ML20081A429

Motion for New Contention Re Instability of Soil Beneath Facility.Recently Submitted Deficiency Rept Provides Sufficient Evidence to Warrant Inquiry.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20081A429
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	10/20/1983
From:	Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC., SINKIN, L.A.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310260269
Download: ML20081A429 (17)

Text

_

. /. ,

C.

• 00LKETE.

UNITED STATES OF A:: ERICA UF NUCLEAR REGULATORY CON!:ISSION In the Matter of ( '83 00T 24 Pl2:16

)

HOUSTON LIGHTING AND PONER ( Oocket Nos. 5 0-4,$(toir 3, ; '

CO!!PANY , ET AL. ) 5 0-4M ;0L; 4 .i . . '

( ii# f!C 5 (South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) (

CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT IJUCLEAR PONER (CCAMP)

!!OTION FOR NEN CCNTEt: TION I. INTRODUCTIC::

For years, Citi:: ens Concerned About Nu c l ea r Po'.te r (CCANP)

, has heard rumors and stories about the instability of the soils +

underneath the South Texas Nuclear Projact. There has not been, however, substantive evidence brought to CC AN P's attention supporting those allegations.

The one time CCANP did receive possible evidence of uneven settlement of a building at STNP, the subsequent NRC investigation determined the evidence to be unreliable. See  !

Attachment 1 hereto, Allegation No. 3.

Recently, however, CCANP received a copy of a 10 C.F.R.

• Sec tion 5 0.5 5 (e) report regarding a tilt in the reactor vessel  ;

c exceeding the tolerance level not by the m a n u f c. c t u r e r , gg Attachment 2 hereto. The tilt appears t. o result from uneven I

settlement of the Reactor Containment Building. Id. Also see j Attachment 3 hereto. ,

1 II. New Contention j CCANP contends there is now sufficient evidence to warrant  ;

inquiry into the stability of the soil beneath the South Texas Nuclear Project. CCANP proposes a new contention as follows:  ;

8310260269 831020 '

PDR ADOCK 05000498 Q PDR 1

\

1 gsb  !

.n. - c -.-. -

The soil beneath the South Texas Nuclear Project is not sufficiently stable to ensure the safe operation of the plant over the projected time sp:n of that operation in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 50.57 (a) (3) (i) .

III. JUSTIFICATIOM FOR LATE FILING Isccording to previous rulings of the Commission, a late filed contention is first examined to see if there is good reason for lateness and then a balancing test is conducted of the five factors in 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714 (a ) (i-v) to determine if the co n t e n t. i o n is a c ra i t t ed . Pac:fic J, .n s:'m.-. . t :. . u :; i .>

Canyon Nuclear Power, Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-El-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 (1981;.

A. There is good cause for lateness in filing an additional contention.

CCANP recognizes that the time for filing contentions expired in 1978. At that time, however, there was no evidence suggesting the soil beneath STNP would be so unstable as to affect the safe performance of the project. In the ensuing years, there were rumors and unconfirmed reports but again no evidence.

Only since the discovery of the tilting reactor vessel has there been cuen evidence.

I C. Assuming gooc cause for !ateness is established, the balancing of the five f act ors in 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714 (a) (1-v) determines whether the contention is admitted.

The five facters in 10 C.F.R. Section 2. 714 (a) (i-v) are:

(1) good cause, if any, for failure to file on time; (2) the availability of other means whereby petitioner's interests will be protected; (3) the extent to which pe titione r's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (4) the extent to which the petitioner's intercat will 2

- a -

s - - m u_ m m . m .v- m w ,,.. m2 , ,, .,r., _ ,,

be represented by existing parties; and (5) the extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings. . .

1. The now content 12n is filed on time.

The events providing the basis for this contention occurred within the last three months. CCANP filed the additional contention within a reasonable time of petitioner's receipt of the information on which the contention is based. The first factor, therefore, favors admission.

2. Only admission of the new contention can crotect Intervenor interests.

Only the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authcrity over the safety of nuclear pov.er plants. Petitioner challenges the stability of the soil underneath the buildings at the South Texas Nuclear Project. If the new contention proves to be true, then the remedy is to deny the license unless the instability can be corrected. Only the NRC can provide the remedy sought by petitioner.

The second factor favors admission.

