, and the witness is unavailable for trial.

Although the first two conditions for admissibility have been met here, the f act that Mr. Swayze will presumably be available for trial would preclude admitting his testimony in Federal court.

However, the rules of evidence are considerably more flexible in NRC licensing proceedings, and the benefits to the record and to the Board of admitti ng this depositic.: far outweigh any arguments against its admission.

As noted, the. deposition was taken by the Applicant 's counsel, so that both the issues and the parties were the same.

Further, both the Applicant and the NRC Staff had the opportunity to examine Mr. Swayze at that time, although the intervenors were prevented from doing so.

There is no reason to believe that Mr. Swayze's tes timony would be any different now than it was then.

The major objection of any substance that the Applicants and the NRC Staff might have to this proposal is that they do not have the.apportunity to tes t Mt. Swayze's recal.'. or his credibility by requiring him to testify on direct examination and then taking him on cross-examination.

The objection based on the right to cross-examination would not apply hare, since that right will be intact once Mr. Swayze appears under subpoena.

The obj ec tion based on the integrity of direct examination does not apply in NRC proc eedings since direc t testimony is normally submitted in wri ti ng, in any event.

There is no justification for excluding the deposition when it is the functional equivalent of written direct tes timony, meets the relevancy, materiality, and reliabili'ty

~,.

v-g

_4_

criteria of 10 CFR 2.74 3 ( c), and would otherwise greatly assist the Board and the Record.

Finally, and perhaps most important, we intend to make copies of the deposition available to the Board well before Mr. Swayze takes the s tand, just as written direct testimony is available to the Board.

(We understand the NRC Staff and the Aoplicant already have copies. )

This will allow the Board to ne fully pre-pared to hear Mr. Swayze's testimony and to question him effectively in its areas of concern.

The result will be not only a complete record, but a more - thorough underctanding of the facts on the part of the members of the Board.

.tes pec tf ully submit ted,

b

/[f'hi William S. Jordan, III HARMON & WEISS 1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 833-9070 DATED:

September 10, 1981 e

e

h, L j.sl " Er 5 1 5 "11,h, 3 E

,..-....,....-,,;.., y a

s.2

e 31

, c.v t

y

't joe: ::;ress.agesF-*..

it

-::*=*p 4r k.1.

• s evisetpoits,!,ps.,i isgi!.a;s.Nf. e.si.e,ts.**. p.**e t S

M'O -

"U NO e

s 3

o-

..9,

,t g

g, E

U D Eu

.%Y

-- _om m m.

. ma MW-wammomonarubWA&fi1%%%f t

i b

Y

.,,..,,.,.....,.,.[.,.................,J

- -. -Q, -.

...-s..

i.

7...41. t a.',. x....* ;*..., _ g g 4

J-k DDNMW.JN7.E RO.F'e i 4J'Tw.f42I.e.ne tA%E E*h IE. *)

o 3.::_--

t.------..:

...a. v.!._.. - a.

.u..._,__,..,

S e

e

-.w-+

v

• • ' ' ' ' * * ~ ~ ' " ' ' " " ~ ~ ~ ~

n

".o I 4df f

'F

.,s I

l Q l Weld reparrs' costly J

i g at nuclear project

~

H

}

I i

f Ey RAROLD ECARIEIT proket by the American Bridge Division

!I

/

G i

- l

[~-

g Post Entreament Writer cf U.S.SteelCorp.

Q

' (n x

[ ["q f al steel arriving at the South 'IMas Na-A rash of deficient ukls on structur-Qudity control checks produced a flo:d d "severat hundred" non codorm.

f, r,

/

7 p j

t o

-5 clear Prt')ct has required a umbr re-cace reports imm inspecttss co weMs O

[.

j 3

?

J patr pregram that any cost 51 mmian er that did Ir.t meet spremMM, Beeth

,' fl O tt

~ p' *V G a y 1.

)

i if.h.

j amm, a pmyct me<=an ses.

. eed.

