ML20199G383

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Memo Discussing Review of 850211 Deposition & 850212 Transcripts Re Case W/Dept of Labor.No Impact of Ssers Noted,No New Issues,Concerns or Allegations Identified & No Open Items for Phase II Identified
ML20199G383
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak, 05000000
Issue date: 06/11/1986
From: Livermore H
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To: Noonan V
NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
Shared Package
ML20197J178 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8606250205
Download: ML20199G383 (13)
v • d • e


Text

- - - - . . - - . - . .

... h

n. s

% UNITED STATES i['- k fJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisSIOtJ j WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 MEMORAfiDUM FOR: V. S. lioonan, Director Comanche Peak Project FROM Herbert Livermore, QA/QC Group Leader Cemanche Peak Technical Review Team REFERE?tCES- Review ofli@WMW5GdWMdNMdW) Deposition Transcripts, Respectiveiv dated Feb 11 and T271985 (Related to thegBMdM Case with the Department of Labor) .

SUBJECT:

The transcripts were reviewed for:

(1) To . identify new concerns / issues / allegations (items)

(2) Affect of concerns / issues / allegations on present SSERs (3) Identify those concerns / issues / allegations which do not affect present SSERs -

(4) Identify those items which should be referred to other TRT/

Region IV crganizations (5) Detennine which items should be deferred as open action items to be completed in Phase II of TRT's assessment of CPSES allegations.

L&W90.MJL 4Htranscript contained 12 concerns / issues / allegation (items).

Mhe result or tnelr review is as follows

Items 1, 2, 3, 4: Subject matter addressed and assessed in SSERs; no impact on SSERs.

Items S and 10: The effects of these items were addressed in SSERs.

The actual destruction and falsification of records are censidered " Wrong Doings". As such they were

~ r'\ ,' T,

,_, g

,%p3 assessed by Region IV OI. See OI Report #4-84-0?.5

-', .-:%~; .m;'*.. - ~' "It is alleged inproprieties and wrong doing in B&R Document Control Center. . ."

tio impact on current SSERs.

Item 6: fian-QC issue, tio impact on SSERs.

A Items 7, 8, and 9: These areRlWN3 human relations interface problems.

Their ' effects %ere factored in during the assessment of deficiencies in the document control system. flo impact on the SSERs.

8606250205 860611 PDR FOIA PDR GARDE 85-59

- +- _ -

0 000i -

a The result of the TRT's review of 18 items identified "

in/'g;'/.fk$%

deposition is as folicws:

Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,12,17 and 18. Sub, ject matter addressed in SSERs; No impact.

Item 9: Falsification of records, previously addressed above: No .~ impact.

Item 10: Non-QC Issue: No impact.

Item 5, 11 and 13: Human relation issues: Their effects have been factored in SSERs; No impact.

Items 14, 15 and 16: Drug abuse issue at CPSES was handled by Region IV resident inspectors. OI personnel and TUEC special investigative team, etc. No impact on SSERs.

~

In summary, based on reviewing items identified in theMla~nd despositions against QA/QC SSERs, no impact on SSERs wi --

concerns / allegations were identified, no open action items for Phase II were' identified, and rc items were r.oted to be given to other TRT/ Region IV organizations.

C

/ H. H. Livermore QA/QC Group Leader Comanche Peak TRT cc:

V. Wenczel, TRT QA/QC C. Poslusny, TRT

_n 1

Date I.

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP TO: (Name, off\ce symbol, room number, lnitish Date building, Age cy/ Post)

1. l6

- n f.- ,

, p - m

a. OS. S. $. -l-hv~Q

)

7 A Fue Note and Retum p ~} _

Action Amal For C3earance Per Conversation As Recuested For Correction Prepam Reply Circulata For Your Information See Me ,

Comment lavestigste Signature CWination Justifv-

-- . . REMARKS

. . -. * $~

~

~

~

R A lA.,' N

._.. - <-. . . , , x. . ,

- .~ .~ .

~

x

/

.:g

+ . _ __ . .;; _

W ,, y y (3 a p jy-i7ggr k-d gri;n-+L&

1 a22 --

=++n=&:--

3-m.e _ --

c  :-

u M

$ 2%'% d f.if D. +352-i- '~h 2;*. 9.,-5 R _ -

4 : .MR-;5?+. ' 1.'0 -

'? f s '.Y. Y -

W y: f$. ~.-'" '. f f-ll n n-y w . , . . . . . . .