3. Absent admission of this contention and CC AN P's participation in litigating the contention, the record in this proceeding will be seriously incomplete.

The physical stability of the project site is obviously of crucial importance. Only CCAMP has raised this issue before the Board. CCANP's record of participation is suf ficient guarantee CCANP wilI contribute to the development of a sound record. This third factor favors admission.

4. The issue of CCANP's interests being represented by existing parties is moot.

As an admitted intervenor, CCANP is already recognized as i >

.. .. i

. +

1, representing an independent viewpoist froa. a:., .

, [

h

5. The admission of the new contention :il , .

L issues in this proceeding but will not cause delav. -

?;

i

e. .

Admission of the soils stability contention wou;d  ;. i i,:

area of incuiry f or this proceeding. But the importa: c . .

contention far outweighs the fact that an a d d i t i e n e. : . f*-

f~

inquiry is now to be undertaken. If the soils underneat;. ,,,.

buildings at STNP are unstable, such ins tability cou l d ; e :.c 4

$r u

serious threat to public health and safety. jd@-

p The current scr edule of construction calls for tne : . : . ., .

S rt' unit of STNP to go on line in 1987. Adding the soils s ta:. ; .t) [ {}

contention wil1 not. delay the proceeding beyond the usu . i. -

[

table for NRC operating license hearings. The fifth . . . '

.h v,

a favors admission. ,.

N" A balancing of the four relevant factcrs in 10 C. . .

c n

Section 2.714 (a) (i-v) favors admission of the new content.t!. n o

b IV. DISCOVERY AND FURTHER HEARINGS '

g e

. y Upon acceptance of this new contention, CCA::P . oves f of A ij' ninety day discovery period to commence af ter tha Find::.1s c g; Fi ct and Conclusions of Law in Phase II are cul : :

• t e ' *r30; Q 1

%(

ip' parties. After completion of thi; discovery Per: C"* '- ' ' " ' ' **

2

?S would be scheduled. F "1

Ee spect,.u . : . 3 7;

e C

i

%~.t Q~*.h .

K

^ '

Lannv ;inkin Coun'els for I ni"I" * ' # '

Citizens Cone':I n ... s d ^? '" #

uclear PC#cT* ** * #

114 W. 7the Ma* c IIU j 7,u s t i n . 7 " ' A I- N - M ' ]

(512) 47E-7177 -

x .y7 '. ' ;. c Dated: October 20, 1983 ~-

L=~ -

4'  ?

iff%

_ _ . __ -.._ w w wa:n-a,a wuswa %aa ar-m mw muw ==*'V 5 5 TR E & $ h

4

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 MEiEr NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l1 W BEFORE Ti!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'83 OCT 24 Pl2:16 In the Matter of (

) 0FF,Q0?3g.,;7 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER ( Docket Nos.

COMPANY, -ET AL. ) SWMj)i@L 50-49 difH SEFfa i

(

(South Texas Project, )

Units 1 and 2) (

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT j NUCLEAR POWER (CCANP) MOTION FOR NEW CONTENTION have been cerved l on the following individuals and.cntities by deposit in the  !

United States mail,,first class, on this 24th day of October 1983.

Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esq.

Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Washington, D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Sta.

Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge Robert G. Perlis, Esq.

313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Legal Dir.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ernest E. Hill .

Administrative Judge Jack R. Newman, Esq.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

University of California Washington, D.C. 20036

'P. O. . Box 808, L-46 Livermore, California 94550 Melbert Schwarz, Esq.

Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy Buchorn 3000 One Shell Plaza Executive Director Houston, Texas 77002 Citizens for Equitable Utilities Route-1, Box 1684 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.

Brazoria, Texas 77422 U. S. N. R. C.

Washington, D.C. 20555

- William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Harmon and Weiss Atomic Safety and Licensing 1725 I Street, N.W. Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.N.R.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Pat Coy 5106 Casa Oro Docketing and Service Section San Antonio, Texas 78233 U.S.N.R.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 M

5 Lanny sp// kin

s ATTACHME':7 1 DOCKETED

,. UsNRt au i 2s, 1381 .

In Reply Refer To: '83 OCT 24 R2:16

IV Dockets: 50-498/ Rot. 81-24 -..--n-.-

50-499/Rpt. 81-24 <

Y El ipi9f f i e ' '

ni :-

Hcusten Lignting & Power Comcany ATW: Mr. G. W. Cerea, Jr.

