ML20211F435
| ML20211F435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F241 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-378 NUDOCS 8610310158 | |
| Download: ML20211F435 (5) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ <... 3 e, 103 i ~ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i 4 t 2 BEF0RE THE ,,.g,. q.g. y l Q[ t ,s., 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l I 4 3 {:: 'l [ i.. I In the Matter of: ) uNC A GRUTMM: 5 N ) CCURT ROCRER k 0 HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER ) E COMPANY, ET AL. ) Docket Nos. 50-498 OL 6 7I ) 50-499 OL E South Texas Nuclear Project ) = 8 n j Units 1 and 2 ) i d i ci 9 t c j 10 [ F Green Auditorium i South Texas College of Law 1303 San Jacinto Street [. Houston, Texas 12 z i = n Wednesday, 5 13l January 20, 1982 i P 14 i d r PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT, the above-entitled N 9 15 > matter came on for further hearing at 9:00 a.m. ? 16 ?g j APPEARANCES: r H 17 O Board Members: ~ h G 18 s = 6 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Chairman h }9 k Administrative Judge A [ Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 20 la U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l R Washington, D. C. 20555 8 21f ERNEST E. HILL, Nuclear Engineer 7 22 h Administrative Judge 4 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1 23 a University of California Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, L-46 3 24j Livermore, California 94550 i kN GARDEs$j5e86093o 25 5-37g ppp n i. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l t
S 9'"<> AP P E A RANCE S : (continued) 10G j I DR. JAMES C. LAMB, III 2 Environmental Engineer Administrative Judge I 3 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 313 Woodhaven Road 4 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 l 5 j k e For the NRC Staff: N 6 E 8 EDWIN REIS, Esq. 2 7 ' JAY M.rGUTIERREZ, Esq. n ,~ DONALD SELLS ~ E 8 office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d 9 Washington, D. C. 20555 5 10 WILLIAM C. SEIDLE j 3 l Chief, Engineering Inspection Branch 5 11 611 Ryan Plaza Drive l Suite 1000 d 12 Arlington, Texas 76011 z E i l 13 i For the Applicant, Houston.Lichtino & Powe r comoany : n i 14 I JACK R. NEWMAN, Esc. y = a k MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq. E 15h ALVIN H. GUTTERMAN, Esq. 16l Lowenstein, Newman, Re'is & Axelrad E J 4 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 1 E 3 Washington, D. C. 20036 N I7 s y ^ FINIS COWAN, Esq. E 18 Baker & Botts E 300 One Shell Plaza 19 l Houston, Texas 77002 g g e 20,h For the Intervenor, Citizens for y Equitable Utilities, Inc. 21 p l-PEGGY BUCHORN 22 Brazoria, Texas ( ) 23 i 2. 24 l 25 ' b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
( ~ ' 107 APPEARANCES: (continued) For the Intervenor, l 2 ,l Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 3 f ROBERT HAGER, Esq. l 1324 North Capital Street l 4 Washington, D. C. 20002 I i 5 n 6f i g 7 l
- l; l.
J 8 o:i 9 i t i l C 10 i g E 11 I
- 4 d
12 E I = \\ ll 13l i h 14 4 s I = e E 15 W i 16 I E ? ut g I H 17 E.. ( E 18 i. i. C f s_ 19 e r: 20 i I 8 21 i t 22 i f 23 ;,' a 4 i 24 l* i. 25 C I' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. i
s 9547 108 like that being in the file, per se. y 1 1' 2 g All right. Is -- Anyone on the Staff can answer this, 3 4 but is the Staff generally satisfied with the method that e 5 is in effect or was in effect fo'r resolving complaints X e N 6 by individual workmen, QC inspectors, et cetera? e f7 Does the Staff find that method which was in-K { 8 formal at one point and then formalized, is that a satis-d c 9 factory method for resolving complaints of that sort? 10 BY WITNESS SEIDLE: E .} 11 A Mr. Chairman, after our meeting in August B g 12 1978, we saw evidence that management was more responsive Ej 13 to complaints. There was more open-door policy on site. d 14 Management was more accessible. E 15 Perhaps Mr. Hubacek can embellish on this a 5 g 16 little bit. He did make a point to follow up on these M l d 17 several commitments. l 5 5 18 BY WITNESS HUBACEK: I 5 l h 19 A I'm not sure if I know exactly what you want n 20 me to embellish on. l 2I O I just wanted to find out whether the NRC l 22 in general, and you individuals, were satisfied that the 23 system or method that the Applicant had, or Brown & Root 24 had for, resolving complaints by -- complaints of harass-25 ment and intimidation, that type of thing, was satisfactory, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 85ds 109 i was likely to lead to effective resolution of any such j 2 questions. 3 BY WITNE,SS HUBACEK: 4 A The informal procedure which I'm familiar with appeared to be satisfactory'to me at the time that 5 = 2ej 6 I was closely involved. E 7 I didn't have any problem with the procedure ~ M{ 8 that was used. Oc 9 0 All right. i h 10 BY WITNESS PHILLIPS: 3l 11 A The informal procedure and the formal procedure 3 y 12 was an additional step that the licensee had taken that I cj 13 had not previously seen on other sites. So I'd have to a mg 14 say that it was an additional measure from that standpoint. E g 15 And also at the beginning of my assignment a 16 there, I took note of the fact that HL&P had conducted' g a d 17 a number of investigations on their own and had their 5 h 18 files, which were -- had documented those investigations. P h 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's all the questions n l 20 the Board has. l 2I Let's take a break before we Do you have 22 redirect? 23 MR. GUTIERREZ: Just three or four questions. 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Why don't we take a 25 ( break anyway, and then we will be back. b, A 1. M(F@X3RDB $8A[ETOD er FRD om o o 000 . OD e9
'. ~. ** ~
- .. ; x y,.l-yk*y}.; h *.., -l7:]y-Q... -::. ':.
110 / v w n a.-. w.,.
- w._
a - :.. ( f ko0[71/9b ~. r ? N0087496 s 04/Z3/81 7 4 T ~_.-. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGet1551CR r - .j ' ( _ C,, l { ', BEFORI THE ATCNIC 5AFETT AND LICEM5fMG $0ARD n, i b~% ; c _.. y !, v. - . - + -- In the Metter of [ u g: :.' f - - Docket Mos. 50-498 Houston Lighting & Power Capany, 5o-49s atA* (South Texas Project thits 1 and 2).h.J- .T. - 4 S.'V'.' ..s j ~ ,JP NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. SEICLE. WILLIAM A. CRO$3 M .s .) r. WILLIAM G. HUBACEK. ROBERT 8. TAYLCR AND W. $HANNON PHILLIPS,E .'d RELATIVE TO THE NISTCRf 0F CONSTRUCTICM ACTIVITT ' W.
- 30. 1980 l.'
LEADING UP TO THE $N0s CAUSE CRDER OF APRIL '19:5 m. '..4... r. 'T se.f, s': }* .h y Vill the Panel members please state your nee, aployer. Job title and spectftcally, your responsibtiltles relative to the South Texas k' Q. "f,',*.., -] 7 I. g *a-j '4 "?.'. . T Qgl 7:... g,=.g$ g'.;g >*3. Project. '.. pr E', 2 % name is V1111am C. Seidle and I as currently Chfef. Engineering ,r f..,.h.g' $.M. 4 Inspection Branch. Region !Y. Office of Inspection and Enfortement. United ~*- p. c. A. d...d. y - , 1 : >. ..y C A.,. m.,
- . m
~ y rh, '.2 '. '.: /. <, u%. 7 For the period relevant to this $tates Ik clear Regulatory Coeurission. N;.;L.y, r .i., '.. p. 4estimony. I tas Chief of the Reactor Construction and Engineering Support u . f f'* M I was responsible for the fsplementation of progrus of, Branch (RCSE38). L
- . t inspection investigation, and enforcement for nuclear power plants under
-~ i construction in Region 1Y. including the Sot.th Tetas Project. 5 - 1 l.., $ noe is V111tas A. Crossman and I as Chief. Section (3) thrte. 3 .I .s j Raactor Projects trarch. Cffice of Inspection and Enforement. Regfon !Y. L' [.h Imited States Muclear Regulatory Ca=1ssion. For the period relevant to I was responsible
- ,d
. this testimony'. I tes Chief. Projects Sectics. RCSESS. [' 4 v ?. [' l '?;g4 ..R '.... 22 i. 8 .W( k l 'g ,.7 5.. Q b.., - S
- (,
e 1 ?w s,, . (( l h. -~~-~ ~ r[ n r. -,db . :.;;d .,' S.h
- ~,. "..
w. .c T.. u r r- ,.. *s. ..'A.. .(. 1.Q '.y. t.:. 3 l 8.,.* s g [ ' --l C .c. a {. ? ~ l** D t. w' .'h hh...~ ?.* ' . ~ ~ , E ** ? ~ .h v ' ph E
- g
,J ..s .,n sf(
- '-t" s.-
"e' - m w W.L.*... .:.w L. _ N.' ; *._..'... ~1.. ;.-, __ '_._.d,f M t@ $. ' ~ NF j r _ ea; ,,RC.., .['.i, ., -2 : - u r_ c i i u.+.- m. E a . O'.T.M ?.M2R9: 4 wd i m f
.....p.... 4 2: C.t. y,;. g.,...e,j,.;;; p..g.y,,J ,.,;fe g -;c g ; 7.,..... g.g : .. - ~.._, ,g, a ) 111 \\ 7 -a. w. .. - a. :.w . s ; i w w ~ e m,.x..,,. ~, e .a. L 8 1 r 4 .t. l H. t-for the supervision of the project inspectors de inspected nucteer peuer ...c plants under construction in Region !Y. including the South Texas project. U: % name is Robert G. Taylor and I as the Resident Reactor inspector. +- ( Comanche peak Station. Region 17. United States helear Regulatery Cents. L ston From 1975 through February 1978. I uns a Construction Project Reactor e l ed Inspector to Region IT. responsible for the taspection of nuclear power r plaats under construction including the South Temas Pmject. l .k % name is 1tt111am L kbecek and during the perted relevant to this testimony I ms a Reactor Inspector in RGESS. Office of laspection and n, ja6 Enforcementi Region !Y thited States kclear Regulatory Canutssfoa. I ens f .f.*>~, J ..g; i responsible for project inspection of nuclear power factitties that were
- y,f/.p being constructed vitate Region IV. including th4 South Texas project.
.,.i. D.t D Currently. I as a Reactor Inspector. Sectica (3) 'three. Reactor projects (($.k'. q. .:s -
- 7, T
's, j.' Branch. Region IT. ~ ',h s y.. \\ (",... % name is E Shannon phillips and I have been the Resident Reactor y' - 4.. /. ;'s / -d.b Inspector at the South Texas Project since August 22.1979. I am respons1 1-L-Y. Mb.,., '>1 ble for coordinating all safety related inspection efforts relative to the ../;-ps W.. 4.m -..i i v?h 7s' f.. ' u,j j (3 lc; 4d-w ',' Y ' - d :f.d NRC Region and,the site. In addition. I was a nonber of a special lavesti. -- i* .s J r* 'd gative tems investigattag allegations concerning lack of QC annagement m [',. _
- c:
- ,f
,[' i.y. support, fatteidation and harrassment of gsality conttel laspectors and the ,. O ' ~. +. ] '* }- as :. - . {tl e assessment of the effectiveness of the quality assurance / quality centrel -1 s:. 1 { progras at the South Tazas Project. Tkts,tavastigative effort resulted ta .i
- '}
.y the issuance of Staff Report 50-498/79-19 and 50-499/79-19 the staff's ..a . ',Q.y.l ' Order to show cause dated April 30. 1980 Retice of 1tolation and Prosesed J a f.'M) Impositten of Civil Penalties. '
- f
!r.';i~% L.' i' - c. j ,tg, .. M
- o. o s.,.
m + .'s (_,
- ,f;.
si ~ ,. 3 e- ' " " j. s Q 'J, + ,,, y < ,3 i*. D' = g; 2 j.',. ' -t ._ c ; d:.m (* a.. v...
- T*
_.[ ~ ('~;, 7 7;' ' .l .r.--. ,'I4 'f Y f.Q ~ " O.' i:. -. 3 n::;.. i ^.t., , e.v. :. ; '.[.~ '.. - -.: w V.[, { ' ?. 5
- 3N,1
~ W .e. s d. .gY,* ~ i.s,
- W 3,.
O i N.I' .3 p.,, i., $ ' e I. t'.+1 , ;+ L*. .- c.2-d' io 'd ' c l 1, g. E
- .
- ".;i "
.. ?-y 4 i P.M.e...J: yr. 2:.n. (
- p,.'
4 '[ ~ y..... !.**.. I v. R l} 1.. u. : ?.. 5.. C* j[l p., W M 5.l.f?. 5 El( '.'.' fi-Q f. A ~_ h.{h?! -t.., L M' ' O.( O M. 6 N,. i. b,; ' 3 e2,
8-
- 4. y ;,.y.
,,y. f j y, %....,, =. '. :' t %,,. L .e. ,. _ '.s_r.; s . 'p.'. ' i' ',',. =_l' * <
- 3'. L.,. :. ~... w*.1 ~, ~ %,u. -...' ?. s, s.... (~ t;,., /..-
(* e ew.. ' ^. v f., v 112 .,y a s _.-..i.,- - ' ' - - ~ :- ~.w. .. a. w..... .O . w...
- a..
3 .s [ ,i Has the Panet prepared statements of, educational and professional [
- r, d5 q.
f.y [. apaalt f testions? A. Yes. Are the statements attached to this testleegt f Q. A. Yes. ~ Wat is the purpose of the Panel's testimeg? ~ ' Q. The parpose of this testimony is ta' respond generally to concens h. A. p'.- over the construction history of the South Texas Project.'hy sumanart'aing the 6} Staff's investigative and enforcement activity at the South Texas Project which led to the thew cause Order of April 30. 19,80.'and in particular, to ~ t a' p : ' respond te part to the following contentients = c.. y 3.,. 3, L .Y, t.. (CCANp. CG) Contention 1 3. S,. ~ .Q'S There is no reasonable assurance that the activities author
- p..
t. ';.& ized by the operating Itcense for the South Texas maclear i 4# # Project can be conducted without endangering the heelth and ?;.f. .e safety of the pubits in thats k* a
- .g
.. j L* %jM g,.; g.' ..t.."' -),fj There has been a surveying error etch has resulted ta Q: - J.v c s.<. 1.
- d. 7 the eastern edge of the Unit.I ttchantcal Electrical Aux 11tsrf 9
Jii D sv)'.#.M'1 T'
- 4
- Sut1 ding being constructed one (1) fact short (in the east-west -
+. ) . ' f W f *g ;@ 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendix 8. Sections 1 and II. ' f N., 6.- s. This error violates
- $. 3','.? f;Q :.1W.67 direction) from its design location.
a-
- /.
t. . ' ' ' ' f( .yj,,, *,. There has been a [stc) field constructica erroe and as a 2. - ).. result, extensive voids exist in the concrete well enclosing 0.: O.V; - ', the contatnnent tutidtag. in vietation of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 g . g:i
- * #y.g,..'2 9
, Appendia 8. Sections II and I. . b .f* e. vm ?,, In viointion'of hality' Assurance and Oaality Control .E _
- i"U
? 3.reoairements applicable to the South Texas maclear Project with regard to document control (10 C.F.R., Part 50. Appen. f'. J a fitle document relatteg to .L Z diz 9. Sections vt and IVII), lost. .,1 cadweld inspections has been t 4/> .:a There are rurerace seals in the esntainment stracture f' q? 4.which are dansged indicattag a violation of to C.F.k. . d.' y~ Part 50. Appendia 8. Sections I. H and IY1. .3 I./.c
- e t
...c 1 J.?
- 'y
\\El ' " *ib 7,h ,o r .s ,-s
- .9,
~ G.,:, %. (. Y 1 e s, v .: y p. .i. ~ %^L-1 ?-D '~ ..:,;. ~~ 3 :.'-:: ~J.. : c'~ u g:...
- M.-?
%;. ; G. , m.: 5 ~~ ? e 93., u ..c ';.y L.'.. y 9 d,. 4
- .W
.,-p .,.j.,,, 64 ', - ',~ d. 4 TJ 3 .s r,. .jn..., -,,1 g.s. . r. 1 r , i. .. n c 6
- n...
gg.,.,A ..w. .5 i .s,- s w.g. .. f. -5 g,. c. .f,y + .-E' .b.,. e I y .n ..a.. '*q ji d .so4 ,m
- umuse. - ~
- M
-~.3 .ez.~ u$fh N m.s..g.m 7,Y-l ~ 4 .,c, 3... ' ' ~ ' '. ' ' ~- h* N* Q.*
- S.
w .'h. i -M Mm G hh.A d,M ;. g
,..... u.. =.w., t.p.y 9.w;s._6 ~m ?.. ;.;... ;... -:::: *5M;. i A-- ~c' @ .:... x~ . ~. _- - :.a.:_ _e.:.. c m e n -...e n.. m n w ~ .a ' f.I ~ 113 W. t....s-;s_v._ t u.a _ n ,g, .x-.a .2 =~. o 4
- i 5.
There are s. teel reinforcement bars efch are alsstag "*V from the concrete around the egitpuent doors le the con. tainment and sech bars are missine from the containment structure as wil indicating violettens of 10 C.F.R.. P-part 50. Appendia S. Sections I. IV and IV1. 6. There are cadwelds dich have been integrated into parts of the plant Structure dich are not capable of being veri. e z fled with regard to compliance with 10 C.F.R. part 50 a Append 1A I, in violation of Sections II and I of Appendix B. 1 r. 7. Oaaltty control as per the regifrements of 10 C.F.R. part 50. Appendia B. In particular Sections 111 and II, has not been complied with, because: [ q a. Efforts by gaelity. control inspectors to verify that dellga changes were esecuted in accordance with ~. the purposes of the original design wre repeatedly and L - ".4, systematically thwarted. g. a s
- .gf.s
- b. There were personnet other than the original designer approving design changes with no first hand knowledge s
1 .y N L.. of the purpose of the original desig% .y,# i r .4
- c. There were design changes approved by personnel 5;.
".M@ =~
- t
.enquellfled to the type of design dere the change was b- ,,,J .. 'l;. / ' <. f
- i..
ende. G 2.>, 4 J L'O;M. I W .., < ; g.'J,. '. '.e q. L. h -@r.
- t'-
d. There wre neerous pour cards that were supposed to record the correct execution of concrtte pcurs which ' ',N 3, ,.t.
- l* **i.' f a t H f. &
were falllfled by neercus persons. N. a.7 ^
- .'p.
'*N.* *gl. 'K
- A %
t. .e. There has been and continues to be assaults on the ., /. C 'P .J* 4' T p.i Appliant's quality control inspectors. ' continual threats [ W,'
- 53
+ -C of bodily hans to those inspectors, firing of taspectors. 52
- s and other acts constituting a pattere of behavior
' O, 'i r.; .T,. i designed to intimidate the inspectors. As a result of i,' -. = the intialdations, certale inspections were never done . ?.'. 7 ? - '. l-i becault the inspectors decided to play cards ever a N-H- per141 et four months rather than rist their safety en j the p14nt grounds. As a result of the foregoing. the Comission cannot make the F. '. .,ff:y. findings rewired by 10 C.F.L I 50.57(a)(1) and (2) necessary 7 g for issuante of an operatSg license for the South Texas .f hatlear he, ject.
- r. -
p ] .r ? [ y eW t..n : r, 2 ( $..* t. [
- sl
~ l E. 3-]
- ..,.'J
'.N.; I. ', ~ .7 4 .1.*.* c: 4[ p.- . d y p'. t ;g; , v. ? -..-.a... , ~ t c. ~ ~ 3 : '.... "n'[ .- 6. 6,,,. Q._ [ ** s. r ..y._ 9,q 3,.c w ~. - . :.g s, . ', a
- 1
-. '.'y ' *. '.n . r. ; ~
- -a
~~
- A.';." f
.~ g :, i'[ .3,,, s -e-T *- s i&..
- 4...
3 m . f.Iin -. ~~j y" . /.g
- .p.a.
..? G.'y D..<.~- y.*-g 'g
- *- t.
(.{ U$ [ h *. ', ,,.[t
- I' k -
5.' d l GM E z :, v. a _.:.&:J~-b'Wp;vp? 4, - ..w.r n gg.g p y =:w;. =. -.T m "?N"" " 3 C.% 4 Q, } j jy d%[- .oAo.. IJ#istsi 4 ~.e,. . c.,3 4 .s.m- -J..
.....e: ,. =. *. ^ * - _ _ a..-..~.. .2 L. y .e-114 ~ .~..a-x
- c. u wa r, _._
5 f-f s .i (CCAMP. CEU) Contention t g. IIRC inspection records (Inspection and Enforcement Reports ~ H7-03, 2/77; M7-03, 4/77 and H8-08, 5/78) indicate that South Texas Project construction records have been falstfted a by employees of Houston Lighting and power Company and Bro.m and Root in violation of 10 CFR part 50. Appendix 8. Sections J V. VI and IVII. As a result. the Comission cannot make the finding restred by 10 CFR H 50.57(a)(1) and (2). i - In addition, the panel's testimony impacts to varying degrees on the t other l'ssues. currently before this Board. Spectftcally, to the extent this J testimony evidences "a course of conduct by the Appittant free dich corporate character and competence can be taferred it will be relevant to those. ~ c n L , s(.l. . ' q. Can you tell me generally what the Office of Inspection and (.~ 1tsues. 6 l-g'i i, .y Enforceent does? + Jj,j s .= A. he Office of Inspection and Enforcement is responsible for the %.., > g. '.....M. ;/. e* *a,@.. s..,. 2 W.i..' ( deElohrent and dninist ation of progem:s and policies for the inspection Q _. ;.1 z ' f.Q.. !".3 %.-o Q.' - L $.y 1..C I c .N6 of (fcensees' fa-111ttes to ascertatn whether they are complytag with !stC (E; ..: $.j if C..Q.f Qs.
- q.,.- u +.
l ,: 5,4 l- ,. j p..g regulations. In addition, the Office of Inspection and Enfortement Investi. y,[.? # 4., ..e c, - i - :.: y - gates accidents., allegations.' and unusual circumstances it recomends r.
- n.,
.g ..)3 changes in Itcenses ane standards, based on the rusults of inspections. F.. v. -f ~ .f a .+. ~ fnvestigations and enforceent actionst and it notiftes itcensees regardfag [,, generik: probler.:s so as to achieve appropriate precautionary or corrective 4 l.. '. ' action. Generally. the responsiblitty assigned to inspection and enforce- !. " :1, ' yr I. ;Y. ment by 10 C.F.R. establishes that foundatto. upon dich the reactor .' ?, '. Inspection program 1s structured and it confers to the Office'of Inspection r.., %.;E and Enforcement the authority to inspect activities over dich lutC has .V P ,,g jurisdictice.,,- .?.- ,3 i b. v... . l,, gr:. . ;. 2 f ' ". J - +T k. .. s.m . n = , J.,
- it '.
- u
+ v 4
- 1"*
- *,y ~.
4 n/. '.,b. w.,., F.- ' h', 4 i,3 g g. ,c m 3... e e. .n.. o-
- h. =-
- ,1
?. . 'l . J..N) ....R. s 3- ' 2. s g .I s_.s. f. . i , V: (W Q% %l@ t. m; .;... r - - r' c . ^ d' ft.) wc. n.n
- m.,,
H. -J - fi7'.'""T* R Q.- Z -; ~;.: x, - 7.W? f.. .~ . Y. -[..,%-? "..%...QQQ.,.m. ". - j .h. e a 4 [
- .*6 s
- .. h 'n " : -
n.'w'* h f* * - - c_.wm.c .. (e
- u. e 4
MW O'i.Ol!).@).23.Ed ~ l 2. i..
....4 p:;.:." f.T.; . :. 7".~ Qq,R c~.5. ;.W-,.R.._ _...a.y...: :.:fM7:X. m.J. :.. ?.
- -P..Cj.h
.:_ q. - -. ~.
- n. #.
m. .i ,m . m1
- -.s
-u.. .m._ t Q r~ fd 1 4.ai t- ~: %._' A: -f U.G 1si.* L' ><:_ ~_ _ ; + eh. _ _. ~. -~. - 6 r., c. c -l e In part. IK inspections or audits are performed for the Office of (.. Eclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in order,for that office to evaluate the ade*gaacy of Itcensee proposals. A very simplifted explanation of the relationship of the two NRC offices is that NRR evaluates dat Itcensee's propose, castt to, and/or are regatred to do, dereas IK f aspects the licensee's fact 11ttes to determine that the Itcensee has completed dat it A is reestred or has committed itself to do. r Q. In performing these tasks. is !&E golded by any particular NRC. '7 method of operation or basis upon etch it seeks to assure gaality con. structioaf j n.;. ( A. Yes. ender the NRC's total reactor Itcensing program. it is the [,
- . l-. ~,.Q licensee's obligation to design. construct. test and operate its fact 11ty le
, 7, x accordance with the stC's regulatory regairements. An integral and essential k, p element of the NRC's regulatory regstrement is Appendia 3 to 10 C.F.R. 50 I' , ; s .~p.$ p ' %@j-If., f, t>ality Assurance Criteria for maclear power plants and Fuel Reprocessing L.'. Q.j p. - L*., k 'x,, QM f h. 7. -
- Qh
- 1 Sw n. .~ Plants. This Appendix describes a management control syste. or quality f. a. b, %c 3..a J ,Y-d.rt.51 '/. > I. f,1 assurance program (QAP) etch each Itcensee s'st develop and impiament. 3 u e o 'd 6'f 1 L 1 e . e,% f.,f' 'n/....*s4 The design of this program envistons a pyramid "catrol systen dereby the
- f...R.
lower level ' f this pyranto assures a detailed faspection and test programs j* y ?. 5. ~.- s( o p by the licensee itself or its contractors to assure that all safety signiff. 't-w.~. ?. .g ?.- y;y.. .4 cant actions are properly accomplished by 1tcensee' craftsman using approved proc'edures. At this level of the gialtt;y control system, a detailed vert. ,u s Q' fication progran requires op to 1001 tasp.ction by the Itcensee's onsite ... ~ F..,. gaa11t3 catrol personnel. It is this level of verification of imp 1menta. y[.
- s.y L
tion of procedures etch provides accept / reject doctstses on specific egatp. C;. I, i (.. ;.'.,,
- 4...
> 7.. ment. construction activities. systems, technician or operator actions and t r 3.d. n-g;;. proceduret. l f /..,; ., *.. ' ? : i n.. f I. D . to a. ,4 ( a [',
- i..
- s c, g',
.g., ' - ,'y * ~. ( ' 1 '; m..., r;.- t L g-e e .c ~. ~ ' )
- f-'
~".f,. "." :,T :*,,._ l.y , *.h ,.h
- '? -
- 2
! Q,-b;."".. W o^!l$,;' - ~f,;. ' '..I:'.,.. ' '. V '? 'l.~ - ?. y r GCa '. v~*.,. ,. m ~ v..J g -9."'. 7- . -- g ". (.*.7'. ..g , i.% e-w. i1 - j r ., :;,:.t.'. , 3 U. 'D fag ~ a
- m.. - -
1;Y.- 4 )r' ~
- p,
'.yp * ~ .. D . f. . *:a a 7.. I,e r >u. .Sp ' r,d T,. *
- a q.,4 J,';
.-.s.9. :,.., .V . '. G - 1. fM/,..' - e =% 1 o. c v: j._ ', - .. ;q r n'*.'**,, 's s *'s ._w m'. N 5 8.7 *.]~L/ '7-f r.; My,gy,~ j;;;, y -",.;.,,f.,9e, . :. n . ? 7 [ NO~ . j$-L ,. [ ~*.. .a . o;,.n=* u. go. m. *<: e I ^ ~* 4 ;m - JuL3 L. e _ M 04 0.Q'd.63.2k7f '2.9
.., :. ::...,., X.fy5 *,E F ? *?= S- * ' '.. .;_.a, *;.-*;.
- ..% -.*.s.^:
n......- ' :..r ~' Y Y~* '^ ~' ..... M :OG a _Ju u.a.w.w
- .u u., u.--
t. _.,_ a.r m n 11D L t a .r 7
- 2..
[,.. Moving up the management control system. the licensee must next include f-a sptam of audits to oversee and test the adequacy of the performance of b { { the detailed gality control tetts and inspections. 1hese audit results are I reported to licensee nanagement tehlch in turn must make progree corrections p. 1 T and provide feedback to the lower level of the system fa the form of changes C'. la trafsing, modification of procedures, upgrading or improving testing teethods. design changes or other progrannatic improvements. This feedback systen is designed to assure and enhance the reliability of the program as 4 E. whole etch in turn, assures and verffles that all actions which are of e y d safety signfficance have been tentidered,and.will be properly ' oepleted. c { M At the upper lev'l of thtt teganfrational scherse. the Iftensee's manage. e 1 ment must provide adewate orgaattttfonal independence and competent man.
- j..'
. e. . 0 3 poner for its gality assurance 4nd Sality control programs and provide .s
- 5 policy guidance to all aspects of the Ifeegsee's and contractors' organiza-v..o
'} t.., p .'. ] tions in order to assure gality performance in all safety aspects of the
- r.,
4,,, - ., i..a..., m
- =.r0 6i.'4.
A < %.1 construction and operation of tti nuclear facility. g_. m +.,,p* '. .. y v. t .n. s,g ..+N . *p? }>%'s..W.*.rh t), triat is the Office of intpectfon and Enforce =ent's function f a.. y e ; ?. R.
- o. Ec *# 'y
- ys u
( 4]....f.,nlN.. t.$. i4.; 4, L. y relation to the method you just described to assure cality control under. ^; ,,g - fed, (.J.* JM Appendia B to 10 C.F.R. 50f .s .. s i'm, r, r, 5.g ' ; /,.. iffi..* :3..'. } 'y A. s lat seeks reasonabig 4tturence tnt the Licensee's programs meet Y ~~'I NRC regulatory reyfrements. [ is, order to obtata this reasonable assurance. !&E performs selective inspectiet, in contrut to the licensee perforetag /;.; up to 100t verification of all phmt of its construction activity. TN se l.-7 O j, inspectices are not ateed at verttttttton of individual c:epoetats, actions. \\... a [: I-s .e procedures fon wed by the ttt utiet but r.ther
- .{G
+~ w are need at e,4 watt.g i -
- ..;n
. :.y 7 .c ';.,w# p,, .c..
- g
.;. g.m-1,m.. j.:l., 1 ..c e >,; tV l ;.5 1.- s
- ~
= v;ep -;~.. /.s,. a.w,,. a. . ;m. ;g ~.. ..~. ... ~ n, \\. p .. <.,. a.. ;9 m. .. e ..aa ..i 1 u . 9;,._ l.7,J,. --M4 y. ..L.
- c..;
..m ^....., p'. i c. r a R.' 3 - lg% m. c..x - .g 'Q Q* ~ N %I d j.L 6' b N' V i.w..c. 5 :, L,
- n.,,-.m..-,, :. c Q
' *,~. r-f,' 3f"?! m".' M:~.: 'n 5[ ..a;K;x.x s !m _ \\w:.:. _ ~.. g.. ~*- -- ~ ^ ' - -. ~~ .:.u .,, ~ 1, ~ mm ;' o i OJ 3._6K_ 2_d.E- ".J o
.....w ' :.. r e.,. n.M,,:, ;.x. ' '..,,.....v.,.-,.,.;..G -. ;..~.: :u.yn.*.. '- i. ~. G. '.::. ' * ?.: ~ :..J.. ' n :-
- .J. ~.....s..
- -t - ~ ~ ~.
nu,.n.- -: ~L en. - r ,..:.. p." 2: c -:-"*,. x + ...d
- a L.
4-
- c..... c.' ' - W.
