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:~ e, ,
<... 3 ,
103
~
i 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
.. 4 t
2 ' BEF0RE THE ,, .g,. q.g . y l 3
,s.,
Q[ t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l I l . . 4 3 {:: 'l [ i. . , I
; 5 In the Matter of: ) uNC A GRUTMM: !
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 . F j 10 [ . Green Auditorium
- i South Texas College of Law
$' 1303 San Jacinto Street Houston, Texas
[. 12 z i .
= n 5 Wednesday, ,
13l . i January 20, 1982 ' P 14 ir PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT, the above-entitled d N . 9 15 > matter came on for further hearing at 9:00 a.m.
? 16
?g j APPEARANCES:
- r '
H 17 O
~
Board Members: h G 18 s
= 6 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Chairman h }9 k Administrative Judge A [
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board ; 20 la U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l R Washington, D. C. 20555 8 21f ERNEST E. HILL, Nuclear Engineer 7 ' 22 h Administrative Judge 1 4 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 23 a University of California
- ,' Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, L-46 3 24j Livermore, California 94550 i 25 kN GARDEs$j5e86093o 5-37g ppp .
n
- i. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l t
S 9'"<> j AP P E A RANCE S : (continued) 10G I 2 DR. JAMES C. LAMB, III Environmental Engineer . 3 . Administrative Judge I Atomic Safety & Licensing Board . 4 313 Woodhaven Road , Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 , l e 5 j k For the NRC Staff: N 6 ! E 8 EDWIN REIS, Esq. n > 2 7' JAY M.rGUTIERREZ, Esq. ', 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 z 12 Arlington, Texas 76011 E i
- 13 i For the Applicant, Houston.Lichtino & Powe r comoany :
l n i a 14 Iy JACK R. NEWMAN, Esc. =
$ k MAURICE AXELRAD, Esq.
E 15h ALVIN H. GUTTERMAN, Esq. E Lowenstein, Newman, Re'is & Axelrad 1 J 16l 4 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. , E 3 Washington, D. C. 20036 N I7 s y ^ FINIS COWAN, Esq. E 18 Baker & Botts E 300 One Shell Plaza g 19 gl ' Houston, Texas 77002 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 - g 6f . i
$. 7 l'
;l; 8 l.
J o
- i 9 i t
i C
!- 10 l g i E 11
- I 4
d 12 ' I E
= \
- 13l ll 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 19 e-s_ r: ' 20 i 8 I 21 - - i t - 22 , i f 23 ;,' a 4 i 24 l* ' i. 25 C I' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. i
s , 9547
, like that being in the file, per se. 108 y
1 1' 2 g All right. 3 . Is -- Anyone on the Staff can answer this, 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 K Does the Staff find that method which was in-formal at one point and then formalized, is that a satis- { 8 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 E j 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 19 A I'm not sure if I know exactly what you want h n 20 me to embellish on. l l 2I O I just wanted to find out whether the NRC 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 j was likely to lead to effective resolution of any such 2 questions. 3 BY WITNE,SS HUBACEK: 4 A The informal procedure which I'm familiar
= 5 with appeared to be satisfactory'to me at the time that 2
e j 6 I was closely involved.
~
E 7 I didn't have any problem with the procedure M { 8 that was used. O c 9 0 All right. i h 10 BY WITNESS PHILLIPS: 3 3 l 11 A The informal procedure and the formal procedure y 12 was an additional step that the licensee had taken that I c j 13 had not previously seen on other sites. So I'd have to a m g 14 say that it was an additional measure from that standpoint. E g 15 And also at the beginning of my assignment a g 16 there, I took note of the fact that HL&P had conducted' a d 17 a number of investigations on their own and had their 5 18 files, which were -- had documented those investigations. h ! P 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's all the questions h 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. .. -:: . ':.
v
/
110 w n a .- . w ., . . ;w._ ,. , a - :.. . ( ,. f .. ko0[71/9b ~. r
? s : .
T 4
' N0087496 04/Z3/81 7
... ~_.-.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . NUCLEAR REGULATORY CGet1551CR r -
.j l { ',
(_ C,, . n, BEFORI THE ATCNIC 5AFETT AND LICEM5fMG $0ARD i c _. ... y ! , v . - b~% ; . - + -- In the Metter of [ u Houston Lighting & Power Capany, , Docket Mos. 50-498 5o-49s g: : .' f - - - atA* , ,
.T.
(South Texas Project thits 1 and 2) .h.J- .-
- 4
..s S.'V'.' -
j .
',. ~
. - - " ,JP
.) * .s NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. SEICLE. WILLIAM r.
EA. CRO$3 M
' W.
'd ;
WILLIAM G. HUBACEK. ROBERT 8. TAYLCR AND W. $HANNON PHILLIPS, RELATIVE TO THE NISTCRf 0F CONSTRUCTICM ACTIVITT
. 30. 1980 _-
'19:5 LEADING UP TO THE $N0s CAUSE CRDER OF APRIL l .'
m.
' . .4. ..
. r.
'T s': }*
se .f, .h y Vill the Panel members please state your nee, aployer. Job "f,',*.., ,,,,." Q. k'
-] .
7 title and spectftcally, your responsibtiltles relative to the South Texas I . ,
'4 "?.'. < ,. ..
g *a- j
' .. pr
- Project. E', 2
-', . T Qgl 7:...,rg ,=.g$ g' .;g >*3. .
% name is V1111am C. Seidle and I as currently Chfef. Engineering p. c.
C f..,.h.g'
~
,1 A .,.
- >.$.M. ..y; 4 A.
Inspection Branch. Region !Y. Office of Inspection and Enfortement. m., d.. .d. United y-
;. m ~*-
y rh , '.2
'. ' .: / . r< , u% . 7
. For the period relevant to this N;.;L.y ,
. , ' . $tates Ik clear Regulatory Coeurission.
u .i ., , '. . p. ' 4estimony. I tas Chief of the Reactor Construction and Engineering Support . < *. .- M .f . I was responsible for the fsplementation of progrus of, f'* Branch (RCSE38). . L i :. t . inspection investigation, and enforcement for nuclear power plants under ;-
-~
5 , l.., -1 construction in Region 1Y. including the Sot.th Tetas Project. 3 .I
$ noe is V111tas A. Crossman and I as Chief. Section (3) thrte. .
.s j .
Raactor Projects trarch. Cffice of Inspection and Enforement. Regfon !Y. L' [.h For the period relevant to ,<
.. Imited States Muclear Regulatory Ca=1ssion. -
,d
. I was responsible ,
4
?. v . this testimony'. I tes Chief. Projects Sectics. RCSESS. ['
l '?;g4 . ..R , [' l 'g ' ... . 22
.W( i.
k
* , .7 5. . .
8 e
* (, S Q b.., -
s,,
?w 1
. (( .
l h.
-,db n
. : .;;d
- r. ., . .
-~~-~ ~
r[
- ~,
.c . "..
. ,' S.h
- w. ...
' T . .
1 , . . *s. r u ' r-
.Q -
..'A..
'- * - .(.
t.:. 8.,.* 3
' .y.
l [ g * ; s . .-
.c . '
--l C
t . w' l***D a {. ? ~
?.* '
.'h ,-
.~~ .
hh...~ , E **, ? ~ ,- ,. ph
- v '
.h , **g ,J E
..s .,n .
sf( *
*'-t" "e'
L. _ r _ ea; s.-
- m w W .L.*...
.: .w
,,RC..,
N.' ; * ._- . u.'. .r_
. ~1. . ; .-, *__ '_._ .d,f M t@ ; $ . ' ~ NF ,
, j
. ., -2 : - - c .. .
.['.i , u .+.- m.
i a i
. O'.T.M ?.M2R9:
E w 4 . . d i _ '" m f
,.- .- .....p.... ., . . ,
4 2: C .t. y,;. g. ,.,; ..e ,j,.;;; p . .g .y ,,J ,g,., ,;fe g -;c g ; 7. , . . .. . g .g :
. . - ~ .._,
' - -. -,- a
)
\ .'
- 111 7 -a . w. :- .. - a. : .w
. . .a. . s ; i w w ~ e m ,.x ..,,. ~ , e 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 l r
.k plaats under construction including the South Temas Pmject.
% name is 1tt111am L kbecek and during the perted relevant . . . . .
to this . . - - -. ,.
, n, testimony I ms a Reactor Inspector in RGESS. Office of laspection and ,
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 ',
Currently. I as a Reactor Inspector. Sectica (3) 'three. Reactor projects q. D ,
; 7,
(($.k'. .:s - ' T . 's,
. j .' Branch. Region IT.
y'
~ ',h s y. . \ - 4 .. . % name is E Shannon phillips and I have been the Resident Reactor
(", . .. 1-L-Y.
/ . ;'s / -d.b Inspector at the South Texas Project since August 22.1979. I am respons1
'>1-
-..i
../;-ps W .. 4.m .
ble for coordinating all safety related inspection efforts relative to the Mb ., ., - v?h 7s' %. ' - ' >.; f.. i* i* . NRC Region and,the site. In addition. I was a nonber of a special lavesti. -- (3 'lc; u,j j J r* 4d-w ' ,' Y ' - d :f.d .s -
'd mi.y. [' , . .._
- c:
*,f' ~. ,[' .
+.
,. O gative tems investigattag allegations concerning lack of QC annagement support, fatteidation and harrassment of gsality conttel laspectors and the as :. -
..<{tl
] -
'* }-
*: e
-1 assessment of the effectiveness of the quality assurance / quality centrel s: .
; 1
. .<: .i progras at the South Tazas Project. Tkts ,tavastigative effort resulted ta {
*'} ..a
.y the issuance of Staff Report 50-498/79-19 and 50-499/79-19 the staff's
. ;, ',Q.y . .l a ,
J
' Order to show cause dated April 30. 1980 Retice of 1tolation and Prosesed f.'M) '
Impositten of Civil Penalties. '
. - * . ;f
!r- c. .';i~% j i'
,tg, L .'
- o. o .. M .
si
;,f;.-
e-s.,. m
+
.'s - - '. (_,
' " " j.
. ~
,. 3 ' < .
Q s
'J , , ,, y <
+ D' =
g; -
,3 j .',. ' i*.
, 2 ., - d:.m
-t
._ c ; . - . '
(* v .. .
.# . , a ..
*T*
('~;, . 7 7;' ' .
'f .
_.[
~
Y f.Q - O.' i:.
.l
-. 3 '
.r.--. ... ~
,'I4 .
V.[, , e.v . :.{ ' ;?.' .[.~ .
..: n::; . .
~
i ^.t.,
, , .W
'.. - - .: w ..- --
.e. ,
5
;3N,1 s d. ,
- ~
3,. . O .gY,* i.s, L*.
- W io 'd '
I.
, ;+t'.+1
.3 p.,,
d' i., c e i N .I' ,
.- c.2- .. ; .. ?-y ,-
4
".;i "
l 1, g. , E - yr. i P.M.e. ..J:
' ,
- 2:.n.
( *p,.' 4
'[ ~ '
y..... !.**.. I . . ._ ,
- v. ,
R l} 1 . . u. :
?.. 5:- ..
j[l ,, pC*., W - M . A
~_ .$- h.{h?! 5.l.f?. , ,
5 El( '.'.' fi-Q f.
* -t..,
e 2,
- 3 L M' ' O.( O M. 6 ..N,. i. b,;: '
(* ,
.'.. e . ' . *.;,, *... < 8-
- 4. y ;,.y.
,,y. f j y, % . .. . , , (~ t;,., / . .-._ ...
= . ' . :' t % ,, . L
, . _ ' .s_r .; s .. ..-
'p .' . ' i' ',',. =_l'_.. * <
- 3' . L. , . :. ~. . . w*.1 ew ~, ~ ..%,u. - . . .' ?. s , s . ... .
.e.
' ^ . .
v v f.,
.,y a
- 112
- s .
- ' ' - - ~-::-. .'
.O . .
w . . ... .w .. . a. . _.-..i.,- ~.w.
. . . _. . . a. %
3 , ,
. .s
,i [
; r, .
[ d5
- q. Has the Panet prepared statements of, educational and professional f.y [.
apaalt f testions? .. A. Yes. Q. Are the statements attached to this testleegt f
~ A. Yes. . .,.. ,.%.
Q. Wat is the purpose of the Panel's testimeg? ~ ' . A. The parpose of this testimony is ta' respond generally to concens h. 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 : c ..
' respond te part to the following contentients .
y 3, L 3.,. . .
~
3. (CCANp. CG) Contention 1 S,. -
.Y, t. . .
p.. t . '; .& , There is no reasonable assurance that the activities author
- i .
ized by the operating Itcense for the South Texas maclear 4# #
.Q'S
?; .f. Project can be conducted without endangering the heelth and k* a
...ej
;.g . . safety of the pubits in thats . L* .
c .. J.v .. -
%jM..t.."' -),fj There has been a surveying error etch has resulted ta Q: - *%
s.<. T' g ,.; d.g.'7 1. the eastern edge of the Unit.I ttchantcal Electrical Aux 11tsrf 9 #4
- 6 .- Jii D sv)' .# .M'1 Sut1 ding being constructed one (1) fact short (in the east-west - f N., s.
direction) from its design location. This error violates a-
* $ ..3','.? ' f f;Q W f:.1W.67 +.)
*/ .
t.