. L ~~~-. & : , ~ . .:~. Caz.v -~~ - /

.~-..%....~.. . .

7 . a -g.r . - t,, .

u...- _.

A A A

pg

-l (W

=.g--.~."-..q....

9- .

-1x. mm. ---3 : .-- :-

g U V h l - -f:; + . -N. - -

DO NOT use this form as a RECCitD of app,G.;.. qsurrences, disposals, *

-C '--

- clearances, and similar acbons org. Agency / Post) Room No ---Bidg.

FRCat:(Na a - . . -- -.

W "'Ph*** N **

.; soJs -Ic2 ' CFTICMAL FCRM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

Prescriese tw GSA WR (41 C7R3101-11.206 w GPO: 1983 0 - 381-529 (232) e

s. - , e.

s *% e $

't .'. . .

' i~l, ) i e . " ~'_ ! , . " t. , s o V

... n  ;

e u f

.T -

e ,

, gd gh #sD.l' j

l. .

,e vs -T-

b l b f-fnd y

' yw e

ABSTRACT 5 79,g s&s Supplement 10 to the Safety Evaluation Report for the Texas Utilities Electric Company application for a license to operate Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445,50-446), located in Somervell County, Texas, has been jointly prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

. and the Comanche Peak Technical Review Team of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This Supplement provides the results of the staff's evaluation and resolution of approximately 400 technical concerns and allegations in the mechanical and piping area regarding construction practices at the Comanche Peak facility. This report does not address the Walsh/Doyle allegations regard-ing deficiencies in the pipe support design process. Issues raised by the Walsh/Doyle allegations as well as issues raised during recent Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' hearings will be dealt with in future supplements to the Safety Evaluation Report as needed.

r

j. '

I /

ff f

v' r r/'

,/

/, y(s/ -

( I l

)

h i Comanche Peak SSER 10 111

f' valid, would no, r <ented the equipment, component or system of concern from performing its ended function.

The substantiated allegations which were of potential safety sienifi- ~ e are r/

} Nye irr" discussed in this WD sectionIn spite of these s -wH-i-aed 4 a -

N oncerns, the staff found that, in general, the construction activities were < )

/ erformed in a manner which provided adequate assurance that installed ccaponents nd systems would perform their intended furtction. Thir conc 1dsion 1s based on the evaluations completed ' A'~ .ed in this SSER but cannot be c:nsidered final untti evaluation of ' l concerns is completed.~further, any find-

!ing"related to QA/QC asp'ects will btnissimilated in the QA/QC SSER (SSER No. 1

~

i The staff found five issues within the 50 categories reviewed by .the TRT's I H&P Group shich have potential safety significance and generic implications.

An issue of concern in the Welding Area is related to_ uncontrolled welding I repair of misdrilled holes in piping and cable tray supports. Two issues of I potential safety significance were found in each of the Piping Area and Hanger

! and Support Area. One of the Piping Area concerns is also re. lated to temocrary pipe suoports. The' specific issue is failure to assess temporary pipe ana equipment supports. The other: Piping Area safety significant issue is the failure to consider the pot.ential damace to einina systertuulcLg_ ige _suppo_rts, whi_ch are ecuted between seismic Category I and nonsei_smic Category I build-in The two safety significant concerns found by the staff in the Hanger and Ti$gs.jiort Area are related to the shortening of bolts holding the upLer steam generator lateral supuorts to wall plates ano to cne sacx or a fi net weld inspecti_on criteria for certain types of skewed welds. ihere were no aoverse sarety significant findings in tnd'ConsWuction analocument Control Area or the Other Area. TUEC has been requested to take certain actions and to provide

. the NRC staff additional information before these issues can be resolved.

3.3.1 Welding Area Findings One safety significant concern was identified in the welding area as a. result of the staff's evaluations. This concern relates to unccntrolled weld repairs by plug welding. Alleged generic problems regarding uncontrolled repairs to holes in pipe and cable tray supports and in baseplates were reviewed for both I Units 1 and 2. The holes, which had been misdrilled during fabricatien, were i repaired b plug welds. Because these supports are seismic Category I supports, the effects of the welds should have been evaluated. Although the effects of unauthorized, undocumented, and uninspected plug welds in some locations (e.g. ,

[ the webs of I-beams or in structural members in compression) might be incon-

[

l sequential, plug weld repairs in some critical locations (e.g., flanges of L I-beams in flexure or in structural members in tension) could affect the sup-

port structural integrity or its ability to perform its intended function. The safety significance of these unauthorized repairs can be determined only if the

! specifi'c repairs are identified, inspected, and evaluated in this and other areas of both Units. (See Attachment 2, Category 4.)

l (The staff concluded that additional actions, as noted in 5%are.r.cqu' ed j

j Eufore-thesa hw can be completdyacsobedr 0Y "Wu CMY -

W hW Ot.t. Cou H l.