!$ fM O be 8

Ecre th:n hM! the nooomfarmance 1:

~~~r ne wc!d problem, it was learned.

repxts, he sa!d, bvolved stivle "em.

b{

} 'j

"!J ~

j I.

also led to a change in qudI;y con *rol. gnetic" ddcc x, such as weld sW,tter and i

D b

E proccines that lait some wWm In. arc strikes, with no structu al b

j I

i-spectcrs feeling they were being told to af e,mr.m--

(a m

]

m4 I1 nis was cot the case at aD, and :ue beads of metal being accidentally 2~

g re,we im;ntper welds.

'. Weld spatter results from c,olten 3

2.

f

.,t *

i J

ig f up,w.h, tfr71:ss nos' beco clocredsaid Den Beeth, mr-'e.

hafamation. strike e um a small spot or bun:p in a sprayed m a WWw surface area. Arc i

5.:

A 3

3 I

y ' dirtetor for the Hourton Lighting &. weld.

7 d:I

'a

~

f Dceth said the quest'onabh treldsi,.p::rts tKre ou mcre serloes Gaws that.

I M

4 y

Power Co.

.The re'm*fng oco<onforrnanee re.

~

)

f 4

-v t a, I

were os rtzuctural ste:1, rwir lar:;? 30.. i.

s*

gg

,3 5,3W** %

,2

~

" * " O d N Xel.d repairs costly a..., nuclear p.rojegts~

..: ' h f f '4 ;.

Deeth said the weM gM&n en the

• 3nt if they a.*.,n:2pt to restrict the b-the ter.'cua:y fbwd mekts m the Ameri-avaEable.m. whet Tmwr*1re of tbme 00 1 benmfr; steel was reprted to the Nu-spectoris m AWS ha:ns, and Icom back ers 3 ridge caterbt were fcc=d defective....

ci,ar negniary Commission cevern) and fted a deteee, I will issae =

"We coc:sier it a eg,m- -t pubiem nr-v sh16. le=5tr cf a Scn Artenic mac:hs ago, but the pn41 changus vbbtic:.".

L*t t:Tms of ecst and esgnit*sk, but not cf ti: ens groep oppo:: fag t'.e nuclear safety b quality coctrol were not trparted to Ph12ps rd1 the AWS cc:le proh'htts in terms of sa'ety," he said. "1.'ost cf, prehet, has re;catedly c!nimi is an I.,

Mcc m' p g the NRC because this is nct required.

tra!d s;::t*cr in sesw che""*"" M*.'

the material scs not imhW ! != txdM. NRC 11:ensbg bcarkg that "stenevx. 0 tM tmxu t

hets, Barth sam, a.

5 Phinlpe, tha NRC's re:ilen: no succh-th'ck Reams IE:e those at the ings txst was etfB in the laydocm ya:tt."

they do sometthg that dacsn't meet ne== at ph trepacter at the pmpet site near Eay South Ter.2 Prebet it "would be 1:ke ?

Ee said any cCcet to seek reimbrme-specifications, they just change the City, sail be lemted early in July cf chigger craw!!a:: q, an elephant's ta!L" wnt fro:n Acxrk:an BrMge tc' tne re-specs."

gg a w "some tsisunderstanoing" between

• ibe NRC Imr.1 a snow.cause mkr unn::g costs wacki depend ca the term:

Beeth, We, sam the em *a project engicee:3 ard laspec.cra over aga.i:r.,1 the PVject in April 1900, citing c! the' supply cmtract.

r a-c d's, tx t,to the Amert e". Bridge welds.

in*.!midatica dVality control v.-a "3ct you can be scre er peopb are accept welds edth ocIy en:::netic ble-g

9g3, mtshem na "a pe-fectly kgitimate thu g He erp!a:aed the welds murt c2ect an and defective wolds and welding not going to ignore the puibinty d. to do.

s wnh crwis x,,4 Amarican WeMtcg Society code u-h p:treducts.

. retmI-eist," he ssM.

NRC regulatio:s, but any ailitional WeklirJ was halted that sar.3 month An American IkMga spatecmn said:

"If it's caught at tM z*r/pdcr'a, coe,"

specificatbcs and quality aest:rance by Emwa & Root he., the pecject con.. "We utd.'tstand the matatal om.s ade. he said. "But If it's akcacty os cita, d2.'

8**

'##8 procedures cre.cp to the project tractar. then zu.a.aied b stages startint quately inspected by Amcricas Eddge you spC23 a millio't douars %

t.

arge as p & @ d' ec sg ma mement.

Inst Octobs rf:t the ulding geogram and custem's svpusentattees, a:s! was comethbg that is just em netic?"

I y ctta "I tc53 ttyin in eurl/ July that as k:cg was recrgatimi.:

found by the customer's rtTresnratives He'elso c1M that "n d::*t hire b-ne ac m n.

as the bspectors have to'cl Imdom to Eceth of 101.q sr.!d a cimble Drown to meet the t-a-t's specificatkes."

speerars to ddg2 er raats ecgtoceriq /

f***[3'38 kd at anything under the AW3 code, & noot arkibg qcw has been workiat Iktth sam the welds totaled reverul Mg*ue'sts,-- we h!ra c?gi:x3ces to do i that's en pnet:km " Fhill:,c sQ evert!m fMgfral can'hs to repair thousand, b.;t he had no f!surts re.dly (MI **W ?"'

^ '

,, {,

)-

s t, t

.?

"~

'fi'

.,.:.1, ';u

,, j..

J e

a

,y u

.l a

~

g i

ang weids at Bay' u.ty3 3} f..g i

'. torre

.p W

,y.

,. m,,.1 3.y'

,p

.?g.

w.

1 k. lant, COSH.oF O V O T 4 i M H O il L

,5 i

i Oa

%. ze.w. c us. rr 1'.

A' major repair pregram to correct. lilAP for the beams and the cost of re..Societ olds judged defative ts stec! beams American Bridge. "You can be sure our tor at the Bay City plant. said that the <

people won't overlook the possibility of ;weldirg code prohibits V. j upplied by the Arterlean Bridge Division 4 U.S. Steel Corp. f:t the Day City nu-recovering the cost," he said.

' s:

Ile added, hcwever, that lilAP fears. material on the 'Ainch-thick I.bcams test prehet has cost !!auston Li ;hting &

Power Co.there than 31 rnillion and the that publicity about the repairs could ".-th g

4f'E end isn' tin' sight a spokesman says.

mske the r.cgo!!atbns more diilicult.

Dane liar ris, spkesman for ILS. Stcel