.x. ;. wow-~ - - ,3 g. _. v. n> n. :- : r* 1.aL/.' ~ r. L i. 3 r. .a s I n i, i t whether er not the itcensee's managment control systans relative to apaality w. assurance are properly fbactioning. e Q. How is the Offlee of Inspection and Enforcement orgentaed to p perform this task? [ A. The organizational structure of the Office of Inspection and h Enforcement is designed to provide clear cut autherttles and 11aes of respon.,., sibility. The headquarters staff has the responsiblitty for the overall- ~ a .~1 management and direction of the organization, facluding the estabitshment of i 7 B 1 Needquarters inspectios and enforcement poltetes, programs and guidance. 3.Q also has the responsiblitty for toplementing escalated or special enforce. 4 r-ment or investigation actions. . V /, v.- f..M't In contrast, the five regional offices have the responsiblitty foe *
- 5 implementing the inspection and enforcement programs. These responsibilities
[2 1 f - a .e,w include routine inspections. investigations. and inquirtes, and the taking Wy
- I,
,,,,,Y ? ?. of appropriate enforc'enent actions. . -.r. a s .r en. - :,../:v.r.g x- ,.q e p.v, b, y.1Lf. ;4' s., a *,'6 Q. Particularly in Regfon !Y idiat organizational units were spect. {&.f..'
- k..*
v .,k.". p. >. ~. M...,( fica 11y concer;ned with Houston Lighting & po.or Company relative to its ~ g.. .o t. . ;! ~ 4.'7-activity at the South Texas pryect during the period covered by this i .G f ~ ..c . c '. .F ..e testtaony? ,i ~. 2 . +. s-Q l.
- e. :-
e, . ~ ' '.,. -{ A. Is Region IY, the Reactor Construction and Engineering Support q - C* '.. ~ Branch (RC&E58) was c'harged with the responsibility of implementing the u ,) j -...q progres and policies previously described which relate to the construction i d. - 'iM of nuclear facilities. It was this branch which conducted inspections of n. : tlw licensee's activities associated with the construction of the aucteer l ?i%., 1... T. 5 ~ A. facility. including design controls, procurement. audits, site construction. i vw N and functioning of the managuest control systems. In addition, the RC3E53 I \\
- e. t v..%
. n . ~
- .nM
.".S.. .. x q 4.- ,f L';- {: / 1.A.x,
- 1. I w
jf;[@.y., p.- f. s E.: i.G _ '.y};f ...~-......._.,y 3 -gi:.q.,.V % f.' .G.,. s.,.
- d.
~ .- ( .1- .s c. r.:. r' ~y/1 . S' z.51 -m ,. l.A ..Q ' ~ - e
- 3. <
Q,_.., . j.. ,. ?: ; \\ ...x.
- g,. -
u - A i... /'S ,V.2J M:r .: ?. ~. \\ ;.% * 'A% A} $ ,.'~ .,a 'O ' M M-r.',1 r. 5~~a .. w. 9..,-:.w.r 3. Y - i 4- , f),.) ~ ~ ',m:w' ',m. - :~.y:1: n c.:. m. x __ D,. &, m#.md i a, t. ~_..m u- :- -.; ; .gg.. :._ -..... ~. . y - (4 iM D3.h*".[M.b.hT.9? 3 a
&....::.~.;.... .,. - ;~;.:..=f~~....-- .._._4 3=., ..,..,w.,... 1 _.w-,. r .i .s.. '**F'**'~ . _n'.: A L:,ca. 4%m ' an - ~ ' 118 k. s ~. 3 r r followed up on problems identified by the Itcensee etch by regulation were I 3 l rewired to be reported to De NRC. Additionally. RC&E3B took enforcement p. action when its irspections. Investigations or ingstries indicated that the e L.. licensee tes falling to comply with NRC regstrenents. These actions egy '~ l 1 b l have been in De fons of a letter to the licensee, a meeting between regional P i ~ oanagement and Itcensee managesent, or a recomendation that !&E headgaarters take an escalated enforcement action. N l O During all phases of inspections, whenever items.of noncompliance were ident1f ted. IIE nottfled the Itcensee of the specific tiens of noncompliants and the Itcensee was regaired ta sutntt proposed corrective actica uhtch it {- i ...g planed to implewnt to prevent recurrence of stallar problems. as well as to +' correct the speciffe deficiency. RGESS then performed a follow up inspec. 'r.. "5 Ii ?rs d.',i tion of the. accepted corrective action to assare that such action was imple. w. 7 ~..V .?:' = men ted. If the results of a single inspection, or a segaence of inspections.
- 13. ;' f 3.~.
r,. c ,d. s f..
- in11cated' a deterioration in the overall performance of the licensee's
[g...p-JY.t .5:q %.'.a.. progree, an.tn depth inspection would be conducted to upgrade the degree of dp' t, Fr 4 +'n,f ...g e r. . 't . 4-.'.~ control exercised over the licensee. ,s g,, * ', t Q. Prior to the Show Cause Order of April 30. 1980 bow long had the ~ 2 = <* a 3 t~~ _ Region 11 RCAES8 been inspecting Houston Lighting & Power's constructice ' activities at the South Texas Project sitet d.' ~ A. Over a period of approafsetely six years. c Q. Is the Panel prepared to tastify with respect to the history of b
- ' 1 there inspactions and notices of noncompitance?
t
- ,?)
A. Yes. w'. Q. ifould you please sumarize the history of RGES8's inspection. [.. investigatici and enforcenent activity at the South Texas Project leading up l: to the enforcewnt actions of April 30, 1980,
- u., _
.:. q Y T:
- 7 t
W.. n .q -( 2
- ,. m
. _: = _' '.f., .-e r, t .x .; _,t : s'.- .;. ~i y ; 't. .~ [ ~ g. \\. : 3,. ...,1 .v. .v
- w.e Q..
(
- .,.; r T.f.a
.. v. ;
- t..,f
~ ,l.; W-b .d ( ~ g.- r ; - .. ;.g p.: a. 2.c.. c e.: -. ,~ w:,::- ~. h ca...-
- ', -.,e',' ;.
A ra
- ,.'m'.
.f' ' "~rl a s.7,7..r *,7.'~y ' w. f ' '.; N'. c,...,w31'""'"T g .c .) .. -. l, ymp~m,s. .7,; w~ ~ .. x - .;--e - v.m. ~ m O? 0..:.1 p 6. 1 ;. x g u.n,4 ^O ~0:. 00 2 ..d. 4 + ?&
- J
. c. y ..a..
- 4 r
~- ..:a..: u.n L . w -s ~,.c2
- e. a. a -
s-n u _.- a n_ = L }}Q.' t !0 : ~ A. Yes during this construction period Regios !Y performed approat.
- p U.
Ts. mately 78 site and corporate inspections or investigations. A complete r I chronology of Region IV inspection activtis at the South Temas project 1
- 0..
s t - through fiarch,1981. is attached to this testimony as Appendts A. In addition, these investigations and inspections resulted to the r t I issuance of approximately 41 notices of items of noncomplia.nce er deviations J j prior to the issuance of !&E Report 79-19. A complete' chronology of these N ~ notices is attached to this testimony as.'Appendia B... v l prior to turning the panel's a'ttention to t' hose hnspectio. ~ ns and t.c Q e c. Stems of noncompliance etch led to the. formation of:the inspectioW twee , hich drafted Report 7919. would you define what is[ meant by an itse of w ,..,E.. ., 1 3.V*!.E .noncomp;Iance or dev1ation! .. y C y A. Yes, an item of noncompliance refers to the Applicant's failure to - s 1.u". .3 e . comply.with the various regulatory regatrements of the HRC o( the App 11 $1; cant's specifications. tharing the time covered by this testimony, such j. '.T . i., 4 . *. =, ".,.
- v'.
- j.,
if f_i">r.d * / J.:..' o.. ttens were categorized into three levels of severity: etola's. tons.' infrac. a c'.t, ...W . j, e. '.g P~
- # ' * ~ t * - A
~ .! p y .7 2 ,h s i Violation was attached to the !&E Report derein the itas was repsrted.and 4,m.a.. >.'[2 .'s N. I' ..,.,. 5,i y~ t.:.1. -. e., .s. the level of severity was set forth. ' v 4 27 A Violation ws the most severe itas of non-comp 11anca and was issued .(.7 '.. j when the fabrication construct 1on, testtag or operation of k Safety Rel'ated. a. Category I systen as such that the function or integrity of the systes us lost. In contrast, an infraction us a less serious finding,that a Safety . j. ,a i y e Related Category I system was impatred. rety.or than lost.. 3 -gi l 7.i.,.;,, A deficiency was an item of noncompliance in dich the thrtat to the ,.:M4 .',.,?, health, safety or interest of the pubite was runotas deffetencies inchded E .W .a t i
- j;-T
^ P J "E ...i ,8 .y. .,"P i. .f' .p l - q..
- S; I t' -- -
~ - -.... -.'.f."t :. r. j' '.: L. .'o p*. ', f 9
- ',f
.i-
- E**..
gl I!Q . ;,= .E... w .g~ j..'.7 - ,.f [.h _ 1 n, lM ' . :n s. t a ,N. ,.l.,., -. H - :,m ,y; .p,. r. . n -. y s a l *7,. r '* 8* 1,3 .g [. ". lh1 i .1 l M +, s lh '.~* f X lQ ~ e P.#-} [.N L','.., i.', e 2. !.;f f p,. y. I,d, $
=
.... %..9.91.., M. c y.1 -.. vmi,.3.:.. a,c....... ?y.,.w- ' ?.. i v e ~ -+ .3 zs k $$1&_...&s.?* ^ .c j,,t, m_.,_
...: - C . 'g [
- 4 5 '.c y. T.Q.L'.,- [ ~by'.".s'!E. *r : ~-$:' : ' '. 5-: ^ vl '
".3-.1
- N T,5' -Y.k?
,9 e ^# . L.J & L:-.-u - .1 ; ' :.G i-13 3 *,,: w ^ ^ ' L.' __x o 120 c; a ll. [ F 1 c such itens of nonecup11a' ace as fatture to follow records, and posting or h 1abelfng requfrenents etch were not serfous enough to amount to' infractions. V 4 In addition at times a Ifcenset would proofse that certain controls or procedures wuld be implesented etch were not requirad by the actC. Donethe. less, when a 11censee did not conform to its conrAitnee.ts to the IntC. even H though such cocattments were not regulatory regairewnts such failure ws .j cited and referred to as a devf attoa. s. .1 e L. Q. Turning the Panel's attention ta those inspections dich led to the formation of the investigative team dich drafted 79-13. I show Jew a letter, with attachnents, dated February 15. 1977, to the Houstoa Lighting [ . g, ~..
- ;.Qs and Power Conpany making reference to Report 77-03 and marked for Identiff.
j. .wjj; cation as Staff Exhibit No. 1. Are yeo able to identify this docuent and 0 +, '/d'i L 1ts attactments? .2.. /.$h,(,j I.Y [.'J.' -3 A. Yes, the lette'r transof tted to Houston 'Lfghting and Power Company f.
- M. c d+ b..~* 4
,EM :. -d.] ' the results of an ItRC investigation conducted between February 2 and 3 I '" .%..s:x,. -t* < ;6 : -F, y ~9- ..f.. Ig77.
- ..'d... g r *
=W w *- 2 c,:. ; '. '; 1 v:. %;.
- u. M &
s g g; i j.k.w....h.s, '.>N.,..N.#.y n ;e .,[ Q. Who conducted this investigation? ^ . i .3 .O s. ^W A. This investigation as performed by W.A. Crosman. Chief. Projects n7.. 'N .c ~ 'd. Section, and R.E. Taylor. Reactor Inspector. Regfoe !Y. .x o '3..- .'O Q. Who reviewed f.his report? k'f s j. iQ A. V.C. Setdie. Chfef. Reactor Constructfen and Engineertog Support Branch. I - Q.. .C Q. What was tha reason for this investigaties? , -y'f ~
- j@
A. 01 February 1.1977. Region IT us mottffed by Houston Lfghting i,s D, 'a and Power Company that an e::ployee of Pittsburgh Testing Labontory had bees
- t.. '
- 4 ?..m**
{, e.: ...' *3 . ;.~. m, ,-.s m.Pk* A ,jf. ' ;.7'] {c
- d' y
- r..
x 4 .s .) D .~.~,,r-e.he -WD
- m. '.. =- @..-~..
c r~ .g_ ' s. ~,,.. .k.
- ..
- ; :Q.f
- .. n.
- ..+.-
m; ~ t' ;. ^ e-9 9 ?. 9 [.[-f) ~ ]f %~ lf IN. l.T I '.1; sf g[,. ,h,. '.{1 .. Jf 7 r-r . E<f, a -b,1 I*. &. / 4 ,,n f t.* a-C'.L s (..$g .s t W'e s?. Y.,.f ? '. g:.g.R'q"FF D -%F.='t~: .y J..'- M."[~-+'.?,W.,* f.W' '* ', '. V"-fi f'A.'**. ~ ' Q '~ '.- - 2 % P G.,'2-JE -d .._ w n 3 .y 03FJ)fA23 -y- ---w--
.. 3, . 4 . r v..'. /.. C _ x.,,,,,...,.,. J.;. 7 .. de.:. hrJ -g,- W,. ~ s.
- '- 4 I
.,T.. e Y .. u.a. mw, ' ;wEw'J _u m:1 < w- - - = _= s.?. :L n.~ & - = rr
- %e o<
.~j g 1,* p. L. w .~ 6 ..c.,, ~ '.i detected by a fellow employee documenting tests whictr had not in fact beer;.
- [
{ prfomed bqr that individual. 4 'i e Q. How was the investigation into this matter conducted? E A. Di February 2.19U. Region IV personnel traveled to the South L w b Texas site to investigate thts' allegation and the consegiences of the R trregularity. if found to be true. v. r ,[ The inspectors intarviewed the employee who detected the irregularity g and alleged that the ruspected individual approved concrete sand en Jane. ary 25, ign, even though the actual tests were not performed. The site " - manager confronted the suspected individual with the allegation en Jane. i
- ;. y
- ,)y:
ary 28.'1gn, and this person readily admitted that he had turned in test g, E
- (,ft data without actually performing the tests. -This employee was terminated a,
- .* ;p 9
2 '. en January 31, 19 n. mF. ,j . As to the assurance that the concrete sand had been adequately tested. m
- Ij; a, %
'.7 ':.- e i.i 0 7 +.: s rd.J.:, It was determined by the inspectors that several ether tests tere perferned g.s,; .g, i f.[,6'y,/. ' *.5). var. - '.,s.i:R .-> ~=*y ', m N 1g%,.7. r.-l;2 r-t ;.g <,g,,.]
- 1. y %,',
E a,.'.M.. '; which sinflarly assured the adegsacy of the concrete constituents. and [.( 'O... a.-.
- a. -
accordingly, no structural safety problems existed. la addittee. Pittsburgh .o s.
- d. @,<cf.,a
- )
~ 4 '.,. y, '.. 3 m N, q-> - v, :.;! a Testing Laboratories agreed to review all data for prestous months to detect... ' P y'h w 1 5. L. $N.. n.9. ' o i ; y. ] apparent anomaltes.. b-er - y c ^ o (. t~ Q. Did Jour investigation indicate teether any person within the ~' 3 -' i g '.'. . s.?~ s .L. g eenagement of the Arpiteant, or it contractors, directed this practice er f permitted it to continue? 4; v . Our investigation demonstrated that neither the Applicant's T.'"6 A. management, or its contractors. knew of this practice prior to January. c,k$ ,j Ign.' Our investigation indicated that as soon as this netter tes brought .I - .4, .~, .to the attention of the Appitcant's nanagasent. the situation tas corrected. M ,j , -z g :. . ?. -... ;:. a. -. m. .. ;. :..y a g n .g- ~. b -:.. ,w - . ? d, .x... ~ ....cx ' _cy -:f:... X^ ,.w~- s.%.": ~. 5 s -.,r .....1 2 T '.a-f..,.;p .n, .' ye ..O.. .. c. e y O J . g ': .** M . s. s.. i.'..,, ,a; * *< .,c~,..* _..*. =,.. .. - T.j,,..' '.N.**y* w".,
- a. m y '.y p,.,
.j
- ?3.
p* '**l >Q . u, , ' y y.,,*,~ .....-o., .s.,- . *f... '~ .J ,-=? . d ie i- ^ ..f,.m u ~s e, .. v. ;.', - s' ) '. ;...mlv: a. . 2., .x.,. :. + .(m ~ G,.~. ? f.J. y g -. ;,d n. 9 pl.. .,q g., [G .P -. l._*..",, c. (.. g w. L. J e'1 L e. N
- mJ
,;g 7-
- 2. -
.,.,r e -.p ~ w A g4 ? N!!"N5"*ft $ .t }5-
- 5 1*
q h ~ u h w ; ;e m. w..m.m. c.... -. m, ,.e.w m 7.g., __q ..yg r _ _. m
.--a ' * ~ ' ' ' ' ;~y * *' * ^= A Sw'-: n. ~MLO,O ' ' "9
- hM_. ;,_....n ~ M ' M ' ?... *;.
..r --.. .....x. ~ .' 2..J.%1.26',' _* WLM.. ,C .9 t .^ f. . ~...-~ .:..~,.__.._.. ~. w c. a. . a. w._e._ r- <,.,.. _-w. 4 52 ?
- 1..
p 4 p 'l The techntese c'caststed of everaging the data from all tests performed from .c In additten to March 1976 to January 1977, relating to aggregate gredation. i c F. the average value, a coeff tetent of vartation for.each psrty favelved to C each test was developed. The average test values to the coefficient of a k. vertations for each different test performed by the records falsifier den b In h .4 compared to other testing personnel revealed no sigatftcast differences. (l. - addition, th'e letC inspector spot checked a constderable annant of data agatast the summary presented and found me discrepancies. Is additten, the F.. I tests performed by persons other than the falstfter en the same aggregate p. clearly indicated that the aggregate met the waltty standards. Accordingly. [ Eh... tt was concluded that the. document f'alsification had me safety significance. 5 -
- d. e,. l Q.
hening the panel's attention te latervenor Centaatten 2. dich 1. W' e ' '. ~ ' f.D. y ~.t. statest ~ NRC inspection records (Inspection & Enforcement arports
- // rq 4.
$i, 77-03, 2/77; 77-03. 4/77 and 78 08, 5/73) Indicate that '.iY-2 (M. * - South Texas project construction records have been falst.
- r. h s -> -
. e ,3~ fled by ernployees of Houston Lighting & power Company and '.c /.d 1, 24-34~ Brom & Root. ta vielation of 10 C.7.R. part 50. Appee. Je J ~ ; ' $.;*o,. m,., 4 dia 8. Sections VI and VII. -f - J -b.. s -* >r ",e.k J. gl? ,jf,4 ..J t .T [p.- /,. 2f. p.. 5N As a result, the Constssten cannot nahe the findtags pt i ..d regtred by 10 C.F.1 6 50.57(a)(1) and (2). ? [, g ' '_".i.. sh f..(.',], Do the investigative fladtngs in 77 03 concorslag falsifted documents " ~ t. [.' regtre the Staff to reach any conclusion on 'dether the South Texas project ' (. . /- .r. (, [ ~* d can operate la conferetty with the appilcable IUtc regulations? 1 no particularly as no management culpab111ty w'as found and p w. Jp,' ~ A.
- 4.
further there was no safety signiftsance to the document falsificatter.. /.,s J. . ;. 4*;; Does the investigative findings of 7143 concefalog falst'fted 4 n..r,p4 documents require the staff to reach any concluston whether there is r reasonable assurance that the activities authertred by an operettag V, ,-<,r. [.) - f.;f J e'% - ',h E,; a s 5.; ' p'. y -l +. y..c n., a e -s m . a, y. 7.,y.7 .7- ,.y; " x .' >J 1 .m %.s }. .~s u ... y ". ~. * '.". *.'. ?!' '.',;.. '.m..c., - ~ y:. .o.. r ;. p ., q - e.: Y.
- /,e
- .v g,.
r (s. ' * *1 l*.. e .,N s r,.- .lc t M ..,.., r.a. ,'N .t." v d f7*, a .g., ' I.*b ' . ',2,$' e J ,., l V *.[ a.' b s9 ".fo na ,l9 v ny.n:m.c m msmm.w-e w~._ 9egm p) -.m
- .r.
4 n3 - e; g - u.:r.: ;: w n,A, 1 p .,i 1. o 4 O'.
- a
~ 001m . di o y
- ..'s.
s ~^~ ---.-....-ww
...,-4..' '... :.g - -..z.-[~' F,. .5 g ,* *, L_. lUE*-
- L2
- .,,. _. y;
,,,.g, , g' L ___ g t o z.. i ~3 123 '.4 i 4- .i In addition to checking prior test records, this facident was documented to an Monconfomance Report and the App 1tcant stated,tt would' increase sur-f. vettlance over the aggregate testing program in the fhtere. 8 'Q Did Regten !Y subsemently perfere a 'olles up inspection to M. b; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f L assure that the Appitcanty, proposed corrective action us implemented? 4
- . A. - Tas.
E-.. 0.' 'l show yota a let'ter, wtth attachments, dated April 19.1977. to the Houston Lt'hting &' power Company mairing reference to Report 77-05 and g ( marked for identification as Staff hhtbit No. 2. Are you able to identify F .;; / this docwent and its attactments? i-i [ l . A. Yes, the letter transattted to Nouston Lighting & Power Campany [.-
- . w r
.c.-, rpJ the result of an lutC inspection conducted between March 28 and 31.1977.
- 2
- j Among the areas this inspection addressed us whether the Applicant pee-
~ ' ' r .kh*. '. ' fimed the ccrrective action it cassitted va as a result of the dEwent 'i' , ddd:= 'M $.$,E3 Nf % ~., falstftcation. i.- $*'".**k,fY-$,8 A,-[i h Q*j'i,. ( 'J i# Q. 2 0 conducted this taspection? ',,.e * *. g. N j.2 - J
- ./ -
f. I.. * , :g +
- y,.* g P( * ' )?*f.i,' y* '
A. This inspection mes perfomed by R.G. Taylor. Reacter Inspector. 44 ^ 4 , 3,;y.. ' * +- e a s, - p w? t .4. m,.t Region 17, d,t e - +- s. s f.,,, em,c. 4,. *;,. j) Q. 2o reviewed this inspection? .f j c., A,
- A.
This taspection was revtewed by W.A. Crossnan. Ottef. Projects t 1 Section. Region !Y. -l . ~- 4. What were the results of the follow up inspection relative to the '9 problems set forth in Report 77-43f, b'. l M. - A. Pittsturgh Testing Laboratory presented a statistical analysis of I.. t. = L
- r. * -
concrete test data based upon a comparison of the merk performed by the Q falsifter versus the nort of other Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory inspectors. l- .y p-Y.' '\\ \\ [ ;? f. , - - ~ f l ::.:7". - - e. e' _.,[ N' s -, c;O y,- j.; r
- w f -
g,, 'b a I e .~ I Tp~~ ,q .. =.. y.. c; e n .x g n.y N q.- "J. 'b','I s. ,,s e ) ~ - 'Y .a }t-c m . q. da e, - f' =*g 'l e Q p r ~ g . ~.. y_:.:. j's -4 'b w n. ) n p ,i
- F 7
, '.2 T.l k, -rc r,.' d.( ?Y L. 2-c;:Q G, ,... w. w.-;...: n m.; m,-.s...~. c.,. .-...e., gp.m- .. n . s.e-, - ;=.a.
- r. - -
v. r- . yw.- - n-e - .4 ,%a ( .d W'.'% b w % i g
- /
01193. O'O.' " 3!i.5i .a .h R - ,:m. 1
- E -.. i..* ' yj ^ ~ ' N 'd.& * - f '.l. ^ l ' '~' -).. 1.' ._..
- C;.
.v h:..;. $ : ?G ~;- } l 7 i >o.. s.r..3. ~ '; .s.-..w.. - ^~ ~. , w L. a., w. ~ "- $ d,. '$ d t/- t-t. t. license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the L., i t pabitc? I 'A. me, particularly as there was no management culpability and there P was no safety significance to the document falsificattoa. 4 t Again, with reference to Intervenor Contention 2.'I show you a r 1 . Q. s LT letter. with attachments, dated May 25. Ig78. to the Houston Lighting & Power Company making reference to Report 78-04 and marked for identification e ( as Staff Exhibit Ms. 3. Are you able to identify this doctament and its 7;- attactments? v Yes this letter transmitted to Houston Lighting $ Power Company a p,.
- .. T,. -
report detalling the results of an NRC inspection conducted betwen May 18 A. d.. 'ffy i 'n and 1g.1378. r-
- p
's g@9.;, Q. Who, conducted this tospectice? ' h. This inspection was performed by W.G. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector. i E$p% and W.A. Crossaan.' Chief. Projects Section. Region !Y. .,[ ',,' A. .- e .. w s t./ a- .I,k, _. ' w ;f. 4. 4, ; Woo reviewed this Inspection Report?
- r'.,.a?
Q. .A.., ' ;.o r "L.r
- . J h..
4 i r .m w-..Ag.s. V.A. Crossman. Chief. Projects Section. Region IV. s %. y; e, -y! F '. o vl>r 4 q.: A. [ ,V f, - r . -e i c > ~ Intervenor Contention No. 2 ledfcates that !&E Report 75-08 discusses , r, .+ W -- a t '.(
- ' Y3 Q.
.- ?! te.e problem of f41stfled construction records. la reviewing 78-08, has the sos ,.+ J .j f,, Panel found anything relevant to falsified constrvetton records?. c
- c..
A. No. I show you a letter, with attachnents, dated April 2.1977. to the c Q. i J$ hsten Lighting & Power Company making reference to deport 77-08 and marked
- n,i for identification as staff Exhibit No. 4. Are you able to idedify this
- .n;
. 7[,v ..-J.f document and its attachments? i , :N., ..a.,., Ju : .~ y. p. a ^
- ~
~
- c. p
,.,a ~ . c,7 s r. 3 a.. ,...a ..,._c.. \\ ..q r '.'. g.:.',.- c, , 3..., f. u. . g 7..* 2
- w..
,3 ...... n. ../ . c..~.: - 1 n.'.g s 2. .:p G. [*.-;
- }~.
ri.*..= e ~r - w v. g..g e n c g;;;, ~A%
- W
. ~. - -y. ; 5 r.=,: m:*..P*'t .b M. g -m m. n. :.,n-c.: ; pa.,.. - p ;;-y.,:r.. ~,. ,. o e ..: n. ...o ,.....w m. e w. ..u_ s .mm .u-i t002 / .O.1._Ol1 i.?.6M 39.6i g s m i. - - ^ - - - _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, ^ ~ - .e-,-4 -"m
^ . ^ . tz...??.. : ;,.. ;.:. W....;. - a.. - ;. w.,.m .. ;.. : ;. r-..:.. m.~,.:.;....... ;; n;?.,..m.~.. ,,4 =?- '- - - % ~' ' ' -" ' " " ^
- ~.1 1
- .w~ ~i.,.;?
?*> o :.h '- M
- v G.* v_,,,L % ~? w '.*.*:: &
r.a, 125 = " " - ~ h S..::,%.,..: w;L:.:Me : - =_u u,.r:.l.: '~ a u s-E L a :. C'. 18 - J i t g N J A. Yes. the letter transsitted to Houston 1.ighttag & Power Company a p. r J 9 report detalling the results of an NRC investigation conducted between f. F. July 8 and 8. 1977. Q. W conducted this investigation! I ( ' .? j A. The investigation was performed by J. E. Foster. Investigative 5pecialist. Region III. and R. G. Taylor. Reactor Inspector. Region !Y. 1 j, Q. W reviewed this report? [ J A. The report was reviewed by W. C. Seidle. Chief. Reactor Construction l t 6 ,[j and Engineering Support Branch. Region !Y. I 9 ..,1 Q. ~ What was the reason for this investigation? ,.,d.C 1 3 'j e, 1 A. On ' July 1.1977, an individual contacted Region 11 Inspector R. E. 4 - e,# ,, g[,. I' Taylor by telephone and indicated that an incident had tahn place at the 7 -- .. g Scuth Texas Project in which a trom and Root construction foreman assaulted t 1 4 l.2W's$ i '1 and injured a Brown and Root chil quality control inspector. In additice. s 'C; T ' '.* % {R -lt@g[3.-. - f '3;h 'L'.', 'e:. _. ~* ' y Jry' the individual alleged that the incideni! was just one of a series of threats r L. -: a <. q illustrating a pattern of harrassment leveled against troini and Root quality [.g,.,f = p*#.'h.;' j], S;.' p I? ~ fj'; 5 e > my s ? wa N control inspectors. p. t f.,.v.*,.y4, D G A . Q. How was the investigation into this matter conducted?. ~ ' ' ', - s., - '.g j .;,; 4,s A. NRC personnel visited the Swth Texas Project and interviewed all 4 e gg., f g I c,2
- i
...n
- 4.,,.
Brown and Root civil wality control inspectors present. including the I g 3,,,j*,. jf quality control inspector involved in the altercation utth the Brow and 2, e,
- y. '
I '.,*:7 Root construction forem.4 which gave rise to this investigation. In addition. ..v .'I' %.'k'l the NRC investigator and tospector interviewed Brt.rt and hot constructica '.r,0.Ml personnel and revtewed the Instructions and procedures followed by the Brown ' y
- '... n and Root qualtty control inspectors.
- ?f$ 4 _t gs s.: a ,?, ..r .) - a ,: - e ,3 y, = --?,, 4 y y -k ' *...g "a c.P .av g,'s j;g) .'.i;.. ::' a.. ,e- -. 7:, ~, r.. 7, <.--.: ~.- -.. . a- " - g, .c T.y. 3 ~< ,. W.; ~. i..n ..q 1 ,y e,, g, x.* p.
- .n
,, s wa n. ).*u.3 1 G. .s 5 w;gh -f c.. ..n..n. < ~ - 7 t'Am.g3 p '? F - Q @~N.;;-.=,'.5 N. m ngi? s'""~ &.s'! ~w- ..,m w 2._ 7.y .M 51.O. ';i,.l.9.6R 3...f.7.' 1.i +s#~% _a.m. q gj
~. 2= .L=...- _. _ ~ 12G m. _. m.c m._.,, _. . r, m._ m. j >.. -.. xm, .i . is. What do you mean in your conclusion by an inordinate amount of y Q. b friction had developed between Brom and Root quality control inspectors and i E J construction persennelf As used in this investigative report, an inordinate amount of A. friction is meant to mean that amount of tension dich is over and above the I normal friction which usually exists during the day to day relationship between quality control and construction personnel at any construction site. L If such friction exists, it'has't'he potential to, but does not secessarily. ~ N ~ adversely effect the professional working relationship between the tw 1 As the groups and may, in addition, adversely effect the work product. [ tervts are used in !&E Reports, harassment refers to the tension. verM1 abuse or friction between workers. Harassment does not affect an 191 ./ .4 In contrast intimidation occurs den one who fs the vidual's work product. - )I victim of harass:sent falls to adequately perfem his work in order to escape I such harassment. ,s s
- S
(. :**, ' 'R.. s., On the South Texas Project during this investigation. did you find .. ;M','. i t;; ' *;, N[ b ?:- Q. [-j any evidence that this Inordinate amount of friction did adversely effect [ T b .w. } #
- f. M #.
4 the ability of the quality control inspectors to do their job? l . ?, a . 4-3 .-a No, all of the Brom and Root quality control inspectors inter. A. viewed at that time indicated that they had not overlooked any unacceptable K conditions during their inspections by reason of constmetion harrassment. rither, they fo11oued their inspection specifications to the letter. t .l Several inspectors commented that they had actually became more strict.ta ) their inspections as a. result of the friction between them and the Bro m and Root construction personnel. 1 l 9 i I 4, i' ~f u ,.. ~.. W 6& e l i 9 r 7 1 + I". ? T y =
- x. -.-r....-
py m p A 18m __ hO O hh
- 1 a.l, I i.y..*..
e e
-. = _. ,:_~_.__ b.<'m ~_________.__). ^ ~ ~~ 9 '^"^ - ah,...-Ge.;J' S; A m.&
- T. a m
--.9 '~~- l 12'? 6 L. l 2 + 17 t Q. mat conclusions were reached as a result of this favestigattent i A. Although tw incidents involving threats to 8 rom and Root gaality h control inspectors and the pushing of one trom and Root inspector fe June of 1977 were confirmed. the facts gathered at that time regarding the tw b incidents were. insufficient to substantiate the a11egation that there was a directed progree of systematic harrassment and intiatdation of Brom and ? ~ y I Root quality control inspectors. However, the regular QC inspectors fater. r viewed who wre assigned to safety related wrk areas did state they are D i subject to scrie afnor harassment during concrete pours, and sone ecmplained >V. f '1 of a lack of senagertal support. No evidence was developed that the Brom i and Root construction superintendent had advised his morters that any Brom d ': j ~ and Root giality control inspector' who fixand and reported unacceptable i ~.% t ttems durir.g concrete placement inspections truid be Ifable for a beatfng. ,'? The NRC Representatives also determined that an inordinate amount of js. A > 1.- :.-. friction had developed between Brom and Root quality control faspectors and O,', 3-
- r. _.