Executive Vice President Post Office Sox 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen:

This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. R. K. Herr &nd J. I.  ;

Tapia of our staff on July 14-15, 1381, at your facility in Bay City, Texas, '

c:ncerning allegatiens dealing with falsificatien of painting recerts, use of cut-of-specification' welding red, and uneven settlement of the Unit 2 Reactor Containmen: Building. The investigation and cur findings are dis-cussed in the enclosed investigaticn report.

Wi:hin the sccpe of this investigation, we founc no instance where you failed to meet NRC requirecents.

In accorcance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Ccmmissien's regulaticns, a copy of j this lettar and the enclosed investication recor: will be placec in the NRC's i Public Document Room. If this recort centains any information that you believe to be exemot frca disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary j that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days frem the cate of this letter of your intention to file a recuest for withholding; and (b) sub- ,

mit witnin 25 days from the date of this letter a written acplica:icn to this '

office to withhold such information. If your receict of this letter has been {

delayed such that less tnan seven days are available for your review, please  ;

notify tnis offica prcmptly so tnat a new due data may be established. i Consistant with Section 2.790(b)(1), any sucn acclicatien must be acccmoaniec by an afficavit executed by the cwner of the information which icentifies the cccument er part sought to be witnneld, and wnica centains a full statement of tne reasons en the basis whicn it is claimed that tne informa:icn should be withheld frem cublic aisclosure. T1is section fur?.he requires tne statecent l to addrsss with specificity the consideraticns listed in 10 CFR 2.790(o)(2).

The .infor:aticn sought :: be withhell shall be incoro; rated as far as :cssible into a separata cart of the affidavit. If we do not near frca you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placec in the Puolic Occument Room.

, RSM 7 IES E5 4 -

PS3 :FE.

.A EIS '

IEE

./

00-2 W._ .

• JITao1  ;;Ge r - 'l' ).l C ran L 'acs an CIi W i 2E349 ilr:0 l~~0 mu .v=- -~=- -

~

r. x :_ ..m m =__- _j3

. _ - w =. _

-l -

.. * %* r s  : , y. . ,-

Houston Lighting & Po(wer Ccmpany July 29, 1981

-Should you have any questiens concerning this investigation, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely.

'U ri gin o 6 Signed by:

W. C. sElDLE

W. C. Seidle, Chief Engineering Inspection Branch

Enclosure:

ZE Investigation Report 50-498/81-24 50-499/31-24 bec to DMS for dist. /W-r/ bec dist. by RIV f-N -//

5C NRR/DHFS Texas Dept. of Health Resources PM NRR/0L3 RRI-South Texas AEDD RAD ASMT SR ELD RESEARCH IE FILE LPDR IE/RPRIS NSIC NRC PCR 4

• 4 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMP:SSION OFFICE OF INSPECTICN AND ENFCRCEMENT I REGION IV Report: 50-498/81-2a; 50-499/81-24 .

Docket: 50 498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston lignting & Power Ceccany Post Office Sox 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Facility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Investigation at: Bay City,Idatagorda County, Texas Investigation conducted: July 14-15, 1981 Investigator: [ d R. K. Herr,' investigator

/' M ,

/-2 Date P-?/

Investigation and Enforcement Staff n .

in: pector: \f) Qw ~l- 7 S 'O (

J. I/Jiacia~, React r Ins::ector Date Engi,ncer,ing anc Mi)terials Section ii .X

.ls ;,

Acoroved: 'I Ll*1 h ' '

J. Ei Gagli! arco, Director Date Investigation and Enforcement Staff 3 .

/ 2

"

R. E. Hall, Ar-ing Chief Cate Engineering and Materials Section

nvestigation Summary nvestigation on July la-15, 1981 (ceanr: 50 a98/51-2a; 50 a99/31-2a' Areas Invest 1catec: Allegations of falsification of oainting recorcs, use or out-or-specification uldino rod, and uneven settlement of the Unit 2 Reactor Containment Buildinc. 'This investigation involved twenty-eicht investigative man-hours by one NRC investigator anc one NRC inscector.

Results: The allegations were not confirmed.