*g ;@ 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Appendix 8. Sections 1 and II.
. ' ' ' ' f( .yj ,,, * ,.
- 2. There has been a [stc) field constructica erroe and as a . .
0.: - ) .. result, extensive voids exist in the concrete well enclosing > O .V; - ', g the contatnnent tutidtag. in vietation of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 b .'
. g:i * * #y .g , . .'2 e. , .
.f*
, Appendia 8. Sections II and I.
. vm ?,,
9
- 3. In viointion'of hality' Assurance and Oaality Control
.E _
- i"U ? ' reoairements applicable to the South Texas maclear Project f'. J with regard to document control (10 C.F.R., Part 50. Appen.
a fitle document relatteg to
.L Z diz 9. Sections vt and IVII), lost.
.,1 >
cadweld inspections has been t 4/> q? -
.:a '
- 4. There are rurerace seals in the esntainment stracture f'
. d.' which are dansged indicattag a violation of to C.F.k.
y~ Part 50. Appendia 8. Sections I. H and IY1.
* .3 I ./.c* 'y -
- e 1 J.? -
t .
...c
\El
' " *ib 7,h
.: ,o , .. . . , .
. ,-s . .
. - r
.s;.9, .
~ G . ,:, %. ._ _ . . .
Y . , e 1 (. s , v ... .
.: y .
...i.
1 c'~
?-D ~~
'~
- p. ~
. .:,; . ~~ 3 :.'-:: ~J. . :
, %^L-
%;. ; G. g:.
e ..
- ?. ... . .
, m .:
L .' ..c
;;M.-? u u .
. 93 . ,
.. y ,
5 *
.W
';.,-p .y
. ; 9 . d,-. 4
.,.j.,,,
64 :
' , - ',~
- d. ,,*3 4 TJ
.s . r,.
- ,,1
.jn..., . .
g.s. 1 6
.. n , ,
.s,-
..w.
- r. cr --
, i .
- n. . .
i .. gg.,. sg,. w.g.
- c. ,A
-5 .5 * -
.f ,y
+
.. .. f.- ,' ; .-
._ e .
* .%.. I .-E' y ,
.b.,.
. .a . . - * , .n ji .
.so4
,m . ' '*q
- umuse . - ~
;M
- d m.s. .g' '.m 7,Y- '" '
-~.3 l
~
4 ~- .. 3... .ez.~ ,.- .,c, ,_. Q .*
- S. h* N* u$fh N *
~.
w . . i , .'h. -M Mm G hh.A d,M ; . g
.: . . . x~
. ~. _- - :.a.:_=.w.
, . ... . u . .
, t.p.y 9.w;s._6_e.:..
_. ~m ?. c m . ;e.;..n -. ...e
;. . . n-:::: ..*5M;m n . wi A-- ~ ~c' @ .a
' f.I
~
113 ' u.a _ n W. t.. ..s-;s_v._ - .
.x-.a
.2 t , _ ,g, _ ,
=~. o
- 4
*i .
.-: 5. There are s. teel reinforcement bars efch are alsstag
"*V from the concrete around the egitpuent doors le the con. .
tainment and sech bars are missine from the containment :
. structure as wil indicating violettens of 10 C.F.R. . P-part 50. Appendia S. Sections I. IV and IV1. .
.. 6. There are cadwelds dich have been integrated into parts of the plant Structure dich are not capable of being veri.
e za fled with regard to compliance with 10 C.F.R. part 50 > Append 1A I, in violation of Sections II and I of Appendix B. , 1 . r.
; 7. Oaaltty control as per the regifrements of 10 C.F.R.
part 50. Appendia B. In particular Sections 111 and II, has . not been complied with, because: [ q a. Efforts by gaelity. control inspectors to verify
- that dellga changes were esecuted in accordance with .
~. ; the purposes of the original design wre repeatedly and
. . systematically thwarted. .
L-
".4, a g.
. . s
;.gf.s b. There were personnet other than the original designer
.y .
. approving design changes with no first hand knowledge s 1 N L. . --
of the purpose of the original desig% .
.y,# *
, . .4 i ; r .
., =~ '- .- c. There were design changes approved by personnel 5;.
".M@
,,i. .,J . , *t .enquellfled to the type of design dere the change was b-ende. ,
.:$ . . 'l; '. /I ' <. f
, G 2 .> , .
**t'- '
- d. There wre neerous pour cards that were supposed W
.. , ,.t. < ; g.'J, . '.4 ' .e q . L. h -@r. to record the correct execution of concrtte pcurs which L'O;M.
' ' ,N 3 ,
J were falllfled by neercus persons.
^
N. a .7
**l* **i.'
'K'*N.* *gl.
. , /.
- Af % a t 53H t. f. &
.e. There has been and continues to be assaults on the Appliant's quality control inspectors. ' continual threats
;.'p.
C 'P
+
* - - .J* 4' T p-C.i
-- of bodily hans to those inspectors, firing of taspectors.
[ W ,'
- 52 ..'
- s -
,. and other acts constituting a pattere of behavior '
O , 'i r.;
* ' ' =
designed to intimidate the inspectors. As a result of
.T ,. i the intialdations, certale inspections were never done i ,' - .
. ? .' . 7
, . H- becault the inspectors decided to play cards ever a N-
'* - '..-l-i per141 et four months rather than rist their safety en
?
., the p14nt grounds.
j As a result of the foregoing. the Comission cannot make the F. '. findings rewired by 10 C.F.L I 50.57(a)(1) and (2) necessary ' 7
.,ff:y.
- .f g
p for issuante of an operatSg license for the South Texas hatlear he, ject.
- r. -
]
.reW? r , y
[
..n :
t 2 . ~ ( $. .* t . [
- sl #
l E. ,
*..,.'J
,' 3-]
.7
* * '.N.;
.1.*.* , ,
.', c: 4 .
. I.
p.-' , ~ 4[ ." . -
. d
. ;;' - ' ' *y * *
, . p' .
? -..-.a...
- t ;g; t , v. %'- '
~
, ~
* . . c. ~
3 : '. . . .
"n'[ * * * * * ' ' * * ' **
. .y ._ .- 6 . 6,, , . Q._ [ ** ,
- s. r 9,q ., 3 , .c w
. >- . ~.- -
- . - . .. - . , . . . :.g --
s,
- -a
. ',* a
- 1
~
- . .. '.'y
' *. '.n
. r.~~;
g :, i'[ s '
- A.'; ." f .~
.3,,, .
_ , 3
-e- T *- s i&..
- 4. . .
m
..f.Iin /.g
-. ~~j
- y" G.'y **, *
;.p.a . ..? : .
- D..<.~-
; *- t .
y.*-g
'g (.{ -
U$ .. .
,,.[t * [ h *. ' ,
I' k - , 5.' d l GM E ..w.r n gg.g p y =:w;. =. - .T m "?N""
" 3 _.:.&:J~-b'Wp;vp? C.% 4, -z :, v. .*
a 4 Q, 4
}
. ~.e,.
j
. c.,3 4 jy .
d%[- .oAo.. IJ#istsi
.s.m-
-J..
.....e: - ...<-
_y. _...a. ...-: -..~ ..
.,. . ..-. , . = . * . ^ * - -
.2 . L. .e- ..
114
~
.- .~..a- -
x c. u wa r , _ ._ .
, 5 f-s f
.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 '
a South Texas Project construction records have been falstfted by employees of Houston Lighting and power Company and Bro.m . and Root in violation of 10 CFR part 50. Appendix 8. Sections J VI and IVII. V. 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 ,
..s(.l.
- 1tsues.
L6 l-(.~ ;
. ' q.
Can you tell me generally what the Office of Inspection and g'i .
.y , .. ; ,
*
- i, 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 I 1..C L $.yc Q _. ;.1 z ' f.Q.. !".3;%.-o Q .' - . (E;
. .: $ .j if4.,C..Q.f.N6 of (fcensees' fa-111ttes to ascertatn whether they are complytag with !stC
; Qs . q. , .- u +.
l regulations. In addition, the Office of Inspection and Enfortement Investi. y ,[.? # i
.- ,: 5,4 l-
,. j p- :.:..gy . .e c, -
- r. n. ,
,- ., . .g - gates accidents., allegations.' and unusual circumstances it recomends
.f -f ..)3
.+.
changes in Itcenses ane standards, based a on the rusults of inspections. F.
~
v. [, , fnvestigations and enforceent actionst and it notiftes itcensees regardfag
~
4 generik: probler.:s so as to achieve appropriate precautionary or corrective l . . '. ' action. Generally. the responsiblitty assigned to inspection and enforce- , '. "yr :1, I. ;Y. , ment by 10 C.F.R. establishes that foundatto. upon dich the reactor r.., .
.' ?, '.
Inspection program 1s structured and it confers to the Office'of Inspection
%.;E and Enforcement the authority to inspect activities over dich lutC has
.V P jurisdictice. ,,- .
,,g .
. , b.
.?.-
. ,3 i .
. ;..2l gr:. . .
. .. v.. .
. , f '
". J - +T
. . s.m
- k. .
.. . . n ,
=
- it" .'., ,;J.,u 4
+ v
' h' ,
,. . *1"* *4 * ,y,.~. !. 4 n/ . ' . ,b . w . ,. , F .- .' ,
i, 3 g . ,c
- g. .. . . .
m 3. .. . . . , .. .. .. ,
.. e. ..
. ,- e
.n.. .
o-
; ,1 '
s
?. *
- h. =-
. J. .N) . . . .R.
. 'l 3-
- 2. s g s_.s.
- f. .I (W .
. i
, V:
Q% %l@ -
.; . . . r -
m;
- r' c
- t.
. ^ ft.) d'
$ :m. ,,
wc . n.n
.~
-; ~; .: x, - 7.W? f. .
j e . Y. H. -J - fi7'.'""T* R Q .- Z .
.h. . -[. .,%-?- "n.'w'* . .%. .. ,.QQQ. . . ,.m . ". - *. a 4 .. *.*6 s . [
. ' - . * . . h 'n " : - . - **
h f* * - . ,
.. (e -
- c_.wm .c
- u. e
~
' 4 i ..2. MW O'i.Ol!).@).23.Ed
.:_ q. ' . . ... -- -.. -~.... .4 p:;.:." f.T.;
. _ . . , . n. #. . :. 7".~ Qq,R c~.5. ;.W- , .R.. m1
- m. .i ,m
._ _ . . .a. .y. .- ...:
. _ :.:fM7:X. - : -.sm.J .-u.. : .. ?. . _:-P. __ .m._
.Cj .h t , .
Q r~ 1
- fd 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 Yes. ender the NRC's total reactor Itcensing program. it is the [,
n.;. ( A. ' licensee's obligation to design. construct. test and operate its fact 11ty le
, 7,
;. l- . ~,.Q - .
x accordance with the stC's regulatory regairements. An integral and essential k, ,, p , I' element of the NRC's regulatory regstrement is Appendia 3 to 10 C.F.R. 50
' %@j- . . . , ,;s .~p.$ p '
Q.j
% " If., f, ,, t>ality Assurance Criteria for maclear power plants and Fuel Reprocessing L.'.
p . - L*. ,
- 1 Sw n. . a. .~
Plants. This Appendix describes a management control syste. or quality f. k 'x,, QM f h. 7. -
- Qh
'* assurance program (QAP) etch each Itcensee s'st u develop and impiament. .
J3
,Y- d.rt.51 e '/. > I. f,1
.. 1 L -
1 b, %c 3 ..a. ...... The design of this program envistons a pyramid. "catrol systen dereby the o 'd 6'f
. e ,% f .,f' 'n/. ...*s4
* ' f. . .R.
e lower level ' of this pyranto assures a detailed faspection and test programs j* y ? . 5. ~ .- . s( p ..
.. '%.. .g w.~ . ?.
by the licensee itself or its contractors to assure that all safety signiff. 't- .
?.- ..
.4 cant actions are properly accomplished by 1tcensee' craftsman using approved y;y ..
proc'edures. At this level of the gialtt;y control system, a detailed vert. ,u
...~
s fication progran requires op to 1001 tasp.ction by the Itcensee's onsite ,, Q'
- s.y y[.
gaa11t3 catrol personnel. It is this level of verification of imp 1menta. ;- F. ., . ., L . I, i tion of procedures etch provides accept / reject doctstses on specific egatp. C;. ( . . ;.'.,, . > 7. . ment. construction activities. systems, technician or operator actions and 4. . . n-r 3.d.
, . t l f /..,;
', proceduret. .
a.
,4
, g;;.
I. D *
. to i
f a [' ,
. , *. . c,' ?g', :
n.., . , - -
- i. .
*s
.g
. , ' - ,'y *
( ~. ' 1 '; . r;.- ,
- m..., ,
, , , e . t . e L g-
.c
) . .
~".f, . ~.~' _
l .y .
*f-' . "." :,T,:**.h , , ._
2 '
- ?. y ' ' . V '? . . . 'l .~- ' ,.h ; '? - * . ., .
GCa '.
- . %.' '. .I
- ' . ,..
,. m r
.' 'w. &.;
!.Q--,-b;."".. W: o^!l$,;' - .~f,;. -
- v~*.,.
g " . (
..g i1
, i -.%rj .. *
~
. .*.7'. v..J g -9."'.
. 7- ,
. e-
-. , ':;,:.t
, 3
. fag -..,' .