~ .p , f;..,,,m' ?: V r C. A.,, 4; g-Q=,;_',L ..? l '.,,
- ' } - Q 4-Brom and Root construction personnel.
-} .. ]. 'N- (* Q. What must be found by the Mttt inspector in order to' substantiate a-I f an allegation? e. .q In order to substantiate an allegation, the RRC faspector sust A. I find ladependent evidence corroborating the allegation. If independent evidence is found contrary to the allegation. ft is considered refuted. I d Absent either finding, an allegation may be closed as neither substantiated ). nor refuted. When dessed appropriate, a further investigation is con &cted under such a situation. --1 . '.e f 'l n ~ .s 1 -) 4 7.- ~ T 3'... . ? [;.;~.x=.-n.nua.s.r:?. ve+sw.m;i.wnw: =.~ : m 4" ' mmw f. a 6x + ..1 00133 ) .- e O'.4 0]%. 9.; Iii6131 - 2 ~< l
4 T* - u '. - 'i ni_ &.a-R,n =.,,s-s &:w.d,.~a e... sf.
- x- - &.. v-128 1g.
Q. I show you a letter. with attachments dated' Oecon'ber 28.19n. to p Nouston Lighting & Power Company making reference to Report M 1'4 and Report L Ud3 and marked for identification as $taff tahtbit Re. 5. Are you able to l identify this document and its attachments?, 'f A. Ves. the letter transnitted to Houston Lighting & Power Company a G f report dotatling the nsults of an MRC investigation conducted between~ c 1 ,n December 15 and 16.19U. - - ~ O i Q. Who conducted this investigation? A. This investigation was performed by R. L Taylor. Reactor Inspector. Region IV, and J. J. Ward; Investigation Specialist. Region IV. ,s Q. We reviewed this report? .,f "l V. A. Crossaan. Chief. Projects Section. Reactor Constructies and b A. l-@ / 13;q Engineering Sup ort tranch. Region !Y. ','. M.. Q. What was the reason for this investigation? .On Dece=ber 10.19U. ad individual contacted the Region IV duty l. 4. [, h[:.b h..a ; s A.
- a E.
- k.
officer by telephone and indicated that he had radiographs in,his possessics .. i... ~e =. 5 , M *. ' "E which shond that the welds used in two nuclear power plants under construc- ? ,6 t tioi in Regten IV were defective. f*.
- g,,,,',
. /' q-I '.... J Q. How was the investigation into this allegation conductad?
- =..
s t.- A. On December 10,1977 the alleger was agata conta-tid by telephone for elaboration of his charge. He indicated that he had in his possession ,3 questionable radiographs of electro-slag welds la the itner plate for the containmen't 1tners of the Comanche Peak and South Texas projects. On Deces. ~,' 3 g ber 12. 1977, the alleger was agata contacted by a Region IV, representative { i.?- at which time he indicated that he had been a victia of a hoax perpetrated \\ ~ I N by tie of his actpaatatances who had admitted the radiographs tere not as
- p ':
s .. ".; 2 ~ i. .) .;i cL- ,g, s. 88 n, s 4 e
- 3 1
'F r_g ;. 4, t ig L O.. - [. n 3 N _ '.~ G.,.,- -.s ., =. _ * -. * ' = . ~' c. .a .n.-_ ....-.,,~.y da,- - na.a w.e o. a .we 3 m, e se e 1
.. [ .3, ' D' .#.Q -;'t.'.W :.k -n. ,,_- %. J.... c w. a - ---- . ;;g;i._.a
- ..t Lw-~ v2 ' - -
4 ; - _ __. -. -.. u .n ^ 143 a P .N. previously reported and that neither of the individuals providing the red been on either site. These telephone conversations wre I graphs had ever
- 15. 1977.
followed up by personal contact with the alleger on December Following the personal contact. the 411eger signed a statement for the (.j investigator stating that the radiographs were not from a nuclear factitty. ~ t d that neither of his tw friends who allegedly gave him the rad,ographs ha ever worked at either of the sites and that the radiographs were not pres. I,) ently available for r'eview. Lastly, the alleger acknowledged he was h . responsible for making a false rtport concerning the radfograp s. l ht conclusions were arrived at as a result of this investigation? Q. The' allegation ws not substsntiated, the radiographs Imere not.. r j.3 i3 A. tly the victia of a
- E 1
,related to any nuclear sites and the alleger ins apparen i .2-p;1 b-hoax. I show you a'lettar, with a'ttacteents, dated April 3.1978. to theN5 2 hsten 1.ighting & Power Company, r.aking reference to Report 78-05 and 3,.. g g Q. x p' s, ,J a.. > ,',.s. G Are yota able to fdentify
- r marked for identification as Staff Exhibit 110. 8.
3,' . I +.*,.' t.".3 ,,, m, - cw. ~
- ~
=, 1 s-this dociment and its attactestats? 4 - N( Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Power a report ' t. 3 A. i .j ,l
- 21. 1974.
detalling the results of an investigation conducted on March '..) .? Who conducted this investigation? Q. The investigation was conducted by J. J. Ward. Ir.vestigatfoe 3 A. y specialist and V. 4. Itit,acek. Itenctor Inspector. tegios (f. 2 ,J Q We reviewed the report of this investigatfoot Q. The report of this investigation was reviewed and approved by l t A. ..l V. A. Crossman. Chief. Projects 3ettion. Reactor Construction and tagi. ',.].I neering Support Branch. Region !Y. 1 D 3 i -i . a 4 r. I. .i-- ,,y, 1 .a g g 3 ,a J F' s. g =i F '. m. o I s m- - t-. ;...... + .,.n -w. ~ . :a ~ n _s.> p
.x. , r. .x< ..u - 130 .n. i r-Wt was the reason for this investigatient Q. / This investigation us in response to a letter to NRC headgarters A. from an individual' do indicated he was a potential dated February 20. 1978 P j t ' scapegoat for improper procedures at the South Texas ro ec. How was theI1nvestigation into this allegation performed? Q. The investigator and inspector. raveled to the individual's home t A. and interviewed him.with respect to his concerns. This worker feared that he would bs a scapegoat tiecause the directions he received from his superiors. [ with respect to documentation requirements for the issuance of work tools.' were not made a matter of general knowledge; accordingly, den he insisted F: epon proper documentation before giving out the requested tools the crafts. men would c'omplain to their supervisors about this individual's behavior. 4 l lusions were reached as a result of this investigation! Q. What c ~ The allegation was determined to be unrelated to nuclear safety in , ~., that no safety related structares or activities were involved. A. P. 's > t In essence. 3." :.'*,2.*,. N- . !,T-r Q. ; tt was concluded that this situstion was primarily a personnel matter and . jg '. ' ' f.2' 3 ..u_ i !a'h.,J.* g-G r. Q. ,'s, %' & i 4 .j "l.,g - e -f . sVy not related to construction a:tivity. , tQ *;,,;,[;.-4 I show you a letter, with attach ents, dated June 5.1978, to
- i.,,,,,
u. s t . E ', " 'i ' 1 Houston Lighting & Power Company asking reference to Report 78-C9 and marked for identification as Staff tshibit H. 7. Are you able to identify this doctrent and its attactments? J Yes, the letter transsitted to Houston Lighting & Powr Company a 1 A. report detalling the resn'lts of an investigation conducted between May 16 .1 and 18, 1978. l *' t W conducted this'investigationt Q. jt d t t .2 j i g' s L' N,: ~.. t. I , +.. s 9 g 8 ~J e i j [. s< 8 4 g r ~ g ,r s J .T N n.. m= 6-m.,.x'.1 _ D e_. .fi WW o.',043#i.f!.2i m <')>M
~ '.. ~ ~ ~ _. -""U^' _m .1* ,,.__,P,. _ _ _ s. 1 I31 E J - ta. r. A. This investigation was conducted by J. J Ward Specialtst. W. 8. hbacek. Reactor Insgector. Investigation Chief. Projects Section. Regfon IV. , and W1111am A. Crossmen. O. the rovfewed and approved uit investigatfosf A. V. A. Crossman, Chief. Projttu Section Engineering Support Branch, Region IV., Reactor Construction and Q. nihat us the reason for this investigationt ~" y t A. On May 15. 1978, a Regfon !!! investigator rec f E call from an indivfdual do identified htaself as a Brown [. e vad a tele #ons n s at the South Texas Project, but who otherwise wished to' and Root enp (> - .[ and de set forth four allegattens of trettularities renafa anonp ous. I ,/s fy] 411eger claimed Cadweld records had beest fal Speciffca11y. the =
- 6 w
stfied. inspectors tere not qua11 fled For thete positions. Inspectort h4d fatt d . E,I tests. and procedural violations had occurred o general knowledge , ' f. ; . [- r *., #', e ,s 4. n the site. Y, > l,' p.. 2 c ! Ilhet was involved in the intt ut Mion a d .y.,[ i,', 3-9 n v'*:V o. [ ' ' ' fy,.*[; reached as a result of this investfgettent what conclusions were i r. [..f.) .f[ A. None of the allegations wen uto substanti t d . i.. 2
- < J' tato the allegations was conducted on ths tite b t ae. An investigation Based on a review of tDe records and interettws e ween May 18. and 18.1978
{y department, there was no evfdence found %4% tadwith all persons within the Records indicating the qualtffcattent 4f 411 thweld records had b fled. f,1 taspectors were examined by the reactor inspecto e pollty control ('j tests administered to these faspectorst an en Wr, includtag records of 6 tadweies presently completed and in place in Dee $ pot inspection of T sade during a walk through of the factittyt 4)) tf thcontafasent structure was ~ * '. e quality control i I q' +,
- s
- 4
.') e 'e=s=umma ,; e :m .m ,$g
- ~.-
.g., -~- 7 ,..,.- q 2 j. +
- M e,
i. m. O s. 6 ".. .g N, n. n +m n. a.r- ~
- #._'*.*O-M _ 2 m 2
N .i i onm o ?. 0 3.l il 6 ii. e. e s a
3' ^ a._, l 1 j
- .w
.. Ja._, ._- i~:2 = MK -k= a nq F. I O f, 23 ~ ?. inspectors were interstewed; and selected Cadwelds were identified and O chected for proper documentation. The concerns incorporated in Intervenor ( 5 Contentions 1.8. and 2 are in part addressed in this report. Q. I shed you a letter. with attachments. dated August 22.1978 to [;. Houston Lighttry & Power Company making reference to Report 7812. and [ : marked for identification as Staff txhlbit No. 8. Are you able to identify I this document and its attactueents? a [- F A. Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Powe Cor pany a ~ 7, report detalling the results of an tavestigation conducted betwen Aly 25 c and 28. 1978. '.,. ~. Q. 20 conducted this investigation! - i A. J. J. Ward. Investigator, v. L Ikbacek, heacter Inspector. and V. A. Crossaarr, Chief. Projects Section. Reactor Construction and Engineering u f,j I.. Support Branch. Region !Y. 4 ~ Q. Who reviewed and approved this lavestigation? p i. W A Cr*5"'" c.tef Projects section. neactor Construction and c:. -... A- , y. t.' ;$.',M/f'y l tagineering support 8 ranch, aegion IT.
- n., y=.. 3 g,i 3
v Q. What was the'ressen for this investigation!. --.. _.. f!- 1- .,.y._.-- 7,;G,'.b.. y' 'a.3,3 . t e, q. w N'M A. On July 19. 1973, a Region !Y project inspector received a tete.
- ,.1 phone call from an Individual do identtf ted himself as an employee at the s
South Texas Project do wished to report alleged irregularttles to the civ11 l cpality assurance progras. Particularly, the allegation involved the l following concerns: 4 1. Civil Quality Control Inspectors were not provided adequate ' training on recently issued procedures.
- 2.
.'.:.7, b g W*+we r a p.M gumm. .b
- g 5.-
- 1 L.,
f. ?*, ,f g i 'e 6 l I . ' ') [i.~ e iQ lh
- {
.O.
- 4 2....
w. [ ar,.- a ;,. ,.. -.,, { s,y y_,
- y 3
[ .u " * -' S._]' T.,. '. - -e }. +, '1 1 *:- g, ...,z.,....,,. . = _ - , i.;a 01.0 4.p.6_3.4;l.e,.u.:dr '4 c:. 3 l G5 [
4 ,~ %:.: g . '*s L.' - : ' v.- . -. ~ ' - -* > e ..,,..... p W A'a-h '2 s : d-._.k. - -
- ."M-"''"'"""~
^ E u,.1 ..,s. k'. i W 13d .u. c 2. The nonconformance reporting system was inadewate. k,.- 3. Quality Assurance fs reluctant to issue nonconformance reports for prob 1ms identifled by Quality Control. I-; d. thality Assurance does not adewately support 4411ty Control. t. 5. Document Control ts poor for drawings and documents used by croft and @a11ty Control. Cadweld as butit drawings for the Unit 2 fill stab are inac. s. curate. l
- 7. ' Upper managewnt was inaccessible to Quality Control.
8. Undue pressure was placed on Wa11ty Control by construction. .i.' 3 9. Repairs were perforr.ed without approved procedures. - L 1 . ',;l
- 10. Construction engineers were' unable to assure that construc.
k r .[1 tion uns perfomed in accordance with drawings and procedures. ? -m Q. Would you please state a surunary of your conclustons for each of [% (. @..@ J= 'e the allegations and dat you did to arrive at these conclustons? ,.j . f ',,,.,i s,3,, *y';-: 3 The allegations that Civil 4ality Contr:1 inspectors
- gar, 7.f "' t.
r8-r A. Yes. 1. p^a. ,-r~g-v were not provided adewate traf atng could not be substantiated. The foru Lr. .j
- -d. e ' -
. tyt t. '3 +.4,f ff .e[ .. used for inspection of concrete placernent had receitly been revised and ,-e' ,.a r r . -] expanded. Trafning records indicated that some QA/QC and construction f.J-personnel had been tratned in the new procedure. Some inspectors felt thta t~ s: training inadewate, but the ademacy of,the training could not be evaluated. e ,) 2. The allegation that the nonconformance reporting system was -L. inadewate ws not substantiated by specific example, however, weakn' esses of , j.. i the system were suggested by conditions generally described by wality j k control inspectors to interviews. e .C ..;r. . ;. 3 .v 9 . -( .y w .,. 1 '. LJ, [,
- )
i 1 r- ., *. - - - ~ --. ~ ~ - - - - Q. _ - l f _ J?, p .,.;;k. l'- :, . g n..: ,y.. .... w. r. .,a -:. ?? .4 y -2 s .i r;., c 4W... ,j.. 1 p?.,- q 3.' ... MAT ., e: .y..w . a.i MC;.-._ _,..-. n. p ..s-~. n. w' Of 0.4 63 001 %
- - (. '."
9 a. 22. %..-a a n,-. e m.m.. m., _ _.mr, _,. _ n.. .\\ a 13d t.. ts. a s
- 3. " The allegation of pality assurance reluctance to issue non..
t 3 conformance reports could not be substantiated ty speciffe taample, howeverg -e generettaattons presented by palf ty control inspectors during intentown ~ f ~ indicated that this condition may entst. r. The allegation of lack of" support by gality assurance was 4. f. not substantiated by specific example. however, the majority of pality - control inspectors interviewed indicated that there was a lack of techntent I e assistance provided by the onsite poltty assurance engineer. I 5. The allegation of poor, document control could not he sub stantiated by spectf tc example, however, interviews with pality conteg) individuals tended to support this allegation and pointed to the Sheft4%t et ,l 1 -j experienced personnel in the gality assurance library as a major fattw n causing delays to the distribution of documents. ,i; The allegation concerning inaccurate Cadweld es.butit detwthqt L...
- s. k q 'k 6.
- [Q,;f t.1 y for the Unit 2 fill slab was not substantiated by review of the drawingt in
{.i'. ' f, [ y, q:,j f,?7-h,.# the document vault. c 5 -I? ,e .l.#, ,, f.3 3 The allegation concerning inaccessibility of upper man 4gemet .n 7. }' {,N was generally supported by a majority of the 9411ty control inspectgegg however, no specific examples were provided to substantiate this allegetten. [ 1he allegation concerning undue pressure on galtty (Wet) 4 L l f inspectors appeared to be valid in light of the frietton previously identt. 4 fled between W pality cont'rol inspectors and construction personngig in ,J E'k addition. the large number of items en the taspection ' punch itst,* may Mit contributed to the felt pressure. g 1 The allegation concerning the manner in etch repateg weg g .i 3. The taly performed, without approved procedures. ws not substantiated. u.:, V .3 .V i -~ , p.,.. f g" l y- ~~ I ~' ,) y. s. g .p .x {.* I* t g b _h I s. O g y e 4 iPU"'"."e 7 -p e q a8 -e, ,-e-[ --"[ . ~.. g. - w)pNg$.; 1 } 01.0.,
.d : ^ 9 ...Ei'_. __- _ rsr. _ '. _
- .1 _ % t m..,__
oe i 1Od t
26
i - Specific example documented whereta Brown and Root construction proceeded p t without approved procedures was the repate of a misa11[gned anchor bolt for [- i waste monitor tanks. Powever, the Region IV representatives observed that e I field request fo'r engineering action (FREA) 1.C.1298, dated hsly 11. 1978. r was issued with regard to the waste monitor tank anchor bolts. The.FRf.A ) contained a des'eription of the probles and the recommended disposition.' } I [ including the method of repair. ~ a p The allegation concerning the in4bility of construction 10. engineers to do,their job of assuring that civil cons'truction wt perfoiet5 In accordance with drawings and procedures could not be dolly sub'stantiated. g. however, the large nuster of and types of deficiencies contained 11 inspec. 7,. .: A,, tion " pinch lists' suggest that the inspections by craft and engineers was, J4 'M '_'s Although not directly addressing ortgtnal design nodt'. -~ 2 'a less than adequate. fication. the confusion surrounding the proper use of FRf.A's vs. MCR's is, l 2.,w u n
- 1.. '.,., p.,,
Nd-Jh the only example the staff could locate which partially incorp: rated th5 ' ., a.w , M g3: ^(;IO /
- i[@,.
f'] . Y.s a concerns of Intervenor Contentions 1.74.. b. and c.. QQ r( ' g.; , ; ",..Y * - i* o* Was lack of management support for mality control inspectors
- y,,,
- d. i >. :. <#,
- 9. g Q.
.5 investigated? L .m l Y"_ =.. Yes. laterviews with numerous quality contro.l inspectors evidenced A. a general feeltng that upper managenent did not support wality control 7 F inspectors. However, inspectors spoke in vague generaltties and were not, I sufficiently spectflc to substantiate particular instances where f act of ; t managenent support occurred. i. Was undue pressure on quality control personnel investigated? l O. Tes. ' gain through interviews with numerous wality control i A. a l personnel. general allegations were set forth' with ' respect to pressure on f e ~ 0 ..Q c d. i, a =~ ]4 .8 -*,..[ e
- *. a
'.4 i.1 -s
- i'...*.:
(* a .l c. ..e a 7. e fi y j. 0 ,p. ~ '.4 : 1 .f.*,'. . ;,,,. p}. s'.T,",.$ *; *.C f ^ =%.1 ' :.4.' Q'y,f-5 _:w .g 'G.- .- un L ~~m. 1 .,c u -.h u& 0 3_0_'. ?. _6 & ]wj p
- .. ', _. ~..
" ' M"- $krhNM,- :r~,D E, e.-k'"Y Y M F ?b NI"N N D. - O A O N i* E ' "~ ' '^ ~ U * - d ' i ~' '~- n-6 -_. a _. ag-13G .d 27 .4 quality control inspectors from constrvction to completa their tasks. I Howe.ver. as was previously described, the inspectors did not cite spe examples showing such pressure and wre unanteous in their feel,fng that this b~ In fact, several quality pressure did not effect their job performance. control inspectors stated that the pressure led then to be more strict la. ,7b, their inspections. E.) leist, if anything, was done as a result'of all these vague gener. - I Q. 411ttes concerning probles in the QA/qC arest ' ~ The Region concluded that la 1tght of the morale problem etch A. App 1tcant's was indicated by Report 78-12. a meeting should be held with the ~~ 2 management to express the concerns identified as a result of 751. Q'.y 1 f ..r 25, 1978, to ,j M T.O I shou you e letter, with attachments, dated Agust ? Q. b : :,.. .,.,W",,,' ?
- w?
the muston Lighting & Dover Company, maktng reference to Report 78-13 an x s i A[.s,A d' F-a -(; $.m.t f.t ' j e.. p 2. 1 marked for identification as $taff Exhibit No. 9. -Are you able to tdantify. D'. l ?l**?'d 4
- ylI %. w.,,' A PP.m$
i i,. v.. @[>.,.y; &,',' this doeurent and its attachr. ants? J-d,.,, M, a . A.... Yes, the letter transattted to the huston Lighting & power Coripany i; l ' ..' .a I.N 4 -f I. i -'.y% -i. e j A. ' f'. 2.].?,.* [ 1-a report detalling the topics discussed in a aseting between Region IT Sta ,.N.'.
- 15. 1978, held as a result of and Houston Lighting & power Campany on August.
4 '. 78-12. k ',. Are you able to surinart2e the toples discussed during the August 15 . s i., Q. j ./. 1978 meeting? t: Yes, as surrarized in Report 7813. the purpose of the meeting was r.j;~.y to discuss alleged problems in the implenentation of the site QA/QC civ A. il ( '... -i L ji* 2
- b. +s,',.6:
pregram quattty control inspector morate and the adequacy of site QA/ ) '~ a,'[:,[ staffing. .c E..
- 0.~
~.
- c....
. -. >. ~ i ** n i.- - ~ .s
- Z:'
- '9 t. + .p;'s ..s' ~
- i.,
.h.. ;i m. e',: .. J, > : v.,. ..c pm n 7 .s surque' " - ..cf ~ W W-Q M V W ? n5., c. _ _.<. ic.q&!:i;T' -; a w,. ' a ..1 J.. _6hiSI.6* ' MB O'.i ' n-
... =..z, - _...L..---. m_ _p ,___2__
- c. :.a.
w..-. __~;.___ c ~- ._r - _ m, e d n;.. m,~ '137 28 r. As a result of the concerns expressed by Region IV to this meeting. h Q. did the Appilcant propose any changes in the operation of pality assurance I and wality control at the South Texas Project site? I Yes changes were toplamented in the gality control traf atng A. The procedures for program to provide better training for inspectors. T nonconformance reporting (NCR) and field re@ests for engineering actfee (FRIA) were revised to clarify the situations dere each report is appro. In addition, nonconformance reports wre serf 41tred for account...- I priate. y ability. CA/QC staffing levels were increased and the Bran and ht QA L manager ccrnf tted to participate more directly in site polity activities. r I Document control was also taproved by additional staffing of the vality t a m assurance library and persens were addet to the staff of construction R .L fj 8eth ..,_.A engineering to improve inspection of in process construction work. Houston Lighting & Power Company and Scom and Root agreed to stap up their .l.4,, l-'. surveillance of in process constructics activities. '. d,.,.. w. Q. ' I show you a letter, with attac1 vents, dated October 3.1978. f.[i. "'. ' r.,. j,f, ..Y, s. ~. N addressed to the Region IV Chief. Reector Construction and f.ngineering ru f* ,f ..A 4 p=.w g,p g . '.h*' 6. r,,[. [,.h.j i $sppart Branch Lhtted States Actear Regulatory Commission, free Houston ..(, 3., ';.,,,, =;,.f .3 Lfghting & Power Company, marked for identification as Staff Exhibit No.10.- ' ,f. 2 Are you able to identify this document and its attachments? ~ i Yes, the letter set forth Houston Lighting & Power Company's A.
- 15. 1978 ctreitments in response to the concerns expressed during the August meeting, as just outlined, and the proposed corrective actions for each of
.6 q-I. '..'$ Investigative Report 78-12 and ) # the allegations and concerns set forth ta I. '.J . c...z fietting Report 78-13. . q," [ s -. e C .O h j l ?. ,e ...,.7~ 4 2;j .t.: a .q b ,D e,...'2 '~ n.. .) t*. s- ~. ",, < 4 '( O [., ..q r. y er F ., J _ye r. mom y m ^, y- : .y _ ; - m' _ .mue-R.h .w ' ?. . h. l 2
I ..e u ?d ~' = "in-- ^ 12L. L. m -w. ..., ~. Ia 13c5 .n. { q. Did lutC ltegion IV 'subsevently check to see dether the corrective t. actions proposed by Houstee Lighting & Powe in its October 3. 1978. 1sttee R were in fact impleente(? (' ? A. Yes. q. I show yet a letter, with attactunents, dated llevenher 15.1978, to
- {
} Ituston Lighting and Power Company unking referenes to Report 78-15 and p I ' marked for identificaties as Staff Exhibit No.11. Are you able to identify y I this docuent and its attachments? l .A. Yes. The letter transmitted to leeuston Lighting and Power Company a report detalling the results of an latC tospection conducted between Octo. i ber 24 and 27.1978. Among other itas inspected. this report follows up r. the commitments made by Houston Lighting and Power is its letter of October 3 [ r 1978. ' %'t ~ . WN..' O. the conducted this inspection? - p A. This investigation was performed by v. 4. Ihbacet. J. I. Tapia. ,.. ) .i .i and L. E. Hertin. Ileactor Inspectors. Region IV. M.'.m' s .i C "- w. v '..! q. Who reviewed this report?. W ap,:f.e
- w ::
s l u p d A. This report ws reviewed and approved by W. A. Crosman. Chief. . '. [' ' %-
- g. I N h...",' 'h m Projects Section, and it. L Hall. Chief. Engineering Support Section.
- .,, 4
-r y ' [~."4 a Region IT. l q. Would you explain your findings and conclusions to this fellow up investigation? A. Yes, the corrective actions taken by the Licensee factoded the Y,' hiring of addittosal personnel to fill vacancies to the ensite QA/qC .f. erganization, sa assistant to the QA sanager had been hired, it was observed this,4itty control inspectors =re present a the secoad shift durtag t. 1...1 -a. ~... '. ..h i 9 m. ~.. . s' _ m y,- k ~ p v.. -s i.9 F t.E, I, g w a:.
w" m I-((
y . >. '..... c-6-. ~ n; .--.m u.m 3 22 0 6.0.,i..I.:. 6M..1,0: d). r.
- ~~ '
. l l _ ___ : J_ ' ' ' _ _ * ' . - $ d '6 4 "Y' 4 .s .. L ; ;_,..u. ' II9' . 30 it d received additional training as construction quality control inspectors,ha selected personnel training r l j evidenced by the revtewing of eine random y thorized to hire an additional files, and the wality, assurance Ifbrary was auIn addition. 3 i-t to nonconformance reports, was four staff positions. r engineering action were restred. fa contras g78. b-clarif ted in a memorandus dated October 24 b
- 15. Ig78 I'
I. Q. to the Houston Lighting and Power Company, Are you ab1'e to it No. 32. and marked for identification as Staff Eahtb p identtfy this document and,1ts,attachmentsf i g and Power Company [ r Tes. the letter transmitted ty Houston Light ntigation conduct -l A. a report detattf ag the results of an RAC inves 3 !.{ b'[' August 22 and 25. Ig78. Who conducted thfs investigation? b t Reactor . y
- es J. J. Ward. Investigation Specialist. W. L lta ace.
'7 ,., ~ . Q. i ~ tion. Regfon IV. A. S
- -.. g.,'
Inspector. William A. Crossman. Chfef. Projects ec
- ,.a'.~...
p'.h.,,,[. ! D t, i. '. [5 N t i..- T. 1 a '.' *i the reviewed this report? .Crossman. Chief. t ?. + , ~. .,.. '. f'1, '.,.. This report ins reviewed and approved by V. A. 'i <S Q. w ? %'3 d s N#', )
- ie A.
~ 1 Projects Section. Region !Y. t . i, Wha.t was the reason for this investigatten ,- t ' RRC. the Licensee. h On, August U. Ig78, during a meeting between t eit was re Q. A. and executives of the Brom and Root Company,had been approached by 4 S i / and Ibot constructfos person alleged he d that he could help construction Root Quality Control Inspector who state y:.. ) f* get jobs mov'ing tf he were "taken care o..
- }
k y of e k i 4
- g
-t.'. a ,,,,,. h m.s- .I f 'q v.' ~... . ~~ ~ i. a ~s. .. y, .r
- } ~*
s (~'...
- ** 1 p
[. r ,y i.. e. J ',; s g e b s l.- a e m.y.. L s . c._,. i_1.
- .m L < __
.. = w.J Le Qi ' q' &j c:igyy.g.:Ig
n. ',.. - : * '....~!. ...' :. :. i - = b'~,.= : - - m .r.. ...' x x c - s *xt = D - - n 2- ..M.w.ac im.=a.uwa.L n i SJ N Y ' ' W ' e,. -.1 % O :Dww m- ..,; -. - r v 140 1 s 31 1 t +6 How was the investigation into this allegation conducted? p 'i .I J Q. r The Region IV investigative team traveled to the site and inter. i j A. etewed the Wality Control Inspector allegedly soltetting bribes. The s @a11ty Control Inspector dented se11 citing bribes and counteralleged that. using his as an example. Broom and Noot sought to intimidate other @ality Centrel laspectors te order that they not report nonconforming situations. The investigative' teen then saamined.both allegations. I' ^ l The first allegatten essentially us one man,'s med against anothee.. The allegation was dated by the @eltty Control Inspect $r and the construe. ' b tien worker as equally vehment' ta his assertion that the se11citatt'od had 4*C <.~ 3[ J.3 been capettted. No witness could corroborate either position. s As to the counter allegation. that as a group. @elity Control Inspectort a Y ' i '.?1 were latialdated, all of the @ality Control Inspectors interviewed dented -N , d'h that any items of nonconformance would be overlooked by thee for any reason. u .y i 1'G J
- r
' + - including fear of losing their jobs. In addition, no 4411ty Control Inspecter Q:[i'n. 9,q .m ! * ",% r' .,7 aihettted having knowledge of attenpted bribery or past incidents of noncoe. b%.:2 - -. .l . s,&~ ' 7.(,'"g'i, J.'y.O -)i 7',g,.] . i :.,, formances having been snarposely overlooked ta exchange for meterial favors. u. - g _w,C.'**,,-M I show you a letter. with attachnents, dated Octobe'r 6.1978 to t f . y 't Q. .l'. nouston Lighting and power Company asking reference to heport 78-15 and i'[ ' ['h Are you able to toevitify p. marked for identification as Staff tahibit No.13. s ~ this docunent and its attachments? Tes. the latter tranmitted to Houston Lighting and power Company ,. ~ :., A. r a report dotatling the results of an NRC investigation conducted between < 7.0.j -! S Sept cher 11 and 14. 1978, as well as, a notice of Violation. i
- rA 120 conducted this investigation?
g,t.9.f Q. r . y.; ...m e e 3, l %,f..m' ~ f o V.. 3 v ( ?.. ) -1 8 6, u:. t c, e m .i. - _. E,.,, I ,1.c
- p
..,.r. V:. e 17N KQ .@] e n. + 'a ?-- F-Q,
- N J
.1% n
- 2.y
.e Y r. ' I.W ..;]? 9 b I
- t ga d
~xper*.- D..~l h..*.* 4 cn s* -- x..,'g,,;' n > g ...~ r~ m ?...:- ?. mdf.,,.. * * *. '_s r ..y ' .. aness, b h..*, , _y.a .g I f g-y 0.'.iO)W gi,Q '.'l.. --m-
.. ~. ' ; ^XL J-:... ? %
- k i,:_._.- ' ;
+ !.: mn = .... s. i G_ :.. r-.* i ~. " =. ^ .w ::. w c a. ~.' _. i 141 32 L 3 A.. R. E. Hall. Ote'f. Engineering Support Section and A. B. Rosenberg. o Reactor, Inspector. Region IV. ( ., Who reviewd this report? Q.' A$ This report was reviewed by W. G. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector, and approved by R. E. Hall. Chief. Engineering Support Section. Region tY. f l met was the reason for this investigation? F Q. th September 3.1978. Region !Y received a telephone call from na , A. 3 individual who identified himself as an enployee at the South Texas project t. and who reported specific allegations regarding-the South Texas project. 3 E " civil constraction and quality assurance programs. _as well as. specific-,,, n
- l t-trregular(ties in the Cadwelding procedures.