• welds were detected abou Dr. Donald Becth, liJht company

,9

>pokesman en nuclear enairs, said the in !!nuston, the parent company of Ameri-I defects are in hage structural steel beams can Bridge. said that the steel lad been the NRC. The inspectors wrote se used to erect the plant. Scme of the de-fects ucre not caught untd after the steel

• inspec hundred such "non-conformance re-(

Brown & floot inspctnrs before being ports." he said.

g had been instatied, he said.

shipped. "It was found by the customer's Problems with ti.e wc!ds were also dis..

i with concrete, bat if necessary, the con-representative to meet the customer's cussed l

p Some of the teams have been covered I

on whether or not ilI4P should ta grant-t crete will be chipped away so they the specifications,"hesaid.The beams were made at the American welds cab te inspected or additional stect A*M placcd t$"Itrergthen the structure, Beeth Drldge plant in Orange. W Y

• • M It will be demonstrated that a reimburse-later this month.

"{ %,

said.

ment will be called for or not." he said.

L pI Deeth'said pny.rcimbursement to The large number of repried defects OXPerls douot.

,t f.--

S

{

d

,r alsa caused the inspection program to be l

changed so that welds with only cosmetic OXIIOYkaM 03 UOQdOd o

• ="1 u

I

'i.

problems could be accepted, allowing in-ClllCAGO (l'PI) - I *illichs of Ameri-1 I

spectcrs to concentrate on finding more cans. enught uo m a health food fad, are f serious defects, wh.ch could affect the J -

.l 1:an stmeturaisoundnessof the plant.

p>ppirg vitamin pills of all shapes and ;

--m ce---

-..C a '_ ~.

More than half of the defects are cos-sites. tlut Anierican Medical Associntion P' -

~fer ld spatter experts doubt the extra vitcmins are tk..'F',P'T., Q.h rse metic,he said. These ixlude wcM,'

.g.g 'lon.' significance. Spalter 13 tiny specks of..;necessary.

J -

0,

' %.1..,

l

/$

/

.S. and are strikes, which have no structura. Tests are available

. @5

^

' metal that stiek to the surface of the strel. ', min levels !n the tody, t,ut readmg b mps cauyed Y.can te tricky because levels vary frcm t

• en --

i k

4

.,f,.'..Yt.

Arc strikes are mar s or u

_ when the welder begins an electricai hour to hour, accord.r.g to the Jo 3,r

.s 'J.9 **.. s.

the AMA.

f ' [;.-l %...'.. - 9 4,,,' led Welds with important defects have And even a low readinr, in a vitamm f,

, y;

<v-

.bn. weld

[.,.

a Ms insufficient renetration of the steel, por test need not mean an un

-?'

ciency,the journal said.

.mk

'; to fusicn of the welded parts, are undersize In an ark-anexpert column in the jour-

. 7'.s,,e.*.,,

. ny stren;thof thebcams.

spond to a patient's relucst for tests to

>ri, or cut under the surface at the wrong F"

• s "

r* '-

engle. These dcfects can affect the nal, en internist and a biochemist each l1. *'

were a-ked how a physician shou!d re-Welds done on the construction site are

'.y s.

determine vitamin levels.

In general, doctors were ndvised }

Of rigorously inspected to detect such de-icets, and Brown &

'lp g.

,,,.., i, s I

]

,.....,.,",. f ny extensive procedures to prevent them.

mest patients to save their money..

The defects Meurred at the AmericanRoyal soc. ty..

.j l s c3.,.

g"'.

, v p e;* g,.

p ie i

4 or-

g

..9..

,...,,.b b,,

h.

'r,l'h %,-- %.*. ".:f'. y.;,.-) y Brid e plant but arparently w ere not 4'., *,.

,s

' foun by Amerienn Dredgeintpectors.

Materials from vendors such as Ameri-raps hunt,ing M..

V

t... ?.w can Bridge are reinspected by Brown &

LONDON ( AP) - Shooting and fishm.g 1

t

C.*...'-------.---....DN Rmt either at the plant or r.t the constru..

for sport were ofncially criticized for the jC.c*NM.,,,.,.'hd. ~ ~ ',0.gM'I tio, site. Ilowever, it appears. hat some first time by the 157-year +1d Royal Soci-

^

.-v

• s,w.g,;f f '

defective welds also were missed a sec.

cty for the Prevention of Cstelty to Ani-

{

A' ond time since some of the steel wasinstalledbefore the pr 7

~

w

' 'obbies.

. The socQ' act condemning sports out-y T

ed.A fullaime resident inspector' from right, urged people who hunt and fish to l,

Brown & Root has been assigned to : kill game quickly and cleanly, know ;

ir American Bridge. and the problem has which species nre prctected,and study j

.c tcon silved. Beeth said. "We no longer new evidence which show( that nsh fee i

q 4

have bad loads coming m," he saii'

',i pam.

f Beeth said that the problem was discov.

+Yered about a year ago and tnat several <*

eacher indicted On:

b t

~

~ " ' ' '

thousand wclds have been reinspected.

-p

' a..

urU9 Conspiracy Charge 1 The new inspection procedure directed

'V e, w' w..e.e pf,.,.;;,39 3

t i, inspectors not to report cosmetic defects

• : l'ut to concentrate en four types of signifi.

CONCORD, N.li ( AP) t-, A chemistfY caMenciencies.Becth said.

dly had chcmicals g

h y

w re bYin'g o t@s of defects,le said To clear up this.r. high school w e

Indicted en a charge of conspiracy-

'~

i th ities said.'

misunderstanding, inspection procedureswcre revtsed a second t Itevit.ons in inspection procedure do. dieted hv ' federal F i

. j., _