\ m fa l r c ua_

s1 m

c x.

C w "

~% 3'& m_ A.3-Ld f P SSER 10 4 - N-1 / / /

Coman A.~~/eLa'

  • H tw"% WxMW +/

i

. c --

e p d t.

l 3.4 Overall Assessment. and Conclusion l; The staff reviewed and evaluated allegations in the Mechanical and Piping Category which were related to compliance with prc,cedures, personnel

! qualifications, quality of workmanship, material traceability, adherence to codes and standards, or documentation. During its evaluation, the staff reviewed per-tinent construction records, NCR's, design drawings, procedures, specifications, I interviewed craft and TUEC personnel, and conducted plant inspections. The staff found that approximately 100 allegations were not substantiated or contained .

either insufficient evidence with which to substantiate the alleged concerns.

Often, there was no connection betwden the concern and plant safety. Also, further contact with the in'dividuals raising the concerns often did not provide the required specificiity to better focus the allegations. The staff's. detailed review of each concern completely or partially substantiated approximately 55 allegations. Five issues evolved from the substantiated allegations which were of potential safety significa'nce and required further action. Although about 50 al. legations were at least partially substantiated, most did not affect plant safety because the concern, though valid, would not have prevented the

! equipment, component, or system of concern from performing its intended function.

4. ACTIONS REQUIRED OF TUEC IN THE MECHANICAL AND PIPING AREA TUEC shall submit additional information to the NRC, in writing, in uding a '

program and schedule for completing a detailed and thorough assessmentfof the '

issues identified in the following subsections. This program plan and'its implementation will be evaluated by the staff before NRC considers the issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak, Unit 1. The program plan shall address the root cause of each problem identified and its generic implications

on safety-related systems, programs, or areas. The collective significance of these deficiericies shall also be addressed. The program plan shall also

[ include the proposed TUEC action to assure that such problems will be precluded g

from occurring in the future.

8 I,

( 4.1 Inspection for Certain Types of Skewed Welds in NF Supports (M&P '

L Category 31).

h '

4.1.1 Revise B&R weld inspection procedures CP-QAP-21.1 and

, QI-QAP-11.1-28 to properly address skewed welds'of stanchion

, to stanchion and stanchion to pipe pad.

4.1.2 Provide evidence to verify that previous inspections of these types of skewed welds were performed to the appropriate h procedures or reinspect these welds.

s .

j 4.2 Improper Shortening of Anchor Bolts in Steam Generator Upper i.aterg Supports (M&P Category 18).

) 4.2.1 Provide evide'nce, such as ultrasonic measurement results, to l

Verify ac'ceptable bolt length.

li L

$ Comanche Peak SSER 10 N-17 l 4

.-. . .. .---- .. . . . . - .. -.- .- . .~ .. . . - . . . . .

,.-,a,m-_wi. r.-.m- --- r - vryv *

.m 4

e

  1. , $ e.

O $% .t ,g

g. ..

g, -

y l.

y y y~ .. [ ..

f re9

-3 j .

L

\) 7 . .

\ ,y, 4u

.. t y> ,

I'

. , h e 7 Mll)i B u .

, u m a,' 4 t'% &

- - s c

2 , .

i 3

dh .- - , '

$ 1L.__ g i p 3 N i 1 i

're ee 1 .. 1 3 ats. ga ,. u 1s 1 .

}x  :

y u

[

. 1I Is ~

,*s tt e 4 <. .

$% S Q g' I h

gta lewg< *

'!Y t .-  % a

- k 4

~

J p(,.P2I45 {'d f.ti 1b2 $I a.a  :

w.e m: w = p., g .

tes na Kn s-m

> .s t .s e s ce 4 c ,s . ack 2 .

= "-'- d &  ;

9-a nFg

_h. , '

m + l s._ _ 1

' i f .2 ' T ';ii: g 6,, p.;; f l.:.;. N s M_!.NTEidsO-1 Y...E, n%, n.f,iN.. A ,J [ ,] .