.f. 4 Q. First, please define Cadwelding. ..y s.. ~,a, Cadwelding is a process whereby two reinforcing bars are mechani. ..u . -J A. i h i The two reinforcing bars s cally bonded together by way of a'Cadweld sleeve. g ? ;.,g<." are placed end to end and the ends to be joined are inserted in the Cadweld .o;~j 'd, a
- i... ;. ii..
f.'..
- v A filler metal is then ignited and the molten filler metal ft11s y-?>
.", l, sleeve. i' (.d 57,* *
- 2.'e n~e K
the space between the retnforcing bars and the sleeve, thus forutng a mechan. 's'.^4*G1 o s y 4 ( #p ?.i 9,;,, In the cadweld process, in contrast to a trve weld, the robar teal bond. 9 f ,*[f * -. 1., gare not fused together.. ['., ,A-l ', t + How was the investigation into these allegations conducted? a.- Q. /s (~e An onstte review ws performed of Cadwalding procedures. Cadweld. t 3 A. /-? 'Y ing records were examined and construction site procedures were conpared to procedures set forth in the construction spectftcations. I Wat conclusions wre reached as a result of this investigation? g. Q. f.? d A;' It was concluded that the Cadwelding procedures were not in con. .. pc. - f,'y , - y'- formity with spectftcations and that there was a lack of giality control A Motice of 1tolation uns 'M taspectors covering the Cadwelding operation. i .t a p. ..y -.... ~ y v ..m v. g -y ,? s (* .,x .g~ t A c I.T. 4 'JL
- A
.s 'a ij N .g .:: w.;; . ~ m.m.. w r ~. .w ~ w. . w.. . =.u.;. s y a.:_..w.,..:. 6.. l $PL( .,-) o?oAD6M ~ a'
- ;;L- [_-4g.".*' Y.;:7.. ;i':~.f......., *,,,,..g..
.m .s...:.
- f -:3
..xs.. t. 4.'. u a:L^ '.,._ :.%,'-
- f.%-;,*,;;;gj y f,
.. C.% ~;.... 1 9 .:ww- = =,, _.. w*l_-r A o r,- 7 J, Q % 33 f.' tssued for these irregularities. In addition. e stop work order was issued i j by the licensee on September 13. 1978 on concrete placement scheduled to-the Unit 1 contatrument area, untti such time that esisting Cadweld, splices y I were checked to assure they were properly installed. The concerns incoe. porated in Intervenor Contention 1.8 art in part, addressed by this report. In addition, it should be noted that the concerns incorporated in j I Intervenor Contention 1.3. were identified as an unresolved its la this ~ l k Subsequently. It was deteretned that missing Field Sketch F54_430 report. was never prepared. Brown and Root, however verifted that the Cadwelds were ~ satisfactortly in place, but could not verify individual Cadwelds exact A 'r as.butit location. Such vertitcation is not an RRC restrument..Tkts ~4 natter was resolved in 18C Report 7818. which has been marked for identi. J s) I fication as Staff f2htbit No. 14 I show you a letter dated Noveter 3.1978. fras Houston 1.tghting 1' a Q. .t and powr Company to W. C. Seldle, of MRC. Region IV and marked for identi. h* h*.>... i j ',' ' ? 9 o J '., e.a4a fication as staff Dhtbit No.15. Are you able to identify this document! l 'j Yes. this l'etter sets forth Houston t.tshting and power Carparty's - ly - u Y*.* ? % * 'W A. .. g #ge-,.t e' %,*** proposed corrective action in response to the NRC investigative findings la /p**".,.Y^. .f.. ,0-y,~ 5 5 .. * ";, [. + (, : . N - 'b. geport 78 15. .J- .e 7 w & Are you able to summartae the corrective action proposedY Q. c Yes, a visual Cadweld reinspection program was lastituted for A. Cadwelds in place, a training session for all Cadwelders and tespectors had t,- - been given to assure proper understanding of the procedural regstrewnts is G.. Cadweld construction and inspection. Cadweld inspectors had been assigned to -t r . y - both shifts. and construction procedures were revised to require Cadwelder .. 'C. .' l' + surveillance be performed each shift rather than only ence each 24 hour period. t.,
- 2. y.]
w F' ,?e a..1 '.' r ,a 'q . - - - = l
- f e
., n';-.. .~~ p. r
- 2.
,.c 7 s' u /* I . ) ..y 1 + l V. 4 t e..J.
- . d. d u-g
.1' 9= W.. M k ?.... .,s..,: r
- s n.,.., g.,,..w-..
..m.......,. , w%.q -m ,a.- C 5 (. ,A 'f
g I f ".'. C;.C s a.n. =w .a w___ .,a -w - ~ 143 34 5: Q. Did the NRC Reglenel inspection staff ever conduct a follomssp investigation to deteristne IAtther Housten Lighting and Power Company had in fact implemented the corr 0Gilf t action it represented it would undertake ta its letter of november 3,1974) A. Yes. Q. I show you a letter, with attachments, dated Decstber 21. 1978. to 1 Houston t,tghting & Power happy making reference to heport 78-17 and marked I for identification as St4ff Edibit No.16. Are you able to identify this p s document and its attacismentt! ',h*.; A. Yes. the letter (FHiriitted to Houston Lighting and Power Company ' [1;; a report detailing the rtHlti of an NRC Inspection conducted between Deces- .p , y, y. ber $ and 8.1978. kiong the tiens laspected, were those f tmas cousitted to l .h %. q in response to t.'io ttens gf hencomp1tance set forth in investigattom report . :+s
- a y
1 3, 78 15. E.+.. ..[,(,, <.'( Q. ilho condui.ted thil inspectient 5?i ' ( jf.'* / q',o,,.e r .x Hff I.T*p. 2, ;" A. V. L thbaceke R44ttbr Inspector. and D. P. Tenitason. Reactor t,' F/?.k.'9. T [. g~ . Inspector Regfon IV. ,. - {; x ), f Q ,,b, dj..' q Q.Q,.a
- s. -
7, Q. idho reviewed and Approved this inspectlant . g.. t. ^ A. This inspection het reviewed and approved by W. A. Crosame. [ v Chief. Projects Sectio 9, 864 L t. Hall. Chief. Cngineering Support Section. y
- Regton IV.
Q. Frae your inspM110h were you able to determine Wther Houston .,~, . Lighting and Power Company laglemented the corrective action it proposed in f b) its letter of November 3,1)ftt .f 'f A. Yes procedarst h44 been revised to regatre inspection and sur. 'y veillance of Cadweld spljG1hg 6ctivities on each shift. Arview of records .s sif 3., .*a T ..e ~,
- .y a
g;* 1 .bf .1 ... :.,,. v: - ~ ^ - - u p. 't y., v.. '* p '.s e .3 ,,e
- f v
n S:
- t..
,J se
- t. '
y. .y ___L_ -.... m:' Ihh I e ir*,
- /---,N'
e ? e h ,g a.. a.a,. }_ .O?.O', J,9g.I,5H,5;
- 4.. J. - -
s .s. F 'd-' m
~ ~ .?: ~ 4 . r:_ S...'_.., 1 1. ...s.. 1.~~-- 144 - 3 .u. to Deceber 5.1918 revealed that Brom and meet fras Septaber 18. 1978 inspection personnel and Itcensee surveillance personnel were present on In addition. 20 Cadueld spitees won cut out and poll tested
- .f.
I both shtfts. All other actions committed to by the l, and each met the acceptance criterta. 3 3 utensee, eertfted. I l tiere there any further construction deficiencies during k97B Q. relevant to the issues or contentions etch are the subject of this hearingt) Yes, during October of 1978. the RRC uns nettfied by the Appiteent I' A. ,~. l through 50.55e letters of a serveying error and concrete velds. ur y,7 Q. t. Imat is a 50.55e lettert Imder 10 C.F.R. 50.55e. the Appitcant is undee en obtfgettoe to A. .id nottfy the hRC of each def tctency found to design and construction etch. .v. 8 ttons of E were it to resta uncorrected, could affect adversely the safe opere The noticut -it itfy we ne utthin at hours of.ach,e, ort.
- 7..
.e es,iant. ~.~;-z. w n, -.. s. able deftetency. and further. must subatt a mettten report on the deffefency ..y f ' ~ <* y [ *']f. wf thin 30 days. The 30 day report must include a description of the deft. $*= ' # ', v 'e [,,J ' f,,. .y ciency. an analysis of the safety taglications and the corrective action e L, (.,y t, s; n, tekee. d e g ilould pu please summertze the nature of the deffetencies reporte Q. [ in October of 1978. the corrective action taken and identify the spe:tftc contentions in this hearing which these letters addressed. Yes. to regard to Intervenor Contentton 1.1. en October d.1978. IV. A. '[ the Licensee nottfled the RRC of a dimensional erroe to the L~ tatt 2 sechanical-electrical aust1tary butiding. The error occurred because. y' - f f ce rather than using the contatraent/ reactor center line as the point o re eren ! v'. f te lay out this butiding. the 4pitcant laid out the betidtog using co use 6 ?.
- b
<y. p'
- gg
,J. s:7 '., F h,l P ) b, a c N. .v., ...y z x . = =. }.: m.L._..: :. 5..=. m. t ] 070.;lK6,j.y;'.6!
'"..*.% ' ?): ?. - n.. ; ;..<w.,...~ a W ? *_L..; s ;_ : W ::G'r'-^'*~.*--.~'=:*~w%.'.r.'..... ':~ !: w.' :..M a~an '. ~ .. T. ~ .'? < 1, ;..:. 4 :... - n_:.w r -. M &. c- .n.- a.: '1 D 4 -- ... :.-.a.a . -h. +L x,
- -~.+
.....a.. ~ _ _. - _. ~. V..:. . /. S.. ** -~ g.= a O 36 4 1, Itne R1 to the fuel handling tutiding. Apperently. column llee R11s offset one[ foot to the.nst of the contatruent/ reactor center Ifne. and tlus, the east edge of the mechanical. electrical austilary butiding as laid out one o foot short of design. The cause of this defect was the failure of the field T. engineer to properly check survey calculations la its final report. dated October 29.1979. the 4pitcaat stated that the optpoent within the mechanical. electrical auzittary butidfag had bees The redesign rearranged to conpensate for the,one foot dimensional erver. P affected only the west one. fourth of the butiding and the one. foot errer as socpensated by e,1tstaating emcess floor space around the layout of systees and egitpsent. The general arrengesent of egipment within the redesigned .Y q 1t was concluded that ne safety hazards entsted as area remained the same. .N a result of the redesigned mechanical. electrical aestitary butiding. , F,. ( -f To preclude recurrence. Independent verification of a bet 1 ding layowt (, 1 t.;j ? W.. will be double checked by addtttonal supervision and restewing calculations. a .,. n. 2 j*- 4 *,.. " l.r., r With respect to Intervenor Contention 1.2. en October 20.1978, the b D.,g b.? f '.pq .s) /, k .J
- 3 ?,
o .-=W .'i+. C,** 4p1tcant'nottfled the RRC of the extstence of volds to the concrete within. w9[f% - r... ! %,' ~ lif t 15 on the outer surface behind the 1tner plate in the thtt I reactor V This deft. = containment butiding exterior all from elevation 127 to 138. L. '9 4 ciency was reported to be caused Ity the emulattve affects of inadegiate 7.. f planning, an unusually long pour time longer than nonnal'sitet itses and a concrete pump breakdom. It as also stated that procedural provisions for [* .i stopping work due to problems were not exertt?ad by construction er gality O; Brow 8 hoot conducted an investigatice 3? If ft 15 volds to deter. ' control. afne the extent and locattoe of unacceptable areas. The placement geometry and history were evaluated and suspect areas behind the polar crene brackets N ~ ?,
- 3.,..
} ?
- v.,
./ w \\ .. { s.;, ~w. p.
- y t;..
Q
- f. '
~ 'o-fe ;/.'. 7;
- l 1
$l !*/ {.'
- .s..
T*, ', M, hL. * @y U
- . ' ' c
- Q L?[.
.h*
- 4. p ~.. '. &
....,.,or-c...,,.~.e.-..*.;..,-- 1 y l v.,.,*p. ~ s .. ~..., s. .. % J - 4,.,4
- L
.m!,. ,s . t,. _. a ? i N'< ? em o?.o.QP.hqig;, s.3... J --.----,,4_ _ - - - -_
=, 1 A. ;[-h
- n' 7...
- N*
b S
- '. l4.y((, k..',
a e.
- ~ '
kES } N* ^ L x- - '*^ -.^^..m_a,..e ...,.-;.. u w & w M. : 4 p<"*. 19D l-. 37 - u. Exploratory d'rtiling, sounding and 4 were identified and holes were drilled. the primary methods / visual examination of holes using f tter optics were 'ptable areas. taplemented to determine the extent and location of the unacce ere primertly Calculations based upon this investigetton indicated that there wthe t three locations restring grout, ajection behind 1tng the volds based t 81% grout was selected as an acceptable material for ft1 P injection 12 on a program of laboratory and field tests. Following grout h there locations were selected at randos foradrilling to determine whet er f the grout in place. were any ungrouted volds and to inspect the quality o No additional volds were t'ncluding t'he grout. concrete interface condtt'on. y P r tight. found and,taterface between grout and concrete us found to be e d ing 3 , Corrective action taken to prevent recurrence of stellar voids ur i rs r- . g,Q s future concrete placesent tecluded retraining of. construction sup
- 2. u.
J t roblens ~ and engineers along with grality control personnel relative o p O ' D. +,'.';',
- f. %
ii included considers. ) Q'L.U rl which contribute to the fertulation of voids. Tra n ng procedures to - K.,4 \\.- . i { tien of epigrrent failure, e.cass placene'at tise. and proper kir'4.;(2,'e 2 -,f.y;J.,4,8 f.r[t - P " ;' W.ch.
- e.. g t, ; a g'*W-6 41J 4d be followed in such an event.
ld be noted ?...% '? i n ye-r's ~. a .
- yr a o* Ys. @A " M,r Also in connection with Intervenor Contenttee 1.2. it sho
,A ~ N i,A the Spitcant . p' ,'r*~'., * - at this time that by a 50.55e letter, dated 4:ne 18.1379 ) 4.d 5 Itner plate te . y. egata nottfled the RRC of volds in the cuncrete behind the In' response to the y li the eighth itft of tintt i reactor contatnnent bui d ng.d remedies were impl ~[I ) velds to 1tf t 8. stallar investigative procedures an If f t 15. sented as previously testifted.to in reference to v,6 6. Old there cme e time. when the lett investigated y .k incorporated in Intervenor Contention 1.5. etch states: i. 1 . t 'r.;.. fc g a, t f. 'g f . -:.i i- ., 7.,r.# t t s. .,i .w. ,..e v. ~ s,1 g $p 4 ( .... s., c 1 +.
- ....a -
e,
- i..
2 / ,9 ..9- ,.c.
- U.
~
- W
.e.. : g1' s 3.; .,9 .:c <~ l.: .;/ y lT 1 ,-e T.y. !( - . g[ s -l a .y N '7~~ 07 87"7 E,, ' 7; I hcl [ [' '.' 5 2., ph* - -- - ~. - m .m.
- *
- mows. m.
I f 0 ; 0.Q.Q:{,5d,4 ] g t ..-.........a
.4...s .M. .n~
- . R e 3.x~
...: ;..;a :- ": ':.. : W.CP.f"%" "W S . y % *..p%.V.:S@,Q.4 *h-SO$*LM~ C M. s 'a s . s.- 2.,-- " - '~* - ' A ~ ~ ' - - " ^ -
- ^ ^ ~
147 t 38 t '. -1 U t 'There are steel reinforcement bars which are alssing from .j the concrete around the ogstpment doors in the containment L. and such bars are missing from the contairment structures as well, indicating violations of 10 C.F.A Part 50. Appen. dix 5. Sections I. IV and IV1.* _~ A. Yes. During an investigation conducted between June 12 14. 1979 .I g 5 W. V1111am hbacek. Reactor Inspector. Region IV. checked the records for evidence of missing radial reinforcing bars around the ogstpsent hatch te thtt 1. Reactor Containment hilding and further spoke with all persons j V. whose names appeared on the relevant documents. ~ " ~ '.' ' ~ b q. met were the results of that investigation? - i' A. The pours cards examined revealed ne irregularities nor did other h * #. doewunts checked. The various Individuals interviewed had no knowledge of .+, any re.bar missing from any structure including containment. For addition 41 iy .A follow-vp activity see !&E Report 80-08. 7 ^ 4. , 'j;j ~ '...? O. I show yee a letter.' with attactments, dated February 16. 1979 to 1...- + Houston Lignting and powr Company making reference to Report 79 01 and,
- ' k*.,'
,1 I ' 3 ] h.,.,*'[j. marked for identification as Staff Exhibit No.17. Are you able to ident{fy I f U '- hf,',((k ^ e"c , %,. 4. M et 4 .* M. ' 'r[b.E. ?.
- v,.,' *l.4.
Yes, the letter transmitted to Mouston Lighting and power, Company f4j.i.'a,, this doctzient and its attachments? 5-pI 3 4
- y...,.. g* 1, 7 A.
<c s. q s ? 6 At ,. f f a report detalling the results of an NRC investigation conducted between January 23 and February 2.1971, together with a Notice of Vto14 tion. If* ' ' * ~~ ~ y, l ."u : Who conducted this lavestigation? l 4 ( This investigation was performed by W. L kbacek. Reactor Inspector. A. R. E.14411. Chief. Engineering Support Section and J. J. Ward. Investigation
- 1
.. ;g, 9 Specialist. Region TV. ..T < 7 / M Q. Who reviewed this repert? 'e '.i O b "J g C ,,. ~~.. Uf . ;,' S- , '5 i
- l3
,.s. d
- M, 2
4 .h g I*.* y .e .l e .I n g.g 1 .- m *., r -- -* ,s -u ,p , * ' q s....,~..:.e ...s.,, j....u :. ~ * * - .y .e). i... u- .Q , u m,, s.e t 6 1: s-y' , r,.; = %=4, Q [, * '*,%.y e f,.. ". ; ', 1 ,..3 + 1 d, '. asy. s ). !s p
- f. 71 M
- e.\\'
- m. <.,,y., g.=..y; g
. :nyv y; 134 g e m',-Q.}.,= %.W...,. N 'f' (,1 . s J.Y _ in c :. : J'u + -- .tm .s_.- ,4 .--4 -4 m.m 3... ,,g
o- .c . ~-..:...; _-...:..,.,~- .g._.. .@. w -w ^- O ? l'. : - 4 ~ _n: .-.__m,. x. u r ~ .6
- u.
,n. \\. 14 ?> 3 I ^ -n. I This report i.as reviewed by V. A. Crossman. Chief. Projects Section. l-A. and R. E. Fall. Chief. Engineering Support Section. Region !Y. f.
- Q.
What was the reason for this investigation? A. Betwen January 13 and 22,1979 Region IV recafved several tale. f. phone calls fran an individual who made specific allegations in regard to f. the South Texas Project construction activity, quality assurance program and the Cadwelding documentation procedure. How wre these allegations investigated? ( 4 Q. The investigation team reviewed record copfes of C4dwelding check A. In addition, numerous Itcensee Itsts and interviewed cadweld inspectors. and construction personnel nere interviewed with respect to construction and ^ documentation procedures. f What conclusions were arrived at as a result of this investigation? Q. It tas deteralned fras a review of the Cadweld records that Cadw 3 \\..- i A.. '~I It was determined that this activity affects r enaratnation checklists vers being transcribed by individuals other than the c.2 onstte Cadweld inspectors. s% - * +.,.
- .'-i'
'u . ' E j ?).
- T. ~. &. ;'f, wality control, and accordingly, a notice of violation was issued in coe.
1.: ,O s 4. 5*. t% w. nection with Inspe-tion Raport 79-01 for fatture to provide proce.dures for a. c5 .r, j %', *.y. - i.3f.g :. g,'. ,4 a..t,. y ....r.,.,,.,..,y All other allegations art not substantf ated. -N.->.,.{ quality control activity. 3 The, concerns tacor; crated in Intervenor Contenthe 1.6. are further Y ', ? .S d r addressed ty this report. Did Houston I.lghting and Power Company respoad to the f tas of j Q. I. noncomplianca set forth to Inspection Report 79-017 v
- . ~
A. Tes. p Q. I show yoo e letter, dated March 12. 1979, from Houston Lighting f tion as Staff ('. f ,and Power Campsey to NRC. Re2 on IV. and marked for identif ca 1 E.thibit No.18. and ask you if you are able to identify this letter. 4 ~ ' . 1 i ..,s?, q ,Ih N P 2 3-. ~, a. _. f: p ..h g.e [ 8. .d. e .) .A s I 9 M ~.- .m l s.y ., ~. ' ' l '6' ':-2 e, .,e ).; _.lh5b.2.63.0 .,'*,j .y i \\ .a a wq
i --. m e,,, .n c.,. r...e...* ~ c, r.. . :. T. t.q h vn;;** "- ...
- s t.., ' :. ',. y.... ). '
. ~,:. ~.T. .*; '.~.. ~.' ..n.,.>...',...u ..~.._; .. =. s a :J.w r. < ^" , e.[b.,... .v... e:M2S T.;*M WiM*Eti.ht' *r-~
- -e*w"
~ o " y.e... ^ ~ ~, y. ' ' " ' ~ ' ' '~ " ' ' ^ -^ ~ .c. su; .w _=,__..w..,, , c.. ..u- .a i r 143 40 ^. Yes, this letter submitted the response of Mouston Lighting and t A. Powe Company to the N3tc flotice of Violetten, accompanytag Inspection Report y F9-01. f, Are you able to sumartte the corrective action proposed? L Q. Yes, the Licensee proposed a procedure be followed to control the A. transcription of Cadwelding exanetnstion checklist records. Did the ItRC Region IV conduct a felleuup tmestigattan to deter.. - ' Q. mine whether Houston Lighting and Power Campany had tapteested the tro.
- 12. 1979?
'. ~ cedures it represented it would vade-take in its letter of furth k i .o + s. A. Yes. I show you a letter, with attactments, dated fky 1.1979. te '.B. Q. p/ Houston Lighting and Power Company making reference to Report 79-06 and Are you able to identify ) earted for identification as Staff tahlblt No.19.
- 'g
. c.; 2 ' ;** c this doctnent and its attactmentst
- .d'....i.
Yes. the letter transsitted to Houston Lighting and Portr Company (*a- => (;~*,4.'. p. y, A. y%s:,f;;w*fy-lf,,..sg a report det:111.a2 the results of an MRC inspection conducted betweenp#,,*, 's tr.. f- ' +
- r. *,
~pl"N,..#., p.l * * *Mfa< April 17 and 20. 1979. , sag-b Among the items inspected. was the Licensee's n" ".',, ..'s .+. .7.s ~ e . v 3. corrective action in response to the Notice of Italation accotwanying Report h. V' '.4 !. - ..( 6 .. z., 79-01. I Q .d".:N N.'-Q Who conducted this inspectient 5 Q. .I j This inspection was performed by W. L Ikbacet. Reactor Inspector. M A. , l I, ..,J Region 17. f'~h Who approved this inspection? '.'(gt .Z 0. 1 ".,? 1 hts tospection ses approved by W. A. Crossaan. Chief. Project . h. A. r I 1 9y Section. Region IV. m. 1 l L. y ., ~ ~. 5 t .,f... s.-*
- ". ' p -1.
r e,
- l.
i. h [*a r y
- 3..,
i y } '. ~ i ;,........ - f ,'g'l i_,. ~ .__,,,.m.._ ,j =. ..T, ^ y-7 .e x,,;; .I L.. g ..r. i u g. 4 q;, ,;. y ..t $....,t 7 s.n... / 2.. a
- w..ry h
e T.i., e -: ;) w
- Z*
- tl3.
7,
- a
- ,a
.q ~~ u. _' - l Vf.,,, _,,. ' ' s.< ~4;. ' %.. 7,s ., q., L.. z n_. !- _.e ~ _ _ _., w. q O.,,.Q.g.@, g ,w . :.v g 4*OM_'_
A. ; * -! *: " + 1.. ~...:.'.. .. ~.. ~... -.. - -= *.. - ,e mim&-s=~ %l;.~.:K. .:. J.:.~.'.s,u 9 N,.:4. ;:e.?.-~r ~2t~ m..p x;.,x -j.. 'n . _.. : x-- ~ m m n * # i %.* E.1 :. .. C panh.w.l:.. -~e,.. = s p r w.w.n t .i .c
- u.'+h S E ^ A 'Y*
dL- ' a -Q; *^~" , 2 -x._. ;_. '150 ? 4 1 . 41 i. ,H r Are you able to sumarize the nature of the trtspectica and the 1 Q. conclusions reached in regard to the earlier violettoet ,G Yes, the Inspector observed that procedures had been revised in , y, A. the Cadwelding' precess to include instructions for the transcription of date [. ~ g s in Cadwiding records. i Q. I show you a iester, with 6ttad &u. det: 1;:t! 1h 19?, en 5. L Houston Lightirq and Powee Company asking reference to Neport 79-04 and market for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 20. Are yos able to identify t s ~ - ~ this document and its attachments? (, J - .i - Yes, the letter. transsttted to Houston Lighting and Powe Campay ..;f.1
- 1 A.
a report detalling results of an NRC inspection condacted betwen Mrth 20 p' ,a - 4 '.
- g..-
and 23, 1979 together with a Notice of 1tolation. f.0
- 4
[. . c. j.. O. Who conducted this inspection? s .9.3. ]., The inspection was performed by V. 4. Ittba'at, iteactor Inspectoe. -[ l$. A. L. D. Stibert. Reactor Inspector. R. E. Hall. Chief. Engineering Support {.$ 6 'l - :. d.J, p. q s@%,.g !."*1 [e $,,.h,p', l'. i Section. Region !Y. ... =r. 9;- ./..s r-Ro reviewed this report? ~ c% 7..g s, u Q. c O '; g. n.? ~,. v#
- q f
.T A. - This report was reviewed and approved by V. A. Crossaan. Otef. r. i ? R 2 ' a.n- .i r.. '2-
- .,,2
-.z-h' Projects Section. and R. L Hall. Otef. Engineering Smocort Section. w n, iT '.V4..,, :. pegion IY. t. ..b '~
- f.. 3
'e Q. Wat was the reason for this inspectiont s i !(l 1 hts was a routine unannounced inspection of constructtee activity 5' .i,Z. s A. W. a 4 at the South Texas Project. 4 ..y 3 ..";. m -~ Old this inspection result la any items of noncompliance?. ~ F' Q. ~ *9 .y. 3 A. Yes. on March 22,1979 during observation of concrete placement. c .r..n " ' ;.y T: '.% an !&E inspector observed pools of standing water betneen the toterter fore 1, ~ .;9 A. * $* ,, /.' ..n. ,4
- s..;
~ q. -. =.]&,3
- y...
n e. ..... y?. m: J'.V q.
- ' f,
-l . J. 'i.' ~ w
- %::l.y,
~ .;3.x
- e. m
.~[...,,e,..,,_.,,;..- I ,p . ^* : e% 7 -
- hE,- u.;,
,,,..o. : p*v. a. 3 Y 5 , s.;l.4 . :W 1. N.- 1 2 ~**^.N .fr(. w { v' - .%. t. .s .?
- ...f.<
y <;p% V-v. s
- M,s y
L. W W. R. yyt G..e Yq -'.4 h. Sf.Q.'I-[ l.* ' E '.C ~. [ m;, - _ ' ' -j,* ' 3; ',.%.'... rt .-L .' m w. - - ;,. w w. ? ;, n.. w % -.m G 4 ". y g I - u
- 0..:1.h&' "s 6.,'.4.21
- o-
~ a
EY(hbNtNSMb.~-- r... . ~- s.NbMOA.. . N;.c- ~ -M e... '
- ./.:,.,,'q:
w n...~.... : O O 1 2 " E# ~ bb$2 N ESU '? ' .r. --N.
- :1 s
a.---------^ -- l- _ w. _ ;,. :.; i 1 1 b. . 42 t 1 grow and Root gaality control procedures specify that and the water step. before depositing concrete. foreign materials and standing water shall be r. i la addition, on two occastons, during reoved from the aree of placement. the initial phase of concrete placement, concrete was observed being' moved i.l y laterally, by vibrators, by as such as eight te' ten feet, i Did Houston Lighting and power Cospeny respond to these items of a k Q. nonctop11ance and make certain comettaents regarding corrective act om? I N l A.. Yes. dated May 3.1979, to meC. Region IY. from s O. I she'v you a letter. M Houston Lil ting and Power Company, and marked for identification as Staff Lthibit No. 21. and ask you -if you are able to identify this letter.. h t ...a ~.: J.sy a j P.4 Yes, this' letter conveyed to MRC. Region 1Y. Houston Lighting and + g .. g 2 A.- [ g .~Q Power Cepany's respense to MRC Inspection Report 79-04 and the items of a. J. '.. t. /.s.y w L noncompliance set forth in that roport. k;9 % J.- A - Q.. Are you able to surnartse the corrective action Houston Lighting g,.l ,y e e $ l L y ~ ',-d **,, 4 g. r ;.y N. o;.?. v,1..g' and Power comitted to 45 a result of the itens of noncampilance set forth \\
- 1.M
{ -- e... f=ar k.5, *..,',-r Yes. Hovsten Lighting and Power Ccepany ctrinttted that,a tretning i .f~ . ?.$ ',, in Report 79-04? .> g[,' A ,, 7,.,., e-A. . s-for the appropetate construction craft [., 'f
- t.
- '. "' i, h session had been held April 11,1979. In addttfon. -} pers:mnel covering concrete placement and surface preparation. i,g# ' 4
- r
- i.;
the Licensee represented that additional survettlance of concrete preplace- 'f 3 ment and placeent will be performed to circevent this' problem. Y., Old the NRC Region Staff conduct a followp inspection to verify -3 t .v c
- 4 Q.
it
- 7lc that Houston Lighting and Power Company' performed the corrective action
. 4 , 2.m cynitted to in its letter of May 3. 19797
- m. -
, Nl A. Yes. u-c, '- g_.- ~ f M... ~ arz 8 ..y u . f,n 4.. o. .v. V.. L*s a O Y f,1 w. Q.- ~ '. - > - (a :
- i.w*1,
~,p t w . =. Ja*;. -e , nr., ~ n . K:7 w L .* h s,., n.3 ,~ ) .d.4 .y.. L31 ^ v, . a 9 w M lT.. .g 4 g- ,t m e.q 1 V qd ['
- V r
av 'y "- 7 c.W " - w. 4 " 7 ". .a f,; N(/;/.p*g.5.6'-'J.::." ~ &:C ' ~
- m,,
w -Ls c x_. le:4 w._ _(. '.79, T f ' 00193 01.0.1 1 F.6s.6_.1 m. f.T. ~ ' j.,
.4 C'.d. %5 %.e--. 's :--. ;. na,- 2*f,, s n._ .- M- - -.
- ___w_,
- 1..~ _ -.
c i 1.
- ... a.
15 i J . 43 = ~ ) I show you a letter, with attactments, dated August 3.1979. to h Q. Hou,ston Lighting and Powe Company making reference to Report 7912 Are you able to identify marked for identification as $taff Exhlblt No. 22. a. this document and its attactnents? E-Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting and Power Company A. a report detalling the results of an NRC f aspection conducted between Aly 5 b. During the inspection, personnet tratatng records were restewed and 19, 1979. training session had occurred. to determine whether the 4 ril 11, 1979, What' conclusion was reached with respect to the corrective action ,. [".,- Q. .}.g ' the Licensee represented it would undertake as a result of the Motice of ..W 4 Violation issued in connection with 79-047 - S' the training The tralning records indicated that on 4rtl 11.1971. g .. y session took place addressing adverse consegaences which may result from A. >.c. y.,' a a .. N F,' j j~..' '. ??.f. l s sy, qi % failure to remove water frtu construction joints and frm, over cons 01fdation v.