~
1;Y.-
.. U. 'D
- 4
* -a m... . - -
,- ~
;p, ' '
'.yp * ~
)r'
.. D ,
7..
. *:a a
. f.
q.,4
*a,
.Sp
>u.
I,e r
.
- J ,'; e
.- .s .9. :,. . ,
-1.
' r,d.V T, . '. G 1
fM/, . .' - .
, =% >
- o. '
;, c v: ._ ' .
j ._ ' , - r
....;q n'*.'**,,
s
- s *'s ... '
My,gy ,~ j;;;, y -",.;.,,f.7 ,9e,
, . [ ~*.. ._w [ m'. N 5 .8.7 NO~
- . n *.]~L/ . ? '7-f r.;
. o;, .n=* u . go. m. *<: e --..
. .a . .
.I j$-L e '
^ ~* 4 ;m - JuL3 L. * -
M
'2.9 04 0.Q'd.63.2k7f ,
. . , : . ::..., . , X.fy5 *,E F ? *?= S- * ' '. ~'
. _. n......- , . . .
. Y .;_.a Y~* , *;.-*;.
'^
- ..% - .*.s .^:.
~'
' :. .r - --
a _Ju u.a.w.w ;
;;.u u. .. , u .-- : .
. .- . .. .. M :OG t . _ .,_ a .r m n -
a 11D L t 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
' {
{ I the detailed gality control tetts and inspections. 1hese audit results are . p. 1 reported to licensee nanagement tehlch in turn must make progree corrections 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 E. 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 y d safety signfficance have been tentidered,and.will be properly ' coepleted. M e { . At the upper lev'l of thtt teganfrational scherse. the Iftensee's manage. 1
- j. .' ment must provide adewate orgaattttfonal independence and competent man.
. 0 3
. e. - .s
.. poner for its gality assurance 4nd Sality control programs and provide v..o ... ;5 policy guidance to all aspects of the Ifeegsee's and contractors' organiza-
'}
t .. , p
. , i . .a . . . ,
.' .m] tions in order to assure gality performance in all safety aspects of the
- r. ,
4,, , -
- =.r0 -. .
. . Ay <v. %.1 6i .'4.
.n. s ,g ..+N t construction and operation of tti nuclear facility. g_.+.,,p* m '.
& .R.*p? }>%'s. .W.*.rh.
- o. Ec *# 'y
-- t),
triat is the Office of intpectfon and Enforce =ent's function f a.. y*yse ; ?. u- .:
.* L.
( 4].. . 4, .f.,nlN. . t .$. i4.; . y
^;
,,g relation to the method you just described to assure cality control under.
.,.. - fed,
(.J.* JM Appendia B to 10 C.F.R. 50f '
;,. .s
. . s i'm , r, ,
5.g r, .' s ' ; / , ... iffi..* .. :3. .'. } 'y A.
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, I-.. . a inspectices are not ateed at verttttttton of individual c:epoetats, actions. s .
.e procedures fon wed by the ttt utiet but r.ther, are need at e,4 watt.g
[: w
- .{G _
.- +~ . <.
; . .;n
. :.y i -
.< ';.,w# , , _.. .c .
7
.c.. ..- p ,,
*g
.;. g.m- .
. 1,m. .
1 j.:l., .
. .c <. -
s e >,; 1.- tV l ; .5
= v;ep . .. : .
- ~
. ;m
-;~ . . / .s,. a.w , , . a. . ~. .
p . ;g \.
. . < . ,. a. . ;9
. . .. ~
.. ., n, m.
l .7,J,.
.. e
.: , ..aa u
. .i
~. .
. 9;,._
1
.- -. , , , _. --M4 .
y.
- c. .;
. .m
. .L . .
p'.
^ . .. . . , , . i
,.,%., . . c.
. rR.'a 3
m.
- lg%
.g * ,. - '
c . .x -
'Q -
Q* ~ N %I -
.. d ;; .
j.L . b 6' N' Q 5V: , L , n. ,,-.m. .- ,, ' i.w..c.
~.
- . c m".' M:~.: 'n _ ~ .. g .. ~*- '-- * ,~.
~~
^ ' - - .
r-f,' 3f"?! 5[ ..a;K;x.x s - _ \w: .:..:.u . , , ~ 1, ~
!m mm ;' o i OJ 3._6K_ 2_d.E- :
o '.
".J
.....w
' :.. r e .,. n.M,,:, ; .x. '
- .J. ~+ . . . . .s . . .
'. -.,,.....v.
nu,.n.-, .- , .,.;..G - . ;. .~.:-: :u.yn ~L.*en. . . '- i -. ~r. G. '- .::
- -t ~ ~ . '~* .?.:
~ : . .J . . ' n :- - '- - -- -
,. .:. . p ." 2: c -:-"*,. x
...d
*a -
L. 4-
.x. ; . wow-~ . . . .
- c. . . . . c .' ' - W. g.
,3 _. 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 management and direction of the organization, facluding the estabitshment of ;. i
.~1 - . .
B
> 1 . 7 inspectios and enforcement poltetes, programs and guidance. Needquarters also has the responsiblitty for toplementing escalated or special enforce. ,
3.Q 4 ment or investigation actions. r- ,
.v.-V /, , .
In contrast, the five regional offices have the responsiblitty foe * ,, . . 5 f..M't . [2 implementing the inspection and enforcement programs. These responsibilities
, a .e,w 1 -
f - Wy .. < include routine inspections. investigations. and inquirtes, and the taking ,
*I, ,,,,Y ? ?. of appropriate enforc'enent actions. .
.r en . - :, . ./:v.r.g . . x- ,.q e p.v, .rk.b, . .*ay s.1Lf.. .;4 s v., a, *,'6 Q. Particularly in Regfon !Y idiat organizational units were spect. {& .f..' .,. .
~
'* fica 11y concer;ned with Houston Lighting & po.or Company relative to its g.. . ,k.". p . > ..o~. M...,(
t.
... . ;! ~ ,-
i .G ... ~ f ;, : - activity at the South Texas pryect during the period covered by this
..c 4.'7- .
testtaony? 2
. c '. .F ..e :
,i ~.
- e. :- e, .~.,. .
. + ;. s-Q l..
-{ A. Is Region IY, the Reactor Construction and Engineering Support q
~
. Branch (RC&E58) was c'harged with the responsibility of implementing the
- C*,)'. .
- ' u progres and policies previously described which relate to the construction j -.i d...q - ,
'iM of nuclear facilities. It was this branch which conducted inspections of
n. :
tlw licensee's activities associated with the construction of the aucteer - 1 ?i%.,
. . . T.
5
~ A. facility. including design controls, procurement. audits, site construction. i vw I N '
and functioning of the managuest control systems. In addition, the RC3E53
\-
. n - . ~ ,
- e. t v..%
.".S..
- .nM . . .
. . .. x ,f .
L';- {::
. __ , :< , , q 4.-
$ . . 1. I -
w p .- . /;..1.A.x, . . s jf;[@.y . , - . i.G ." - f. .
. .,, E.:
f.' ' . , ' , ,: _ '.y};f ...~-......._.,y 3 -gi:.q., .V % . c.
.G. ,. ..
s.,. ; d.
.- (
. .s
.1-
- - -- .- . r.: .
. ~
r' ::.
~y/1
. S' z.51 .
..Q
-m , .,.- l.A ' ~ - e .
Q,_.., 3. <
. j. . ,
...x. \ .
, . ?: ; - - *g, . - , . ,. . . .
A ' " u-i...
/'S ,V.2J .
\ ;.% * - , .: ? . ~.
- M:r;
'A% - @.
A} $ .,a . .
' ,.'~
'O ' M .
M-r.',1
- i r . 5~~a 4-
~
, f),.)
~
9..,-:.w.r 3. Y -
',m:w' ',m. :.
' . ., .. w.
- :~.y:1: n c.:. m. x __ .
D,. &, . i
.gg. . : ._
m#.md - . . . . . ~ .
.y
, a , t . ~_. .m u- :- - .; ; iM 3
.% D3.h*".[M.b.hT.9? .
- (4 __ ._ ___ ___
- -- a
.:: .~.;.... ..,..,w.,....._._4 .
., . - ;~;.:..=f~~....-- .
.-- 3=.,
- - . . . ._., 1
- _.w-,. . ._. _
.' r
.i ,.
.s.. ... .
' an - ~..-". '
'**F'**'~ -"
. _n'.: A L: ,ca. 4%m 118 k.
s
~.
3 r - r 3 followed up on problems identified by the Itcensee etch by regulation were I 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 '~ 1 l P have been in De fons of a letter to the licensee, a meeting between regional b l 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 ..- i and the Itcensee was regaired ta sutntt proposed corrective actica uhtch it {-
. ..g
,! planed to implewnt to prevent recurrence of stallar problems. as well as to "5 'r.. '
+'
correct the speciffe deficiency. RGESS then performed a follow up inspec. .
?rs .
Ii
- 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. ,
,' = r ,. c .,
in11cated' a deterioration in the overall performance of the licensee's 13. ;' f 3.~.
,d . s f. . * , .
.5:q %.'.a.. [g...p-JY.t
,. ... dp' t, ,
progree, an.tn depth inspection would be conducted to upgrade the degree of . . .g Fr 4 +'n,f
- r. ..
"e .*. . 't
. 4- ,
.'.~ ..-
control exercised over the licensee. a-
,s
~ 2 = <*
', t Prior to the Show Cause Order of April 30. 1980 bow long had the ,
g ,,
- Q. .
3 _ Region 11 RCAES8 been inspecting Houston Lighting & Power's constructice t~~ d.'
' activities at the South Texas Project sitet
~
A. Over a period of approafsetely six years. , c ' Is the Panel prepared to tastify with respect to the history of ; b - Q.
- ' 1 there inspactions and notices of noncompitance? ;
;;,?) - t . .
w'. ; A. Yes. Q. ifould you please sumarize the history of RGES8's inspection. . [.. l: investigatici and enforcenent activity at the South Texas Project leading up :
., u. , _
to the enforcewnt actions of April 30, 1980, Y -
.,' .: ,. q .,,
t *7 , T: n
.q -
W.. ( .x 2 : ,. .-emr , ..--
.; . ~i
_' '.f . , t ..
.; _,t :
. _: =
. s'.- : .~
[ ~ g. , . y ; 't . \ . .v : 3, . :w .e
. . . .v. . : .
(
- Q..
;.- ,.; r .
...,1
, T.f.a ~ .. v. ;
. t. .,f l .;
W-( b
. . ;.g
, .d ~
g.- r ; -
.. * . p.: a .
c 2.c.-< . ,~ w:,::- .- e.: -.
~. h ca. . .- A ra ,
* ' , - . ,e','
- ,.'m' .
.f' '
g
' ' "~rl
, .c ',
.r * ,7.'~y ' w . f ' '.; N'. c,. . . ,w31'""'"T
.)
. . -. l , y mp~m:
.;--e - v.m.
,s. .7,; w~ ~ .
a s .7,7.
. . _ . . . ~
m -
- x . . x -
g u.n,4 ^O 1~0:.;. 00 2 O? :. 0..:.1
. .d. 4 + : p 6.
?&
. c. . ..,.:.,
..' . '. y
..a.. *J
;4 r -
u.n L
~- ..:a . .:
- e. a . a -
= . w -s ~ ,.c2 s-n u _.- a n_ .-
L
- }}Q .' ,
t .-
~ . !0 :
A. Yes during this construction period Regios !Y performed approat.
*p ,
mately 78 site and corporate inspections or investigations. A complete r U. Ts. . 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 . prior to the issuance of !&E Report 79-19. A complete' chronology of these j
" ~
' notices is attached to this testimony as.'Appendia B. .. N ,
l
~ . v t.c Q
prior to turning the panel's a'ttention to t' hose hnspectio. ns and
. ; e .. c.
Stems of noncompliance etch led to the. formation of:the inspectioW twee
,which drafted Report 7919. would you define what is[ meant by an itse of ,
,. .,E. . ., 1 .
.noncomp;Iance or dev1ation! ! .. y
; C
,
- y 3.V*!.E s
A. Yes, an item of noncompliance refers to the Applicant's failure to - 1.u".
.& .3 .
. comply.with the various regulatory regatrements of the HRC o( the App 11 '
e
$1; ., . ..> ,
. i ., 4 cant's specifications. tharing the time covered by this testimony, such
- j. .
'.T if a
. * . = , " . , *...W ; v'.: j . ,
, . J.: . .'
ttens were categorized into three levels of severity: etola's. tons.' infrac. f_i">r .d * / c'.t, j , e. '.g P~~ *#'*~t*-A
.! p y o..- '"
.7
$** 2
.. ,h*
s . .' . i
-'* Violation was attached to the !&E Report derein the itas was repsrted.and 4,m.a .. >.'[2 I'
.'s ,
. N. .
. ,. 5 ,i y~ t.: .1. - .
the level of severity was set forth. '
' - ' * . e . , .s.
27 .. -%, . . v 4 A Violation ws the most severe itas of non-comp 11anca and was issued . . a.
'..j when the fabrication construct 1on, testtag or operation of k Safety Rel'ated.