1

N

..- .. . j SUFFARY Inves-i;ation disclosed that no documents :ertaining :D :ne orecaration of walls in the Unit i Reactor Containment Building were tr sified. Accordinc o ne accused f alsifier, the only documents enanged cu' "nc any oaintinc '

activities were the time cards in order to reflec the ictual " time worked. .

I was determined that a pcwer shortage at Material !ss, e Substation No. 5 cid occui , but tne welding rods in question were not usec in any safety-reia:ec welding, but rather were sent to the on-site we'cinc sencol for use in :ractice welding by students. The actual se :lement easurements of tna Uni- 2 :eactor Containment Building were reviewed and i,.und to be generated by, anc the responsibility of, tne Geotecnnical Decartnv. : . The values whicn resulted in an excressed concern by a field engineer (surveyor) were data usec in the construction erection crecess and are "ct values cenerated -

frca -he monuments used by the Geotechnical Department.

t BACKGROUND Cn June 24, 1981, an individual centacted a Region IV Practor Inscector and alleged that, ac:ording to his sources, cain-ing recor1. were falsified; that a ;cwer snortage had resulted in the use or out-or-specification weldinc red; and :na the Unit 2 Reactor Containment Building was e/ ,eriencing uneven settlemen .

1

Ih<erview of ldaterial Distributien S taticn Attendant Inter iew of tne Material Distribution Station Attendant assicned '.

Materia Issue Substation No. 5 in June 1981 discicsed that on or around June 22, '081, power was lost for four and one-half hours and t .at all .

the welding roo in the ovens at the time was dcwncraced. The ttendant stated she r. oved all rods frcm the ovens and placed the ro s in gree'n cans that are signated for downgracing. She stated :nat nortly there-after the Materimi Centrol Suoervisor came to her office ..d removed the green cans contain:1g the downgraded rods. The attendan. also referred to the memorandum fr ?. One Electrical Decartment to -h- Chief Welding Engineer dccumenting s. e less of acwer on June 22,19's .

Interview of Material Con r:1 Su:ervisor Interview of the Material Cc rol Sucervisor diccicsec :nat he eersonally transported two hundred and tw ty-five ocunce of ccwngraced weiding red frem Material Issue Substation N n-sir.e weicing scheci en June 22, 1931. The Su:ervisor als 5tothefhisdailylocbookwhich crovid-d contained documentation of the trans #er o the material to the welcing school. /

Interview of Plant Constructicn v ana?Ir Interview of the Project Construe vien Manage, disclosed tha: cn or arounc June 22, 1981, ne was made awar_ cy one of his tutordina:es tha. accr0xi-mately 2C0 cunds of welding .od were ::wngradedNgue :: a loss of power at Material Issue Substati- No. 5. The manager c uld no: piace a monetary value en tne 200 .cuncs of weicing ecc.

Investigation ciscloss a that a # cur anc ene-hal f ". cur :cxgr less aas experi-encec at Materi.al 12.ue Sucs a:icn No. 5, an: tha :ne af- c ed welcing ecc -

was downgracec. .in .cccrcance w1:n -rocecure ic. ..-. -

er -2, revi icn :, "r.cntroi of Welding va ter'als," and subsecuently sent to :ne en-site we' ding scncol.

The two indiv .uais identified :y tne alleger as naving :een "c; :ur:ed by 4

this sequene. of events" were icentifiec as being mer:ers of the .'ectrical 3 Construct'cn Ceoar: rent anc would therefore not be f amiliar witn :n. Welcing Decartr nt material issuance recuiremen:s anc crocecures.

Allegation No. 3 That, basec on :ne setting of tench arks :n June 23, :973, and :ne sucse-cuent taking of elevation reacincs on :ne sire bencn arks cn "ay ^ ,1979, by the Field Engineering Cecartment, .ne Uni- 2 RC3 is se::iing faster :n one sice :han :he other.