- o...c
. ; - s-d 1.h f,. L,4. % .' !b 7. n ~.%[ h.;r*.y. 7':p1.., of concrete. The report also deals with the repair cf voids in the concrete y f[.'.. v ,. >S'*,,,. u . t pA. g.a, s.m in the steactor Containment Ou11 ding of Unit 1.
- ..s r. a p
'. i .p s ~-T. (p s' Q} I show you a letter, with attackents, dated April ~
- 30. 1979 to
~ . Q.&. Q. },'_. -ss- .a-Houston Lfghting and Power Company making reference to Aeport 79.C$ an 2 Are ym able to identify P{ - f ' ~ - marked for identification as $taff Exhibit No. 23. .f this deciseent and its attactments? Yes, the letter tranmitted to Houston Lighting and Powe Caspany "N A. l# q i. a report detalling the results of aa MRC taspection conducted between 'dk and 6.1979. together with a Motice of Violation. .- m l vii.' Who conducted this inspection? Q. c ]. This inspection was perfor=ed by W. G. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector. I A. [ -l and L. E. Martin Reactor Inspector. Region IV. t - .y. a, 4
- ^
r 6,. r-
- .w
~~.u h'. -*= ' .,5 r.--,?y.~~-==- g
- . +
w/. 1 i. I -g .1 ..Q r. . ~1 'l 1 e P5 .c:n
- g.
- ? {-. &n N.. j ..QY - ~.._.3,. ; --~ g.: n.: ~.# ?W, ,'. E :.} f.M. q'C '. -s c L '. x: n n g e D. C.i.f.'.6D.6l4.8 i rf:' og .I r ld i
... ~. - o-~=.... n _x a...7..y .-e... .,c : .... :n. _..,g. ; _ _ e m -~ ~ .n -a i ~-a n. .u,. _,.., _ ;;. a. - x _- +.. . x _ U.. _; _*__._ 8 r si Fg%
- d. O d a.
l b 44 me reviewed this report? S ction, This report was reviewed by W. A. Crossaan. Chfef. projects e 4 Region IV. A. .i and R. E. Hall. Otfef. Engineering Support Section. i What ws the reason for this inspectient tion activi. f. This was a routine, unannounced inspection of construc Q. l ment storage at the A. f ties. including observation of housekeeping and ega p _ f lt of this South Texas project. Were any ttans of noncomptf ance fdentified as a resu c ') Q. .t , p.y .l 05 due to Investigatienf Tes. a Motice of Violation was attached to Report 79-P llow procedures for storege yu A. [; Houston Lighting and powe Campany's fallere to fo ation of'nonconformance [. of material and failure to follow processess for prepar t ,[. l i s? Would yms sw:sarize dat gave rise to these vio at on
- h. E ' ',i reports.
. A....(s a .j (4* il 4.1973. the, 2 r. m,
- 7. )
2
- w... ', y. r,M Tes. durfng inspection of the storage area on Apr
%<@ A7 Q.
- - - ' ' "2 e i d to the Unit 1 A.
... v .l fg i
- n* -[,. '.
Inspector observed that the Scron necyete Evaporator store a result of water ~.~ -.. .4. o Mechanical Electrical Avalliary hfidtag, was wet asla addition, as ,' ) i., s ..r. l draining' from wrt areas located above. t Meet Removat pump Ntor E-1 maintenance records en February 9.1979. a Residusction box was obse was found to be wt and the motoe terufnel canne tions* regstres '.g full of water. The Westinghouse
- Technical Manual and Operating Instruc
- ,.?
e dry place and the 1'. + .g'. that the loron Recycle Evaporator be stored la a enr, t the description of Brown and Root quellty assurance procedures regifre tha stabitsh the 3_ a nonconforming condition provide sufficient detall to e te description u:- of events pertatalng to the nonconformance and an accura O i L-G ..t ~- yy a-.. .~~ -
- 6. #
'C 5, 'EE..".. .-f =, .',': } y .i t.. r-V.. 1
- x,;.
c.. 7,.- t D ~* 3, , p 5-4 " 'd [' .'p... .k ?. f.my-w. ,, m,, w_.. - - y .,e y g m - i c;.. ;. . -.. m s u.
- %~A w A.
'0'" '.O.t.l@#,_5! ,( -~ ^*= *.,,
,,:g ?; ., ; & - a.,...': R.
- l ~.
.} ~., [.. ; :.g e.- . - 9,. _, CL.:.w : -
- W.;n._ :. g.
=. 4 .. A. :x - -,. = _ :_._ - I ~ i x .154 e q- ~ t . 45 ~ I the nonconformance.' In the applicable nonconformance report, ne reference was.made to the motor terminal connection hos being full ef water or the-r-e possibility of water being in the motor. Accordingly, these two incidents constituted infractions and a' Notice of Violation was issued. Did Houston Lighting and Power Company respond to this Notice of [' i Q. S Tiolation and make certain representations regarding corrective action? A. Tes. " ,u s
- 25. 1979 from Houston Lighting and
). Q. I show you a letter dated May Power Co pany to Region !Y. marked for identification as Staff Exhibit L- ~ -*w No. It nnd ask if you are able to identify this letter. Yes. this letter constitutes Ituston Lighting and Power Company's [ .g [ ,w . A. 7'. M.~1 response to the itms of noncompliaece attached to 79-05. .? .~ Are you.able to susuarize the corrective action comettted to by n Q. -iQ' ' Houston Lighting and Power? .) n Yes. the 1smediate corrective action consisted of cove *ing the . t s A. .f ', ' *. y 3. l lores Raycle Evaporator with an interie structure that met the storage .c,r.. .:. ~* ,* j.. g4 y...mh 9)$...".' -tj Si May 4.1979, the interis structure was rep 1' aced with a ff 4 ' #p .requireents. In addition, the tJ' durable structure also meeting the storage regatrements. .v s nonconformance report in reference to the Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor was reissued and revised giving a more detailed account of the conditions !? Identified. Also, by memoranden, all pality control and gaality assurance .' ) engineering personnel had been instructed that a proper nonconformance . '.[J..j, report mast include a description of the segaence of events pertaining to ca s Y. the nonconformance. I
- 4..*
Did the NRC region staff subsegaently conduct a fell p inspec. t 7 Q. .,.? n 1 .~. y.- tion te determine whether Houston Lighting and Power had taplemented the ( i19 l n-f,7 * *
- r f',
'w. j a .r... ,J 9
- l *
- b c.
9,'.5j ,- ; f-A N,, ' - ' N ",? q s... 't Q '. c'll ( ',? ; y-4 _' g1 ] 7 3.j. 3,.. e )l ' ; *, (. ,- r' G. q ,.IN- '.
- h*
,.j [.'."; i V. La s g ',r f.4 av fr s
- ).'
. ;wl
- p.,h :.
. '% 4
- M
.y fdt U
- ~- [..
... 'i.[ F. ,,h f. .3 k .u..
- @..Q,6.
2.0.Qi 'P., - J .%A --J u --
~ ..w._-.~. ';;. -. ;.:: - v.' + -..
- ~~-
- *. ~.~.. :. - :;.. . L .: :: m...- ..n, :..... w,'. ; :.,..':. : q' :. - .h. .:a,,, a - ,... w w w :-~ w -- & . '* M ' ' d e " " P' W C ra M,. e - ' m.1
- s 15g y
r - ~ A V. .u.- -] corrective action it represented it muld endertake in its letter of my 25 1 e 19797 I A. Tes. a m 14,1973 I shes you a letter, with attachments, dated hveber (. Q. b and mking reference to Report 7917 and marked fo'r identification as Staff Are you able to identify this doceent and its attactueents? Exhibit Re. 25. Yes. the letter transmitted to heston Lighting and Powr Company i A. a report detalitag the results of an MRC taspecties conducted oetween Octo- ? 6 Among the f ten inspected. the NRC Staff fellowed op ber 24 and 26. 1979. N the items of noncompitance set forth ta 79-05 to assure impimentation. s,i ~~
- . "/u.,l Who condected this inspection?
w 4 h Yhts inspectica us conehacted by W. 6. hbacek. t,. o A. . J P/.4 m e reviewed this taspection? O. A. es,; q. This inspection us reviewed by M. S. Phillips. Resident Reactor .T.,P. Q*.f. ( A. ' y ~ I
- r, ~,/ * ' '.
l [ %.D.r.co.7]* >.f IAspector. Projects Section. Region IV and approved by W. A. Crossess. ':N .,a y..i. g Chief. Projects Section. Regten 17.. ?- X........ I t'.... n .o -~; j g 9 O n .~.. y.- i., ~.p...'.,1. y; y.,.. mat findings and conclusions were made by the Reactor Inspector,
- b.. * ' -
r +... - 4 f .. p' y' e, 7, with respect to the'correc+.tve actica taken in, regard to the items of non-3,1 ~, 3,.J% c. x 7 compliance previously' set forth ta Inspection Report 79 0$1 = .A
- s,..'
" Vi* * - -,' The taspector revtewed the corrective actions described ta the A. L g Licensee's response dated m y 25,1979 and revleued maintenance and to.
- -[. ?
spection records for the to'ron Recycle Evaporator, as well as observing that g ether egipment stored'la the kchanical Doctrical Aust1tary Butiding met
- ,.t.'. R.,
8 . spectfications.
- s. -
.V,.,. s 7-- D.' .y;.,y ? ..-.I . a. y- ,.g ty 9 2 u ~-- ~ V , -: ~;
- '.. y
,l 2 k. .n -.*""...,J,.,;, P'. Y.; 7 , - e 'p,. - Q. - ..5 g., ~ '. ','*.D.4 ~% 3 W s., 7;4 ' u. r. 6 *. u ~ A,. 1 y. ' ief b,p ': t .3. - I.w " n.,. t ..[. L a.- .Y e ( y., P* ' 1 r-; q y. i 9 .i'. Sf
- V L,;' i w.,
,qQ Y. .. a
- * +. *..~;. - ~. g;.... t =.7..., m s. q.N,5 :. - g : y 2:
-...v'a. .-W Y' a.. ' 'm. .-a.'< t. ' ~, .y.,,--y.,. Th.' ~ ..::. ss%@ a. d g$i 6. *GJ ' r i p .Q1Q -Q .M ~
- n. :,w
-~
- ... :.,.,......,..-u;...;,...
- 1:?.Y ' 67C.:..i... ; ;.. '. Q.' y.._ 5 d_...',.* %,'._< f,.:,:. -.
- Q..
.f.....,,.......... M... ..;.a..a.._,. _' x.w.u._ g. w_., g. -.ww w.w 15(o ) i ~ '.j 2 . 47 i.- 4 g I shoe you a letter, with attachments, dated June 8,1379. to I 7.~
- 09. and morted P
Q. Houston Lighting & Powr Corspany making reference to Report 79-Are you able to identify this ( for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 26. 4 document and its attachments! g Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Power Company 8 d betwen.Mey 15 A. report detatltng the results of an MAC investigation conducte and 23. 1971. Who conducted this investigetton? i Q. i l W. G. Hubacet and W. A. Crossman. Regten !Y. s cs, A. "I'Y Whc reviewed this repoFt? .M Q. This report was reviewed and approved by W. A. Crosynan Chief. .s ' 73 a
- h;.s A.
p.gf Projects Section. Region !Y. ^
- k. \\ [
What us the reason for this investigation? s 1 /**'3 Q. m May 1. 2.'and 7,1979. Region IV received telephone calls free. Oa:( W.; S, ~M. 3 Q A. t l '.,'yc'.P.t"(w ty:po. r{ an individual who made allegations that the responsible quaitty con ro h .L g*j'@.; ,4 i 2
- q. : y', '.i /
inspector refused to sign a concrete pour card for lift 5 of the Un t '2 .-."*--*c-, br .U' 4 d Reactor Contatreent Building, and further. that there were widesprea ), V- ] 7 s discrepancies in the documentation of Cadweld as-lutit locations. r ~~ s n .,p How was the Investigation'into these allegations conducted? C )- .) Q. An onsite t'nvestigation was conducted in May of 1979, all wality 'L .f A. i rs . M.. control inspectors f avolved to the placanent of itft 5 and their superv so w d The respenst.' 'W were Interviewed and the pour cards for lift 5 were reviewe. . d ' i *L'd
- {,yj ble cality control inspector had in fact refused to sign the pour card ue e:
l l cement to preplacement debris; however following some additiona prep avisor signed l g..
- g..
preparetton by construction personnel, the quality contro super ...h It could not be estabitsbed whether or not the T %;. the concrete pour card. @l ,j Qr e n t;. p; - - s. ~ .j? - l}' ~ .4 ~ 7._ y.... es=..-_ ,,,k~ 3.:. '** .g m.
- d. _.. :'. ~.
4 I P**. "-.j .L. W.' : ~, +G-t t t'- e . 3.. .n .vs ..,,J + M ir.. s
- m...
] lthe c l.:Q + i[.?.v ~*..
- ^
- -(..
er ..lI h. t (. RCwd 1-.NN(ll.N3 .7QiWG.7p{}sf, g.g35'""'" ' 1 .. f'.[ s - - ~. ;. a.,,. ww :.~i ^ 1 Y;Y$3.6 c m gg i. :n Y .. =
.s;.';,.: iii*4 %.?- w p L. %.c- - ' ~ - ' ~ ~ ' ' ' " ~ ..a__..-_.- -. u.M. ' ' A ~ G - - ^^
- a..,
__.A_ n_.m m. v. 157-0 48 ( 1 2. final cleant'iness of the area was acceptable as it was no longer accessible c for visual inspection. This procedure was not in violation of any specift. e, cation or regulation as the supervisor had authority to sign the pour card. This report addresses. In part, the concerns incorporated in Intervenor Contention 1.7.d. l. i As to the Cadwid as butit records, the investigation team reviewed [ I approximately 30 folders of Cadweld records against information provided in t' Most of the allegation was substantiated, however, discrepancies -1 - the allegation. i we're already known to the Applicant and corrective action was underway. Ia ( p [ +- addition. the Applicant had doctmented this situation by speed letters. i. #.e, l. 3 j dated Septenter 11 and 14. I' 78. This further addresses contention 1.E. 9 i i*. * '. 'U. .Y Q. Was any corrective action mandated as a result of this i,:a ?.>, -F ,favestlgation? t... e ,.,
- 2 7 m A.
No however, it was noted that the Applicant's progress with -% > -hs..;- r-
- r. y d'.*
r-respect to correcting Cadweld records wu1d be inspected during subsequent 1-5 d.;., j- ,.~. A [';'.I. 2 % h: 3 m: :. ns Q 4.& p a 1 ,g,~,',, n I&E inspections. f%"j i NI"'
- .- V i' s Q.
I thew you a letter, with attactments, dated October $.1979, to 'j ?-* , 2 ; 't~ ;.,, - :Q-) Houston Lighting & Power Capany making reference to Report 79 13 and marked .I g Y 'M i-I' for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 27. Are you able to identify this [ .g. docwnent and its attachrients? b A. - Yes, the letter transmitted to Houston 1,tghting & Power Campany a '..] - 7., -} report detailing the results of an NRC inspection conducted between August 8 m ,. t. - and 10.1979. l. -s. . ~.4 Q. Who conducted this inspection? M) This inspection ws conducted by W. G. Hubacek J ! Tapta. A. 2' H. 5. Phillips, all of Region !Y and L. E. foster of Regten !!. { 1.1 s,. = =c .~. >J _._........s p -pg c.. a ,.1 ..y ~ ~. Y:.,. v e.y ,j r..
- 9.,
[..; k .;Y-r.- l ,a I. i t.< .t b 1 s*! s. ce ? ~
- h t.
- . m. - -.~ -
.-r-=- _ --,_. v. ~ - c m m,- l 5 -q;n _x 'M. _t 00133 0.iO.Q36ii6(gj e ,a ^ - - - - ~ '~
__ m. ..s..__ a --,..:. r ~; .l.a .).-.... ~ ww - i-w $E '9 . 49 a 3 p. Q. n o reviewed this report? This report was reviewed and approved by W. A. Crossman and R. E. A. Hall. Reg 1on !Y. ~ What us the reason for this inspection? I. s Q. This was a special announced Hid-Tern Osality Assurance inspection A. to determine the estabitstsient and :splementation of the Applicant's gaa11ty .l..........- assurance program. How was this inspection and review conducted? Q. E An onsite review encompassed review of the QA management s'tructure. m A. i-. procureent control procedures, document control procedures, design control 'P 1 h: procedures, vendor surveillance, audits, QA/QC organization and site ' ~ ' . - f.. n construction activities. ~ What conclusions were reached as a result of this inspectient 1 ., +.. Q. ,,,. +. /.- ~ Of the eight areas inspected. ffve ites of noncompilance were x :'. .4 f,,
- i., '.-i W... ? }M [' *'.*,,(t s i$l';p. > ;
"? = failure to follow procedures for maintaining QA manuals, fatture to follow i l.g., ,.. =v A. Specifically, the Apolicant was cited for its lp -! '. g - *- :y i ' identified in three areas. l cp.--t . 'r ,1 7 4,.~. ;.. ' g vn ::p*;l*{kp[. procedures for performing site audits, failure to f;.itneate ersonizational . 5.. a ~ f changes in the QA manual, fatture to maintain completed endit checklists te ..n 2 4 N:f-the audit files, and failure to destroy or stano as deleted QA procedures no .T In addition to these matters the inspection aise footed q , :e; longer in effect. 0 at Cadweld inspection records and Cadwelders' gealtffcations. , g,5 I show you a letter dated Rovember 2.1979. from Houston Lighting 8 Q. .o Power Company to the MRC Region 17. and marked for identification as Staff .t la' Are you able to identify this docWent? Exhibit No. 28. 1, p.:y N p w r. v l 9.D 'h ^ .u p _;*V .. 4 ...A {y. ..' f.y .c..-
- d,'
- ",?
.7, ?? 1 3 1 V: .'.{ff ~ i* 1,, p
- l. Q
[.- Le
- N r
I l..)% s h~. i r.y . u.c., .. f,.gfuese 1. % %s_.:. - v ;m ~. ;v...,,.1 y" ' c imf..y e-:- '.g,s. ).g ~*
- ;c.
- .5,m..-. -n
,j
- w...
0,2.OA.j_9.6,.,,--~- 37;! 0; Q 1 3,/ =
. 33 ' ~; e ; :,":', ":. _... _ ; g;. ;. l ~.. ' ',,,,.j., ..f_*.3 * *'_ tz. * #.. 4 -q;
- 'L' n _-.
,,- 3. a :."_. s vO M, .m a,... 7 I. 153 i ) .s ?) I 50. I <.s A. Yes. this letter sets forth Houston Lightin propoled corrective action in response to NRC i g & Power tospany's \\ forth in Report No. 7913. nspection findings set e Q. )las the proposed corrective acti [ on deemed sufficient by Region IT ,"? stafff A. No, by letter dated JawJary 31 I nottffed that its letter of November 2.1979 did1980. Mouston Lighting U a of the items of noncompffance cited in the Notice of Vinot adegsate 79 13 olation, accompanying ..J = a z. 0 0.- ~ 0. I show you a letter morted for identification 4 .;%p, so. 25 and ask you *ther this is the istC 1etter of J as staff Exhibit 'G for clarification of the corrective actio .;p%.c anuary 31. 1980, asking -[ Power? n proposed by Houston Lighting & 'ME N. ,s, 4 .~ ,ap P.M. u f A.
- Yes,
.'.c.,.,. m..s ? i '.. - Y)g .., ; M-:..M. (i-." Q. s s .', ry, :2. l .i<..% ^. H' .w. Did Housten Lighting 8 Power supply furthe f* i '+. ^ '_. ~i r response to the Notice y. ]-#d.- ' W,. cp 9k of Violation attached to Inspectfon Report 73131 bg,' ?i ;4 k MIi g.. .:.+ 'A. ' Tes. by letter dated February ( N,'. '. 3.'s.a ;'; i" ' i r q
- 26. 1980 No revised its corrective action to satisfy the St ff uston Lighting & Power
... g ', N,. 3i O..n letter of January 31.1980 conceres set forth fe its
- ' c; a
V O JE 1j c;. 'i Q. I show you a letter from Hovsten Lighting & Pow 1 j Region IV. dated February 26.1980 er Carpany to yp. L A 7,3N Exhibit No. 30 and ask yee if this is the lett. and marked for identificat .i r 1 e&,.,,, Peter sets forth its additional corrective a er whereta Mouston Lighting 4. } ? g ction. ) $.. 7]; l \\ A. Yes. i' -- 4. Did the NRC Region inspection staff ever co d l p,&g 8 2 ?,$5[
- e...
faspection to deterwine yhether Houston Li h t n uct a follows M,.... f
- 'z ;;
g t h; & Poner hed foplemented f N. ' s, 'f. n. 5* ~.,yf.,) ,h -l L ~ '. * ,I .a. 2 e h: e):..,. * ' ,,.....u ; ..~.,......; -- l T g, s r { ..g ,s + 3:f .h ..N., .~;,,,,,, - .... ~ -.y... ....,...__..._...._l
- ".g ; -
~ .cy;7 ^ .c.&: '.: n. l3EA t ** e 5.*;%.j, ~ ' g2 ', Mo ~ i t j.f., ,y c M,,. ' ". 3* ,,,;'. _p, e s t N e,., ., ~ q-y,., 9 .. u., g.' ,a a.s n e.[,M._.p e,;,'%. ~.. a n,..,,.7,w.e.,2. y .[ .n d'
- 5, - -
e L- - .~ ' [i ,*-'
- M -
s , s= '. ' } 4.g
- Q F
-egiFF ._-r ~ '~^ ,.g a:me L% 9
.,r - ...r.. '.~-. n. . ;;., ~ - -;:" ~ 9 '."*.C. 'm.:. 2 . '. ' w:... ':.. : ;;;- :. } : ."r.-.=.-.u ~. - -..:.... ~-.'.u.-_' *...'. -n -; :~~ s. w,a n -.. 1. -w ~~ x-_.e w -- r - ... p.s
- v..
.. ~, - .m >u.- . - ~. 4 lE O% ^**n' -!^, s - ~, - - - m.ou,e. -w.
- w. n.,.
4 160 E .1 . $1 g g -G C.' rp the corrective action' tt committed to in its letters of November I.1979 a and 5ebruary ?6. 1980? A. Yes. t i Q. I show you a letter, with attachments, dated my 19,1980,to r Houston Lighting & Power C a pany sektng reference to Report 80-06 and marbed ~ i for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 31. Are you able to identify this j' doctament and its attachments?- Yes, the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Power Capegy a b A. r report detailing the results of an NRC inspection conducted in April of 4 i, 1980. kng the itms inspected. were those itms committed to in mpense 4
- C
.a to four of the five items of noncompliance set forth in Investigative Report. [. ~ Ah
- 4.y 79 13.
' r. j '28[4 g Q. 2 0 conducted this inspection? ,a '. M. S. Phillips. Resident Reactor taspector. .., j . - -n A. kh, $ E.3 } f NihD ,1., ,.,, ? j Q. 20 reviewed and approved this laspection? ..[/.$ .,i 3 [ A. This inspection was reviewed and approved by W. A. Crossaan. [ NS, ? ? x . -... iy 8
- 9 ' -
$ I-7.* M,b:$. N,' c "1
- k.. Q 1.
ir e Chief. Projects Section. Region 11. . =.dn '..* './, ,.'.s; Y.
- , f
- ,
3 Q. From ycur inspection were you able to deterutne dether Houston ..f ,Q .,'. Tru., [gi ttghting & Power taplemented the corrective action it proposed? S.g,
- 1. !
'..Q '.? Yes. fras a review of the QA manual and audit records'1t ws A. ,o g. .1 \\. determined that thretof the five itms of noncompliance previously set r 4 forth were considered corrected and closed. The Restdent Reactor Inspector k,,., ('. reviewed Section 16.5 of the new QA mnual and found that it described the. .YR k use of supplements for site specific QA manuals. The requisite auditee .: -s ih., gaalificaticas were set forth in Section 15.6 of the QA Manual.' It was M.. further detemteed that the QA manuals were currently revised, corrected '@t.. ( [. sJ l ;, f r, z. i ..s. s n. .:n . '.i. .? Y^-
- Y T
.......;.::..j ~, -p, -j#*Q G .. w'. - 1 (:c... A 2. i ~.' t.
- s r
. <4 u
- x. y
' y ($ = W
- y
~
- f. :..
- y r..
' Y. Y e. Ol4 -i;n " = m. m g = w.~ ;.,:.y. y g m. g. w.,,. g g g.. p r... ~..e. *G .c.. we .a . w -,...x s.w M.6..jg'7s.F... } _O'1._03i. ~m. 00M < c. a L
- Jti.
..-.h... . a ~
..Gl: ~. R ~, '. ... ~. w. *.':: m ~x . ;. G.... . _ 2 a~ .c.-- 2 x~ L - -- w.. ~ . -. ~ - .,__..,:.m_ r:. : x _ a aw- .me -m +". s 161 L .a 1 52 - -'I s and being properly maintained; and lastly that with respet to the afssing 5 audit. Audtt 77 202. a re-audit had been accomplished. Corrective action - relativ'e to the reatning tw iters of nonecup11ance were verified la I&E 1 P Reports 81-06 and 81-09. i ~ 0. I show you a letter, with attachments, dated October 18. 1979. to Houston Lighting & Power Capany making reference to Report 79-14 and marbed 3 for identificattoe as Staff Exhibit No. 32. Are you able to identify this. document and attachments? ~ 3 A. Tes.' the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Power Company a I-i. "E cy,.y/. Report detatling the results of am nitc. investigation conducted betwen O' September 4 and 14.1979 together with a Motice of Tfolation.
- u*i' r
. y. gg Q. 2e conducted this investigattoef. 2' A. This investigation ws performed by V. G. Habacet. Reactor
- f.'.
- g 4,
- g.1 '
Inspector and H. 3. Phillfps. Resident Reactor Inspector. Reg 10e !Y. '.,g._5 / a ... - ' k ' $4 Q. to reviewed and approved thts report? ~ bdF ..s d.4 5-s ..y $ ,. n. p-n'. ' j m .'.% (. :.f [*,'. *~ e6 A. This report tes reviewed and approved by V. A. Cressman. Chief. If Y' V. h,
- ,i :*.
.O
- a Projects Section. Region !Y.
N = e '... 4 Q. Eat us the reason for this investigattos? .i A. Daring the site inspection resulting in 79-13. the NRC faspector ~ 5 1 was informed by Houston Lighting A Power of alleged incidents of intfefdation 2 m r of quality control inspectors by Brewn & Root construction personnel. In \\ i$ addf tfon. Region, !Y received information conceming alleged QVQC trrego. M,. ~.A tarf ttes at the South Texas Prtiject from confidential sources. Information. e.'- Ep 1 l .y contained in this Report directly impacts upon Intervenor Contentions 1.4..
- 1.,
q ? W 1.5 and 1.7e. n.4 2J Q. *How wre these allegations investigated? .R j i... .y h' a 2 .g ,=.. m . :.. g ,..>-,.ee' . * ;.g. ***
- b,-
e-. ....g .y p.. . 'd i M = ~ ';.1 -.a e. a. -w 'L q' d
- h. 5
. '. s R - ~ .x /,~.gs m ~ s,} n v O < 2uJ ( \\ s l \\ ;@@. w g: ~.,'_ r.. v 4e N -- -....,, =,'- '? r " .y. je c .,.; pg t a,----. ...4, .. a.,.,,.4.,-4....w. .g } I 00193 ,01.0 i.g S,t.2,D,
- .e
~ "C
' ~. ..,.a.'- .... ~ '- ~ v ~.
- =
.....T-
- & : n -L - O.
%'-
- W 2_ e ~ f-n
-La _ _ _ . - e s - _ ~ - - .=.y m.Q:n -...__.:..u~ .. y u ~ -_ 162 i 53 - 1 .,1 s An onst,te investigation occurred during Septaber of 19[9 A. constpsction and pality control personnel were interviewed and wality ' control records were t'nspected. e. c-4. As a result,of this investigation, were any ites of noncompliance ? etted? r A. Yes. the Applicant was cited for an infraction; specifically. failure to follow procedures for release of a stop work notice. In addition. L' 5 one deviation was identified for Houston Lighting and power's failure to include the 4ste and' identification of the person entering sup'plemental. I i L information on an inspection report. W Q. Please swearize the allegations and NRC inspection findings .* i
- IS relativetoContentions1.4.1.5and1.7,e; q-With respect to Intervenor Contention 1.4. it as alleged that the t
- d. c[
waterprooffng umbrane seals in reactor contairwent butiding, thit 1. were 3 -lM. Y,q.\\. .v - 4. u.f.,;1..c,,j r %3 E.. ;2+Q..:"2 ' A g.'.,s/:e,5-<yU. installed at night, witMut proper QC 1%rection prior to st:e placement 'af -y - - 1 %.... backftli. and apparently, it has been assumed the sials were damaged. The .} 'h ' ' NN 4.[s,7 Yf h HRC investigation team interviewed five tr.dividuals who were involved or Y 3 }
- s. g
-s . 9 m had previously been' involved ta inspection of waterproofing membrane seat ','s' [r
- All of the Individuals stated that ti.ey had' no knowledge of
[.
- ~
D testa 11ation. c* the placement'of backft11 against the sobrane seals prior to proper compte. t. 4 3 1 o .L J tion of munbrane inspections by quality control. During review of documents t d relevant to membrane installation. it was ' uncertain'whether 1005 giality ,9 . 'T d control verification was required for this process or a lesser degree of ? e ,. f vertftcation. In any event. the allegation as not substantiated and the { i J. inspection procedures were considered unresolved pending 'clartftcation. j. 5
- j
. '} g ,-1 ? '3 a .a y , ' y; - 8 g 1 [, -e y', y, %b 8 e y-9 Q A... (, _ t'a i 'e [$ H .a i i, ' .. q .i i L ~.*y i,- s a... e a F 4
- .O. -
L, 1, ',' ' ' ' 5 '-~7'- ~ *,... .y ?....,2 ; -. - ,-m
- .a.
.e. ..y b , f j
~ .y,. a [ s w _,.: n. ,.m ..m t s __.._m ~ 1 G 3 t 54 4 4,, litth respect to Intervenor Contention No.1.5. It was alleged that 116 Kadwelds were missing from Itft 5 of reactor containment butiding. i r. Unit No. 2. This nonconformance was previously reported to the NtC la g 4 accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(e) by Brow & Root Noncomformance Report S.C2228. dated April 26. Ig7g. The 114 Cadwelds were shown to be is lift r. t. 5 due to errors made by quality control personnel in the frame of reference used to deterutne as built locations. Correct locations of the cadwids j i are expected to be estabitshed'hy means of t'he computer assisted records revlem. iftth respect to Intervenor Contention 1.7e. two allegations are s " E'y 1 First. it ws alleged that tw quality control inspectors wre relevant. L intimidated by five construction persons. The quality control persons r; T . : >;;.y t 7 e .g involved stated five construction persons' threaten than and intended to 'g '[1 S hinder their performance as quality control inspectors. The five construe. tion persons involved dented making threats or using abusive language fa I,9. :.. ~ i Q. q. y.. "{ -:. f ', 4 W., >,4 '.;.V. K '.' y1 direct conversation with the gjality control inspectors. , r -n ti< Further investi-
- J -il~-..
. ;.+ f,.';.
- f. -p '... +:
f '.;. hq.$ ',p p q gatica revealed no evidence that any inspector was fired for doing his job. t a.*V e. f. ",i. 'y, e f. nor that this incident represented a pattern of intimidation designed to (.gJ =! ( y. i - :.,. !. C Further.
- ze.
prevent giality control inspectors from perforutng their functions.
- p..:';.
there was no indication that the two quattty control inspectors harassed fatted to perform their job functions. Secondly, it was alleged that Brown & Root quality centrol inspectors I 'i.l .J.:.;.sl ~ were involved in continuous card games during wrking hours for several. sonths during Ig77. The allegation stated that the quality control inspec. ,Q'V tors left the card game only to sign inspection forms when requested by 'f a g .3:'. .] \\[ . _) c ; _ p. -"N ve= e ~
- t.
~ , ;3-ya .a i g m f. g Q e&..
- A
.~ I 9 W 1 .4,0 p'. ~ i r.g n. I 3 Cj r. O r = .e n ~. d " ~[ %.. r g,.. u-. l..cs ' 4..m,. - 7 .-r'- ~ m, _ _ '/.' l 4'y Wim /
- 0. 0 9 P M.:.. _.).e
_-__d_ \\
~ u.