saLl with An'thoi.y CotNcelli. 31, of Te q

. not require approval of the federal Nu,i buey,21 ass., according to U.S' Attart

?.-.

I (thef'tttfNtatory Commisston as long at= nut'"ee f.merican wekt clear Itc Il0DC'l K'""'dY' I--

k t j h.

W'.h w e g ~ _,. _. m

. y$.

'--+;.

s..

i #'

i; t

\\

- % pit.

.. __..., _,,,. _1/'...' .,. -

.\\

a:.e

-~

T

. _ ~,

,7, -

..r.

1, t m.v

?...-; ;', ',.,:,,*.

. _.,..-,,~.-. ; A..;rp,.,

.. y......,r.,..,,. y %,. ;-r, j..,,., _

. o

.h,s e,

.. j,,-

~~

_m y -

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

h i

8 fm

,, e

-t "y*

h* '

n

' dik nj.h.h. a

.: ' V

,, t..n..

J 9; %

Sti

.r a 4 g%) g_..-.f.f.!$

y.

(.$.h'hb.h G) W John

Kelso'

..e..

/ uWr 3 s

7 On vacation-

• 2 t

(.

• V a v Sahirday. Aiigiist 29,1981*

I ft 8

L t.,

.;;~,...~. '-.

\\

U E

b, N

\\.:,.

..J '

w EGUtty.wetGS:,trv$.*;h%^d943'\\

!rN'.tW,%!.s

[

\\ found in steel i...

.....17.%.;.',. ; r.* "*,

/

. {J 4

Ed.h*Wid;6M.y g;.Q'p.?.:.,

Sent T.;O.I UNe

. :p#2dCd.y &

~l w

W b

By CANDICE HUGHES i

-.,u., s,...., s,. n Tons of improperly welded steel beams have been deliv.

h..

~. d.l cred to the South Texas Nuclear Project and the questmn of

.d

a.. - - - r,..

structural integrity at the unfinished power plant remains s

~

'8 d *? d,5N*p..p**y.4 j unanswered.

. f; ww. q,..

' ', ~ '.,.,,,..

y.,, y,

s c i

>y,.y Repairs are estimated to cost at least $1 million, project k*kk,92*,%Ar,Wje

• j o!!icials said Friday.

',3. ' > ^ U.' W W

i Some of the massive steel beams already are encasui ;n j.

f,.-

....* *., o. v...,!

concretc in wa s at the nuclear power plar.l. Many, how.

n

d.

'.,g ever, have not been crected and arc bcIng inspected and re. [.' yv' *-

• *,, s, y i-y a,3,.(.,, p, */..1 paired. said Don Becth, a spokesman for the project's man-.. :

,,f.

,g, 5

aging partner,llouston Lighting & Power Co.

y, g*,,.g '..,,,,,, k....,

e h,*.

,. f Q..-.'s..,6

,. 3 "The question I war.t answered, is 'Do we have a situation g.

3), C

' e 'y 3. r'[.-

where the structural lategrity is questionabic?' " Beclh I

T

.~*'.M..

s

.'..,.r,.','.'.'\\.-[,*

t

. i..,,

said, f*-****"**~.'"-

I l ).,. '

IIe thinks not. At least half the flaws are cosmetic. Uceth I' -

said. A full evaluation of possible structural defects is not F ' '

. ' ', ' ' 'M "

Y'

. - *...t*

Q;,

• • • '.'.,.',,s*. 0,' c. ;

complete and is complicated by the fact that some of the },.. g.., p,, ,,,,, *,.,

l steel already has been used.

. n '- ";~;.*.p,*-.',.:

J':..

"We have the continual knotty prohicm of the inaccessi. y-'*,.s:,.,,*,,.....<....,n h

. fed.f'i'^b**

bic beams," he said. The prob!cm was discovered a ound 4,*-;'.for ~5 ; a'Cc. *.'.-C.

'i the first of the year during inspections of steel dclivered to y

j m*.

a.

the Bay City project site from American Bridge Division of

..~............a..

a.'.

U.S. Stecl Corp;, Beeth said.

6>

4+c

. a it

\\

,h

.J.u W+.s.%.pr.fsmv-

.,%:,s yn.&. M#'Q" #

~ '"" }p#

o; f,t,,

I The stect had been delivered over "a considerabic period of time" before the flaws werc identified, Uceth said. "It 2 f

was not a singic shipment."

]

i Inspection of the steel at the project site generated "sev.

1 cral hundred" non-conformance reports to the Nuclear J

I Itegulatory Commission, resident NitC project inspector Shannon Phillips said Friday.

L

.. 3.M : >"..'t Phillips said the dciccis should have been detected at the a

.+

l V,.- %EM.r;h:d.< f

, American Bridge plant before the beams were shipped.

@~)."@U gl..

$.g>M:-.

"I find it difficult to deny that the (American Bridge's)

~c l

quality.a.ssurance progr,am was not functioninS as 11 n

~

E

-uuvwe3 uummgg R 1

n;wI'3sitsowninspectorst-tl:ned at American Bridg;.',',' 1 5

Dceth said thE possibility et sicking rgimbursement fr m

'i

,}n'erican Drldgeis"something wa ar3Ew ro of." $,4' e-c.

n i

. : >.e.

Welding has been a longstanding problem a the $2.7 bil.

,~-

1 f ['

~

lion plant partly cwned by Austin, but it was Brown & ltoot welders who fouled cp in the past, not the subcontractors. Ie At one point, all project welding was halted and thousands l-s, of wclds reinspected and rep !Ir cd.

i i

).

}'lt; a

. ~. _.

1w n

.s..

' 4 g

g n L.'*b.}f,,;

Q,

............. _ ;.. g

/s\\,

\\

\\

\\

_--. - - g..

'g

~ T p.

,..... ~.....->

-Q.,3 d s k.@g.$3g-.-A.h%'Q12.7.v.:.rpsqf./.'$e.j j';

1

,9

v

,s.

- b.

! '1' ' ' .

Tuosday. September 1.1901 V

L U 3 uke beams undergo 4' I-n m, t. 1 4..

g

. y

<e,a.

r -~ # reinsnectwn, repair

~

.5 Gr^

4 v.

yy m e.

l TY l

By CANDICE HUGHES "

' untilthefirstof thhyear.

h',

l

• iW j g

amuuan siaigsdan sta" On site inspectors rejected about 90

$(

1

• I A

The reinspection and repair of 0.000 perecnt of the first 1,000 beams reln-I

.I

• . %J#

beams of structural steel delivered to the spected atter the prob!cm was noted, South Texas Project over the last four Bccth said. But when inspectors began Robi i.

' f * [.* year, says a project spokesman.

j.

years should be ihished by the end of the climinating cosmetic flaws and concen-4.=

trating on structural ones, the relcct rate e s. - 4