_3

.'o Investicative Findinas individual A submitted an internal B&R memorandum which he felt warranted investigation. The memorandum dated August 15,197?, was from a Field Engineering Department surveying crew Party Chief to the then Chief Construction Engineer. The memorandum exoressed a belief on the oar of the Party Chief that the, Unit 2 RCS was settling faster en one side than on the other. His conclusion was based on readings taken on construction control bench marks on the shell liner of the Unit 2 RC3. These bencn marks were established to set elevations on all construction inside the Containment Building. Based on readings taken June 22, 1978, and May 9, 1979, the Party Chief recorted an elevation change of one-cuarter inch frem one side of the building to the other. The scecific sur;2ying infor-mation is recorded in Field Book No. 37-D, cages 308-310 and Field Book No. 37-H, pages 536-638. These pages were attached :o the submitted memo randum.

Interview of Lead Site Geotechnical Enaineer Interview of the Lead Site Geotechnical Engineer served to identify the procedures and responsibilities for en-site geotechnical monitoring.

The interview disclosed that geotechnical monitoring is performed by his subordinates and not by the Field Engineering Department. He exclained that Engineering Procedures Mcnual STP-PE-002-0, " Administration of Geotechnical Field Activities," and Tecnnical Reference Document No. 5Y310S00ll, "Geotechnical Field Engineering," were tne documents which controllec the accuisition of bench mark data for inou- into the ccm: uter program entitled, "Geotecnnical Mcnitoring Information System," (GEMIS) .

The outaut of this program is subsecuently used in calcula:icns of cifferential settlement. The Lead Site Geotecnnical Field Encineer :nen supolied the most recent (as of December 1980) calculation of differential settlement for the Uni: 2 RC3. This calcula:icn (No. 3Y310SC25a-L/PCN =5, Suboart 13) was reviewed anc snowec the end :o enc til of -he Unit 2 AC3 in the east-wes direction as 0.00 inches and 0.15 inches in the nortn-south di rection . The ceneral structural desicn criteria scecifies a maximum differential of 0.5 inches at time of oiping connections.

! Interview of Geotechnical Monitorina Encineer Interview of Geotechnical Monitorina Encineer disclosed that bench mark l

readings are taken every month and tha ~ the bench marks wnicn are usec are six brass caos set in the concrete Tencen Gallery ficer. The engineer explainec 09a: :nese bench marks are not sus:eo:icle ".o carage or movemen:

from ::nstructicn activities and are more accura:e since :ney are icca:ec on the too of :ne RC3 base ma . The engineer sucoliac re raw da a fr:m reacings taken in Acril anc then in Cecemcer of 1979. A review of :nis cata by NRC :ersonnel did not disclose an uneven settlement : rend.

6-

Interview of Assistant Chief Field Enicneer Interview of the Assistant Chief Field Engineer disclosed that geotechn; cal monitoring is not a responsibility of his department and that he recalled the events documented in the memorandum. He stated that the Party Chief '

was only responsible for setting elevations for the crafts and that while doing so he noticed a difference of one-cuarter inch across the building and that he then reported this for additional verification. The Assistant Chief Field Engineer stated that subsecuent measurements on the brass caps in the Tendon Gallery floor did not reflect the measurements taken by the Party Chief. The Assistant Chief Field Engineer felt that the measurements resulting in the memorandum from the Party Chief were not reliable to indicate the performance of the foundation.

Additional Concern An additional memorandum submitted by Individual A is dated August 13, 1979, frcm the Chief Field Engineer to the Calibration Suoervisor. The memorandum referred to the potential imoact on the calibration of the X&E Paragon tilting levels from the adverse handling involved in sending the instruments by airplane to the Callas-Fort Worth area for calibration. Individual A stated that this was not a soecific concern, but rather, only wanted to know if this item was related to the uneven settlement concern.

Interview of Calibration Sucervisor Interview of the Calibration Supervisor disclosed that the memorandum acdressing the calibration of K&E Paragen tilting levels resultec in can-cellation of calibration services in the Dallas-Fort Wcrtn area,and tnat the instruments were now beino calibrated in Houston. He stated that recalibration occurs every tw5 months, and that the instruments are hand-carried to and frcm Houston by his own oerscnnel. The .Sucervisor succlied

~

all the " Deficient Controlled Material and Testing Ecuicment Evaluaticn Reports" issued for the K&E Paragon tilting level identified in the memorandum /No. ST-CC-0947). These reports are generated in accordance with instrument calibration Procedure No. ICP-3, Revision 5, " General Calibration Procedure," every time an instrument goes out of calibration.