.(.7
'. . Category I systen as such that the function or integrity of* the systes us ..
lost. In contrast, an infraction us a less serious finding,that a Safety
. j. : ,a i .
y e
-gi Related Category I system was impatred. rety.or than lost. . 3 '
,.:7.i.,.;,, A deficiency was an item of noncompliance in dich the' thrtat to the < M4 . .
.W
.a health, safety or interest of the pubite was runotas deffetencies inchded E
.',.,?,
, , t -
;j;-T ., .
. : i
.y. .,"P -
^
. ,, ';* ...i *
,8 ,,
P ,"$ .f' , J "E . i.
. .p l - q. .
t' -- -
; S; . . .' ! ..
I , * , r. j' '.: . . , L . , .'o ..
. ~ - - . . . . .
-.'.f."t : .
f I!Q . ;,= . . .
! 9 p*.
gl ',
*E**.. .E...
[.h _
, , **',f .i- w .g~
1 j ..'. .7 -
,$ ,n, .f lM a' . .
- s . . . .-
t . :n , * ,N. ..- ' . .
< ,.l ., . , - .
.p,.
H ,,
. n - :,m -
. ,y; ,
r.
-...y .
s , a , l *7, 8* < r '* 1,3 .
.1
.g
[. ". lh1 i ! l . M +, s . lh . f lQ
~ '.~*
e X P.#-} [ .N , i .', e , L','..,
- 2. . .
,:.;f f . y. p,. - - I,d, $ . . .. ===. v ., zsM. c y .1 -. . vmi, .3 .:. . a,c . .; .. . -+. . ?y. , .w- ".-
' ?..%..9.91.
i e ~ - .3 .
^
j k,,t,
- . - _ . - - - . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ m_.,_ . _ _ _ _ _ _. . _ _ . . . _
.c
$$1&_...&s.?*
.. ...: - C . 'g [
- 4 5 ' .c y. T.Q.L'. ,- [ ~by'.".s'!E . *r : ~-$:' : ' '. 5-: ^ vl ' ".3-.1
- N T,5' -Y.k? -
,9 e
.1 ; ' :.G i-13 3 *, ,: w . L.J & L:-.-u - ^ ^ ' ^#
o __x . L.' 120 .. . c; a ll . [
F 1
c such itens of nonecup11a' ace as fatture to follow records, and posting or h 4 1abelfng requfrenents etch were not serfous enough to amount to' infractions. V In addition at times a Ifcenset would proofse that certain controls or - procedures wuld be implesented etch were not requirad by the actC. Donethe. less, when a 11censee did not conform to its conrAitnee.ts to the IntC. even H though such cocattments were not regulatory regairewnts such failure ws
.j
.1 cited and referred to as a devf attoa.
e s. L. Q. Turning the Panel's attention ta those inspections dich led to the formation of the investigative team dich drafted 79-13. I show Jew a "
. g, letter, with attachnents, dated February 15. 1977, to the Houstoa Lighting [
~.. _.
- ;.Qs and Power Conpany making reference to Report 77-03 and marked for Identiff. j.
jj;
.w
+,
cation as Staff Exhibit No. 1. Are yeo able to identify this docuent and 0
'/d'i .2..
L *
- 1ts attactments?
,(,j /.$h I.Y [.'J.' -3 .
A. Yes, the lette'r transof tted to Houston 'Lfghting and Power Company f.
;M. c d+ b. .~* ,EM :. -d.] ' the results of an ItRC investigation conducted between February 2 and 3
-t* <4
- - I '"
.%..s:x, . ;6 : -F , y . ~9-
.'d. . . g r * =W .. ,.
w *-
. .f.. . Ig77. -
- - - - . * . - 2 ,""
v:. %;. c,:. ;e ; '. '; 1
- u. M & s n g g; i
.,[ Q. Who conducted this investigation? '.
% j.k.w. .O... i.h.s
^ .c
- ^W .3, '.>N. ,..N.#.yA. This investigation as performed by W.A. Crosman. Chief. Projects n7.. 'N s.
~ ,', ...".
'd. Section, and R.E. Taylor. Reactor Inspector. Regfoe !Y. ' '*
," , .x
- o j.k'f
'3. .- ,
Q. Who reviewed f.his report?
.'Os 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, and Power Company that an e
- :ployee of Pittsburgh Testing Labontory had bees
'a t. . '
e.: -
- 4 ?..m**
{,
, m, ,-.s .
m.Pk* ,. A
. . .' *3
. ;.~. - . .
' ; .7']
,jf.
{c
- d' y x
4 . . r. .
.)
D r~ .~.~,,r-
' s.
e.he -WD
.s
.g_
~, , ..
.k. .,
;..:; :Q.f .. . m. ^'.. =- @ ..-~. '.; . . , ,.
~
c
- . . n. .
- ..+ .- t' ;. .
m; 9 .
~
9
?.
e-9 [ .[-f) ]f %~ lf IN . l.T I '.1; sf . '
,h,. g[,.
'.{1 .
. . Jf 7 ,..
r- . ,
. .% r . E<f, a -b,1 I*./& .
4
, ,n f t.*
( .s a-C'.L s
..$g ,.
t ;
. ' s?.
W'e > - Y. ,.f '~
~ '
Q' J. .'-? '.-
'. g:.g.R'q"FF
- 2 % P G D.,'2- -%F.='t~:M."[~-+'.?,W.,* f.W' '* , '. V"-fi f'A.'** .
.y-d
.._ w -
JE .y $ 03FJ)fA23 n3 : _ __ ,, -y- ---w-- --- --- -- --
.. de .: . hrJ . -g,- ....W,. .. ~ '
_ . _ . . . , s. .. 3, .4 . r v..'. /. . C _ x. , , ,, , . .. ,. , . J.;. 7 ,
.*'-. 4-e I
.,T.. .
Y rr
. . u.a . mw , ' ;wEw'J _u m:1 < w- - - = _= s .?. :L n .~ & - =
* %e o< <.
.~j% :
g 1,*
- p. .
L. w .
.~ . .:
..c., 6 ,
~ '.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,
- ( ,f t data without actually performing the tests. -This employee was terminated E a ,
- .* ;p -
9 mmF.
,j.
en January 31, 19 n. . ; 2 '.
*Ij; ':.- e a, % . As to the assurance that the concrete sand had been adequately tested. ,
s . rd.J .: ,
. ;,* . . , ' , - i .i 0* 7.
+ .:
It was determined by the inspectors that several ether tests tere perferned g .s,;
'.7
', m .g , i f.[,6'y,/
'.,s.i:R .-> . ' *
~=*y .5). .
var. - . which sinflarly assured the adegsacy of the concrete constituents. and 1. y % ,', [.( 'O... -. E a, .'.M.. ';
*) N 1g%,.7. r.-l;2 a .- .
r-a.t,.;.g - .
.o
<,g, ,.]
s. accordingly, no structural safety problems existed. la addittee. Pittsburgh d.
.. @,<cf.,a
~ 4 '.,. y, '.. ,*_ m N ,3 w . .
q-> - v, : .;! a1 Testing Laboratories agreed to review all data for prestous months to detect... ' P y'h
.- - . .- 5 . L. **
-', o i ; y. ] apparent anomaltes. . -
b-
$N.. n ..- .9. ' - y . c er -
~'
-' i g '.'. (. t~
Q. Did Jour investigation indicate teether any person within the - 3.; o
^ - eenagement of the Arpiteant, or it contractors, directed this practice er .L. g
.* s.?~ s f
- permitted it to continue? -
T.'"6 , A. . Our investigation demonstrated that neither the Applicant's 4; v , c,k$ . management, or its contractors. knew of this practice prior to January. $<:. .4,%
,j & . .~,
Ign.' Our investigation indicated that as soon as this netter tes brought
.I -
M,j .to the attention of the Appitcant's nanagasent. the situation tas corrected.
. . ;' . :..g-.y . ? .g - . . . ;:.
, -z g :.
a . .
-. nm.
. . a. -
.x... ~ ,w - > .
. .. .cx < . ? d,
~* . b -:. . , *.
' _cy ,.w~-
s.% .": ': *
-:f: . .. X^ . ~.
T '.a-f.. ,.;p .- 5 .,
* .' *-.,r s
. . . ..1 2 . ,'.
.n , ,. .' ye , , , * .. . .
..O.. . . . c. e - .
y
. g ': . % ..
J
- O
,a; * *<
>Q
.j
.**. M u,
. s. s. . i .' . . , ,
*: ?3. . .'**l
- T.j , ,..' '.N.**y* w"., ^
- a. m y '.y p,.,
.,c~,..*
'~
p* =, . .
.J . , :" % ) *
.s.,-
,-=? . d ie i-
,.. ' y...-o., y. , ,* ,~ .:: .. ;. ,u* , ~s *f... . . .
s' v. ;.' , - ... '-
.% , e, a.
. .f,.m
,. '. ;.,. . .mlv: ., . . :
. .-, , . 2. , -
+
.x ..
.(m f.J. -
?
y
~
G, .~ . g 9 .
- . ;,d . .
n.
., . ,q . . " . pl.. -
.P -%
- g., , , , [G
* ' * * . .", , c . (..
.% g
- w. .
, -. l._*
L. e. L J e'1 . . N
- mJ
,;g 7- % .,.,r ,
- 2. -
. ~
w A g4 e - .p
- 1* ,- ? N!!"N5"*ft $ .t
}5- *5 q -
h '
~ u h w ; ;e .. r _ m. w. .m.m . c. . .. -. m,
.. ,.e.w_. m
, ;,, m 7.g., __q . .yg
..r -- ...--a -:
.....x. ' ;~y * *'. .;* ,.^= . . .
A Sw'-: n,C. ~MLO,O ' ' "9
- hM_. ; ,_ . . . .n ~ M ' M ' ?.. . *;.
~
' * ~ ' ' '
.' 2. .J.%1.26',' _* WLM..
.9 t .^
. a. w ._e._ r- <, ., ..
_-w . .:..~ ,.__.._.. ~. w
. c.
a.
- f. . ~ . . .-~ -
4 52
?
p
- 1. .
4 p
. 'l ".: . '
.c The techntese c'caststed of everaging the data from all tests performed from i
March 1976 to January 1977, relating to aggregate gredation. In additten to , c
! the. average value, a coeff tetent of vartation for.each psrty favelved to F.
C a each test was developed. The average test values to the coefficient of
.; 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.
; addition, th'e letC inspector spot checked a constderable annant of data (l. -
agatast the summary presented and found me discrepancies. Is additten, the . F.. I p. tests performed by persons other than the falstfter en the same aggregate clearly indicated that the aggregate met the waltty standards. Accordingly. [ 5 - Eh... tt was concluded that the. document f'alsification had me safety significance. d.
%:e,. l ; .
hening the panel's attention te latervenor Centaatten 2. dich 1. e W' .., Q.
.~
' f.D. y
~
statest
.t.
- // rq 4
. ~ NRC inspection records (Inspection & Enforcement arports
$i, 77-03, 2/77; 77-03. 4/77 and 78 08, 5/73) Indicate that .
'.iY-2 r. h s -> -
South Texas project construction records have been falst. (M . * -
. . e ,3~ fled by ernployees of Houston Lighting & power Company and 24-34~
. , ' *>.c' _/.d ,'
1,
- Brom & Root. ta vielation of 10 C.7.R. part 50. Appee.
Je J J ~ ; ' $.;*o, . m , . , 4
-f -
t
%*.. 5N*
..J dia 8. Sections VI and VII.
- b. . '
, ..d s -* >r " ,e.k ,jf,4 J. gl? As a result, the Constssten cannot nahe the findtags pt i
.T [p.- /,. 2f. p ..
? ,
regtred by 10 C.F.1 6 50.57(a)(1) and (2). " ~ t.
" . . [, g ' '_".i. . sh f..(.',], . .."
Do the investigative fladtngs in 77 03 concorslag falsifted documents -
. /- .. , . - : . ..r. .. .
regtre the Staff to reach any conclusion on 'dether the South Texas project [.' d , (, [ ~* (.
** 1 can operate la conferetty with the appilcable IUtc regulations?
p
- w. ;- '
~
A. no particularly as no management culpab111ty w'as found and
- 4.
Jp,' ,
/ .,s further there was no safety signiftsance to the document falsificatter..
J. . ;. 4*;; Does the investigative findings of 7143 concefalog falst'fted _..
- . 4
- documents require the staff to reach any concluston whether there is r n..r,p4 reasonable assurance that the activities authertred by an operettag V, f.;f .' '
J #
,-<,r.
[.) -
- 'y ,h a ,
. - E,; .
- - : 5 .;
e'% , ' . - s
. .c ae
' p'. y n.,
, -l + .
m ., .
-s -
y. 7.,y.7
. a,
,.y; " x _ . , - .
.7- - ...:.- .; .~s -
u
... y .' ' -
.':- >J 1 r ;. p .,, ; , _ - , .o.. ,.
". ~. * '.". *.'. ?!' ' .' ,;. . ..
' .m. .c . , - y: .
.,; q -
.m %.s }.
; /,e
~ -
e .: Y . r ;.v -
- . g, .
(s. e
' * *1s l*. . ..
. ,N '
.lc t .
. . . , r,.- .
M . .
,'N ..
. . ,.v ., r.a. a d
.t."