' f~73 dropped to Gpercer.t Becth sald.

puSN f *;?

The program to find and fix t'efective..(said Don.) q ' ' m k

F*'

. /'.n' '

p welds will cost about $800.000, At this point the reinspection program Beeth, a spokesman for lloust(sn Light

.s ing & Power Co., managing partner of. involves only the steel that hasn't been

[

.N] the $2.7 billion nuclear plant partly erected. Inspecting thebeams alreadyin

,,j

• [t., f. '

..4

• place could Involve chipping out sections

*.5), 3 owned by Austin.

of the massive concrete walls.

J 1

?

m T

,2

' About half of the steel, which was sup-

"If we haven't found any structurally l

, 3-gf J *A plied under a $10 million contract by questionable welds by the end of the l y~J..

Corp., already has been installed, Beeth j oyear, we probably woa't chip anything j y#c Amerlean Bridge Division of U.S. Stect a

y said.

" Beeth said. ~

.T i

~

is Beeth also said that project contracter - ;

4 4,.'

Although reinspections have turned up. Brown & Itoot Inc. has stepped up its pro-

• • ' Y structural violauons of welding stan dards, none of the steel beams was delivery inspection program at the 4

d 4~

flawed to such a degree that it could not American Bridge fabricating plant in n

• me ty cw**

meet design criteria, Beeth said.

Orange. Brown & Root now is looking at cach beam destined for the nuclear plant, f Instead of just overscelng the American A

Project officials will not know until the repair program has ended why the in. Bridgeinspect!on program.

.t '-

W

' ? b.

w-spection system "did not catch the prob-

• P f

Icm carly on," Beeth said. Although the - Most of the 8.000 steel beams ordered f O ice > "

ce->"s ' '"

a=> ci'r 'r =

^=e'ic=" or'da

e dr " -

e---

' ae construction site since 1977, the problem been delivered to the South Texas proj-y i%

P.'

A.'

.. with defective wc!ds was not uncovered cct, Uceth said.

- 'T%..g

'l 4

.,, y

• p u2< anoh..ter

/s y

.'.h..:. n*.

a...

e n.. % %. 4 o

ev t p

.,::. t

. ?.9 e s o

. ; t. b....-5 y'-

~.. i

x.. n.

.: c....<

-.e s.

e...-

. w...

................. r.-

%x.. Million-dollarproblem

1. c%5S.

~

p i t Duke welds found faulty 6

u...;,;

b 2

D.11-6\\ y%

7ff

' " ys=--*

Dy CANDICE HUGHES tion site by the American Bridge terpr:ted orders to focus on strtc-

Amene.wsratesman stat, Division of U.S. Steel Corp., proj-tural prob! cms rather than cos I""""'

1 cet officials said.

metic flaws as meaning.they '

y Faulty wclds on structural steel delivered to the South Texas Nu-Brown & Itoct inspectors appar. should overlook some substandard -

work

• clear Project have turned into a ently overicoked the problem dur-j ml:1!on dollar problem, project of. Ing inillal laspections of steel be-m.

ficials said today.

fore delivery,Philhps said.

• Phillipssaidtodayheputproject 5 officials on notice that they were t

.% l "We censider it a significant Most of the steel has not bec.7 in-heading for a violation of NRC l de 1

problem In terms of cost and mag Ltalled,he added.

regulations if they igncred oltude, but not in terms of calcty "

problemswith thewclds.

I g

I

_, y sold Dom B*ch, sp@sswan ior_the_

6N]D $G 000DG0 LOD BFffMMBf4Uh -- -

- '- ' M pro}ect's managmg pa9Eer iloug. bein3 re Inspected tec;rding LG "I haag us (ptb!Eo (with the. L J

{~

ton Lighting & PowerCo.

revised inspection procedures that revised procedure) as long as it focus en structural rather than doesn't preclude them from find.

] ),,

The flawed wc!ds generatrd i I,,,

bundreds of non conformanco re cosmetic flaws, proj:ct efficials ing tther things,"Phillips said.

said. Th2 repair pr: gram c:uld ports to the Nuclear Regulatory cost 31mttlionormore,theysaid. -

IIL&P !s reportedly reviewing e

Commisssion, said Shannen Phil.

the supply contract with American lips, NRC resident project inspec.

The revision in Inspection proc-Drldge division to see !! seeking re-

'or.

edures prompted by the prob! cms imbursementis feasible.

t E'-

l 1 h' The problem was caught by In has caused some controversy at The city of Austin owns 16 pc/

• the Bay City construction site, spectors for contractor Brown &

y ;;g, Phillips confirmed.

cent of the project, which is tout-Root Inc. cnce the steel had been years behind schedule and thrcA

,.8 delivered to the Bay City construc-Some inspectors repcrtedly in-times above the originalcost.

,i k

y.

r Ik.

'e f

,Ih A

,L..

.-r

- - %.. - ~,... -._

3 l

l r

9 O

~

/ ~ /P/1C f

^ <.

UNITED STATES

[%

• \\

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3J

. '4,,,..#

j RhG10N IV 311 AYAN PLAZA ORIVE. SUITE M00 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 In Reply Refer To:

November 19, 1980 RIV Occket No. 50-445/Rpt. 80-23

,,gg y,

50-446/Rpt. 80-23 A

e's s

h!

Texas Utilities Generating Company 5

g ; i198l

• C.

'S ATTN: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice g

C ? (,_, @,c President and General Manager 1

2001 Bryan Tower

' T.A -

Dallas, Texas 75291 s

a

'm Gentlemen:

This refers to the inspection conducted by our Resident Reactor Inspector, Mr.