- *. - b.y ? **: ;i.;Q; -Q.;.9 ;Q.Q._.[.&ff.gi._....R:Q 3...
.g, Qg;, .. a. ~ _a 1 i ... ~. w. M.,,.. _ a,2;. w_ .,=.:.,_ .n J. q :.= 2 w ~ 1G1 s . P I. L e 55 - 4 construction without performing the requisite inspections of safety related wort.* The allegation could not be substantiated. The investigative team 1 interviewed nine individuals do wre present at the site during the alleged However, two of the y card games but none wre aware of the 1977 card games. w individuals stated that such card games took place in 197E. but these persons also stated that the games wre not of the scope alleged and did k i ..not have adverse impact on the performance of quality control inspect ons.. Q. I show you a letter dated November 16. 1979 to the NRC. Region IV. g from Houston Lighting & Power Company marked for identification as Staff s Exhibit No. 33 and ask you whether you are able to identify this document. 1 Yes, this is Houston Lighting & Power Company's initial proposal L A. ir.;l f0r corrective action in response to the NRC investigation of September 4 M-3 ?"'6{*: r-and 14, 1971. -f *.- Are you able to surmartre the corrective action proposed by Houston rg 4 Q. . ~.; j . Lighting & Powerf 4,r. 5v..- .s,c. (,.j L , ;[, r. ,j. a e .( %'*N 3' J A. ,Yes. with respect to Houston Lighting & power's failure to follow . -....,J T.j s. + 27. p . m --.: . /<h?..j ->: '. -. .. b,/ v procedures for release of a stop work order, the site quality assurance 83,g,.. - 6-r, p.% ; o. 2.7 - m., -'. y. m. .O., A - manager ws instructed in the appropriate procedures and resinded of the s = g As .C , ',rj a j toportance'of complying with 611 progran requirements. Ittth respect to the 3. a ;., . h,. y w... fatture of an Applicant oployee to include the date of entry and his name on a
- )j a supplemental entry on an inspection report. the delinquent individual F
confirmed the entry and signed and dated it " late entry" on September 13 t ..d 1979. In addition, an inter-office meno, dated t.pril 13. 1979, was tssved to 3,., , -e all QA/QC' personnel stating that the identifteation of the individual making ..1
- y e,
an entry and the date of such entry are required for all corrections and '~ additions te documents. L. i f y .. ~ b ...y P 1 b
- ,f d.
4 4 r - W a*J y a N ~ L Y..:.*l. .., ~. . ~..s n O '_,a p. . Q, q f,. 4.~ s. . - G-o.i,;q %,r ~... h ,M 2 Je
- d
(.- ,, - p 4, g:... 9 r.4 ~ q .)s_ j = r ~7 l , _,, _-- ;. u
- S
+. _1 puy. '4j e *i , + .9 ,,q. ',.5.'.' w i, y..,, r L. _ 2;.. f, n.'. .Y.U. ,'-S l,Q'a <t
- 'Lgr.7,.
c.:. ;hR) k'.*[h,65 y ) i O.. 'M4 0.h
^. %.:. ' NO ' b , ;..,,:, ; *.yl5$ '.'.Q.s. '; -. 2,.,y.f-y~ :.i. ' t..4. i * - +- w ..1 ,ef .s .**y-y_ twy s. >~. g.,.... g ~.. s-- *;,. v._ n _ . - ui.4. G --J w+'. ~:~-- ^ ...m_._-1.- h _ u - l ~ 3. r ' 'd,' Q.-. . - ~. 56 It r: Was the corrective action preposed by Houston Lighting & power Q. r. f* sufficient? L = A. No, by letter dated January 11. 1980 the NRC. Region IV. asked for edditional inforsetton befort approving the proposed corrective actions. ' Q. I show you a letter dated January 25. 1980 from Houstee Lighting & P Power to the NRC. Region !Y. and marked for identification as Staff tahibit I l ~ No. 34. Are pu able to identify this docuent? t Yes this is the letter frors Houston Lighting & power to Region IT ~ A. 5 supplewnting the Appittant's November 16. 1971 response. b O. Are you able to summarize the suppleretal information provided? s 1[ Yes in addition to what has previously been stated, the Applicant A. 9; reissued instructions with respect to making changes and late entries on QA P '
- le',.
doceentation and Brown & Root QC ;ersonnel were reinstructed on the proper methods for making changes.and late entries on QA documentation. Y.'~ ' : - J a 6* - s-v ll, - ' r.. -y y? ",p#- Did Region IV have ressen to follow up the ctmettted to actions Q. .u g[.l.','.;b.-!4r,W.G >..f Z 3 Y. to deterntne whether the corrective action was implemented? y gg -,,.. - j.h 'e* p q-.2 N ' t-L t. : .~ J A. Yes. .M e m. c-Q. I show you a letter, with attachments, dated Apett 30.1980. to n .. -r . -i.,..,:. Houston Lighting & Powe Company making reference to Report 80-07 and marked [(, ) ?. I for identif'ication as Staff Exhtlitt No. 35. Are you able to identify this ~ document and 1ts attachments? (.e') .1 A. Yes. the letter transmitted to Heuston Lighting & Power Company. W4 among other things. a report detalling the results of an NRC inspection ' :r ,~$ conducted between April 8 and 11.1980. Among the items inspected. were .' *0 those items committted to in response to the Notice of Ytolation attached to i-Inspection Report 75-14. L.. ~. ( ,.c:.w:s l3 - .ry =' g. (.1 n y; ',y 3'c.* ..m =-- e_- -a =p =_ 9 +.=- ? 'i Q g 4. p g n: 5 g-q. , :. ~.m Dr. re a -... g:p
- /. g. - u s
9^3., ..'8..-) .L N . 5, ,f. n- -
- i.A.^.
I. c 8,,V ,e- .p* A N (:, O' 7 r:: Y . AY 'o}l, L % W ~_. : ~ - si t ?_[. ' gm > = W r " = ~ r. .~ ;'L'G. v.W.... y,.,., ~^ ~ ..., ' l %:~.m ,,i. 4;.y:.,;,- '( 1, O'O.i L6.,-. '5 anm s.- s 4 l w -y ~
s [*,,, - ..,...._-.i.. ',' p. ". C ; f.a[,.....:.;. - :.; t i eu. m:." s:t*':y L~.- =. * :.._i.x -+.., r, a - a.' + ~-:&"- -3. ;
- 3: y.;. - : _
~ .... d. E?.:...$.v C J b 'l-% C = O N-W' M M w... n ~ _v :s <J 1GG , [j - =- 7. 57 \\* ~ 5 Who conducted this inspecticaf. [, Q. 1. , his inspection was conducted by V. E. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector. T R*9toa IV c ~ i ~ Q.,Who reviewed and approved this inspectieaf A., This inspection was reviewd and approved by.V. A. Crossmen. s Chief. Projects Sectice. Region IV. C. From your inspection were you able to determine whether Houston L. 1 Q.' 6 Lighting.4 Power taglemented the corrective action it proposed? i dated Noven. ,Tes. the NRC Inspector observed that the faspect on A.
- 13. 1979 by the indivt' dust p
ber 9.1978, was signed and dated on September who had made the supplemental entry and, in addition. the Applicant had I dj prepared instructions entitled ' Construction /CA Documentation
- dated
,~t which addressed the hend1tng of corrections and addittens 1 v. Jannry 30. 1980, n Also, the I&E Inspector ascer-to construction and QA generated documents. $' -(,'d, 3 . & '. E',. j,l,,, ; 4.., tained that the Brown & Root site QA maniser had been taformed in writing' W.O y J
- x., y -
e . e ; d -l1 'd s '.,s%..: 3: with respect to t.Se need for, following procedural rewirements for the f f../3 /' t c.' .~.y ./ w release of stop work notices, (g I show you a letter. with attachments, dated October 19. 1979. to L '. i. Q. {'~ ..,c Houston Lighting & Powe Ccapany mattng reference to Report 7915 and marted a Are you able to identify this g for identification as Staff Exhthtt No. 36. ( ) 2 document and its' attachments? j A.. Yes, the letter transmitted to Houstta Lighting & Power Company a ,a report detailing the results of as NRC taspection conducted betwets Septes. h:. 1 = g.', -j ber 17 and 30.1979, together with a Notice of Violation. 2 Who conducted this inspection? Q. ,J.- I $ ~ z.. s. f, s s. r T. G., e m g 8 .i O .s, l 7 f ** -- 41 f w.{ 's '- -~ %.,,... ', 3
- R,.'
g_,_. s f 49. ED. i 4' j-,-j j 4..s. !. +e -y E,:,' 1 W l .) P$%, -. p,, i ,c. m [ / e i f 2; o* -u 'y s,,*
- s.:
~. -n.m.='.. g.v:' :'m^n' ;.,...;. *"=". "~ m.: n U _**d c.xE ;w.; r. L -j. ' s' ' '" Q (f:,.-
- [ -;Ga
- 5
~
- 9.3M-Q.dd.8}:.
~ i. a u
- ..x D
.3 ~ l% r
.=a g.n. 2- =. -.. n. -m ~_a_ a ~ r _.- _~ n y an ' - - ^. ; _ s.s.C.& h:JM: ~ [J' 1 w< t . sg. v M. E' Phillfps. Reactor Inspector. Region !Y. A. i* w: Q. he approved this faspection and report? r A. V. A. Crossman. Chfef. Projects Section. Regfon 'V. Q. Eat m the reasons' for this la'spection? s*' A.
- s This us a,rovttne faspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector h
of safety related construction activities, facTuding the placement of e i-I contafrenent structural concrete. ( 3 } $g i Q. As a result of your faspection. wes' the App 1(cant cited for any ,i-I ftens of noncompliance? N, 1 5 'A. Yes, the Applicant was cited for failure to follow concrete I3 'ecnselfdstfon procedures in that during the placement of pour No. CS2.V7 h{ 13 in the Reactor Contalt:nent Building, one'of the vibrator operators us not i - vibrating the concrete properly in that the vibrator did not penetrate ~ ,:y g .../ . ? t copletely through the'vpper layer and at least 6 inches into the next A. %~ I-(,(?p ?: ..*,f, 3," ( r ',( 1 cur layer to assure thorough binding. 'This was in contradiction to 3.,, K. -- % 4 k s >.o i.j 7..i J. ~
- v".'.e spectfications and constituted an Inf: action,
- (? %4 -1 3 is; T' 'h = r* q. I show you a letter to NRC. Region !Y. dated Movember 13. 1979 4 T. . h*2 'i .-.v_ r.
- %7 i *~ z from Houston Ughting & Power Cwpany and marked for fdentification as $taff 6s ;
1 Cxhfbit No. 37 and ask ff you are able to identify this letter? ,d 1* A. Yes, thf s letter sets forth the response of Houston Lfghting and -? Power concerning the Notice of Violation acezpanying Report 7915.Mouston y',",' Lighting & Power Comparyr did not propose corrective action, as it contended ? its vibrator operator was performing his job according to speciffcations and j '.u n.'c 1 ~ that the f ten of nonempliance us a result of a misunderstanding and I i ly overreaction. '~ + i ..i
- .a C-e
's. ~ ..{ Q i '; -- ~ ,t.' ' i, ..n -8 s. c.- e P.' d.' t v .. s'~ L. 1 'ie .'I' 9 T t. Y< t., 3 F_. 9 i .. l. b" -r. .r.. a w ~ m "' ' l. , y yiurF' , ;D[.. v..-. _2k'..'O L --- - F ^ .w-.,
- u.7,..c
+ " ' ' - < ; f,,. '. ? T.wY.] ' ~ s -m (- ...w ,"1
~ -.-. - ., ^ ' ~ ~ ~,'- ' ~W~
- ~ ' '
' ^ ..%s..... ..s - : ;enf.*.Lu:*~S D)C:M S T M m.k W % ~i i -* :- L ' ^' ~
- a ~c
..-s6--- 16a t I 59 I show you a letter from NRC. Region tv. te nouston Lighting & Q. Power, Company, dated January 24,1980, and marked for identification es Staff Exhibit No. 38 and further ask if you are able to identify this. I A. Yes, as a result of Houston Lighting & Power's letter of Movember 13. 1979 Region' !Y concluded that additional infomation ins { j i It us concluded that Houston Lighting & Power's response did required. not address measures that will be taken to assure tocpliance with* concrete ~ consolidation procedures. In addition, the Region did not concur with .y. the 4plicant's position that the particular iten of acacompliance was .- 1 the result of a misunderstandings or everreaction. ~ Q. .I show you a letter dated February 12. 1933 from Houston Lighting a 3- , 27..=, & Power to Region !Y and marked for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 39 ,. c [' ) 'y p..,' ( a.~J ask you whether this letter sets forth the additional corrective action .[ [hh na-~- L# fQi.;T y g'g' A A, :.,% proposed by the Applicant. f.L y 5.i i; p .h. c L- , e 'h,P5%.1 A. Yes. b 's.[ ' s .1 t h./ k, s,, f ,6 '". v '. y ' %,h Q.. Are you able to summarize the proposed corrective action? a. Yes, the concrete placenent identified in 79-15 was revibrated to .f j I. i O Ii. :- d A. s p the satisfaction of the Resident Reactor Inspector. and further. Brown & Root ' t '. '. constmetion personnel were to be retrained every 90 days on the basis of lil current vibrator procedures. -) - Did the NRC Region IV, have reason to follow up on the Appilcant's R Q. I. representation to detamine whether the proposed corttettre action had in fact a occurred? V.:.. A. Yes. f. I show you a letter. with attachments. dated november 8,1980. to Q. Houston Lighting and Powr Company making reference to Report 80-24 and 7 b ). - V g n. .m y, m .n 9 -I I ~ f ",- ~ .'Q. p 9. l.- Wi*.* * 'S " V 5. f ~. m - ] '~ I c L'{
- . ~. 7.. = y Q. ~_.Q. '., W-) ' :' '
,..o.0.i.P.6.9. slo; ] mim 'i .w 9. .a
~ W M.M- .. 2 2........MGi=i::.i5h % -MNS@b @ MWLW'L=aP J 1 , ww2e _ a n, a. ~- - & ..u : c
- - - -. =..
163 ' 4 50 w t. marked for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 40. Are you able to identify -i ) this. documents and its attactments? Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Power Company a f A. h report detalling the results of an MRC inspection conducted between August 18 [ and September 13. 1980. Among the many items inspected within this report f were those 1taas counttted to in response to the iten of noncompliance set forth in Inspectica Report 7115. ~ ~ ~ -- I - ' ~ ~ ~ D niho conducted this inspection? O. J. I. Tapia. Reactor Inspector. Engineering Support Section. Region A. IV and D. P. Tamitnson. Reactor Inspector. Region 17. t niho reviewed and approved this report? s a -o .l'.) } Q.
- 18. A. Crossman. Chief. Projects Section and R. E. Nati. Chief.
A. ..-jf.' Engineering Support Section. both of Region IT.' t J, ,Q nihat findtags and conclusions were re' ached ta reference to the = Q.
- ~ '
7.}.E../.k,. ' 's 4.-. m ~ (f g;s S, ..l j ttaa of noncompliance set forth utth 79-15? ^ %,f . * - ( ?.s. - t.R.%.., .It was inspected and confirmed that Brown & Root regatres all....~ j. 2'. f d.kh # i /N. '., vtbrator operators to be retrained every 90 days and incorporates the [p' v;7,J r, ~ i A. 3 *g h;.h.-
- .f. 3.;
+m.e . ~ -
- .g tratatng requirements contain'ed in the American Concrete Institute Manual.
f.a9; ~ 4 g t 'c,, c y., d ! 7@
- 12. 1979. to f.. '.-
I show you a letter, with attactments, dated December O. .J.' u*' Houston Lighting & Powe Company making reference to Report 7916 and marked s..y w for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 41. Are you able to identify this document and its attac*eentst ~ .f- -{. A. Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighttag & Powr Company , k..=. a report detalling the results of an RRC inspection comhmtad between ~l.b ' v,5 October 1 and 12.1979, together with a Motice of Ytolation. ..,.. e v.q -
- j y,-
~- h, ,I ..~. 8 ,9 e. ~ ,'I r.. f,,; c y ,a- ,N )
- g
. c...q ..?
- s..
,.n t I 3 . p.. ..r.'.
- -*g-.-
g..' .[ b,,. ,.g,'. c;. '.s... ... ;s., Dk 4, p r.v I,O'. ' s e, G. .. f ~ Y E.... .C ~.. ^ '. l. '4 q (*. s. v. er s. s.. t
- %y
', r * '.' A *; %. ~ J, W~ *. ',.. = r. 4 , m ' p.,,,r.. m'.= n...,.. W. =
- w. ~,,Q,. T.,
') a .. r w . ;., *,- r ' ~~ e
- . ~. +. S. 3 l-l_
. L : a u'a & so.: 4 r.'.Q 0)1% O'.4C'I.IK6'%.i.G .I ~ .. ~ E i 3
. hl _h. N ..k$ Y) $$KY.0$2li','Y',b' $ 'E Y5:$. A.h ~% l* Y.; & ~.' Am kb, s . e, 1 ,,,.,:;..... l r w-LO. ' - ~ ---.s.... _.. ~. ..~._ ex. ~ w - =.,. _ - -<._. ( j c. L ~~ a I 31 x.-) m o conducted this inspection? Q. p M. 5. phillips. Resident Reactor Inspector. A. Q. Do approved this inspectten? W. A. Crossman. Chief. Projects Section. Region IV. r A. What gave rise to this inspectice! Q. This ws a routine taspection by the Resident Reactor Inspector of A. safety related construction activities. ~~ t What was the nature of the item of noncompitance identified as a i Q. L.- 9 result of this inspection? Based on the results of the RRC Inspection the Appiteant was cited k., .'. T" t .'-??( for its failure to include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance , A. ? v f.% ' *f,,% criteria' in instructions. procedures or drawings. This was deterutned to be 9 y- }w;$ j an 1afractton. a Would you set forth the bests for this tafraction. 5,=. a., * ' ;-M. r,. Q. the Reactor Inspector observed the g.%, \\ N M A. Yes. on September 17, 1979 (h,, '~ . ;4's -Q.~ - .a h;.! -N '... %, 4 The Resident Reactor Inspector found excessive -<i. placement of pour No. C32 W7. e h :v[..- Y..' '.. p'.. ' free standing water on the prepared joint and closer examination revealed a
- ~, d
- g..gf.
g, ^; ~ .y y The Resident Reactor Inspector also determined p y,:z. significant amount of water. h. that the spectitcations and procedures failed to give quantitative er 3 2 '... -, : :';.; ~,.. c. 5411tative acceptance criteria to define what constitutes the saturated ./ j surface dry condition. in regard to the amounts of free standing water v ^ W present prior to concrete placement. ... Y, I show you a letter dated January 15. 1980, from Houston 1lghting '%,v. and power to RRC Region IV. and marked for identification as Staff Exhibit-' Q. $ *( Ro. 42 and further ask if you are able to identify this letter. m .. 1[f ..+ '4 1
- f
- q e
- r g
.L'. 3
- n. \\
.,e ,4 ~.. ' Q %,d.l. V
- M
- n ~ - c. -.
' % q.,. n..a..a.
- p.,.
-cr,. .v . f.. e? ; , e- ~, ~.y a, J
- r W
'.4'. t h[ .,?.s G- -.gm W.. jg.N t.. +: ' -s L.. :. ~ ~s .i;% er. ,,f s. e T,,',> m b ( j_ s .v._- .~ __.u h 4. w'.r..;; .g M O'.iO.yA6h,.Ed2
- g M
.,.:=.~.-e.- a,,,.c,,... ~.s J. .cg. m. a'. .y. .~_ .r . a 7.,m.... y m.,.m ,., y _u.m... -- - ....n.. .t r ..je r. 8,3
- e.... -
t..,. 2 .o.._ _ _ uhh 3 s ahm " ^ - ^... .? = m. 1 seeO.. 7 62 q u ,.s r 0 A. Yes, this letter submitted Houston Lighting & power Company's propoJed corrective action as a result of the Nottee of Violation attached to F 75-16. / I Q. Are you able to summerfre the proposed corrective action and state L..
- i whether it w s deemed acceptablef n'
1 A. Yes. the App 1tcant stated that the Brom and Root concrete construction spectftcations were befag revised to state that no standing water will be allowd on construction jotats unless it is documented and - g 1 approved by the Construction Engineer.~ Mowever. Region !Y did not consider the Applicant's response to be sempsate, and accordingly, by letter dated j, 4 J.e t March 3.1980. requested addittoal information in ngard to the criteria ..g c t. ..i.'4 <<c..', for engineering action. F t a b. z'.' ( Q. I show you a lettse dated March 3.1980 and marked for V identiffcation as 3taff Exhibt No. 43 and further ask you 'if you can ' [' y,f ~ .':f2 a. identify this a.s the NRC. Region !Y. request for additional information. d s ~ . er; .....? i(- ?.Ol -I(:'.'2'{W,%.\\E?.4 ?> JA-A. Yes. ~ e V' d. 5 .'g.)r y M (fg n 2 + ' F-%.; M g J?p;.e ;s. M.; g-d 0* .! show you a, letter dated Aprfi 2.1980, frca Houston Lfghting & 4 v O hi s ]s ,.,@,':...G : rD .+ 5 Power to the NRC. Reglen !Y and serked for identiffcation as Staff Eahlbf t k No. 44 and further ask if you are able to identify this document. .s r.: ,s t i ...y.
- T<
- 7.. ;
A. Yes. this letter sets forth the addittenal corrective action -t '1.. "8 requested in the NRC letter of March 3.1980. 4. Are you able to summartze the additional cornctive action
- .y.
proposed? 6 L ' $.m,.. i A. Yes, the troun & Root quality construc,tfon procedure tes to be r revised to state that no standing meter will be allowed on construction ' f ,,v s. _ i . t.. 3@7, gg .'* 1 ; , ~ - .?.. ~ I - ~.. -...*- .9 ..a . i.h. : s .9 p L'.:. ..-a. . ~. - a. e- ~ a a ,, ej
- 1. -
- G; Q. ;.,,
.. v.. .? ~. l.', ..s5 4 l w -. ~. l '); +g s -. -+ O - = ..p \\" u .7 .<.e.
- c..c
.2 xy ..y
- r. '.
,e . Q.,
- t
..W' -Q .) ,LQ
- i. w e
l c:. > l., ',f r-l~ W =.*W" G- . m.-.iq v.*.T.m; W - S Y
- 24 m,
. u _ _ 3 a %.:M - :y z% '.'.., %m.c.w.ix~w '^ " ~ ' A. ?-- - -~ +.; 9 a'. a o w .w M.m.
- f-p dj 0 '..
hh s, ~... m. ~ ~ -
~ '~ " . g _ r, y'.,,, E.- f,. ~ _ _...y ;., s ., i.?_,M *.4 '. * *? :!nlu? r '*e-^ ~ ~,, ' T w_, - r v Ay.- ~ l. ~ 1'"/.,). maa.d ' mma a f affected personnel o . 63 = scheduled to taform f addition, training was the proposed f joints. In e reason to follow upwas taplemented? Old the RRC. Region IV. havif such corrective action the thange. 1980,to action to determine ts dated October 28.,80-25. and marked Q. corrective a letter,with attachmenence to Report ify this Yes. A. I show you r Company making refer Are yee able to ident Q. hsten Lighting & Poweas Staff Exhibit e. 45. & Power Company M for identification itted to Houston Ltshtingducted during ts? document ard its ittachmen Yes. the letter trensmof an'RRC inspection concorrective I*- actice d was the attached to A. results .e k ng the items inspecte of violation 4 a report etailing the / d
- ,7
, Jg 3eptember of 1980. t following the Notice , result of this ' ~.,, h, proposed by the Applican reached as a u e. and conclusions construction $.s, (,4,,y,-)','>.h were e: [ ' 73 16. What findtags
- [,.
ta (6 W,. V % iew of the gJality concremarmal. spectf tca11 3 I f',' C>.*Ya I '.E,. Q. / '{ b, '[f.g.FC ', J. ? It was determined by a revber 22.1980, that t 1&E Reports -.?- Q gM 19Q inspection ilthin the / W 1 s A. 'l.. <, *, procedure, dated Septen criterts was ble to characterfte the - + 18.$.10. the acceptanceconclude. is the panel a ts that subject of this testimothis testimony reflec ~ ny? To Q. i led to the which were the reports,tacorporated ndich east directly ~ 79-19. .i Yes. The activity ..7 A. spection which prepared d enforcement aspect of the RAC's in inspection teamon this inspection anhting & Powe ,N l formation of the speciaIn sunnation the. based upc ( n l Q. l able to / f history. is the Pane i M v. /' e,? i + ~ '. / g l '; _l s 1 8
- h..,
,.,...' ~,,..,.
- V
'M s., s .' '*{ # w*f s -\\ v/ .6 l
- - l
$: ~
- i.
y e e .) T,j, O 'M f' ' ' q p,"'. ', ?_' s\\ r
- f A
k@ n; V -~ r " v_ rgw*. ~. ~ '. .py "4 3 *, w. ; -..'.
- T,;g.
,1 pQ~ ~.
- 3
,,,7*% t a [} 44^, Q.. v ' 4,g --
- hl
~ T / .N / . - > ~.= -m
.~ . = - .a w:s - .n.x._,.. L.-
- .,._~.-._
.n ~ o 1 e-. 9(e) ' (, 64 l i t ? performance under its construction permit for the South Texas Project up to ~, l j the-fall of 19797 [ p. 2 A. Yes, although Houston Lighting & Power uns cooperative and diligent in correcting l specific problems when cited, the sane or sistlar prchless eventually resurfaced, evidencing Houstee Lighting & Power's inability to control construction activity. for example, on November 4 ,1979.* the MRC again received allegations from workers at the South Texas Project concerning lack sf management support, threats and harassment of In civil QC inspectors and general charges concerning the QA/QC progre. L. i t l f ilure to follow concrete pour L , addition, repeated Cadwelding prob ems, a 1, . procedures and QA/QC probless further evidenced Houston Lighting and Power's L; 4, f(( ' inability to control constructien activity. 'c What was the result of Houston Lighting & Power's inability to [ '.. '
- .1 s
Q. y'. , %y,,* si, / W. 5 T "l,'; 3 '*f- % ~ prevent recurrance of identitled problees at South Texas? 1 .u .. 33 e a !: =..... ~ A. As a result of Houston Lighting & Power's inability to correct p,,...( ; ,#1; =x, f '.,f. fg,* %q'... W.},
- :D,.s[f a.J '.;
- Mi
.I,.
- ' 7 ideettiid problee. and pa*ticularly as a result of chronic allegations E,,'..
.r-
- 4...',. f.y i
%. ' y,'.,, " ;) 4-Tt7 ', concerning lack of QC management support. intimidation and harassment of
- a
) e 5 '- e P ,,3.,;. cj ' p,
- geality control inspectors and the Itke. it tes decided by the MRC to conduct a thorough, in depth. Investigation into the effectiveness of the f.
i QA/QC pregram for the South Texas Project. t .Q.. Is this Panel prepared to offer test mony concern ni g that i I, inspection effort? , a,. A. No. this is the subject of the next panels testimony.
- !,
- M
- ep'
.x s : .s 12
- 7. ;.j l w..
~ 1' b. .. - 2.9 i. [.. s t .jt .f. i n f __m_- .,.a. I g ,} ..Q._. ;.. 2,. - > ~ -
- 1 y-
..r. a 4 . q.'.
- ~.
- h 4
4 ...l i .f,3..
- -t Ij V
,t {*' O i .I E".. 4 c., L. L b
- .,qu2"w
.~..w.c - -- m.-a ... ', '- n. :, c n MW. L." l
- 1. '
x_... n..m a e, n a A >- a +ww&.,5; a-- &g i O} O.:Q. 6,; A ~ .s 1 ~
- ~
s. .- -..~ p : y. }.;[.,:;..$*l .;:gy. l..acy:L "... -. h : :~.- v -. :'...
- T--]
t _ _. ~. _ a .x- ~
- ~.<n.
.c. _ : : _ _. w., -:--c x a,.- 3
- 1. -( '1 E '.
APPEND!I A ign.st CmcMotoGY Or InsPECTicMS--SOUN MAS NCI I Docket Mos. 50 498 and 50-499* L General i ~~ Area inspected Dates inspectors _ Ln:pection 73 01 November 8. 1973 R.E. Ma)) Predocketing QA G.I Madsen Management Mesting 1 74-01 June 5-7. 1974 v A. Crossmaa Predocketing QA L R.E. Hall Inspectton. .I R.C.' Steiart i Initial Inspection of .,P 74 02 October S-11 V.A. Crossmaa '1974 R.C. Stewart Construction QA ,r W.G. k bacet Program Implemenitation
- 4. !
s, ..r:, Followup of Initial
- 3e <%
3. 75-01 February 4-5 M.W. Dickerson + Constructica QA W.G. hbacek ..Q 1975 Inspectica Second Pre-Constructice .,c.. 75-02 March 17-20 V.A. Crossnam
- y(.
1975 M.W. Dickerson Perett/5ER QA R.C. Stewart Ins-ec* ton g*. '., ' y"O .a.'4-i,...,y M*\\ 7,.. h '. g,'*. f d Second Pre-Ceostn ctica -i.* a V.E. kbacek .. -:w - ", J'..)f ? a r %; : L. ' 7l fig.2,4 }_i yp 75-03 May 20-22. 1975 W.A. Crossman .. s.v M.W. Dickerson Ferntt/5ER QA -( p-i.F '*p@Q;.CD:Q'%. G' p ~ '..'g Initial Environmental i."4 P*'. ',2 Inspecttee j,.g.. f. 3' ,e " '.g.t.i f .R 75-04 September 25-26
- 8. Nrray Programs and preytcus 1*
-n '*.i y _..:- (d, 1975 inspection findings
- ,,s,,
t.c,7,., t ;. - -4. M.,. December 15-17 M.W. Dickerson Site Preparation 75-05 U.S. Whacek 1975 .j 76-01 January 29-30 J.B. Baird Environmental Protectton '.i. ' i 1976 e.' .: /, v.A. Crossnan site Preparattoe 1976 M.W. Dickerson
- 7.. '
76-02 April 21-23 and Constructica ..s. , ',e H A.B. Rosenberg ~ ' M.JL L. - =l .n -1 9.' a A,
- All Inspections relate to both units 1 & 2. unless othersetse indicated.
g; ~ ~ ~ ',,, ea .'?> 1 - :.1 e ? .i., , T T,
- 6... - '.
-1
- ?.,.
> :.u 4 s ..y, ~. L. .~ s . C, "j ~.. v a,.. .s .w .a s*'l ' :j,:* : Q-.. e
- .w.
~ .,o lv ' .. s S.' ^ !:. -.1 .- l?.; e. e k-e . w. v. u.:.::,y ..+..,=.,:~ -. ;- -.=,.,..: =. =w.. sr= - .. -. v<. 0.8 m- ~- .,r.m a, O A - n% i g.4.61 _ y y 01Jj 215 .&9 1 .a -H'F'- OM M
.,.g ::l:.3...;.j.... ':.5,y g. ~. ~:.13_g,,y,
- .a.
- n...
- y...
p .J':,m :. _ _. ' +., -, %2.., -. *'2, ~;jf '.y. . e,:.l a
- -. =.S.