.g., f7* ,
. ',2,$' , ' I .*b '
e a .' J ,., l V *.[ , s9
, b " .fo na ,l9 ,
v ny.n:m.c m msmm.w-e w~ ._ 9egm 4 g : .r. p)
-.m n3 -
- e; -
y , 1 o 001m p
- u.:r .: ;:
~
o 4 -O'. - w .,i
- a .n ,A,
. di1. ;. .'s.
s
- - --- - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~^~ ---.-....-ww
..z.-[~' F , . '
...,-4..' -:..
. . _ _ . , '. . . :.g - _
.5g . ,
t lUE*-
- L2 *. , , . _ . y; ,* * , L_.
., ,,,.g, ., ; , . ,, * . ; , g' .-
.. L ___ g
. o z..
i
~3 .
. 123 :
'.4 i .
.i In addition to checking prior test records, this facident was documented to 4-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 fa 'olles up inspection to M. b; 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 g &' power Company mairing reference to Report 77-05 and .. ( marked for identification as Staff hhtbit No. 2. Are you able to identify F i . _. i-
.;; / this docwent and its attactments? -
[
. l - .
. A. Yes, the letter transattted to Nouston Lighting & Power Campany [.- ,
.c.-,w r 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'
. i.-, ddd:= 'M $.$,E3 falstftcation. Nf % ~. ,
h Q*j'i,.
$*'".**k i# ,fY-$ ,8 A ,-[i Q. 2 0 conducted this taspection? ' , , .e * *. g.
4
., ( 'J 44
* ./ - f. I. . * ^
N
, :g +j+-*.2 - J ea y, .* g P( s* ,' )?*f.i ,' y* ' A. This inspection mes perfomed by R.G. Taylor. Reacter Inspector.
.- > - p w? , 3 ,;y. e,. . ' *
m,.t Region 17, d ,t
- +-
t s .4. s.- 2o reviewed this inspection?
.f em,c . 4, . *;,. j) -
Q. f.,,, c ., j 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'. t. l M. - , A. Pittsturgh Testing Laboratory presented a statistical analysis of
=
I. . 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
- e. e' l ::.:7". --
_.,[ -
. N' s
%, - , c;O , , y,- ..
j.; f - * ' * - I r
*w g, ,
'b aI e
.~
. Tp~~
y .. c;
,q
.x e n
. . = . .
g n.y N %. .* q.-
"J. , .
,b','I
- s. ; %.., e *
,,s
) *
~
- 'Y .a
}t-da c e, -
e m f'
. q.' .
=*g 'l Q p
- r ' ~
g .~..
.,., -@ y_:.: . n.
j's
-4 'b . w
;F) n p ,i
. 7 , '.2 T.l k, r, .' d.(
-rc %. .
?Y . . . L . 2-c;:Q G,
.- . . r..e. - - , gp.m-
, ... w. w v.
. s .e- , - ;=.ar-.
.-;...: n- n m.; -
m,-.s...~. . c.,.
.. n .
e - - . . . yw .- -
- _ ,_ .4 g
( .d W' .'% b w % i
,%a
;;/ 01193. O'O.' " .-3!i.5i
.a
.h R - _
,:m. 1
?G ~;- h:. .;. $ : -
' - E - . . i. .* ' yj ^ ~ ' N 'd.& * - f '.l .
^
l ' '~' -) .. 1 .' ._. . :C;. .v
. }
- . l 7 . _
i
- . . .. . ~ . ~ '; ... ..-
.s.-..w.. >o.. s.r..3.- ^~
-. , w L. a ., w . ~ "- $ d,. '$ '*
d '
. t/-
t-t.
- t. .
i L ., license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the .
- t' pabitc?
< I
me, particularly as there was no management culpability and there
'A. P 4 was no safety significance to the document falsificattoa. t -
r s . Q. Again, with reference to Intervenor Contention 2.'I show you a 1 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 . : Are you able to identify this doctament and its as Staff Exhibit Ms. 3. .
- 7;-
. attactments? .".
v
.. < Yes this letter transmitted to Houston Lighting $ Power Company a p,.
. A. -
- .<.. T,. - d..
report detalling the results of an NRC inspection conducted betwen May 18
'ffy i -' ,;
'n
;p and 1g.1378.
's r-
- %, . Who, conducted this tospectice? .
Q. g@9.;,
. ' ih.
E$p% A. This inspection was performed by W.G. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector.
.,[ ' ,,' .- e ,-- ,
s
.. w and W.A. Crossaan.' Chief. Projects Section. Region !Y. ..
.I ,k, _ . ' w ;f. 4. 4, ; .
. t./ a- *:
Woo reviewed this Inspection Report? .A. . , ' ;.o r
. .. :r' . ,.a? Q.
- 4 h..i
...:#. "L.r r w-..Ag.s .m. V.A. Crossman. Chief. Projects Section. Region IV. :. J q .: s -
y;r e, -y A. i c >! F '. o vl>r.+4
, r,
~
Intervenor Contention No. 2 ledfcates that !&E Report 75-08 discusses [
,V f, -
W --
; ' Y3
-e Q.
a t ' .( ?!
., .. . - . . te.e problem of f41stfled construction records. la reviewing 78-08, has the -
. sos ,.+
J
.j f,, ... ,<
c Panel found anything relevant to falsified constrvetton records?. -
- c. .
', A. No. -
c Q. I show you a letter, with attachnents, dated April 2.1977. to the J$
- n,i hsten Lighting & Power Company making reference to deport 77-08 and marked i
- .n; Are you able to idedify this for identification as staff Exhibit No. 4.
. 7[,v i . .-J.f document and its attachments? . , :N., . . ..a.,., - . .
Juy.
- . a
.~ .
. p.
- ~ . ... :.
^
- c. p .
.: ~ .
, . ,a ~
.... . ., - s r.
. c,7 .
, .. .a
- 3 a..
. ..,._c.. .
\ . . .q >
.--., g.: .',.-,
r '.'. .- -- -- . , . _ . . _:. . u.., , . c,
, 3. . .,
f.
. g 7 . .*
.. ,3 2 . .
- w. .
. . . .. . n.
../1 . *. ,
. c . .~.: - . .
n.'.g ....< . ., s 2. .
.:p [*.-;
G. .
' ri .* . .=
- }~. . .
e ~r - w v. en . g..g c - g;;;,
- W .~.- 5 r.=,: m:*..P*'t * ~A%
e p ;;-y.,:r . . -y. ; ,
.b .
M. g -m m. n. : .,n-c.:...o ; pa. ,. . - -
~, . , ,. o ;-
..u_ .mm
, . . . . .w m. . .: n . s . . .. ,
.u- e w.
i , g - t002 / .O.1._Ol1 s i.?.6Mm 39.6i
- i. ,
.e-,-4 -"m
- ; ,.. ;.:. W .. . .; . - a .. - ; . w., .m . . ;. . : ;.. r-. ..:.
. m .~ , .:.; . .'"' . .. .. ;; n;? .. .,..m.~..
. tz . . .??.. ?*>
. ^
; ,,4
^
-" ' " " ^ *
;~ .1 1: o :.h '- M
- v G.* v_,,,L % ~? w ' .* .*:: & =?- '- - - % ~' ' ' -
- .w~ ~i., .;?
r.a , . 125
=_u u,.r:.l.: '~ a u s- E L a : .
= " " - ~
h S. .::,%. ,..: w;L:.:Me : - .
. C'.
J 18 - i
N t g
- p. J Yes. the letter transsitted to Houston 1.ighttag & Power Company a :
A. r J 9 . report detalling the results of an NRC investigation conducted between f.
,: . F.
July 8 and 8. 1977. . I Q. W conducted this investigation!
'- ( *
; j A. The investigation was performed by J. E. Foster. Investigative
' .?
5pecialist. Region III. and R. G. Taylor. Reactor Inspector. Region !Y. J W reviewed this report? [ 1 j, Q. . t
- A. The report was reviewed by W. C. Seidle. Chief. Reactor Construction l 6
9
,' I and Engineering Support Branch. Region !Y.
,[j
..,1 ,
1
- Q. ~ What was the reason for this investigation? .
, . ,d.C 3 4 - ,
e,# . A. On ' July 1.1977, an individual contacted Region 11 Inspector R. E.
'j 1 e, ', I'
,,'. g[ , . -- Taylor by telephone and indicated that an incident had tahn place at the 7 --
- 1 - t - . , .. g
- 4 ., . Scuth Texas Project in which a trom and Root construction foreman assaulted >
l.2W's$ i s
'C
; T ' '.*
. '1 and injured a Brown and Root chil quality control inspector. In additice. :. .
'L'.',
% {R, -lt@g[3.-. _ . ~* ' y Jry'- f '3;h
'e: . 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 I?
~ fj'; p*#.'h.;' j], > my S; .'*.p 5e . * ;- % was N control inspectors.
? p. -
t 4, D G A '
' ~,- >
f ., .v.*
-,.y s.,
. Q. How was the investigation into this matter conducted? .
' -.g j . . .
- 4 ,s 4 e NRC personnel visited the Swth Texas Project and interviewed all A. -
I c,2
- i : gg ., f g .
. ..n 4. ,, . , < . . .
Brown and Root civil wality control inspectors present. including the I .g. . 3, 2 , e ,
,,j* , .
quality control inspector involved in the altercation utth the Brow and
- y. '
jf
..v .
.'I' # -
Root construction forem.4 which gave rise to this investigation. In addition. I ' . ,*:7 '
% .'k'l ' the NRC investigator and tospector interviewed Brt.rt and hot constructica .
y ..
'.r,0.Ml personnel and revtewed the Instructions and procedures followed by the Brown ' ' ;'. ,...n and Root qualtty control inspectors.
4
- ?f$ _t , -
..r gs s .: a .
,?, .
.) - a
,3 .,
,: - e -
y, -
--?,,
=
y
.:: 4 '
- y
-k . . .g .
"a
@ . .av g,'s c.P - ..
j;g) '
~,
.'.i; . . ::' a.. ,e- - .
'-% 7:, 7, <.--.c.: ~ .-a-- ".- . . g,
- r.. .
T.y . -, , . 3 ~< , . W.; *
. ..~.. . :.
i ..n
..q 1 ,y ..
e,, g, ,., -. x.* p.
- .n *
, , s wa 1
- n. :
) .*u.3 5 G.
.s .
w;gh -f - .
. c.. . .n. .n. <
m ngi? s'""~
'.- ~ -~w- 7 t'Am.g3 p '? F - Q @~N.;;-.=,'.5 ,, N. .; &.s'!
7.y
.M "
..,m w 2._
51.O. ';i,.l.9.6R 3...f.7.' 1.i ,
' +s#~% _a.m. q gj
~. .
. _._~ ._
2= .L=...- . , __ __
' 12G
* > . . - . . xm, m . _. m .c - m ._. , , _ . . r, m._ m. j -
.i
. is .
What do you mean in your conclusion by an inordinate amount of _ y Q. friction had developed between Brom and Root quality control inspectors and b - i E J . construction persennelf A. As used in this investigative report, an inordinate amount of I friction is meant to mean that amount of tension dich is over and above the 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 vidual's work product. In contrast intimidation occurs den one who fs the I ,
- )I victim of harass:sent falls to adequately perfem his work in order to escape
.! , . ,s .
,', such harassment.
s *S .. * (. :**, ' R..' s., ?:- On the South Texas Project during this investigation. did you find T b;M','. 4
*i t;; ' *; #
Q. [-j , N[ bany evidence that this Inordinate amount of friction did adversely effect [.w. '.
} #
- f. M # .
. 4-
. ?, a
' the ability of the quality control inspectors to do their job? .
% 3 ._. .-a l '
No, all of the Brom and Root quality control inspectors inter. A. K viewed at that time indicated that they had not overlooked any unacceptable . conditions during their inspections by reason of constmetion harrassment. t rither, they fo11oued their inspection specifications to the letter.
.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 1
Root construction personnel. . l 9 i I 4, i'
~f
. . - . u
. . - . ,. . ~ . .
W 6& e l , r i 9 7 1 ,
, . +
I" .
* ?
yT . , -
- x. - .-r ... .-
=
m p A 18m __ hO O py 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 i t Q. mat conclusions were reached as a result of this favestigattent Although tw incidents involving threats to 8 rom and Root gaality h A. 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 Root quality control inspectors. However, the regular QC inspectors fater. r I . 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 d i and Root construction superintendent had advised his morters that any Brom '
': j i
~
and Root giality control inspector' who fixand and reported unacceptable t
~.% ' .
ttems durir.g concrete placement inspections truid be Ifable for a beatfng. ,'?
,..- js. A The NRC Representatives also determined that an inordinate amount of > 1 .- : .- .
,. . r. _ .
~ .p .
OC. ,', 3-friction had developed between Brom and Root quality control faspectors and
, ,m' ?: V r A ., ,
, f;. . ,
..?
Brom and Root construction personnel. 4;l ' .g-
.- -, ,, .- * -. ' } - Q a Q=,;_',L '.
(* I f . . ]. 'N- Q. What must be found by the Mttt inspector in order to' substantiate
-} '
an allegation?
* ;, .q In order to substantiate an allegation, the RRC faspector sust e.
A. I
- find ladependent evidence corroborating the allegation. If independent I
evidence is found contrary to the allegation. ft is considered refuted. 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'... f.
. ? [;.;~.x=.-n.nua.s.r:?.
a mmw ve+sw.m;i.wnw: 6x ,
+ . =.~ : m 4" '
.- e .