R _

f. .

gg, O s

.t e * +-

.' ,3  ;

1. 3 y .

19 ,;

s '

ib w 4 2e

- .) -

1-L 6 a

e. o i .

j (,

a,4' 41 en '

e +, <

. a. _e_ i

.g, 3, c r-p' co

" }

i;_

1 I .i 1 ;. x 3' i ..

d\ f,b l' kg i !U

% k i

k t ws b

k 3

s [m g g-I * $

a k( .

I kg n kt

  • l {li iE &

l h{3 l!

! ,h Pe x= I Q YI d h gr s

A*

% 7, e y iv l 13 dll 4 g dl I{llli bD

- g ,'

id$1 a k

11 <-

iH 14 U oj J h

T T

e 11

. D9 14 N h v os *144

-}4 4A go Os s$  ;

(3 12 $x $E.t + 4 E e ', Ri $k EEE E*  :

(( } }",( 4 Yz4W341't $ 5 Ae i-AC1 '# 4 t 4 $

f I t

.- dy ,

' = . . .  % u s'.

. l. e  %-

- , :1 A' ..

3 p  ?

l

,p : , if** - Q [ Q ( O k W Y $:'t G M M y yi bf4 5' Q . :u.\ W ' .

*2 l ; Q 'i. &

. s

  1. 'g UNITED STATES

! a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N wAswmoTom. o. c. aoses N PG /

/ N M y ,

\,,,,, Wu o 3 585' M i G 1985

""'/ [

MEMORANDUM FOR: Larry Shao, Engineering Gr up Leader Jose Calvo. Electrical / Operations Group Leader

[wm[ [y / J 1

Comanche Peak Project > / /i James Gagliardo, Chairman Intimidation Panel etw / f Comanche Peak Project riu /

FROM: Vincent 5. Noonan Director -

Comanche Peak Project SUS 1ECT: RECORD REVIEW GROUP FINDING'S Over the past few months a contractor team has been reviewing Comanche Peak hearing transcripts, depositions, and alleger meeting transcripts for the purpose of insuring that no allegations have been missed by the TRT review.

Attached is a list of 27 items which the group has identified as allegations which were potentially not followed up by the TRT. I am fairly confident that these can be tied to existing allegations or sumary dispositions.

Please review these items, interface with Luke Jones (37991, NL, or Delray B1dg.) and Chet Posiusny (27066) to detemine if in fact, any action items have been missed. Please provide feedback to me by May 1.

- 0__

, ,D ector che Peak Projec .

^

cc: D. Eisenhut 4

R. Keim1g Q._.Liverso.re -

ns CV \ /

C McCracken

5. Phillips C Hale

~

C. Trannell E. Jordan APR 2 9 $85.

i

.: 'fs' '. s .

  • p
  • 8

. 4

  • e t

" . t + *.y , .

"? . s ' 0. *

  • s ,

~ ,. , ..

s

' I ," , ,  ; ,, ."

p

. s r . . . ~ ,- . ~ < * . .

s

.

  • e

, q

  1. - 4 .

8 9 4 'e .

", , , , g .'s' v

c<,,;-a

, , :j . <e ,

,t- s q 3, c, j . - *

- - . e b

& _ J.

d *-## %e U Y

/a Mg g* ,h*% g pp g . . .

h . .

.g t '

t

! . sh ' a, it z.: ~

1s . .

,i, 8 o -

,. p _

i e -

) (P

?

i 2 .

l 3 >

h .

k. O. D -

{ T i kN 90 t O ~- -

} -

1 1

. a E

!T i '!-

i k%

4 4+ s I I' k D { ,bk

\ tf a, a .

i~<t y t.

S-1

.i 4 "- -h .

. . g 1 l i.

3* 'l s

  • lP 4 4 9  %

3 t* w a: gg s t-  ;

va kC ~ t = 4 ,

4

' 1 1115 k {d, D ' -

4 1 9.sd +d 't i 11 wo o I w ~g % p re m h N t k4 {k). N kM en+ n un r6e nn

%gg Qga d we e e-a .

w a xn dt 4t e4Ld

  • 4*f43td jg k e.I .c 4*a I@

le E9 te 9 h 7- '

0 g .

. w-. xt M, g w

,- .?5Q&,?.; ' &h)Qgg

,. gj:f4 ,<

f."

K, j, K~.7 . ~" : *,

u .aw

-'W~-

~

' . c.: uT: .l . uM ': > , .