- a _ _ a.: w._ : _ k c
-i '- - - . ?-2.a x h._ 3- .L l' d c -!= b. L humi L inspection Sates inspectors Area taspected 76-03 A ne 16-18. 1976 M.V. Dickerson Site preparation. R.G. Taylor staffing and concrete construction e 76-04 August 10-13 R.G. Taylor Structural ceacnte [' 1976 and previous fe-r- spection findings-76-05 September 2154 R.E. Taylor Concrete construction 1976 R.A. Hermana 04 progren for con. t tainment ifner i* r 76-06 October 4-7. 1976 R.E. Taylor Concitte construction 1 76-07 november 30-R.S. Taylor Contatreent ifner. ~ ~ December 3.1976 A.B. Rosenberg concreta records. J.I. Tapia backfili placement 1 W.C. Seidle and previous in-y spection findings .M
- 6. :
2..-} 77-01 January 3-6. 1977 R.G Taylor Contatnnent Ifner and ?- .m F R.C. Stewart concrete construction gR J.I. Tapia 'and previous fa- . y{.. .n spection findings- 'Y . !. ': Y~ 77-02 January 27-28. J.R. Batrd Envirovemental J-sd. <3.c 1977 protection 7 q.,'. '. '...*.1 '.. I ,.s i 77-03 Unit 1 February 2-3 W.A. Crossm n Investigation of is,7. s % c.; 3.. tt' j., :. 1977 R.G. Taylor reported falstffca-ce y ,. /, T.' y J. ;. .. ;
- i d tion of test records L.r-
'2 . d' ',+'t. f. ' r, ;, p . fi ; 3'f : * ~ F-t' struct1on _ j,. j. = for toncrete con- - V' Tf.tg L W.QXf ---~- .e.' 1 s . !4..%.. %..a$ X *.Lj i 77-04 Unit 1 February 15 and R.G. Taylor Welding activities. ~ ' - m. n .t.. March 1-4, 1977 I. Barnes and follow-up of -3 . d. g,. A -d.1 A.B. Rosenberg possible construction 6'O w. ..,M.: f (': t f :,N deficiency related to 'I' '. ? cracks in Feel._. i. . d.,. Handitno Butidtng E5 wall and previous inspection findings ,4 t. 4... 'y 77-05 mitt 1 March 28-31, 1977 R.G. Taylor Follow-up on fewestf- -y'.; c-' R.A. Herran talement ifner. Cad. R.E. Hall gation 72-03, con- ' Jj. ',"r' telding and previous Inspection findings c M.2 < - t 77-06 Unit 1 April 26-29,1977 R.R. Taylor Backfill records. 77-03 Unit 2 J.1. Tapia concrete constrwetion d and prev 1ous 1s- .".ffe %.[. spection findtags a1,.. "j. s i g.j. .s u y.i j;. '.() L.. 'e. a .... p 7 . q, e... -. ., s. c.+. ~ - j .,g ,..- Q .e ~ g. c ~ .. - :.t -a. 9,
- 3
.-e. ..s. I f._3 .*, 5.. h I'41 . y' * .n ',5_ J A r.-
- 4. G
..,.1 Q.
- Tyy Y
.g y. u M i '] U .fp ,,;,.y! -m 2 - x.n . c wn-. -.... r -m ;.,.-. n :. ? . i. T. 'Y E.) -
- ~..-.-.-
[ gg bb ), ' b}
i .( Q,yj . ;,,,., [__ _ 7..,..,,...,,.,j,-j.:..(.,,, - I... 7 M'R .mu._.a .A,. ,. ~ - .~.a_m..- ...m.m., ~ 1b, g / .4 y T s. 3 Geneest s.: faspection_ Dates inspectors Aree Tassected [ C 77-07 thtt 1 June 20-22.*1977 R.E. Mall Caduelding. can. m R.A. Hermann tainment itner and E. pool liner and previous inspection C fladings J 77-06 thtt 1 July 6-8. 19 n R.S. Taylor Investigation of J.E Festar alleged threats to i essality control inspectws 77-09 thtt 1 September 27 30 R.L Taylor concrete construe. C U-04 t>tt 2 - ttn A.B. Rosenberg tion, containment L.D. $11bert liner, site fabri. cated tanks and L $ 1 - d previous inspection 7 findings -{ r 7710 thtt 1 October 25 28 E.8. Taylor Licensee audit. U-05 Unit 2 1977 8.L. Ralley reports. R553 ^ c supports and pre-. .,Q e1ous inspectton .a I;T ,.,j r-
- ,;,,+.
findings ,r...7
- .
- , ?
7711 Imit 1 Movember 8-11. R.S. Taylor Stnectural steel. n n ,J U.06 tktt 2 ISU R.A. Fefulne er.atrete construc. ,5 Gg .W A.B. R.25enberg tion, polar crane @[a '.U.,1, d... Id v support brackets .),. v. M .7,5 '. ;;..a,*Y % ' ' ' j. i .,.. %. ova and prevtaus in. spectioe findings F.%,%. p. .d,a..j:_ 3r 3,;..~ f 'f. I J%[_Rg9f 77-12 t>tt 1 Moverter 29-R.S. Taylor Design review, QA .d' r. 4 %.. *c.,;
- ..s r *,' E U-07 thit 2 December 1. ISU progran evaluation W g,J.
'-~ C.. r casustttee and audits " # p. i -"., PT * .a t ! ..14 u.'+~. x .b M.13 December 19-21 R.S. Taylor Repair of strucutral '
- E # E U-04 ISH L.D. Stibert steel coluusts con.
5 u' r. tatrunent ifner. con-I- [ f.
- 6 b
? -fi ~. L J 'W' crete records and ,L 3 1 previous inspection ?- .q ~, findings U-14 thtt 1 December 15-16 ' R.S. Taylor ' Investigation of 1.. t t.' b U-09 Unit 2 ISU J.J. Ward alleged swestionable / '.. l;, radiographs 7pg ~ 'M 78-01' January 10-13. R.L Taylor Repete of structural . 3 1974 J.I. fapte steel columns. con. N -'i V.A. Crossman crete construction, i.:, W.G. Ihbacek and contatraent liner e j 'c.M w a.,. v.F V. .a . ;p .u .c a.: n,..... .s .n. ..,v .)e . ;*e,.: a .=- - ..,cq ... a. 2, - ~~ .M. 3 ...y
- .c...
..~. n u. -X - i, .= f.- - .,v e. ..+ s., x u'.. ap... u s. W ".; .d, e.3 K _.i.n.
- e.. <:.
.i
- s..;a
_ _. ~. ,A.. .s. Le ' - -. = ; ( .A . --. R6'. wt16 4-0019af .O.'.1.0.4 .. g i
- .2a g
.J .c 'W
4 .V.; 4... f i 4 . - ~ -= : L _._ _w _. x:w. _.. ._.g 1 .L Y / ' ', 4 General inspectori m ed laspection ja.,tti 78-02 January 25-28 J.S. Safrd Enviromental Pro. 1978 LJ. Everett taction program L 78-01 February 2124 W.E. hbacek Concrete constru. - - 1978
- R.S. Taylor ction. 5553 9.L. Kelley componentsupportsI
- ~ ~ ~ ~...... Class IE electrica cables and peevious ~ inspection findings e 78-04 March 21-23 W.L bbecek Containment. liner. A.R. Rosed erg concrete mostru. y 1973 L.D. Stibert ttion. foundation 0 4 J.I. Tapia . soils, and previous l inspection findings [ i Investigation of al. i 78-05 March 21. 1978 J.J. Ward W.G. hbacek legation that indi. g-vidual was a poten. ? tial scapegoat for l improper procedures .'; c '~ .s 'h [ 78-06 Aprl) 4 7. 1978 v.t. h bacek Review of previa:s Fi <.2 i T.N. Cox inspection findings N.5. Bassett and meeting to deter. ~ b s. 7 - 7:4 sine status of con. struction C v'i.T..^ ..t, '. At 4 78-07 April 17 20 V.C kbacek Containment liner. h.p / (. y/ .9 ,5 ? 1978 A.S. Rosenberg structural steel. yf
- 4.. v=,, : s r * ',
. i L.D. Gilbert concrete activities. . '.-.f T-4 inclementation of ys.3 'T' ', 'I,. ' ' ', '. i, t5 10 C.F.R. 21 reeJire.
- O.
c' s sents. essential 5 af + h e ' r. cooling water pipe 3 i : ? welding and previous 2 .,. -.g t, ? inspection findings 78-08 May 16 19. 1978 W.G. hbacek Concrete records. k W.A. Crossman quality proededure S. '.1 f development and ~~ volds in fuel han. I d1ing building slab l.M;" May 16 18. 1978 J.J. Ward Investfgation of al. 78-09 W.A. Crossman leged falsification ./% W.E. hbacek of cadweld records. 'i - qualification of QC t inspections and pro. P ,y ~, -I cedural violations .'.,i, 1 3., n. _,,, e x. .s., .t.. u
- l..
g'
- i i;..
l
- i
.. :q l Y. ; ^ t ~
- k. - '
~ n. \\ ..s. . (') [ .3 - -n...a ;...m yw.n. m.- =. =.., - p.- 'l ~ 2 .~ 4 .u a _.... 1 y- ~..., E .o' q.1J.%@$ J - - - s k%
e 2- .= m _ w._. 4.:. u_ A := ' ~ 1,-(8 t ,A .g. 8eneral Area inspected inspection _ Dates faspecters_ 78-10 May 30-June 2. V.S. Hubacek Concrete activities.* backft11 records. and 1980 J.I. Tapia receipt and storage ; / Internals $tngvoldsin[ fuel hand building slab and ( previous inspection: findtags l 78-11 July 11-14.1978 l. W.S. Hubacek '. Structural steel. l ' C A.8. Rosenterg contatraent liner., ( L.D. Gilbert penetrattus and 'l
- supports, receipt'.
f major equipment e and storage of N$$$ A c p ents, voids la h~ l i I fuel handling 3 4 butiding slab review ~ of implementation procedurts for. electrical compor.ents E ,o and previous in. .y a spection findings )' JS. 3 c-Investigation of 41 .. T.i f 78-12 July 25-28. 1978 J.J. Ward - W.8. A bacek legations related to 3 w.:p I ?Y; .'UI... ~ W.A. Crossman' irregularities la the la'J:
- civil QA program
[ . r, lj. ',.2 h 4f-fa '2
- t 78-13 August 15. 1978 W.C. Seidle Manageant meeting to u*
s,~,4 r.y - 3.3 M discuss alleged eat- . Q.* O 9 W.S. Habacek messes in civil QA 3y'~g ;2 W.A. Crossman 4 *.; ~. 4 h g,,-y M2.g' geograe.morateof '
- l T r',J. ?, 2 'Zg nW nspectors and
- (
eresent stafftns p 4*,. pf.* ' Jpo@.i. ;1 l.f. * \\evel f. .y<. n ,.A 1 78-14 August 22-25 J.J. Hard Investigation of f g c' ej - 3 1978 W.S. kbacek allegeo miscenduct c, of Brtne & Root QC 'g 1 W.A. Crossman ?.e- '>,1 , inspector y. 78-15 Septer.ber 11-14 R.E. Mall investigatten of al. u 1978 A.8. Rosenberg ' legations concerning .-l Cadwelding and mis- ,;r location of the Unit 2 sechanical electri.
- cal auxiliary building r
- g-(
M p, . Essential cooling .s s 78-16 October 24-27., U.S. Hubacek 1978 J.I. Tapia pend. electrical p;- l L.E. Mortin
- activities, site R.E. Hall QA/QC program and staffing.50.55(e) tte s. and previous
~ 7/ laspection findings , f.i .M 3 ..?4 .d j ..u Y .}} 1 ~- L. 5 ...a m-
- ,a s
w. .M. . 'i 2.'q [-
- =
i S. s j.'; .o' 1 g.; J I '. t* ..~ P I
- d' p....'
_,ey==='
- c'.1 t,.
- * * - -.,;. p s ; G ; f - -,, -, -- _g ..>.--7* sq*. ', T.
- .W.* *
- .
- ~h
~% ~~ .?: .v v a ..-.-U'-
- 4. ' 4.u,.g
,a... 38.6.4 9.i O! .n _...g._ O'. ; O'. } M M193 s . =~ :
~...c_...... n,...,.._.._..,.,f-... .m
- ~
__.,......o._... ] ..m.,,m._... ..L_,. ...,_.,m. 3 _. _. g. f_ - s .' I ) i ".'.. - - -t _su.--.a. i.%, -.a. .o~. 1 _ ;.,. _ 2 a c x_ 1.-*[' ( ) L. .g-General Inspection Dates inspectors Area inspected V. - ) Safety related W.S. h bacek 78-17 December 5-8 1973 O.P. Tamlinson piping, concrete activities. licensee organitation changes. 50.55(e)ites,and previous inspection findings 78-18 Dec eber 19-22 W.S. h bacek Concrete activities. 1974 W.A. Crossman housekeeping and equipment storage post tensioning,and previous inspection i findings 79-01 January 23-26 J.J. Ward. Investigation of b' and 30. 1979 W.E. h bacek Cadwelding ir. E. R.E. Mall regularities i; s 79-02 January 23-26 and W.S. hbacek Safety niated. . ;y, January 30 - R.E. Mall Piping, conente e 6 %ppW Febmary 2. 1979 J.I. Tapia activities, cad- - J:- ~ welding. 50.55(e) L.D. Gilbert ttems. and previous 1 . Dfj. G,.., "gri taspection findings (- 79-03 February 21-23 W.E. hbacek Storage and mainte- ,.e .;p . D,.. 4 1979 L.E. Martin nonce of materials, i * = 8.
- ., '.4,a[j-D.P. Tan 11nson electrical cceponents
'%' + 2,- g.t r-[J .o and systes. R555
- .2.
- 7 T.* %g'29#.Q.! W
.& 3 W,' ~r..'.. 50.55 e) procedures. W, ',y. stor ,sEi W,
- O?
tten and ' h(7w.47,DSi,l W> 7 p% previous inspection
- g.. ~;.,
7,4;.g,c!.. c., ' 9.f. b.
- f s, f1odings V,:'i,s[.
..A'.1 :. t n. y e.
- ... ~i.:,..u r..
n f... J s e . p. M ; W d.-04 March 20-23. 1979 W.G. Hubacek Concrete activities. Et,. '. ..,"i. , 3 R.E. Mall conta1renent Ifner. d' 3
- , * "y. ' 4 -
'd L.D. Gilbert receiving re:ortis i<- .,.Lj. n for electrical 6 -' " $ y- ,f ' j N,$ components. NS$5 H.i
- 4.,
.f.- O component supports. g. polar crane girder. 1 1 50.55(e) {tes, and previous inspection a. ,.v find!ngs a-g' S .4 79-05 April 2-2, 1979 V.E. hbacek Housekeept. ef stor-
- hN
' 4;....d( C( ' L.E. Martin age Class I electrical 3.' NYAC. and equipment previous Inspection
- 4*..
l l .d findings .. '; S.. . 21 s E 79-06 April 17-20. 1979 v.E. hbacek Concrete activtties. -r m housekeeping. equip- @,p . ' N - vious inspection findings eent storage and pre- + 9 c.: .c:y).'.'.4 .t y.:, c. i ...C 4 Q.: tt,
- 'V p-
,e w. . 'cf.) - -:.,q,.S _. _...........y m.- i.. w..- s, r..s c g. y 4. .3, 3,, n s Q j,. . G k; i l.y.
- M
., g"....., . ~ ' t.;., a L,.,, s. -~ s v. e, s: 1 ;r.~. = ~ .V,d
- ~
'. fi.'. f,%E [M,]
- u
,4.-.,] se ..g 4. 7., ...,c 9s .s O.. . J,1 ' 7.y l ..M.a. ..N M' ' 1 c '. ...a V., ' ..%.1.,. i; m. s .i..- .y - ' ? C.G-g ="n. y. a 'g.m sp v-r.x.u;;.,.. 7.-y T
- 3 W
..Q r -.m ..~._. #_ '..y F i 0._;; p._6.:n..c.'i,_p; - _ 1gi ' ~ .3 vY
- i y,
3 (<,-- ,3 ,r yn
.,:.,.- r. 9 ~.. 7 Q.;: ' - f 7T ?.~.. ~ %. f M ;;;h'l,5..,.y,'.f"t y,.;. Fu.-.3 f v. -r..<w:sX ~ - a e A.: 2 -- 2 u.._._. M.. .n-r, 1Q e -7 General Area fatpected inseectori Dates -inspection R.J. Everett Enviromental pro.
- 1..1 73 07 May 7-9. 1979 taction program and previous inspection findings 73-0s May 15 18, 1979 L.D. Gilbert Reactor Coolant r
e W.C. Seidle system supports 1 73-09 May 15-18 and W.G. Hubacek Investigation of concrete and Cad-22-23. 1979 W.A. Crossman weld irregularities r June 12-15. 1979 W.S. Hubacek Concrete activities. polar crane test and 75-10 previous inspection-findings . June 26-28, 1979. V.S. Hubacek Volds la Unit 1 reactor contstament 79-11 0.P. To:alinson building wall. fabri-cation of N555 equip. M.
- r
~ ment supports ..s 'W Reactor vessel in- .?'S ~ 79-11 July S-11 and J.f. Tapta stallation, vofds 16-19. 1973 0.P. Tamilnson <M. .4 in Ditt 1 con-L - ". E .i tatnment well. f. ~.:- GN - WI 1dentification of G 6,, l 't '/..
- 1*
anchor bolt
- ps..' - W
~~ y yg. []* 's f.I.;gi.'g'ihy.,UT material, and pre- -< l 'iN vious inspectica jg-/ .;dt-s, Ar ! M ~ Mid tere QA in........... (W.p,.:.,. 1 .c ..T *4 findings ..c; n
- T...>.r d. T. M.-. v 75-13
. August 6-10. 1979 W.S. Hubacek 35 % '. g y'. ..t v. 4 g spection of leple. E p 'i, j, d J.I.'Tapia mentation of @L g '/--
- g.
& 5 e '?. a..,* f s- .w ' - i.... 1. 7;; L.E. Foster s. ~q.g M.S. PhillIps program $. G.:y /'%. .9 ? 7,...; . :1 79-14 September 4-7 U.S. W hacek Investigation of and 11-14,1979 N.S. Phillips alleged irregulari.. . ).-,- 'gp ties in QA/QC Program lt
- . 0, '
.c. w 75-15 ' September 1975 H.S. Phillfps Concrete activities .'43 '.'i ' 79-15 October 1979 M.S. Phillips Concrete activities S.f fire prevention.
- q.1
- y* essential cooling pond, storage of.
- d materials and pre-
. 'ad.t, . c 'd. tous inspectica .' i
- .Q
- ef<
'. Tr2 findings
- c/ M,
4.- Previous inspectica p- . /.*1 '.*..J.. 75-17 October 24-26 V.S. Hubacek .,., - ~ findings and .d; 1979 50.55(e)itas [ 'lA e 4. ,I f ? b d.. ..I.....-. .{ '. ? k J ), r-2.- c. S.g . s. . 7. 4. g ,q. m.. . w
- t..:
l.M ($ ',- j.) ("" z tr... S i c: D] f.'. y e --
- ./
F .'. c'3 [,".Y.,.. .4 % QW* ' by =.}?.~.M xv. v-w W m y p6.=.c ~.:: r = &. l b
- . ; --. w. w c _.,
? :...". t w n.,,,,.. 2 31 Ol O i..P 6' a.c..i.p:
- .4 1
'.~d.., ,j r ..g.. ^ ~ E' !?**.
J; ;,zl_,..,.-?. -.e r.
- n. _...
..f:.-4 :.~ ' -~ S- .s . 2 'y' ,. ;. -.~.,
- .-
- k ' L. s ;,,-.
i '. gn.. m. = :.... ._m es < l G.k .g. Generet r Aree insected, . Dateg _ Inspectors i faspection 76-17 Decenber 5-8 W.G. mbacek safety related D.P. Tm11ason piping. concrete i 1978 activities. Ifcensee ~ organization changes. 50.55(e) items, and previous inspection findings December 19-22 W.S. h bacek Concrete activities. 9 1978 W.A. Crossman housekeeping and y ~ 78 18 equipment storage ..mz.- post tenstoning, and ?- previous inspection F-findings 79-01 January 23-26 . J.J. Ward. Investigation of "l and 30.1979 W.E. Hubacek Cadw1 ding tr* i R.E. Mall regularittes [- I i January 23-26 and W.C. kbacek Safety related u. L., January 30 R.E. Hall piping concreta K .a 79-02 M.. 2 L.D. E11bert. activities, cad. February Z. 1979 , J.I. Tapia widing. 50.55(e) m. '-? F f Items, and previous inspection findings (_ ', :(d .. y 9' r.. y'h.. h February 21-23 . W.L kbacek ~ Storage and asiste. 75-03 L.E. Martin nance of materials. r, O.$ 0.P.Tooltason electrical corponents (.- f -~ 1979 ^ and systems. 4535 gig.; - n. 1* = X'.,.., -Jt; stor n ;7 s T. - -.[. .n ) procedures. ttan and 7w f p c,.,; g can "..'..,s" ..W,4.fJ 4 ~ 50.55 - i (..y .,.4 4 *. -.1 g y .<<y previous taspection d '. i.. ;- - 3 findings -? ; e e' lV7.=/,"p.:'A..f;3.[Jg) March 20-23. 1973 V.S. Hubacek tencrete activities. ~
- 9. <. 3. 7' y O <.
p'. c. .y 4 components. NSSS 'p[.'. 79-04 R.E. Hall contaiment liner.
- s' O.
fl v. 'C' L.D. Gilbert receiving records J'-- .'.# '.N. . for electrical ,', p...7 7 &.- component supports. ' 0.. f e,, ~. V, '.*-'G' . '..-!:.$* ] L polar crane girder. e '.f 50.55(e) itans and .~ .,.g s*- .+ .h previous inspection findings wt e ...s.. ,4 .' rid ~ 79-05 April 2-2, 1979 W.G. Hubacek Houseteeping. of stor. t s. L.E. Martta age Class IE electrical equipment. HVAC, and - '.:* Y
- S
.~ prev 1cus taspection s. .,C ' ~ ~ "v 14; findings . f fY A Concrete activities. .},, 75-06 April 17-20. 1979 W.G. N becak housekeeping. estip. i.'n .i ment storage and pre-t "l 2 ._:f vleus inspectica findings
- 3...,
-4., ' *, a. e. - T' a. k. ..4 7:,*., .:..,q ..w .s. n:;.. ,.c -,9 .n, ..;,6 _:9., - - + - ' - -3;. ~...
- g.
s.... ..i o
- m. e.
3 ~ ,ev. .t. g. ... s n.: .s n w. 4. :.J . ~ ' w u.;. .., 3 . C p . s p. --'O n;. J:? ,s: ~ ~ p'.-. .: g ..t t L -( ? .n . m. m.;c~-:.y x.2 7 ,..p.. ..:.m w..n 8-,;,.-~ g iw. 7- 'zy _ a:.r.1 e._ .w..w.-~.u..-;.. p p . MW ).: _1. 9.6h.9. g ".g ' w w ru-- g., 4 -5
M'-
mw-. =~~
' - - - - u - ~. ....n .r.- _s ..:n . n..1..>a. -__~ 4 & : e. y -s._..:, .g c A b -9= I;;. Generet Area inspected ' inseectors_ Cates h-' Inspection Nine point acties liarch 4-7 and W.A. Crossman 11 14. 1980 W.G. Hubacek . plan relative to 80-04 concrete activities = M.S. Phillips 8ackf t11 test pro-80-05 March 1 80 gram and constrv; tion p deffcfancies N.S. Phillips Safety related pfpfng - 80 06 April 1980 previous inspectice findings. contain-t seat liner, structur-al steel and con-struction deficiencies Previous faspectfos. l W.G. N bacek April 8-11.1980 - findings e 80-07 Investigation of d. a v.A. Crossmae alleged construction .lanuary 19-33 .f 4;, 80-C8 ?'s and February 20 W.G. Whacek deficiencies and 5 L.D. Gilbert faaccuracy of as i 1981 , ;cy?;g to service inspection Ll-M devica ~. .1< e e x:.5 . ~. - 0.D. Driskill Investigation of al-P,, ", i.( 80-C3 April 15-18. 1980 F.E. 8act legations relattie Cro .. M % ;.1 to temination of L. * '. E if_ _T T ^.s' 7 L ? groie a put D' b'. JL*'. r
- i.:
esployees ,;, ' * *- M. ( A [V' '.:!,,.w. }, ',k ' // k N.S. Phillips Concrete acti- 'I 80-10 May 1980 wities. structural . I' backf111. embeds. anchor bolts. 7 storage and mainte- . ' :.p,f, , E [' 1 : c mance of equiprent. .L g %,, ', - and constructica deficiencies t. Reactor coolant L.D. Gilbert .80-11 May 5-8. 1980 L.E. Martin piping. containment Itner safety re- 'E u ' \\.: " lated piping,and electrical cable 0, and raceway to. 7 '.J1 Stal14 tion 2' .J 4 WE C1' May 12-15. 1980 J.I. Tapia tart'.nsort and cca-crete activities. '80-12 and constructica .I deficiencies .$.b -.k ' il g. a ~ g < /j ^ ~- ,, ( , ;..q.,.-. L a :... ..:e .+v. -:.y .n xq
- c..
p.. .y c; ~s. ..m S. I [ r ,, g. s t.: v,-g .v . c. s. i; q.,,, 53 ).Q1 .v. - w,
- n. c..
...m x. .>a s,s% a a:n..., -. 02E O 4 0_.i.,I ;.i _6:.t.9? e. i 9 ym ..x-3 4, - c.t a 8
.;_.......,..m...,.- a ..p imL -. c. L ;.;...:.. w:: N.% w'. .w ~ i 183 .Seeeral J Inspectors Area inspected faspection g 79 13 November.1979 N.S. Phillips Containment liner. ( soll compaction. ..C concrete activites. and previous in-spection findings [. 79 19 November 10. 1979 0 v. Mayes Spectat investigation ( to February 7 R. Herr 1980 N.S. Phf11 fps t.p. Jerniges n R.N. Compton Lt. Landsmaa e s ht.20 November 1318 L.D. Gilbert Control of weld L.E. Martin filler metal, reactor O.L Mcdonald coolant supports. i J.I. Tapia contalament liner. electrical components - and systmas, eartl> work, and concrete 1 activities and pre. * [~. a ~.. .1 vleus inspection * .d /q findtags .S i ..a? November 27,1979 N.S. Phillips netting with local + 'M 79 21 ~. W.A. Crossman pubile officials .C.E. Wisner of Say City. Texas 19 2 .u ...."7' # [. t :.?;; .../ I 79 22 .Decenbec 11-14 W.G. hbdek ASME certification. . r' r n A - i concrete placement. W ** *- 1979 NVAC activities, and [ ' d. ' C ~~"*; ( V." M.
- .M ' ? -
f -lP M.~%. previous inspection -- - ' s 5Q n , l'- o-4. gl[7s.%,$ findings , n. g:v,5 ;. g r, b ' '.Y * ^ x.I .tm + - - ?.$ 80-01 December 1979 N.S. Phillips Preytcus inspection findings and con-January 19 2 and strwetion deft. 6 y February 1940 ciencies ,.y -s .;r V.E. h bacek Reactor coolant q ,l ( - 80 02 February 5-8 1980 0.P. Tamilasos pfplag, falsificatfoe of personnel records. ? weld filler metal f control. review of qualtftcations of a { Forersan. verification i ..A of repair radiographs .,e .J and previous in. o? I ?' spectica findingt i i, ( 'Q ~v' .:L 80-03 February Z5-3 L.O. Gilbert Reactor coolant R piping and other
- >.3 1980 safety related piping l.
p: y
- Is
's 'j .,-y l. V.. 1 .o h~ p~ t g"; y .' y ~ ') m s, "a e,. 7 .p. " * ~ ~ . :....r. y.
- C. 4 (J..
/ y::.-~. : l
- f
~.: j p .) .s s .g e C. i _'q j s j t 1 r....
- 1. s b.
e 9 4 h m.
- f., ~
'~ . - m, ; pr==" ~ .. ~ ..: e'- y. _.r. .. ; > m. > m. x. e,.,,.-.~--.;<- .u ~ .4 <.r ..y. y,, y - y, ~ &m \\
- u &
.m I ' D p-O.1.0. %. Q5i s
- yi 77 w, 7,
.~mM..,.,. h....~,..; s. K flQG k %._.1 w - b ;l.Ch*. j - J.L2&& _~:..._y:.?.-;-l -T. - M: 7 % M:: ..c .1 i ? ......La, n- ...s _s.- .._ u.-se.w v a. ---w w. w.. 2 w .184 P .) ?- 11 e = senere1 1 faspection Datet fasceeters_ Area inspeMc ' 80-22 July 29, 1980 0.0 Driskill Investigation of al. legations related to piping systems 1 1 N.S. Phillips Previous inspection 80-23 August 1980 findings and Show t Cause Order items [,.. .y,! f 4 s k 80-24 August 18-22 J.T. Tapts Previous inspection 1 September 2-5 and D.P. Taelinson findings and Show Cause Order Stans September 16 19 1980 4 , h 80-25 Septaber 1980 N.S. Phillips Prwfoes inspection f findings and Show h.. Cause OnSer ites - i 80-26 September 4 5 and R.K. Herr Investigation of al. r 7 9,1980 J.I. Tapia legations'related ts audits. intimidation and personnel p ali. I. 3 '.C. ;h,Q fications [ n k.!.,3 .,, O~ 80-27, October 1980 H.S. Phillips Previous inspection '.24 2 ..m 9- .,i findings and Show
- s
%.Z /-i 4.;4..sp Cause Order items 2 ..y y,M,Q &&. V j. 0 .4 ' -A. N ~.- ~ 9 + ,,4 F " l; f.,,,.l 0-28 October 4 10 and-D.P. Tomlinson AWS welding and b: 8 'l1. cf ig 14-17,1980 previous in-Q. q-pn Q.j g spection findings , 'j 2,-
- g., t
.,f y h.rJ ~ 7. ' ' ' e M i= ).g f. D~f' 00-29 September 24. 1963 0.0. Ortskill Investigation of a ,; -.,.,g alleged drug use ". :.s - .J., i. 9.%, g
- ')',
M,.; N m. 80-30 October 21-24 and V.S. Hubacek Previous inspection 0e 27-31. 1980 L.D. Gilbert-Findings and Show k, - ? I t 'e - M Q? 4
- m
f, i a9 W.. - : ' M J.1. Tapia Cause Order items ( ,0 . t-3 a y ' Y. 80-31 October 15-17, ' O.D. Driskill Investigation'of 1 .\\' J' . s.t October 22 23 R.K. Herr alleged firing of a Foreman, forverly ' I and Novmber 13 fired individuals i 3 1980 wre being rehtred,
- ry'/
c 4 i.6 and falsification of'
- -6 records 4:q r.
.,.,..tg.. 80 32 Octcher 21-23. L. W11 born ' Dvtrermental pro-q
- E,'.e.-J taction programs 1980 and previous in-W.N spectice findings
' ,C.c /p*; ..C 1,e.1-4 }. 4[ n.~: -,,s ...s. f a- "l .."11 - ', c e. . ;qy ],. q. , y, y. .~- ..;j.,,,,,,-_,.,,.. ..;5 , 7,,.. .. q ::., ~ ,yf,,..:}4 ki' W. s ',9. -,
- 9
~ s. p ..~;:; -7 f.
- e da., --
i.- 4;' .- I ,h w ~ ,v.4 -- s, .,.,,,g P. ' = 'i.?) 7.;. p: '. z.T. T u
- ..a
[. 2 '- .a.f e,
- e e
Ww p [.Z.d,7 s c :. .. ~ ~ - H. W, z w; s,.m...; x'. : :. g c.~ ~..u.... m<.. &.~y.... !.w&~UM?,I.. v ~y,..;;.z .. m. m. J. _ &. 1< 3. v,, m::.+. -w
- y...
w. ww)w ~i.: m... 03.0.3.,I 6.1.9 (.6 y;: ' M r 3l 4 , a, ~<_ _-_ - _ - -. n --.mx3.q.3, $gy ; f s , _. a ~
a
- - ' 7.? %$i S, a} NYb W~=&WPS* Mt2"Ei ERWF
- &.- Q ?. R 5^N* M C 5 -lf M l
- b _q..-.Y: > :,%N_a *.,: -. - _. _. ~ L-n- 100. r 10 General Insoeetion_ Dates IntDectors Area inspected = . ~.1 80 13 May 27. 1980 and W.S. Hubacek Investigetten of February 25-27 O.P. Tomitnson allegations related L to the welding and .J' j piping progenes f. e. 1981 80-14 & ne 5-6. 18-20 .D.D. Dristill Investigatten of n and 24-26. 1980 R.R. Here allegatices ten. carning inttaida. tions falstfication [' of records. promotion i .J ef unqualtfled .g individual and 41 i. tered noacanformance [ report & ne 5-4. 1980 D.D. Driskill Invest 194tten af al. i 80-15 R.K. Herr 1 atton that a con - F > m ta.t rec w d .J i ....~. ..,,7 7' constructten te I halted t. .e. 4 .y 80-16 - &ne 1980 N.3. Phillips Previous tattetties ',m l ~ findings. Structural M. m,t. .systen. and R$$$ ,A... h ~ steel. QA records ',b.) f- ~ components .q Prevfout int m tion . G v.. ~ -.,. p. - L ~ .;;g 30-17 & ne 23-26, 1980 R.2. Mall + . A.,',y '. '.w .J.I. Tapia findings related ..<. % u, i ;. 4,.. (M., g 5.K. Chaudhary to earthunet 4,.*.... ) g. ^ , ' 'f d R.8. Landsman ,. *5 Q, w-., r e.. p.I. - v; *.; t. 4.%. -{d.. s ' 9. 80-18 & ly 1980 U.S. Phill1Ps Previous in. N s. w
- P. % ) A c. b '3 *'t';p ' 4 Show Cause Order - - - -- -
G 3.& .q spection ftnetagt lM yrf /w W%,%"Q Staas. Concrete %Se% k &. ?.. y L.. p Qa r . actistues.