)
..12
~<
00133 O'.4 0]% Iii6131 . 9.;- l . . _ . ,
4 T* - u '. - .
'i ,
=.,,s-s &:w.d,.~a e. . . sf . :x- - &. . v-ni_ & .a-R,n 128 :
- . 1g .
I show you a letter. with attachments dated' Oecon'ber 28.19n. to p Q. L Nouston Lighting & Power Company making reference to Report M 1'4 and Report Ud3 and marked for identification as $taff tahtbit Re. 5. Are you able to l identify this document and its attachments?, A. Ves. the letter transnitted to Houston Lighting & Power Company a
'f '
G c
' report dotatling the nsults of an MRC investigation conducted between~
f . 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?
4. l. A. .On Dece=ber 10.19U. ad individual contacted the Region IV duty ., s
*a
[, h[:.b h. .a .<;
.. i . . . ,
officer by telephone and indicated that he had radiographs in,his possessics ,
, E. *k. ~e #'
=. 5
, M * . ' "E which shond that the welds used in two nuclear power plants under construc- ? ,6 ..
t q- *g,,,,',
- tioi in Regten IV were defective. f* . _
- =. . s .
How was the investigation into this allegation conductad? . /' , I '. . .'. -
. t.- .
J Q. 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.?- . - \ ~ N at which time he indicated that he had been a victia of a hoax perpetrated I by tie of his actpaatatances who had admitted the radiographs tere not as
- p ':
s . . ".; 2 .
~
i.
.) .
.;i cL-s .
* * * ,. 88 .. n, ,g, ,
- e ,
. s - . , 4 *3 1
'F * ; r_g ; .
4, . .*
.. t ig L O. . -
[. n
.s 3 ,-
- N _ ' .~ G., . ,-
.n.-_
.a
-.*'=
. , = . . ~'
_
- c.
,; ....-.,,~.y %
- da,- - na.a w.e o. a
.we 3 m , e se e 1
, ..[ .3, a - ----
' D' .Q -;'t.'.W :.k -n.
.# ,,_- % . J . . . . c w .
^
4 ; - _ __. - . - . . u .n
. ;;g;i ._.a :..t Lw-~ v2 ' - -
a 143 . 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 d a nuclear ~ factitty. t 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 j ...3r A.
*E i3 tly the victia of a i
1 .
,related to any nuclear sites and the alleger ins apparen .2-p;1 b-hoax.
I show you a'lettar, with a'ttacteents, dated April 3.1978. to theN5 2 s, ;. ; x Q. 3,.. p' gand . g
,J a . . > ,',.s. hsten 1.ighting & Power Company, r.aking reference to Report 78-05 G ,,,-
;r Are yota able to fdentify
,,, m, -
cw. marked for identification as Staff Exhibit 110. 8. 3,'
., .I. + .*, .' s-t .".3 ; ~
~ .
=, 1 4 this dociment and its attactestats?
' t. - N( Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting & Power a report3 .
i A.
.j ,
,l 21. 1974.
.?
detalling the results of an investigation conducted on March -
'..) '
Who conducted this investigation? Q. 3 A. The investigation was conducted by J. J. Ward. Ir.vestigatfoe y 2
,J specialist and V. 4. Itit,acek. Itenctor Inspector. tegios (f.
Q We reviewed the report of this investigatfoot
.., Q. ,
l t - . A. The report of this investigation was reviewed and approved by
..l "
V. A. Crossman. Chief. Projects 3ettion. Reactor Construction and tagi. ,
',.].I neering Support Branch. Region !Y.
1 i D 3
. a ,
-i 4 ,
r . I. & ,# ,
.i--
_ , ,,y, . 1 .,
.a . . g 3 g
, ,a
J F' -
- s. . g
=i F '.
- m. o I
s
.,.n -w.
+
, - t- . ;. .. . ..
- m-
* ~
* ~
,, . . :a n s.>
. p
. . -- , r. . -
* * .x.
. .u -
.x< .
130 -
.n. .
i r-Q. Wt was the reason for this investigatient >
/ '
A. This investigation us in response to a letter to NRC headgarters dated February 20. 1978 from an individual' do indicated he was a potential P j t ,
' scapegoat for improper procedures at the South Texas ro ec .
How was theI1nvestigation into this allegation performed? Q. A. The investigator and inspector .t raveled to the individual's home 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. 4 men would c'omplain to their supervisors about this individual's behavior. l lusions were reached as a result of this investigation!
- Q. What c
~
,~., ,' A. The allegation was determined to be unrelated to nuclear safety in . , - %" In essence. 3." :.'* ,2.* , .
's
> t that no safety related structares or activities were involved. N-
- P. .
3
.. .u_
jg '. ' ' f .2'
. ! ,T-r Q. ; '
tt was concluded that this situstion was primarily a personnel matter and i
,'s, %' & i 4 -f
. sVy
.j "l. ,g - e
, tQ g- *; ,,; G r.
. . not related to construction a:tivity.
!a'h. ,,J.* u . s
,[; .-4 I show you a letter, with attach ents, dated June 5.1978, to t
- i . , , ,, ,.
. E ', " 'i ' : ,
Q. 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 J doctrent and its attactments? , 1 A. Yes, the letter transsitted to Houston Lighting & Powr Company a
.1 report detalling the resn'lts of an investigation conducted between May 16 and 18, 1978. l *'
t Q. W conducted this'investigationt - jt . , d , . ;
- t ,.
t
- .2 .
. j i s g' .
L' N ,:
~ .. t.
. *** I
, + . . > . , ,. . .
s . .. . . g 9 8 , .
~J e ,
i ' [. j ,
, s<
8 . 4 g .
, r
< ~
g r J .T s N ., m= # m .,.x'.1 _ D e_ . . _. n.. . WW 6-
.fi o.',043#i.f!.2i m <')>M __
~_.
~
._. ' .. ~ ,
,_:* ~
% _m .1*
,,.__,P,. _ _ _ s. 1 - -
-""U^' '
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. A. the rovfewed and approved uit investigatfosf V. A. Crossman, Chief. Projttu Section Engineering Support Branch, Region IV., Reactor Construction and
, Q.
t A. nihat us the reason for this investigationt .- - ~" y On May 15. 1978,
- a Regfon !!! investigator rec f E n s e vad a tele #ons call from an indivfdual do identified htaself as [.a Brown
.[
at the South Texas Project, but who otherwise wished to' and(>Root - enp renafa anonp ous.
,/s and de set forth four allegattens of trettularities I fy] .
Speciffca11y. the
*6
=
w 411eger claimed Cadweld records had beest fal '-
. E,I
- stfied. inspectors tere not
..,. qua11 fled For thete positions. Inspectort e h4d fatt d , ' f. ;-
[- r * ., general knowledge *
#', ,s ';
. tests. and procedural violations had occurred o Y, 2c! .
- 4. n the site.
> l,' p...y.,[ i ,',
,' 3-i
, Ilhet was involved in the intt 9 n ut Mion a d what conclusions were v'*:V o.
- reached as a result of this investfgettent
[ ' ' ' fy,.*[; A. .f(( ..f.) r;<. J'
. i.. None of the allegations wen uto substanti t d 2 ae. An investigation tato the allegations was conducted on ths tite b t {y Based on a review of tDe records and interettws e ween May 18. and 18.1978 department, there was no evfdence found %4% tadwith all persons within the
. fled.
Records indicating the qualtffcattent 4f 411 thweld records had b f,1 e pollty control
. taspectors were examined by the reactor .inspecto *
('j tests administered to these faspectorst an en Wr, includtag records of 6 T tadweies presently completed and in place in Dee $ pot inspection of
~*'.
. sade during a walk through of the factittyt 4)) tf thcontafasent structure was
- i e quality control I '
q' ' +,
*s *4 ;. .') -
e
'e=s=umma ---
,; e :m
,$g .m* ~.- .
.g. , .
-~-
+
7 , 2 j.
, . . , .- q *
*Me, i.
m.
$ . O s.
.g 6 ". .
N , ... .
* # ._'*.*O-M _ 2 m
.. ,. n . n
+m . n . - - - a.r- -
~ .
2 N . .. s
.i i onm '
a o ?. 0 3.l il 6 ii. e. e
^
3' - .- , ; ._ . -- a._, l 1 j
-k= ' " ' ' " * l
;.w . . Ja ._ , . _ , ._- i~:2 = MK
' a nq F.
IO 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. I shed you a letter. with attachments. dated August 22.1978 to [;. Q. 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 .. 4 Support Branch. Region !Y. <
~
. i .
Who reviewed and approved this lavestigation? p
,,,; Q. .
c:. -.'. l A- W A Cr*5"'" c.tef Projects section. neactor Construction and ..
, y. t.' ;$.',M/f'y g ,,i
',- tagineering support 8 ranch, aegion IT. .
- n. , y= . 3. 3 f!-
.,.y._.--
What was the'ressen for this investigation! . --. . _.. 1-v Q. :. . 7,;G ,'.b.
. t e, q . . y' 'a.3,3 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 cpality assurance progras. Particularly, the allegation involved the l l 4 following concerns: , Civil Quality Control Inspectors were not provided adequate 1.
' training on recently issued procedures. ',
' ; 2. . .
.' ..:.7, .
;, b g .
gumm. W*+we r a p.M
# .b
*
- g
- 5.-
*1 .
L ., ,
,' f. ,; ,
?*,
,f g
. . 6 -* 'e i
l . $ ** I '
. ' ') -
[i.~
. e iQ .
lh . 4 w. 2 .. . . [
**.u{ . .O. * . ..
+ ,
" * -' S ._]' T ., . ' . -
* -e ar ,.- a ; ,. ,..-.,,{ s,y y_, _ ;_ ;y 3 [ -
}. . = _ - <
'1 -_: 1 *:- _ g, ...,z.,....,,.
, i.;a l c:. .u.:dr '4
[ 3 G5 01.0 4.p.6_3.4;l.e,
4 .-_. .-. . . , , . - . . ., . g ... . ,
'*s : -
. - . ~ ' - -* > ,~ %: .:
L .' - : ' __ -; _ v.- e .
. . . , , ^. . . . . p W A'a-h u,.1 ..,s. '2
- s : d-._.k. - - #."M-"''"'"""~ E i k'.
! W
.u. 13d . 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. '
- s. Cadweld as butit drawings for the Unit 2 fill stab are inac. -
curate. - - - l* __ ..
- 7. ' Upper managewnt was inaccessible to Quality Control.
,, 8. Undue pressure was placed on Wa11ty Control by construction.
- 3
- 9. Repairs were perforr.ed without approved procedures. - L
.i .'
1
. ',;l 10. Construction engineers were' unable to assure that construc.
r _.' :' ' k
.[1 tion uns perfomed in accordance with drawings and procedures. ? -m
(. .
. . ... ,. Q. Would you please state a surunary of your conclustons for each of
[%
*. 'e the allegations and dat you did to arrive at these conclustons?
. ,.j <
. .. . @..@ J=
r % r8-A. Yes. gar,
- 1. The allegations that Civil 4ality Contr:1 inspectors
.!-f ',, 7.f ,.,i "'st .,3 ,, *y';-:were not provided adewate traf atng could not be substantiated. The foru p^a . '
3 -
.j .
- v .
,-r~g-
. tyt t . '
Lr .
,-e'
'3 +.4,f ff
. ,.a r .e[ ". .
. . used for inspection of concrete placernent had receitly been revised and :*
;-d. e ' -
r .
. -] expanded. Trafning records indicated that some QA/QC and construction f.J-t~
personnel had been tratned in the new procedure. Some inspectors felt thta s: e training inadewate, but the ademacy of ,the training could not be evaluated. L.
,) 2. The allegation that the nonconformance reporting system was
.- inadewate ws not substantiated by specific example, however, weakn' esses of
, j. .
the system were suggested by conditions generally described by wality i j k
& control inspectors to interviews.
. e
.C ' , -
..;r. ..;-
. . ;. 3 . !
.v -. .
. -(
9 .y - w . . . .- -
., . 1 .
[,
'. LJ,
- ) i . 1 r-
. , * . - - - ~ -- . ~ ~ - - - -
Q. _ - f _ J?, p l
.,.;;k . .. . ,. .
.. l'- :,
. g .
n..:
,y.. . . .. w. -
r.
.,a -: . ?? .4 .
y -2 , s r; . ,
, .i :, .
,j.. c .
4 W.; . ..-. 1
. , p? . ,-
. ,. , , . , q 3 .'
. . , e: .
. .y. .w . . . MAT
. a.i MC;.- ._ _ , ..-.
- n. ..s-~.
$. n. w'001 %
p .. Of 0.4 63
* - (. '." ..
9
- a . 22 . % . .-a a n ,- . e m .m . . m ., _ _.mr, _ ,. _ n .. .
a .\ 13d t..
. ts .
a s 3 3. " The allegation of pality assurance reluctance to issue non.. t
-e
' conformance reports could not be substantiated ty speciffe taample, howeverg generettaattons presented by palf ty control inspectors during intentown
~
~
fr.
- indicated that this condition may entst.
- 4. The allegation of lack of" support by gality assurance was f.
! not substantiated by specific example. however, the majority of pality - -
I - e control inspectors interviewed indicated that there was a lack of techntent . 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
-j 1 ,
,l ,
' n experienced personnel in the gality assurance library as a major fattw.