A review of these reports by NRC cersonnel did not disclose an relation-ships to the alleged uneven settlement.

l Document The foilcwinc document identified herein as Attachment i is maintained in the NRC Region IV Office:

Attachment 1 - SAR QA/QC .iele Acticn 0.ecuest No. 1C322, cated l June 22, 1981 I

ATTACHMENT 2 C O m p M G iroum m i.igh,ing &i.ome, i: o.isos ivoo iiousion. rcxas 27oni <2i3322 s 92ii August 25, 1983 ST-HL-AE-996

, File Number: G12.154 '.

Mr. John T. Collins Regional Ad=inistrator, Region IV Nuclear Regulatory Cornission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011

Dear Mr. Collins:

South Texas Project Units 1&2 Docket Nos. SIN 50-498, STN 50-499 First Interim Report Concerning Reactor Vessel Core Support Tolerance On July 26, 1983, pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), Houston Lighting &

Power Co=pany (HL&P) notified your office of an iten concerning the reactor vessel core support ledge. Attached is the first interic report concerning this itet. The next report will be submitted to your office by February 16, 1984 If you should have any questions concerning this iten, please contact Mr. Michael E. Powell at (713) 877-3281.

Very truly yours, G. . Op re a , J r .

Executive Vice President MEP/=g Attachment D 4

, . Houston Lighting & Power Company August 25, 1983 cc: G. W. Oprea , Jr. ST-HL-AE-996 J. H. Goldberg File Number: G12.154 J. G. Dewease Page 2 J. D. Parsons '

D. G. Barker M. R. Wisenburg -

R. A. Frazar '

J. W. Williams R. J. Maroni J. E. Geiger H. A. Walker S. M. Oew J. T. Collins (NRC)

A. Vietti (NRC)

W. M. Hill , Jr. (NRC) l M. D. Schwarz (Baker & Botts)

R. Gordon Gooch (Baker & Botts)

J. R. Newman (Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, & Axelrad) c STP RMS l Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement '

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 G. W. Muench/R. L. Range Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Central Power & Light Company Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board P. O. Box 2121 L'. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 Washington, D. C. 20555 H. L. Peterson/G. Pokorny Dr. James C. Lamb, III City of Austin 313 Woodhaven Road i P. O. Box 1088 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 l Austin, Texas 78767 J. 8. Poston/A.'vonRosenberg Mr. Ernest E. Hill City Dublic Service Board Lawrence Livermore Laboratory  !

P. O. Box 1771 University of California I San Antonio, Texas 78296 P. O. Box 808, L-46 Livermore, California 94550 Brian E. Berwick, Esquire William S. Jordan, III l Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss i for the State of Texas 1725 I Street, N. W.

P. O. Box 12548 Suite 506 Capitol Station Washington, D. C. 20006 A6stin, Texas 78711 Lanny Sinkin Citizens for Equitable Utilities, Inc. l

. Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power c/o Ms. Peggy Buchorn 5106 Casa Oro Route 1, Box 1684 ,

San Antonio, Texas 78233 Brazoria, Texas 77422  !

1 Robert G. Perlis, Esquire Hearing Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Revision Date 07-05-83

.. August 25, 1983 Attachment ST-HL-AE-996 Page 1 of 2 L South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 First Interim Report Concerning Reactor Vessel Core Support Tolerance -

i I. Summary i

An optical survey of the installed Unit 1 Reactor Pressure Vessel revealed two nonconforming conditions:

1) A tilt of the reactor vessel and associated tilt of the core support ledge in excess of allowable limits.

2) A waviness condition in the core support ledge that exceeds flatness criteria.

The cause of the tilt and waviness is unknown. The NSSS supplier has been directed to perform an analysis of the tilt situation and the waviness to

determine the safety implications, if any.

! II. Descriotion of Deficiency 1

On July 26, 1983, pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e), Houston Lighting & Power Company l (HL&P) notified the NRC Region IV of an . item concerning the reactor vessel '

core support ledge. A detailed description of the identified concerns i follows:

Core Support Ledge Tilt Data from an optical survey of the reactor vessel and reactor vessel core support ledge and flange indicated that the core support ledge does not

! conform to tolerance requirements relative to total overall slope or tilt.

! Although no-definite cause for this condition has been identified, it is possible that RCB differential settlement since the vessel was set may have caused the overall slope of the ledge to exceed allowable limits. The i.