- pf.
j ~?. 'E .i " r ..s (F. c U.pf , /'.i 6, Ma Wh.. /,c structure 1 steel
- e
. ;.:. = y-w ;. ' ~ b.l"' ' ~ ?,$.l k Y.k.*,5$.U' r h.- ~ ~ .qs.f,] ...,- y c :, l 80-19 &ly 22-24. 1980 'J.t.'Tapte ' Previous inspection s. findtagt related to ..T earthwortt tat W.
- i-F
.:'e + concrett E t o j$ i 80-20 &ly 28-29. 1980 D.P. Tonitason Issuance and dispos. .?- 1 tion of men. JF J, '. s. ,conforments reports
- T;.-P) s
..,..f 80-21 &ly 28-Aug. 1 & 4 R.E. Mere.. Investigetten of .. [s 0.0. DrisH11 falsification of .d@' 2 s 1980 maintentatt records v. ..fS<, I f=.'.% .. "-5.f b:. . c.
- <s
C ., ~ s i*$ ~ - e-3.m;. v__ ...,y- .w s. s w.. s, c.% . 4~ ~. *., .4 9, - - _..y - k. ...L . ' _..y .e.-.--.-.~. 7: .v.,
- p...
.. ~, w w. : O .A.. r*. '. .d. q s-e ~ s e r.c ...f*f. .. y... g., ,.,., _, g -.~.- i*?' c. s,.. P i
- c.
- :, f.; :f 2r.$
. t.:.. % + .c
- r.. : J.
pr. .y.~ V* a W w.'c g 45 ..z'~ s ~ a.*4s ."'*^ .f,Q 9 ;,,, t..' e.- r .g, - 3 . ' f. k 'q..' N-y t e
- 4.p.3 Q.
d ~- M. .T' &n. '" C. ' g.V s' - icy S.b, s a
- 8.,.'.g J'
I,k s . f.y - nm y ;.;; m.... _ ___ _,, * ' ' %y l" '~C-' -W.' * '. ?.'.
- * ; m.
. s c h.
- * * ; * /. '
", = - .A .--r ,-.s'.7_~ S*y, y.'* = f? ;Qr,.A,' c,'f.. m. e,+ : ,n u .g ^* um 5 W % **
- -****^WS n
1".O 8Jf.M9MJ. 3 . ~ ' _ 9 - 2 .q
.:~ ~~ ~.,..o a.
- ..C;.. 2. > ::.-O; -.,,
- .
- :..:.2. c :.'.. i=g':~gg,.M. ~ T_yr Q
,,3 >...;- :'.; ;.' ;:d.E5 w'....:~.~,.:. . m..m,..,,.. :.-s.;,og;,-,.c;:c.;m arr_we.
- 1
.w y _.. a. n..
- ..p..
g.- 2. <
- .,.w.
a ... 3 . 9. .= . i n. a. :_ x.,. . _x,:.=w. w - ~ i; a s e..w.:: 18G v 1 t 13 General 1 - fnspection Datet .{.nspectors Ana inspected -- <.c 41-04 February 1981 H.S. Phillips Previous inspection findings and show i Cause Order items
- rl 9
SI-05 February 2 5 W.G. Whacet previous inspection g 1981 findings and Show i Cause Order itens p ~ F .[ 81 06 February 23-27 0.P. Tomlinson Previous inspection 1981 W.E. h bacet findings and Show F Cause Order items ( g.~ .81-07 March 1981 N.S. Phillips Previous tr:spectice findings and show i Cause Order items 82-03 ' March 2 4. 1981 L.D. Gilbert $how cause Order and 1:sediate action letter items --u r W 81-09 March 25-27. 1981 W.S. m bacek Previous inspection 7 .+. findings,and50.55(e)
- 9., %
1taas I;se.'f - 0,H ^, .[5 Q:
- 4.k V.*4
- 2.f w: 1 >
'*'4 f., .v.. ' ; e'- r va'.; Q,. .A. e n,,
- , C r
% !. 4 '., s j.;
- q i. I; ifti
^ ~^ ~~ ~ ~ $....;n, * 'M = '.[ f..Q,.:,/ 5 h*ci' 6, f f.. \\^/ ;'7'
- -..*..,{
vg Sa 3 'a .(.T,j Ep ;r. -- ~. p : 3&< .s 43 2 y?, g.g. ' N,i. k.=y( &. s~ r-a.8 s p*4. e. 4) ,?
- ~'*----3=~
a-~.. 4 2 - j.* -.;s. y ? A,.n-s. ~%;.4.:, v. -'s. g...- a '. W ; a,.. 4 c S t. ..J ,j; .;.4 , y' 4 L i : .y a, ,, - ' {"-i, j fp',f. l " .z y:;.,.,
- u. -
s t-; - 1.T. 6. 4 e. 3 ...m .y w J.. g'
- g.
..g ; ./ ? ?^ . tu ~.*e:~ e, w ..s a'
- f..
8 f r.
- y. ; <
... - x.
- g.:$ l 4
- ,. z..;.
s.~ u,...;.*,. , g. > .s ^**' - e-f * .s e
- h., Vf*j '
- .i.
i .,'b.- ,:. ~ J i.*.*d :, z .F r. l - ? **~ e. +- '6' 1,.t s j,4,br
- . 4i e-vs r
mu
- . a -
rt-.,.. [,'s. 5 ..'y l - ([* * ' --*-1 i' .1 *f t
- s; 4
"s r . :' 7.-. s. <.p ,~,l e ' Z'..Q ^ ~. ...s J*m .*44 5 ..~. d.;A,e, -r,a '.,.J.2,-4,..,,.-...t .t
- V.
-j*.,. j. f~~ A s .R..-,y.,. s. , s'. e .*s ,, : g, .e d.- 2:
- 4.'g 9
r a,. 1 e* w . 7,-4 - j
- t..
A p
- v.. u ;.
r. ....) ..fg g. ..m ,? 4-m .,
- v
,~.< = ,...n L: s , c.y lg
- l ? *' f.' ~' V Y' *-5 i'$. ],2f.N.'~V." %',. Q-l *.T-j.J.;.\\ [....
~ m- ~.. s
- api M =9'* gd 1 41 S[
03.gQ).61 3 .a. l m n ,c h.T, F'
.... _ 5 [y. _
- ~ * *
-. W, y- < m a:. - ~~ ~1...a.,:, ;. v. g.. n-o .~
- .:"=w a
u M.-a:cou : -- ~. nO/ 12 = General Area inseected inspectort Bates inspection Nov e ber and N.S. Phillips show Cause Order 80-33 it es, storage and Dece ber 1980 maintenance of .i equipaent, structuref steel and safety related weldtogl D.0. Ortskill Investigation of al. k October 27-31 and legations reisted to 80-34 Noveter 11-12. A.R. Johnson personnel gaaltft. 1983 cations, safety. i related pipe storage i and piping 1sometrit - - ~_.../-- - drewings 80-35 Nove her 3-T. D.P. Tomlinson AW5 welding act1 F o wittes and review 1983 of previous in. ? spection findings Noveter 17-21 and E S. Nubacek Previous inspection Deceter 1-4. 1983 L.D. Gilbert findings and show 90-36 Cause Order Stens -5 2-n . s t.. . :.c 80-37 November 18. 1980 K.Y. Seyfrit-Meeting with .il ~i E C. Seidle corporate staff of Houston Lighting and h8 '1 E A. Crossman
- 1, R.E. Hall Power Cepany and 8rcwn & Root Co. Inc.
5 3 4 -6 to dtuuss show Cause ?s: Order item and r... . + ilmited work restart -'.;y-- f '* " ".. '/ s P.WO:O 's W.- y p'i g ',*'*. fv' ~, .d: >g; y I h.ip '.,r 'ef- ^- 80 38 Deceber 15-18 J.T. Tapta Previous inspection .J '~~ 0.7. Ton 11sson findings and show
- Q r
~ v t :.: u - *1 'i 1980 Cause Order Stees V.* .i.w A *Y - 7;/; ? -p 18.3. Phillips Previous inspection f-i January 1981 findings, show Cause i 81-01 's 'i" Order itsu and . '/ %~ J.' storage and mainten-ance of egipnent .;.7 81-42 January 5 9. 1981 0 P. Tomlinson Previous inspection c.4 findings and ASME welding S . /- I J.T. Tapta ! . Previous inspection .' i.'. January 19-23 81-03 L.D. Gilbert findings and $h w -T 1981 Cause Order tiens A 3 ~.3l.E. .%.q e l ',3; ..,',..L. r ' '.' K l -.)- [ i j -L: ._.__._.... '~, .y':
- .... u..
4 6 e, .s... -., h, g 0., [ q .x a ~
- 6 J.
.i r' '.i i, . 6.w.m '
- A i,, ;
~ ,, w.y..- m.. . ;. y - m .-.7., ~ / 'y n .h f 001m
- g. O i Lci '.c.:.
- e
.s..,-..
,l-l,( - _~ z_ ' - W _. _ " ~..
- f
-b* -.: 4- < ~~ &;' :- -A. '- _~ 4 ' ~ ~ r w1 i w ........*. ~ jh .~' - - - J . ;,.. u. a -;.L o
- D -
.ce 1.
- ...,_ _.~ s 183 Y
..L r, A m so:s a ..s ITEP3 CF ndMCCMPl!ANCE AND DEVTATIONS i = I*" fnspection No. Desertotton g k 75-02 B-1 Incomplete Brow & Root Manual Devt.ttee 7 B-2 Lack of schedule for development .j .of Brow & Root proededures Deviattoe 5-3 Lack of Brown & Root procedural 7 provision for field initiated N design Devia'toen
- L I-4 trow & Root procedure did not i
clearly delineate authority and - du. ties of QA personnel Deviation 76-03 f.A.2 Failure to follow Brow & Root ' 7.' thtt 1 spectitcation for verificettoe Infractica 6 /' of vibroflotattoe
- u. (',i 76-07
!.A.2 Lack of Pittsburgh-Des Moines . :.9fi procedural controls resulting Og in use of enqualtfled welder. g f Il 77-04 !.A.2 Failure to follow Pittsburgh. ~ Des Moines procedure for ca11 ,ew - ra, .~ 'M ,a =A ' bratton of welding anchtnes
- ')
,.?
- i ' ' %8
.,/ - L. ' *H. =
- F' r
!..* '. % e. %," 5 77-05 !.A.2.a. Fa11ure to fallow Brown & JP., b' -0,,9ig.y-,E['d,e.h. Unit 1 Root procedure for fabricattoe Infraction .jq of cadwelds 4, ,y j ~j:.. y~,. u -r (,y 'y, 3 's,..:s . A '?; 77-05 1.A.2.b. Failure to follow Brown & Unit 1 Root procedure for inspection Infrattt44
- ~ '
and acceptance of cadwelds
- s l
s... .J.. .) 77-06 A. Failure to follow Brow & Root pro. F Y*' ! N 77-03 cedures for. surveillance of Pitts. 1 .a 1 Units 1 & 2 burgh Testing Laboratory for earth-Infrattton gaake activities 77-06
- 8. Utilization of Brow & Root pers'a-
+ n: . iy 77-03 nel to inspect concrete placemen. Deviation
- (J J Unit 1 who were not qualtfled in educatts i
l.'i *c.$ and expertence k 'a ' '.%? i s. l. 77-09 A. Brown & Root concrete QC inspector. [ '^ l .;,p 77-04 was not quellffed as required by Infretties i Ja '. ~N. , Unit 2 proposed ACI 359 Code f 1 ,...: r.
- u. ;
e 7.- .t ,y, e t 9 8 ,a. - - :2 5 t + t- .] ="n ..-... m y. .-.g. . ; 2 7.,,.. m.,.. ...p . n.. c e i .A t t-w t.m ... ~ .;.z
- q; v
.' ! ) ' IN ~ e a.
- "
- 5 2 g
e
- 3,q
- .6
- .y'd f\\
r .q ' Y)i -?;.-z m%W ' ~. .n ~, .p . t.:... _ : -.. _ ~,. . ~... -. - n up (' .. ~.... y -. ji 00133 0.10.4 ( T RO'.1 O'. .G ..s
- I.5 19,"'Q.
-- ;. e,,sy i w sy a a L. ~# __..--,_-;w. p -- _ _, _ -.. - - -
%. ** ~~2.... J ' 3. 'u..-.,... %..... t.:.W:e,G T... : : .. i
- w,m3_,,-.,.;,,, ' pg ;
y y . '..'.45.. '.. _ ?..;., y *T,e.?,,,.;:;s. ..u?... 7 w, t .a
- '- ' R C.B i.. ;y, _< a.. -n...,
- - - + ~ + -,. _..j _.., d- _.,. ;,. g._ = r.. m.- w 2 _m m -- - - - < es n 100 .J k ~'*
- L.
s e a ,' ( ,Iy,3,
- l..
Description ~ Inspection M. t: ~ A. Transcription of cadweld Inspection Infractica E 79-01(Investf. records without approved instruc. gation) tions or procedures Units 1 & 2 ~ Infractica E A. Failure to control superseded 7942 Units 1 & 2 drawings A. Fatture to follow procedures for i 79-03 storage of material. (2 examples) Infraction Units 1 1 2 Stainless steel and retnforcing a st, eel d A. Failure to follow concrete place. 79-04 ment procedures (2 examples-. Infraction Unit 2* standing water and lateral ( movement) af., I. L. ,'.s A.' Failure to follow procedures for Infraction
- f e
storageofmaterial(recycle p,.g M 79-05 evaporator) Unit.1 K- ! *.'.).J
- 3. Failurm to follow procedures for Infraction
.'d i TM 79-05 . preparation of nonconfomance ~ . ' Unit 1 report (.I Q W D;$ 8 ~. N A. Failure of P1ttsburg-Des Mstnes to Infract!on 5 '. 6 have a procedure for sositoring +8, 5. '.,.p. -.m
- ,. I [ ' < *%,.
eg e i s'+ s !s.a.hM'h'~.3] ins;* v.. s . w'. y -~ 79-08 welding operations y Yf Unit I e
- N. r;.'ar -.. W A. Failure to follow procedures for Infractice
%.'V,N.- 7 Q.h,s '?. k s $,, n. y-I , ~,,- maintaining Pittsturg-Des mines Q r.f. ' N,i.?f,v.P-r M 79-13 CA Manuals ("-f 7, g.- s.2, 4 w.3 . Units 1 & 2 '.-\\;-.~ *.;.r W. 't VA - s B. Failure to follow procedures for Infractica t,- i y 4 *. 3% a79 13 conduct of Pittsburg-Ces Moines W 2...<- t= ~ 7 ..j, ' Units 1 & 2 site audits // M !.f 4;. J '*g( 6 C. Failure to delineate organfrational t Deftetency change in the Pittsburgh-Ces Moines .. g .i .-f ',79-13 QA Manual . Unita 1 & 2 c.$ D. Failure to maintain coupleted avdtt Deffciency 2 checklists in the licensee's audit
- 14:.
79 13 ' ' ', '.9J
- Units 1 & 2 Deficiency files
.'. 4 - W. E. Failure to destroy or stamp a 1 ca deleted Brom & Root QA procedure ' 79-13 ~ m)L ';4 i Units 1 & 2 n. <?.f' a , *e ..,z'
- ~;
e-v. /F, g. . } .o-2- ',*8 _zy ,. 3 i , r..,..m-.- n (. e,. g((
- e.
.. ~. ;. . -,,p 1; ~
- p.
. :@.t - h'** c,
- 9 m&
e .'~g~ y
- j,u
--i4.,,,- .A.h ' d :-
- 3. e
[,. y: s,. ; e ,,, i ;, ; ~ y ; n' ...,..,a ( j r T.. s. s Q...t 4;. Q y r.
- t Q
"p
- m;m -
- p
. f" ,: s s
- . g e..
..J. 9 M .6 i -i c .s ...i , y' p. .3 p 4:n p'. j -. 2 $s ~ g;. -?.. Na. lv.? -N. 1 f.-c r. - - s - 94 /,e.
- y..;;....r. r
- P V
,' f.,. /*,' e...,- s ,4 . p. f.;,5/"fPT" s .g.e, E " V..'T Qb ' T -, n s m' E. e J,. [ f.,I. j,v. w- .a J.,* -. * -., u L M,.$ I 4 a r [h 1
b.b'N - hi m $N'Od$[" N'%'9 E W ' N N .w m-N L ~~ $O J' i M ~ 7 - Klute L>*** U- .= D-J, L...n a 190 i l-2- ?. ' T,ug Description . Insen tion No. P Infractice A. Failure of licensee to maintate 77-12 77 07 audit checklists Units 1 3 2 Deviattee b
- 8. Lfeensee Design Revfew Cornf ttee 77-12 Minutes failed to document audits
? 77 07 of desige reviers Units 1 & 2 i-A. Failure to follow Brom 4 toot '78-01 procedures during concrets place. Units 1 & 2
- 1. Concrete temperature control Infraction _
f' eent for e-. Infraction ~
- 2. Ytbrator spacing v
b-s3 A. Fallure to follow procedures for .: rs.,. .? s. '] 78-04 the control of special vocesses. ' pA',t Unit t (Response not required--corrected Infracties p.y e duringfaspections) precature E.'7
- t..... #
signoff of checklist ~ '. $w Infraction ,, u A.I. Failure to provide rettsed .[g . i. 78 07 drawings 5, u
- =.p.i Units 1 & 1 u#a
~5! 4. ,7...%,. J A.2. Incmplete inspection of strve. Infractica N.-?'? ,9
- c...
2, 78 07 tural steel doceented as co-gqi. - p._,,... p ,? yDa, qf traf ts 14 2 e. S ated
- ~
l ' $ h;.iQ(, U,% f= f., + L,/ g', S i ft. 4 q *j A. Failure to follow cadweld pro-s Infraction i';f yp .E ~ r.. 78-19 (Investi. cedure(4 examples) o ' J..a e
- v. g =.; e f, 'g
' gation). (mit I. n. Infractica f ,- e. ,,v
- 8. Fallure to provide spectfled 1a.
f 78-15 process Cadweld iaspectica ' d,...
- i.* D untt 1 Infractlee r.
-I J, 78-18 for housekeeping taspection. A.I. Fallure to preide procedure t 5 Units 1 4 2 i A.2. Failure'to provide acceptance Infraction criteria for testing of class 78-18 It motors.
- ^
Untts 1 4 2 W A.3. Fatture to follow procedures Infractica l '.'J's 78-18 for surveillance of natatenance, ,,..t Units.1 & 2 en Class It equipment Deviation M c.j A. Reporting of cadwelds qualtftca. .:p 78-11 tions test results hy a Level I L l 3., Units 1 & 2 'T i 4-J - inspector
- 7p
, W,~ Q.'
- w. -
l d. 4.' w: . ~;; T-3 9.c.a y". o.... l.. -A 7 v; . ~ ~ { 7"- .. ( 2;,-* ~ *. ? =..y , e,q Q ' ; f.j .4- -t.*4 s e (-.- +.*4 5 .), :a t. y 2._,-' ? .3
- 1...
J . v.5 [*, ,g' p '. 5 ^ g y " 4,Q l I?
- .c.Q
~,, * *. 6 fd -/ ~. W v., ..D.e .,4,9 4 .. C.. '%d ,n--- -. -._ _5. 7_.i.0. 4. [ O ' O.8. l - ' ~ ..s.. _.q
, $.1.T. ';."bfc'N Y u5 r_ ; Q f $$2$'{?E.i!.&?.AR55"fW"yR,l.E.gg.;';;.y.m.,w ; ww _ .,n i .h., r I y 3,. m E% u.. ; "' * '"* '
- n. s. A e ;. _a
- ._. n MS l', ~.
..J t t. '. s 131 .s '9' Amt r .p . Inspect *on Ne_. Descriotton_ 4 E 77-12 A. Failure of Itcenset to maintain Infractfee 4 1 77 07 Units 1 & 2 audit checklists
- 8. I.f tensee Design Review Corneittee
. Devfattee
- r.,
77 12 Minutes failed to document audits [. 4 77 07 .W Units 1 & 1 of design reviews A. Failure to follow Srown & Root l 78 01 procedures during concrete place. 4. Units 1 & 2 ment for
- 1. Concrete temperature control Infracties L
~ ,,d
- 2. Tibratoe spacing.
Infractfee e m v .? .c A. Failure to follow procedures for .h 78-04 the control of special processes. .'M mit 2 (Responsa not required--corrected. T. . uJg 's during inspections) (preature tafractica - y.6 f .-j signoff of check 1fstl f
- .cf. J
. *: A .A.1. Failure to provide revised lefraction s. "r A>'.-.
- s. -
3.fyy% ' N:.; 78-07 Units 1 & 2 drawings r 4 a o V s ..(.>.,,,. p'.".- '[ t A.t. Inconplete inspection of struc- '?f ei 78-07 tural steel documented as cae. Infract!on ~ ' ',I Units 1 & 2 n.. . @b' plated 4 -3.. i<-.
- t.,, p,,.,1, I p, "e 3
Infraction , 3 g e i. g,..a....,.fs A. Fatture to follow cadweld pro. t.- .?,1. h%l* s e.*h'. %.G ; M D. C Fi ~
- -- gatton). mit 1 cedure(4 examples)~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - -
78-15 (Investi. 3; j S ; Ml'.
- 8. Failure to provide speciffed fe.
Infractfee [' .... fn/E'e -;> W y ~ ,.,r. {' A t.'1. M @'A 4 78-18 thtt 1 process Cadweld laspectlen c.., %+ 3'.. .,7 :3 ' ', 4 4. . Infractfos 7 s A.1. Faflere to provide procedure ,4 .y *
- M.y[' f..,, :y.;. ty%,p'
. 78418 for housekeeping inspectiem - -,y: ,.;;4 ' ~ .. N. - thtts 1 & 2 J'.".+. r-l .:,f A.I. Failure to provide acceptance InTractfoe ,r critaria fort testing of class n.- 78-18 -W Untts 1 & 2 It noters. t'. a a A.3. Fa11ure to' follow procedures for surveillance of maintenance Infraction F 78 18 U:4*U '4 A j. Units 1 & 2 'en Class 1E equipment y'A*/ J 'Deviattaa \\ -yy A. Reporting of cadwelds qualtftca. .., ;.w 4 78-17 tions test results tLF a f evel I Units 1 & 2 Z.# taspector W'.4(.'( .., v. r .e..e w- -ume = n ~:s q - ( b 1 -G'M.O ._x .,v =~ s l a<
- . ~. :, '.
h,. ....; + s .- m, .s, I l . e. . =,' *j.. + - o's e bw. ', Q,..,.. M k...*'[ [ [,M ,r- -. -y. o ~, l[,. ; g i. - _ o '.l y ..,s-(' s 7* .g 't'*- j; .:: eg .l& [ 1 L 1 g., 4r . ;w k.'._- q), 4 4 s> .**e' 8' .,,4 .. t ),'g; g. ,a .u , m..;.,,w.y. ,. m n. n.; g.t ? y- . "h Nu -,c..c m, w r, ;,: c 4,. c-l 14 -- ?. a:- b 2. J_ '- ;.e. .. M_j% r 01.0.',jp,.7A0),$ ?.1 i r "'.,g g f -ki g._p.
e, -~ .s..-- ) 3 9 a,g l.- }- 0o3800o - F I@TG! j w s ...a.g y l t &9 8t g;,gs.S:*.. D.** .'*G* W s p.tt.tr I* e
- e as' s ris * 'A*. e At. L sew 1.14:*! 1338
~- s as... ::::.18.us ts:in
- .1. W t
~/
- c. !-s#
l .Tannary 14e 1977 [ IJ -- L. ~}- k D M.e'.1C y. c _ : n '. _?. _y_
- 1*
2:; ~ mow::C TC?.: v.C.Rutacek.,f 3 R. C. Taylop "g
- R. C. Str.:a:t
~ l C.1, Cherg').* . J. U. A. tros. r,.,\\ t a.'. e,sii:4.gef. Projects gaction ym
- TEC 3 AXA*d3'*%45NI.III*'Y*t L
' " '5UMICTs i'
- /
,j/ -
- \\
t 3 goggo' sad is s'se== fron 3111%idit con,cet:i=g 2icenses perfor=ance trend To answer his que' tiens please provita the following CY,76 i analysis. i=for=ation. e # f pd(erandRetetivere'sofC8"'t~"?f*"D'If*f'"'*>'~T' a. s (I have this.infornati,on alraady) i b. Inforterest Ristotv-4 s. 1 for sach facility lists. f ~ i (1) Inspection Repor: Nu=her . (2) Dates of Inspection (3) Nu ber of Viola. ion e I
- (4) Nu ber of Infra:tions (5) Nu=her of reficiencias (6) Nu=her of teria. ions (7) Mandays involved (for that i=spection)
(4) Rc= ark.s (indica:e if repast frrn 1976 and 1975) (3) Neber of outstanii=g unresolved ite=s Ressensiveness of T.ieensee to Inferee-ent Ae: ten W. l 4 c. t (1) Is licensee on ti=e with answer to our lettert (2) Are ansvers adequate? Do ve have to go hack for more i=for=ation? (3) Is correetive action done pro:ptly! (4) Are any inadagnate a:svers our f ault? (5) Is the licenses responsive in your opinisa? g7 I i I. g W" a l Y f'{ i9 1
n... 'r Oo38000 -f '9,9 I m ,g 193 w-- d. Eu ':er ef Unresolved 7te-, - Tieeliness Resolutten (1) "c_bers are given in b. (9) abov's. (2) Are u= resolved itens, cleared ripidly! -l (3) Average time to clear. (4) Are nu_bers/inspectionin the increase? Why? Cei;erate ?!anavement liveivement in 7.eeu1'atie i .atters + e. 46. l (1) Suf ficient zanase=ent n; esentatierr of exits? s (2) Attitude receptive?J,,'.
- (3) Sig ature on' 11eenVee4ptters appropriate level?
(4) 1s canagement involved 1.~'(indicate basis for ansfer) P.s,. c,, ' n. I f. Ef fectiveness of CA/0C Protras, y r.- l This is a very subject'ive mTa rer'. I desire yo c own opi=. fan.and what you tase your opiiion,on. If too early in construction phase to state, indicate this. Also indicate what you believe we can do e . tof fiava them i= pro've their progran.
- Anv Other Trends Indicative of Peer 7erfere.snee
-3 List and dishuss any other indicatioEs that may poi =t out poor / good perfor=ance. As a last ite=, give se your. general reco==endation oc advisabiliry of
- holding a periodic anagese=t centi.s with all licensees to discuss past g
i .perfor:ance and identify possible proble=s for the lice:see to avoid. . JLs indicated in the enclosure, this is to be your assess =ent of your -"ac*tive" facilities. Please have your infor=ati'an to me by C05 on j 3anuary 25, 1977. I l t Wk: -n W. A. Cross an, Chief Projects Section p. Inc.losuret As stated ces V. C. Seidle 4 I i I J t r l
1 ...,_z, oossooo f M Tfg1 l- .t - L_. ___ -=.&._ Igy h e r T;.n.? A*:1'.Y!!!, . N1 } 5 SCJTH TEIAS.151T51 12_ 2 L b. Enforcement Histerv See attachment E ~ .Restensiveetss cf t'icensU to Enfir e-ent Matte-s_ c. -} ( Yes .;,f,f on the basis of 'ene.,chpleted c:rrespinder.ca cycle - yes they are (2) adequate. . f% . is .,..5 Y'.y.. ?, (3) Yes -r; ,'y J,5). Not 4;plicable .g wh Yes - licensee per' enneTwhile well i;ualifted. are somewhat in- ' (5) experienced at GA and heve expressed appreciation for ce occasional s suggestica en how to head off probless. ' e4 fNu-ter of Uereselved ite=3 - Tire 1Teess Resolutien_ d. i
- bok *
(1) In b. a c, (2) Yes (3) Genefal one inspr-tion cycle. ?', 3 , (4) no Cereerste Pannee--nt involve-et_ e. Ecth licensee and gereral c:ntrseter sit'e' unagement and usually the (1) licenste's home office project GA canager attend the exits. - s (2) Very (3) Executive Vice President appears adequate. The ic ression is I believe licensee ransgerent is very involved. that the executive YP is of the cpinion that their program shculd be (4)
- .}
good enough that we will have gnegative findings. .l f. Effectiveness of C1/CC Preeres It appears that the 11cer.see has gathered a greus of technically sound, agressive pe:nle to caintain surveillance over the general c:ntractor whoThe has ifne level CA/CC res; nsibility. t . kk xg a ~. a o r 4 __________.__.___o
1,93 ' L.,. oo38 coo-r%l 1 l' ,'.
- Y.:.. L.-T' O %
MM 'i .%) = y t QA/Q~ a; pears to have ar. acecuate pr grar but has sC*e reluctance to exercise its autnerity. Few strong positiens are taken unless. I the licensee provokes action. L Progra=atically both the iteenste and, Brown & Root are quite adequate. t The only real solutten(s) are: t ~ (1) The licensee take oveIfu11 QA/QC responsibility with 812 having 'J.' -o. none, or > 4, (2}- Replace B&R CA/QC'ilte.unagement and perhaps scoe home offics sanagerent with per.sennel with scre intestinal fortitude. i ..v;?,.. ~ ' i'
- g., Anv Other Trends. Jd Yjr.
.p As a further point en'f.N(4-it:was 'the licensee who provoked B&R f 33,1976, QA into taking action agtihs-3CC. MR succerted tt.e Decer.ber 5 ten Work Order with t. very weak group of descrecarcies uncovered by an ,Wdit performed that dah but Nad been raintaining full time surveillancs .- 3 ' over PCM for six weeks.t,It.has'always been axi.c:atic that it is far easier to be agressive and fir:rwith sube:ntract:rs than with your com - ',yl panies' construction forces for obvious reesens such as continued erploy-Here we have the situatien where B&R CA eculd not bring it upon men;. What is tie::selves to take effective action with a subetntracter. 'tprobable when B&R begins the r:re difficult and it;crunt work involving piping and electrical systen:s? I think we wait and see. i I see no reasen for seriodic senior le el unagement resting's. Manage-ment teetings shculd be reserved for actual need so as to keep high visibility-sutus. i ' ~ j t* 6 1 GP l e I l 0 4 .t.. e e d o ~~' 4 y ~ 9 -Ta --~-m,r ~ ~ -
e a e Q m b L... t oo38 coo -r 'IIT_ Y_ol@f . -_ = y l '- > _ s ~ p fe et h e s= C C C et O ee
== e om ee 3 = s C e en e e e 4 ee .ag C em d W &m ons su g es k em >= 0 3m C = =, EK C D .C,s ens
===* N 4 e E w. m. y g e d; e-* one, $.. l m.
- . (1.
s...- l 0 -iW.
- y'y s
.g 's e a=- C ... : 7... . 3 D .e ?, *t f s M r ] g g so\\ er N w m a w P C e e z I .fa /. f 8 ,I s I 1 l .t I C l m. e suo O en
== -9= v -e-
- W9 a==
en l .E ed pg i ese D } M = E O e m C3 P9 er s-
- 6*8 t
N e= em N Pen e s"e Z e e e e e O M Cm em m W D =
- P P4 W
N N mis m N C C
- ==
C em w w W G m = = = l &md e t s O l t. = .,a e4 6. s= N Pi sur ett W 9== O O O C O O Q Q On e e e e e e o ed W W W W W W W K. Pan P= P= Pan P4m Pim P4. n s I w* e e e
- 3 e e a--
_,~ L l ? i
- ID.
4 I i vv..- _ _,}}