. ,i; causing delays to the distribution of documents. '
- 6. The allegation concerning inaccurate Cadweld es.butit detwthqt
- L...
' f, s. k q 'k .
*[Q ,;f t.1 y for the Unit 2 fill slab was not substantiated by review of the drawingt in { .i' . ,
[ y, q:,j f,?7- *
- h , .#
c 5 -I? the document vault. .
.l.# ,
.n
,e , , f .3 3
- 7. The allegation concerning inaccessibility of upper man 4gemet
, }' {,N
! was generally supported by a majority of the 9411ty control inspectgegg
' however, no specific examples were provided to substantiate this allegetten.
[ 4 L 1he allegation concerning undue pressure on galtty (Wet)
* ,' l
' 4 f inspectors appeared to be valid in light of the frietton previously identt.
,J fled between W pality cont'rol inspectors and construction personngig in E'
k addition. the large number of items en the taspection ' punch itst,* may Mit
, g - 1 contributed to the felt pressure.
g .
.i
- 3. The allegation concerning the manner in etch repateg weg
., The taly .,
performed, without approved procedures. ws not substantiated. u.:, __ V ,, .3 .V i
- -- - - -~ _ , p . ,..
f ,
;_ ~~ y-g" l , ,
I
', , ~'
) , '
- y. .
g .p .x
- s. .
{.* I* , " t g b _h I . s . ' O -p 4 iPU"'"."e 7 e g
-e, ,-e-[ ; --"[ _
y e q a8
- - - . . ' . -. -~ . . g. _ ,.;
1 . .
} -01.0.,
w)pNg$.;
.d :
^
9
...Ei'_. -
__- _ rsr. _ ' . _
;.1 _ % t m..,__ _. _
oe i 1Od '
.' t
= 26 = ,
, i- .
p Specific example documented whereta Brown and Root construction proceeded t without approved procedures was the repate of a misa11[gned anchor bolt for [- i I .
' waste monitor tanks. Powever, the Region IV representatives observed . .
that e 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 .,
}
a including the method of repair. ~ [ ,
' p
. The allegation concerning the in4bility of construction ,
. 10.
- engineers to do,their job of assuring that civil cons'truction wt perfoiet5. .
. g. ,
In accordance with drawings and procedures could not be dolly sub'stantiated. . however, the large nuster of and types of deficiencies contained 11 inspec.
.: A, ,
, 7,.
' tion " pinch lists' suggest that the inspections by craft and engineers was, J4
'M '
'_'s
-~ .
'a 2
less than adequate. Although not directly addressing ortgtnal design nodt'. . fication. the confusion surrounding the proper use of FRf.A's vs. MCR's is , l 2u .,wn
- 1. . '. , . , p.
, . ,,a, .w the only example the staff could locate which partially incorp: rated th5 '
Nd-Jh
/
- i[@, ..Y.s a*
- f'] .. .. . . . .
, M g3: ^(;IO QQ ' g.;
r( concerns of Intervenor Contentions 1.74.. b. and c..
- , ; " ,. .Y ; *o*
Was lack of management support for mality control inspectors i*
- y ,, ,
- d. Q. 9. g .5 i > . : . <#,
L .m investigated? . .
= .. ,
. - l Y"_
A. Yes. laterviews with numerous quality contro.l inspectors evidenced , a general feeltng that upper managenent did not support wality control 7
., . F I
inspectors. However, inspectors spoke in vague generaltties and were not,* , sufficiently spectflc to substantiate particular instances where f act of ; t . managenent support occurred. i . O. Was undue pressure on quality control personnel investigated? l
% i .
' A. Tes. a' gain through interviews with numerous wality control ,
l e
~ personnel. general allegations were set forth' with ' respect to pressure on f
.. 0 '
- c
..Q .
- * . d. _
_. i, a
=~ ..*- . ,
-* ,..[
]4
* .8
. . ,
- e
'.4 . * *. a -
i .
.1 - , -s *i'...* .:
(* a
..e .l . c.
a . 7. e . - y
, fi 0
j... .
~ ,p. -
. ;,,, . p}. .
1 '
'.4.g : s'.T,",.$ *; *.C f ^ =% .f.*,'. . .
~~m.
> 'G.- .
- un L
.1 ' :.4 .' Q'y,f-5 p . ,c u
_:w u& 1 0 3_0_'. ?. _6 & ]wj
- .h '
- . . ' , _ . ~ . .
" ' 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 ,
I quality control inspectors from constrvction to completa their tasks.
- Howe.ver. as was previously described, the inspectors did not cite spe examples showing such pressure and wre unanteous in their feel,fng .
b~ that this In fact, several quality pressure did not effect their job performance. ,7 control inspectors stated that the pressure led then to be more strict b, la .
! their inspections. E.)
I leist, if anything, was done as.-:. a result'of all these vague gener. - -
" Q. . ..
411ttes concerning probles in the QA/qC arest ' :. , A.
~ The Region concluded that la 1tght of the morale problem etch >
App 1tcant's was indicated by Report 78-12. a meeting should be held with the ~~ 2 %. Q'.y management to express the concerns identified as a result of 751. 1
..r . ,
25, 1978, to f
,j .. ,
M T.O
, ?
I shou you e letter, with attachments, dated Agust Q. . bx: s:, .. .
.,.,W", the muston Lighting & Dover Company, maktng reference to Report 78-13 F- an id' a
,,'p? D'
- w? . l A[.s,A 1 marked for identification as $taff Exhibit No. 9. -Are you able to tdantify.
-(; $.m.t f.t ' j e..
2.
?l**?'d 4 >
- ylI %. w., ,' A PP .m$
i i, . this doeurent and its attachr. ants? J- d .a ,.,, M, a v.. I.NI. -f
@[>. . A., ..y; 4 . . &,',' Yes, the letter transattted to the huston Lighting & power Coripany i;i l ' ..'
1- -'.y% -i. e j A.
.N.'.
' f'. 2.].?,.* [
a report detalling the topics discussed in a aseting between Region $ IT Sta
., - ',' 15. 1978, held as a result of 4
' and Houston Lighting & power Campany on August .
78-12. *
- k. s ',. i., Q.
Are you able to surinart2e the toples discussed during the August 15 j
./.
1978 meeting? t: r.j;~.y Yes, as surrarized in Report 7813. the purpose of the meeting was A. il L '.ji*-i.2. - to discuss alleged problems in the implenentation of the site QA/QC civ '
- b. +s,',.6: pregram quattty control inspector morate and the adequacy of site QA/ .
)
'~
a,'[:,[ staffing.
.c E ..
;0.~ .
~ .
- c. ..*..
.-.>.~ i ** , i.- - .
- _. n
~
.s
- '9 - .
- Z:' -
+ - t.
.p;'s
. .s' . ~
- i. , .
.h. . ;i -
e' ,: m.
. . J, '
> : v., .
n
. .c .
pm ..
.# 7 .
surque' " -
?
.s
. .cf n5.,
a ic.q&!:i;T~ W W-Q M-; V W w,.
..1 ;
MB O'.i ' a _6hiSI.6* c. J. . - - - n-
_...L..---.
- _p ,___2__
- . . . =..z , ,
m_ _ . _ - . __~;.___ _ .c c. :.a. w..-. ~- -
._r - _ m , e d n; . . m,~
'137 ,
28 , , r. As a result of the concerns expressed by Region IV to this meeting. Q. h did the Appilcant propose any changes in the operation of pality assurance I and wality control at the South Texas Project site? I A. Yes changes were toplamented in the gality control traf atng 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 r manager ccrnf tted to participate more directly in site polity activities. - Document control was also taproved by additional staffing of the vality t I
,- a m R
.L
. assurance library and persens were addet to the staff of construction
- fj 8eth
. engineering to improve inspection of in process construction work.
..,_ .A
.l.4,, Houston Lighting & Power Company and Scom and Root agreed to stap up their
- l-'. w.
surveillance of in process constructics activities.
' . d,r .,. ..,.
Q. ' I show you a letter, with attac1 vents, dated October 3.1978. j,f,f, ..Y, s. ~..A .N addressed to the Region IV Chief. Reector Construction and f.ngineering f.[i. ru "' g. ' 6 . r, ,[. [,.h.j
-- 4 f*
. '.h*' - - * ;. $sppart Branch Lhtted States Actear Regulatory Commission, free Houston p=.w g,p '
.3 3 . , '; . , , ,, =;i , .f .
..(,
Lfghting & Power Company, marked for identification as Staff Exhibit No.10.- ' -
,f. 2 ,
Are you able to identify this document and its attachments? ~
,' , i A. Yes, the letter set forth Houston Lighting & Power Company's .
- 15. 1978
- ctreitments in response to the concerns expressed during the August q- .
meeting, as just outlined, and the proposed corrective actions for each of , I . '. .'$ Investigative Report 78-12 and .6 ) # the allegations and concerns set forth ta
'.J
- I.
. c...z
,. fietting Report 78-13.
. q ,"
s [
-. e C
- .O h j
l ,
. ?.
,e -.. . . . _ ...,.7~ -
4 , ,. a
., . .t.: ., ..
2;j
.q,-
- b
,D e ,. . .'2 ,
'~ ,
n.. s- t*.
~.",,< .) 4
..q
'(
, O
[ ., y r. er
'.*. - F
., J
. _ye
.y r . mom y m ^, y- : "-
_ ; - m' _ ._ .mue- '
.w R.h
'. ?. . h. l 2 ._ _
I -
..e -
u ?d ~' = "in-- ^ **
. . . , ~ .
12L. L. m -w . I a 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? ,.
.A. Yes. The letter transmitted to leeuston Lighting and Power Company l
.; 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 the conducted this inspection? -
O. p. . WN. .' This investigation was performed by v. 4. Ihbacet. J. I. Tapia. .'
, .. ) A. ..
s ,
.i and L. E. Hertin. Ileactor Inspectors. Region IV. M .'.m' W ap,:fC "-
- w ::
.i .i
- s
- q. Who reviewed this report? . .e l ..
- w. v ' . .! u p
.;., ' . [', ' 4%-
- g. I N h. . .",' 'h m d A. This report ws reviewed and approved by W. A. Crosman. Chief.
-r y ' . .
Projects Section, and it. L Hall. Chief. Engineering Support Section. ,. a Region IT. . [~."4 . 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. ..
~...'.
i 9
. .h .
m.
~..
. s' _
. m
.. y ,-
~
.. k p
. ..,, v.. .
-s i.9 .' ,.
F t.E , I,
.: g .' '
a:. w I-((
..... . , - . , - - ;--;.<...- ~
y -----w" m n; .
.--.m . u. ..m. . c .
3 22 0 6.0.,i..I.:. 6M. .1,0: d).
- r. -
'- - : ~~ ' . _ _ . _ _ . _ . l l _ ___ : J_ ' ' ' _ _ * ' . - $ d '6 4
.s .
"Y' 4
. . L ; ;_,. .u. '
II9' ,
. 30 it d received additional training as .
construction quality control inspectors ,ha selected personnel training l r j
- evidenced by the revtewing of einethorized randomtoy hire an additional 3 files, and the wality, assurance Ifbrary was auIn addition. r i-four staff positions. t to nonconformance reports, was . . . .
engineering action were restred. .. g78. fa contras b-b 15. Ig78 I I. clarif ted in a memorandus dated October 24 Q. , to the Houston Lighting and Power Company, Are you ab1'e to it No. 32. p and marked for identification as Staff Eahtb , - r
-l identtfy this document and,1ts,attachmentsf i g and Power Company
[ , A. Tes. the letter transmitted ty Houston Light ntigation conduct
> 3 a report detattf ag the results of an RAC inves
,. . !.{ .
August 22 and 25. Ig78. # b'['
. y
- es
'7
, ., ~ . Q.
Who conducted thfs investigation? b t Reactor , A. J. J. Ward. Investigation SSpecialist.
~
tion. Regfon IV.W. L lta ace . -
- i *
- -.. g .,'
t,,.a'.~... p'.h
.,,,[.i..-
! Dt Inspector. William A. Crossman. Chfef. Projects ' N ec
- i. ' . [5 1 a '.' *i the reviewed this report?
t ? . + , ~ . T. w Q. .Crossman. Chief. <S 'i -
?, .%'3 . ;' ie. f'1, '.,.. s This report ins reviewed and approved by V. A.
; d~
) A. N#', 1 .'
. Projects Section. Region !Y. t
,- t ' ,
. i, Q.
Wha.t was the reason for thishinvestigatten RRC. the Licensee. . A. On, August U. Ig78, during a meeting between t eit was re i and executives of the Brom and Root Company,had been approached by 4 S
/
. and Ibot constructfos person alleged he d that he could help construction y:..
Root Quality Control Inspectorf* who state
)
- } k get jobs mov'ing tf he were "taken y care o . .
of
- e k -
4 i
*g '
-t.'. .* -
,,,,,. h a
- m.s-
.I . "
f 'q , v.' .
., a
~... * . ~s.
. ~~ ~
.. y ,
i .
* } ~*
% . s .
.r p (~'. . .
, * ** 1 ,
[. *
. , , ,y ,
i . . e. r s , J ' ,; g .
. s e b l.-
- a .
e - . s m.y L
. . c ._, . i_1. *.m -
L < __ ,
' .. = w .J
'.'q' ,
&j c:igyy.g.:Ig Le Qi
.. . n.