- current RCB differential settlement is well within allowable limits for l

structural considerations.

Core Supoort Ledge Waviness F'ield surface measurements of the core support ledge also indicated waviness ,

in the core support ledge that exceeds total flatness criteria. The cause of the waviness in the core support ledge has yet to be determined.

L i

f

,-._.+,-.--,--r,-a, -m.,-,- m. , , . . , ,,,,e-.o._.. ,-m,,, ,-.-.y..,.-.._...._,,...mn.-

..' August 25, 1983 Attachment ST-HL-AE-996 Page 2 of 2

, III. Corrective Action

- Core Support Ledge Tilt ,

Preliminary assessment by Westinghouse indicates that the overall vessel tilt

1. is not a safety or operability concern.

Core Sc.9 port Ledge Waviness The NSSS supplier (Westinghcuse) has been directed to evaluate the waviness to determine if this is a safety concern and to recommend appropriate corrective action. Further analysis is required to determine the stress related effects of the waviness. Corrective action will be determined following completion of this analysis.

IV. Recurrence Control Recurrence Control cannot be addressed until the cause of these conditions is determined.

V. Safety Analysis Core Support Ledge Tilt Experience on another project (Foreign) with support ledge induced slope due to building differential settlement indicates that this aspect of the problem is'not a safety issue. A detailed evaluation is currently being performed to r confirm this.

Core Supoort ledge Waviness Preliminary asspssment of the vessel support ledge survey data indicates that the waviness of the support ledge will result in increased bearing stress between the core barrel flange and the support ledge. A detailed analysis is being performed to confirm this assessment and to determine the impact of increased stresses, if any.

No conclusions can be drawn at the present time as to the impact of these conditions on the safety of plant operations.

e*

~

ATTACIDE"r 3

%k {t rartum Sbkn w 9lG W

.Nure reactor tLtmg be}ronc. tolerance , eve..

cials say they do not know what By BILL MCCANN caus0d the till and the wavy support American. statesman statt ring. But they have asked Westing-Or.e of the South Texas Nuclear house Electric Corp. to determine ,

Project's twin reactors is tilting. whether the conditions pose prob-lems and need to be corrected. The It is not like the Leaning Tower of report is due by Nov.1.

Pisa or anything. In fact, the tilt is less than a tenth of an inch - an "PJGIIT NOW WF. can draw no amount imperceptible to the eye. conclusions as to the significance of the conditions or how they came But it is serious enough for Hous- about," Beeth said. "But just because ton Lighting & Power Co., the pro- tolerance limits are exceeded does ject's managing partner,Regulatory to report it not mean the reactor won't operate to the Nuclear properly."

Commission.

Tr.e Unit I reactor vessel and a Settling of the containment build-support ring inside the vessel are titt- ing that houses the reactor may be ingin excess of the tolerances set by responsible for tre tilt, according to the manufacturer. a memo from the power company to the regulatory commission.

In addition, the stect support ring.

known as the core support ledge, is Nuclear Regulatory Commission wavier than the manufacturer's lim- officials in Arlington said the prob-its. A concern is that the wavir. css lems do not appear to be serious. But could cause uneven stress within the they are awaiting results of the study vessel, resulting in excessive wear.

THE STEEL REACTOR vessel is Opponents of the project have inside the giant Unit I containment been warning for years that serious building, which is made of concrete settling problems are possible be-and steel. The 14-footdiameter ves-set holds the reactor core containing cause there is no solid ground be-the nuclear fuel. Heat produced in neath the complex of buildings that the vessel turns water to steam that make up the project. In 1981, ques-drives an electrical generator. tions were raised about uneven set-tling of the Unit 2 reactor building, "You are talking about some pret- but regulatory commission inspec-ty small ;ariations." said Houston tors reported finding no problems.

Lighting & Power official Don Beeth.

For example, the maximum tilt al- The two reactor units, each capa-lowed for the reactor vessel is .007 ble of producing 1.25 million kilo-of an inch.The tilt measures .071 of watts of power, are being built near an inch, about 10 times the allowable Bay City. Project officials held a cel-amount. But the variance is still only ebration last week to mark the com-

.02 of a degree, Beeth said. pletion of exterior concrete work at f Houston L!ght$ng & Power offi- the Ulsit I containment building.

.