R. G. Taylor, during October 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-126 and 127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units No. 1 and 2, anu to the discussion of our findings with Mr. R. G. Tolson and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.

Areas examined during the inspection and cur 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.

During the inspection, it was fo nd that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 cf the NRC Regulation,

" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." The Notice of Violation for the item of noncompliance reported in the enclosed inspection report was forwarded to you by our letter dated October 16, 1980;.therefore, this letter does not require further response regarding this matter.

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.

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 plac2d 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 reascns why it is claimed that the information is proprietary.

Tne application should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is contained in an enclosure to the application, since the application withaut 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.

dup 0F 81011000W

Texas Utilities Generating Company 2

November 19, 1.980 i

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

Sin ~cerelys

' g.

_ _- x

~_

W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Enciosure:

IE Inspection Report No. 50-445/80-23 56,446/80-23 cc: w/ enclosure Text. Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201

?

I

,x-w--

--a,

-c an,-

W

~

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGI0r! IV Report No. 50-445/80-23; 50-416/80-23 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee:

Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name:

Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at:

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conductec:

October 1980 Inspector:g

/d#

1. /

g. G.' Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector Date Projects Section

//[/#d-Approved:

sw W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Inspection Summary:

Insoection During October 1980 (Report No. 50-445/80-23: 50-446/80-23)

Areas Insoected:

Routine, announced inspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) including general site tours; piping, electrical and instrument instal-lation activities; protection of installed equipment; and pipe supports and restraints.

The insptction involved seventy-five inspector-hours by the RRI.

Results:

No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five of the areas.

One item of noncompliance (infraction - failure to follow porcedures for making full penetration welds paragraph 6) was identified in one area.

kP OF 31011g9993

w OETAILS 1.

Persons Contacted Priacioal Licensee Emoloyees

• D. N. Chapman, TUGCO, Quality Assurance Panager

• R. G. Tolson, T'JGCO, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor "J. R. Ainsworth, TUGCO, Quality Engineering Supervisor Other Persons J. V. Hawkins, Brcwn & Root, Project Quality Assurance Manager The RRI also interviewed other licensee and Brown & Root employees during the inspection period including both craft labor and QA/QC personnel.

• Denotes those persons with whom the RRI held on-site management meetings during the inspection period.

2.

Action on Previous Insoection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/79-18; 50-446/79-18):

Preinstallation Handling of Hot Shutdown Panel.

The RRI reviewed a letter from the panel fabricator dated July 10, 1980, which was accompanied by the data runs of a computer analysis of the panel structure and the lifting eyebcits.

The vendor, Reliance Electric Company, states that the analysis indicated that the stresses imposed on the panel during the lift were approximately an order of magnitude less than the material yield strength and that in their opinion there has been no compromisc to either the safety or performance of the panel under design con-ditions.

The licensee's Arenitect/ Engineer concurred with the analysis of the vendor by letter dated August 15, 1980.

The RRI had no further questions regarding this matter.

(Closed) Infraction (50-445/80-20; 50-446/80-20):

Unsuitable Weld Surface Condition as Required by Magnetic Particle Test Procedures.

The licensee notified RIV by letter dated October 20, 1980, that all of tha components involved in the noncompliance item had been reinspected and that components requiring rework to achieve compliance had been co.apleted or were being processed.

The licensee also stated that he would assure that in process and release inspections would be accomplished in the vendor's shops to assure compliance on future production efforts.

The RRI observed a portion of the reinspection and rework effort in regard to the components and was satisfied that it was being accomplished in a sound manner.

The RRI also interviewed the Brown & Root employee who was the basis for an allegation made to RIV in regard to these components and found that he had been assigned to close monitoring of the vendor's on-site activities involving the reinspection and rework effort.