L*

" * .=['*

.>. "1 ^i ':'.i 4 .

3

,4

\ =

.. - k.

'll 2E*

i o9

'i -

6 . ,

y . -

i E I

-p 7 1 th I qp -

I J W i

\

2 e

.J \

s G ,,

b f' trl .

N I k' au -

I:-

,j;? \A l2 k

'd

<* h' i \ t e- @

3 L

%' b) 4 sg i

b w s y v i f 7 g n l k ', -

t t

4k b n 5\ -

t h a k{r '  %$  % $

tu % % o wb L kNuI%s an f4 ry

\

, NN N rD on wn El wa EbE EEE

- 9 w o dg4 e ,E4  ! %*

6 T2Dw Oy g y

. .:.  % -  %., g

n. - .

V nu.wa xsn aacu=n; w w. sum.:w.':'

  • ' ~ '

'. EE' ?

?

k ,*

k...

.* ., *;lu  ; '. :. 4 q .

\' *

  • =,

c '" 9 ,, , , , . :. _-

\% - ^_:~. t .'.j' >

  • r.

^

e 4

. w A a, . % *j . ,

9, e

,, . . . . {g s . . 6 * * * ,

4 , '

, 88 p

  • f .'g e '

0 e# *

" L.g.. .,'

' , . rg, . , ,:

.'t,- - g,:. - > ? I5*  !'.'~ A

.- v, ,. - , ,, *

l

, \.

q3

, i ,; . . .- .w-  ;. y

,' ..' s; j . .g + *

, './y; ;,.,;.s;, . - p ;.,;g.,. g;; ,!. . p.,j,f,I - . . , ,i;.  ; , ,.. ",p.'.'a.',,'

-: ". u.

, . - 'i e - . .; . , .

  • s; 1 ;,ec, .,3 y; :', .

Q. ; y * . , '

7-l m e r x), 4 &c:'-e> LO '

bbvs l aA0 ^

N .

N c

S&s r

  • i7 -

A)Lc q&m as i k m ud up au, f Luko MM )! '24:f mA e ks e n s - ~

JJ

~

Mssza e dd .

--==-

u -a. .

J.A . -M O N

-pecnac dJ J/A ~

-mc. JJW~laJL A a/%yJfm AJw .

c/

U 2.2.  %- & +&

oA d m '? O  ;

=

l i

. . s

[

l _ -

' ' .f,*j-[ b%. .i"* 3 .q..' -

' q ' " i.,.~' U 2.:.'3f . . o .c,;. X: ;

. Ta-o.. ?,*,,

~. $./ 4'.'i+;Q(,,{}  ?. .i'ji[,$*3. -') {k- %w ,,,J. vw ..#d

, . .. r

,%. n .W2u - y ; .6 3.4e -

. .v, y - . ,,1 4w3 .n. (>

,"fs @
,.g g'5 'm e.

~

s..s. die 2.'4y a'iu./,. * .
S., -:

.ty r *;. (,.f. .. , J . i3 ,, . A (, j igg,,t 5,'

. ;.Kg. g% ., ;g'(ih, ,,. :, p,g'* e , ,

gt > {.7l ' gj; ;,;. *, ~ G.j,j's ,

. , . . a. .; ;.. . . , . - ,- .. s

4 I

  • g a ., g jO g n' I g V . .

, ,it s

[

9 'l

} 19

.i, )i 6 ' "

. lef. ; .l f f l jI i r

. 9 . .

2u

~

J

, c. C l

i t) e WI -

. 3 E x A i f .

ru

-N N

il i

{\ A. {i, ba il 9 lu5{k l

~

(sq$

3 3

&*,d gw ag i r ' %oal,\

w 9 N  % e* Q.

  • 4 ,1 :~ 1 '

c w'E R4

'4 i - {tA4 % .

k*4 kg lysyy

i. *. d .g

%  %,. 5 b $ <

5" i

. L'sird qu E4 4 -c4 14 1M e wo o> p44 -

al'%)g ae o tv ,%y we t e t-? E s d' t en u Ju l 34' '

T4 % tt " e1 4 5 1 g e. $ c*

l ec 4 '-e e .E.ys4ss Cr N

' Og

. -m 5 e-j' :, .

w ,

6 E _qp-5::,*'l7v-~ .~t?.xg~z'7q:=;)g;pqggy3gyy.,;;ygg;_.

_ ._

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20199G383&oldid=2998712"