The interviewee indicated that he was satisfied with the effort.

The RRI had 2

9 no further questions regarding the components themselves.

The licensee's commitment in regard to future inspections in the vendor's facilities will be evaluated during future routine inspections.

This item of noncompliance is therefore considered closed.

(Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445/80-08; 50-446/80-08):

Qualification of Rockbestos Electrical Cabit The RRI wes provided with documentary evidence tnat flama tests had oeen accomplished on both the cable and the individual wires of multiconductor cable.

The test data furnished indicated that the cable met the requirements of IEEE-383-74.

The RRI had no further questions on this matter.

3.

Site Tours The RRI toured the safety-related plant areas several times weekly during the inspection period '.o observe the general progress of construction and the practices involved.

Three of the tours were accomplished during portions of the second shift where the main activity continues to be the installation of electrical cables and the application of protective coatings.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

4.

Protection of Major Installed Equioment The RRI observed that the Reactor Vessel Internals (core support structure) continued to be partially installed within the Unit 1 Resctor Vessel.

The vessel head and the lifting rig structure were fully covered with heavy plastic as a dust cover.

The Unit 2 Reactor Vessel was found to be well protected during the period with a full floor cover over the refueling pool cavity and with a prefabricated cover on the vessel itself.

The Unit

{

2 Reactor Vessel Internals remained in their storage enclosure during the period.

The RR'I observed that randomly selet i electric prime movers for pumps had their space heaters energized as aid the motors associated with motor operated valves.

Relative to the status condition of tha Sactor Vessel Internals, the RRI reviewed documentation relative to an incident which occurred on September 12, 1980, and was raported to RIV as a potential Significant Construction hficiency on September 13, 1980.

The incident involved what appeareu to I

be the inadvertent application of weld metal to one of three Roto-k:k inserts during the process of welding in an anti-rotation locking tao.

The incident was initally documented by the licensee on Noc onformance Report 80-00072 which has now been finalized by requiring that the insert be removed and returned to Westi ghouse for examination for possible internal cracking as a result of the weiding or for replacement.

The licensee informed RIV by a letter dated October 10, 1980, that their final review of the incident indicated the matter was not reportable under the criteria of 10 CFR 50.55(e).

The P.RI has reviewed the engineering analysis upon l

which this decision was based and had no further questions.

l 3

t

W No items of noncompliance were identified.

5.

Safety-Related Pioing Installation and Welding The RRI made several observations of the handling practices relative to piping components during the inspection period both in the on site fabrica-tion' shop and within the main plant buildings.

The practices observed were consistent with the construction practices outlined in Construction Pro-cedure 35-1195-CPM 6.9, Project Specification MS-100, and good industry practice.

The RRI observed the following welds being made during the inspection period:

Weld No.

Isometric Filler Ht.

Welder (s)

Procedure Process W-1 CS-2-AB-013 464176 ABN 88025 GTAW FW-2 SI-2-SB-005 464074 EBI-AHS 99028 GTAW The RRI verified that the weld filler metals being utilized in the above welds were certified by the suppliers via Certified Material Test Reports as meeting the applicable requirements of ASME Section II.

The welders and weld procedures noted above were verified to have been properly qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX.

The RRI also examined the radiographs of the following welds for compliance with the requirements.of ASME Sect' ion III for weld quality and Section V for the quality of the radiographs themselves.

Weld No.

Isometric Line No.

W-16 RC-2-RB-072 6-RC-2-100-2501R1 FW-6-2 RC-1-RB-020 6-RC-1-161-2501R1 FW-16 SI-1-RB-022 3-SI-1-202-2501R:.

FW-5 CS-1-RB-028 2-CS-1112-2501R1 W-7 & W 4 RC-2-RB-072 6-RC-2-098-2501R1 W-9 SI-2-RB-018 6-SI-2-102-2501R1 W-15A CS-1-RB-001 2-CS-1-107-2501R1 W-3 & W-2 RC-2-RB-073 6-RC-2-147-2501R1 W-7-1.

SI-1-Y0-03 12-S I-1-031-151R2 N-2 CT-1-RB-017 8-CT-1-076-301R2 to items of noncompliance were identified.

4

w 6.

Piping System Succorts and Restraints a.

Pioe Whio Res,traints During the inspection of this general class of components as discussed in Inspection Report 50-445/80-20;. 50-446/80-20, the RRI became aware of yet another substantial group of large weldments that nad been fabricated by Chicago Bridge and Iron (CB&I) in their Salt Lake City, Utah, facility.

This group of weldments has been designated as pipe whip restraints rather than pipe mount restraints involved in the above referenced report but are fabricated of essentially the same materials and are similar in appearance.

It was found that the components had been procureo by Brown & Root for the licensee under sub-contract 35-1195-0578 which in turn references a series of design drawings beginning with 2323-SI-0581.

Drawing 2323-SI-0578 contains the general and specific technical requirements for the components while the balance of the drawings contain design details for each component.

The RRI located several of the components in an on-site storage area and examined them as well as possible for weid quality, considering that each had been painted.

Of necessity, the inspection had to be limited to one of general appearance.

Most of the welds on the components presented a good appearance since they were of good confi-guration and were reasonably smooth, which would be typical of good welding practice.

Most of the welds were noted to be on both sides of the "T" member connections and appeared to be full penetration double welded joints.

The RRI found several connections, however, that had been welded only from one side and showed no weld metal on the other side.

The RRI was also able to slip the point of a pocket knife blade under the edge of the unwelded side in a few locations.

Reference to the design drawings and the welding notes indicated that these connections were to have been full penetration, which they were not.

Review of the fabricator's shop drawings, as approved by the engireer, revealed a joint design that would not provide full

. penetration.

This item of noncompliance was identified to the licensee by an offi-cial noti 7ication on October 16, 1980.

b.

Sway Stru+s On September 19, 1980, the licensee informed the RRI that a potential Significant Construction Deficiency had been identified in regard to devices generally known as sway struts.

A sW y strut is usually a length of small pipe with threaded pieces welded on the ends.

Threaded eye bolts are then installed to form a turnbuckle with the assembly being used to support or restrain the motion of a pipe system at a particular location in primarily one direction.

5 l

w.-

~.

The ASME Code requires that the eye bolts have full thread engagement in the end pieces and that there be a means to provide assurance that full thread engagement is achieved after installation.

It had been found, during the installation of three struts manufactured by NPS Industries, that the eye bolts could be completely removed from the assembly even though the end threads were to have been upset as a measure to assure full engagement.

The licensee subsequently notified RIV by a letter cated October 15, 1980, that, after evaluation, it had been concluded that the deficiency was not formally reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).

The evaluation contends that since each strut is oesigr.cd to a custom length for a specific location, there is no reasonabia probability that the eye bolts would not have the necessary full thread engagement and, there-fore, would not present any safety hazard.

After review of the evaluation, the RRI had no further questions on this matter since the contention was found to be factual.

In order to satisfy a specific Code requirement, the licensee and/or the vendor are in the process of identifying those struts which do not have the upset thread feature and are making minor modifications to allow for thread upsetting and thereby achieve full compliance with the ASME code.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

7.

Electrical Installation Activities The RRI made a number of observations of electrical cable pulling operations during the period.

Tha RRI was able to observe each of three cable pulling crews one or more times during the period in order to ascertain whether they were working within the parameters of the site installation procedures and good practices.

The RRI also observed the activities of the QA/QC personnel g

assigned to monitor the pulling crews.

The RRI found that both the craft labor and QA/QC forces were working consistently t6 the requirements of their respective procedures, EEI-7 and QE-QP-11.3-26.

No items of noncomplianc'e were identified.

S.

Instrument Installation Activities l

The RRI observed two different pipefitter instrument crews installing l

impulse tubing during the reporting period.

The workmanship which involves cutting, deburring and bending small diameter stainless steel tubing was l

being done in accordance with standard practices.

The tubing runs were i

properly sloped and properly fastened to the support devices.

The RRI observed that the Swage-lock fittings were being tightened in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended procedures.

The RRI did not verify l

whether the tubing runs and instruments were located as required by design drawings.

This function will be accomplished during future inspections.

No items of noncompliance were identified.

6 l

F.

R e

9.

Manacement Meetinas The RRI met with one or more of the persons identifiec in paragraph 1 on October 3, 9, 14, 16, 29 and 31, 1980, to uiscuss inspection findings and the licensee's actions and positions.

k I

e 9

0 7

. _..