' , . . - : * ' . . . .~!. *. . . .' :. :. i - =
b'~, .= : - - m
- 2- .r ...'
. .:.x x c - s *xt = D - - n
. .M.w.ac im.=a.uwa.L n i SJ
. . ,; - . - r e ,. -.1 % O :Dww m- '
- N Y ' ' W '
' v 140 1 s
. 31 1 ., .
+6 .
t
.I
- How was the investigation into this allegation conducted? p 'i J
Q. r j i A. The Region IV investigative team traveled to the site and inter.
., s etewed the Wality Control Inspector allegedly soltetting bribes. The
@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. ' '
4*C b
<.~ tien worker as equally vehment' ta his assertion .
that the se11citatt'od had 3[ J.3 been capettted. No witness could corroborate either position. s
. As to the counter allegation. that as a group. @elity Controla Inspectort i Y ' '.?1 -N .
were latialdated, all of the @ality Control Inspectors interviewed dented , d'h ' u i
.y that any items of nonconformance would be overlooked by thee for any reason.
.' '+- -
r 1'G J *
.m .
. 9 ,q including fear of losing their jobs. In addition, no 4411ty Control Inspecter
.l .
. s,&~
- ! * " ,% r' .,7 aihettted having knowledge of attenpted bribery or past incidents of noncoe.
Q:[i'n. b% .:2 .- -.
. i :., , ' 7.(,'"g'i , J.'y .O -)i 7',g ,.]
.. .* u. -g formances having been snarposely overlooked ta exchange for meterial favors.
f t
. y 't
_w,C.'**,,-M . I show you a letter. with attachnents, dated Octobe'r 6.1978 to Q. *
.l'. , ,,
*- nouston Lighting and power Company asking reference to heport 78-15 and
' p. ['h i'[ .
Are you able to toevitify s
~
marked for identification as Staff tahibit No.13. ' this docunent and its attachments? - ' . ,; Tes. the latter tranmitted to Houston Lighting and power Company
,. ~ : ., A. r
, < 7.0.j ' a report dotatling the results of an NRC investigation conducted between
- i Sept cher 11 and 14. 1978, as well as, a notice of Violation. ;
-! S .
- rA 120 conducted this investigation? ,
Q. g,t.9.f .
. r
, . y.; - . .
.e. 3, .m , .
e
.* ~
l
- %,f..m' f .
o V. . 3 -1 v '- ?.. ) ' - 8 6,
. . c, e I
u:. t
,1 .c . . m
.i . - _ . E,. , ,
;.. ,p:
.r. e V:. .
17N :
, . - . . . . . . , e n.
KQ '
'a.
. .@],.
+ '*
F-
?-- >- .
Q, , .
*N .1
J'
-'@ n -
- 2.y ,
.e .
Y r. .
' I.W - .,
, b
..;]? 9 . I *t ga d g
x .. ,'g ,,;' n > - .- , '_sD..~l h ..*.* 4 cns*
. .. , , ~xper*.-
...~ r~ . .ym '?.. .:- ? .* mdf . , ,. . * * * . --<'*
- r
, _y.a --
. . aness, b h..*,
y
.g .
I f g-0.'.iO)W gi,Q .
'.'l.. ..
--m- - _-
- - i .
r-.*
* ' -' ~. . . ~ . ' ; ^XL J-:.. . ? %
- k i,:_ ._ .- ' ;
+ !.: mn
.. = . . . . s. i G_ : ..
^
-:- ' " =. .;
. - . . - .w ::. w c a . ~ .' _.
i . 141 - 32 *
. L 3 R. E. Hall. Ote'f. Engineering Support Section and A. B. Rosenberg.
A.. > o , , Reactor, Inspector. Region IV.
. , QWho reviewd this report? . , . (
A$ This report was reviewed by W. G. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector, and - f approved by R. E. Hall. Chief. Engineering Support Section. Region tY. l Q. met was the reason for this investigation? -. F
, A.
th September 3.1978. Region !Y received a telephone call from na 3 , individual who identified himself as an enployee at the South Texas project
, t.
3 , " and who reported specific allegations regarding-the South Texas project. E
. n
-' . ' civil constraction and quality assurance programs. _as well as. specific- ,,,
*l -
, t-trregular(ties in the Cadwelding procedures.
.f.
. .y 4 Q. First, please define Cadwelding. .
.. s..
..u i
~,a, h i .. A. Cadwelding is a process whereby two reinforcing bars are mechani.
. -J ,. g The two reinforcing bars ,, ,, ,
- s cally bonded together by way of a'Cadweld sleeve.
'd ,
, ?a ;.o;~j . ,g< ." .
are placed end to end and the ends to be joined are inserted in the Cadweld f.'.. .
;v i. . . ; . ii. . '
A filler metal is then ignited and the molten filler metal ft11s y-?> i' (.d 57,*y
- o sleeve. K n~
;2.'e e
.", l, the space between the retnforcing bars and the sleeve, thus forutng a mechan.
s 4
., 's'.^4*G1 9,;, , .
( #p1.,!? .i teal bond. In the cadweld process, in contrast to a trve weld, the robar 9 "' f ,*[f * . . . , , gare not fused together. . ['., l ', t . ,A-
+ ,
How was the investigation into these allegations conducted? a.- Q. t /s (~e3 A. An onstte review ws performed of Cadwalding procedures. Cadweld. ' /-? '
'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 , .
. *. . formity with spectftcations and that there was a lack of giality control
, - y'-
A Motice of 1tolation uns taspectors covering the Cadwelding operation.
'M i ,
.t .
a p.
..y ,, - . . . . ~ - -
y % -- v - v.
..m . &. . . . - -
g s -y
.,x
.g~
,?
(*
- t .
A
'JL c I.T. 4
*#A -
.s
'a N
.g ij
. ~ m .m . . w r ~ .
~
.w s y
- w. . w..::. w .;;. = .u.;. .
. ,-)
~
l $PL( a.:_..w o?oAD6M . ,..:. 6.. . a'
.s. ..: .
,,,f,. .g. .
- f -:3
.m
* ;;L- [_-4g.".*' Y.;:7.. ;i':~.f.f.%-;,*,;;;gj . . .. .. , * , y u _:a:L^
4.'. ' . ,._ : .% ,'- *. . C.% ~;. ...
..xs .. t .
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. I In addition, it should be noted that the concerns incorporated in j
~
Intervenor Contention 1.3. were identified as an unresolved its la this l Subsequently. It was deteretned that missing Field Sketch F54_430 k report. _ .
. . . . . . . . . _ . ~
, was never prepared. Brown and Root, however verifted that the Cadwelds were >
# A satisfactortly in place, but could not verify individual Cadwelds exact
'r as.butit location. Such vertitcation is not an RRC restrument. .Tkts
, ~4 J s) ' I natter was resolved in 18C Report 7818. which has been marked for identi. ,
' "!- fication as Staff f2htbit No. 14 ,.
1'
- a ; ,'
Q. I show you a letter dated Noveter 3.1978. fras Houston 1.tghting
; . .t ,,
- " ' and powr Company to W. C. Seldle, of MRC. Region IV and marked for identi. h*
o h* .> ... J 'i ., j ','e' .a4a
. ?9 fication as staff Dhtbit No.15. Are you able to identify this document!
l 'j .
Y*.* ? %
- A. Yes. this l'etter sets forth Houston t.tshting and power Carparty's - ly - u
.f.. . . g #ge-y ,,~.t e' 5 5 %,***
'W
,0-proposed corrective action in response to the NRC investigative findings la /p**". ,.Y^. ,
. * "; , [. + (, :
'b .
geport 78 15.
. N -
.J- ,
.e 7 w & '.,
' * ", Are you able to summartae the corrective action proposedY c -
" - ,. - . '.." Q.
A. Yes, a visual Cadweld reinspection program was lastituted for -:- t
,- -
- Cadwelds in place, a training session for all Cadwelders and tespectors had been given to assure proper understanding of the procedural regstrewnts is G.. .y
-t r Cadweld construction and inspection. Cadweld inspectors had been assigned to
- both shifts. and construction procedures were revised to require Cadwelder
. . 'C. ,,
surveillance be performed each shift rather than only ence each 24 hour period. ,
,.'. l'.
+
t.,
. 2. y .]
w F'
,?e a ..1
'.' r
,a 'q . - - - =
e
* ;f
,_* l
- p.
r
. . , n';-..
.~~ *. ..,.... '.. ,.. ,,,. _
; 2. ,.c
. , 7 >
s' ' u /*
.) + ,
1 I
..y -
l V. ,, 4
*< t
- . d. d -
e . .J. . u- - 9= g -
.1' .
W.. M .,: r k ?. .. .
- s .
..m.......,.
5 (. < n ., . . , g. ,,....w-.. . .
.,s. . , w% .q ,a.-
C
-m
,A . . . . .. .........
. . . . 'f
g - _
- ".'. C;.C I f .
- 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;;
.p a report detailing the rtHlti of an NRC Inspection conducted between Deces-
, y, y..
ber $ and 8.1978. kiong the tiens laspected, were those f tmas cousitted to l q
. .h
- +s %.
> , ,. ;a in response to t.'io ttens gf hencomp1tance set forth in investigattom report y .. . ,...,
. . 3, ,
1 78 15.
' ( jf.'* / .q',o,,.e
.[ ,( ,, < .'( ilho condui.ted thil inspectient E.+..
Hff I.T*p . 2, ;"
.x Q.
5?i x r A. V. L thbaceke R44ttbr Inspector. and D. P. Tenitason. Reactor q Q.Q, .a dj ..' F/?.k.'9. ), f QT ,,b, [. g~ ,. - {; t,' . Inspector Regfon IV. -
- s. -
. g. . ,. 7, Q. idho reviewed and Approved this inspectlant ,
^ ,,.
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 .f its letter of November 3,1)ftt b)
'f A. Yes procedarst h44 been revised to regatre inspection and sur.
'y .s veillance of Cadweld spljG1hg 6ctivities on each shift. Arview of records sif . 3.,
.*a T - ..
..e , ,
;.y a .
g
- ~,
1 :.
.bf .1 ;-
. >. .. .. . :.,, . v: - ~ ^ - - -
u p.
't ,
', - y.,
'.s
.3 e
v . . '* . p
;; . ,,e
;f
- v n .
. S:
,J t. .
se
- t. '
y.
.y ___L_ - .... m:' ir*,
I e Ihh %' . , - e
*/---,N' e h ?
,g a .. a.a ,.
$ 4..,. J . - -
% }_
.O?.O', J,9g.I,5H,5; s --
.s. ,,,,.
" F -
'd-' '"
- _.___m
~ - . .?:
~ _
~
4
. r:_
, . 1 1. ...s.. 1.~~-- - - - - -
. .. S...'_..,
144 '
- 3
.u. .
fras Septaber 18. 1978 to Deceber 5.1918 revealed that Brom and meet > inspection personnel and Itcensee surveillance personnel were present on , I In addition. 20 Cadueld spitees won cut out and poll tested both shtfts. -
, All other actions committed to by the l, and each met the acceptance criterta.
3 ;.f. utensee , eertfted. 3 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
, )
A. > I'
,~ . l through 50.55e letters of a serveying error and concrete velds. .
u r y,7
- t.
Q. Imat is a 50.55e lettert *
.. A.
Imder 10 C.F.R. 50.55e. the Appitcant is undee en obtfgettoe to -
.id
.v. 8 nottfy the hRC of each def tctency found to design and construction etch. ,'
E . , ttons of
- were it to resta uncorrected, could affect adversely the safe opere .
- 7. .
itfy we ne utthin at hours of .ach ,e, ort. ... The noticut -it
~ .~;-z.
. .y w n , -.e s.
.. es ,iant.
able deftetency. and further. must subatt a mettten report on the deffefency
. . f ' ~ <*.',y [ *']f. wf thin 30 days. The 30 day report must include a description of the deft. $*= ' # ',
v 'e [ ,,J ' f , ,. .y ciency. an analysis of the safety taglications and the corrective action e L, s; n, - #. . (. ,y
.- tekee. d t,
e < g ilould pu please summertze the nature of the deffetencies reporte Q. in October of 1978. the corrective action taken and identify the spe:tftc [ ' contentions in this .. hearing which these letters addressed. IV. ' A. Yes. to regard to Intervenor Contentton 1.1. en October d.1978. .
'[ the Licensee nottfled the RRC of a dimensional erroe to the L~
y' - tatt 2 sechanical-electrical aust1tary butiding. The error occurred ce because. f f - v'. rather than using the contatraent/ reactor center line as f the point o re eren
. ,$ te lay out this butiding. the 4pitcant laid out the betidtog using co use 6
. ?.
;b <y.
*gg * ,J.
,---- , , , p' s:7
'., F .* .
h,l
) ...
P
% b,
" a
,., . c
- N.
z . x . = = . m.L._ . .: : . 5. .=. m.
.v., . ..y
}.: t
$ 070.;lK6,j.y;'.6!
] .
w .' :..M a~an '. .
-'".n.*.%
. . ;' ?):
; . .<w
?. n_:.w .,.. .~ ar
.;;;s ':~
;_ :!:W ::G'r'-^'*~.*--.~'=:*~w%.'.r.'.....
.n.- . . T. ~ ~
-. M &. c-
.- :- ...:" - a.: .'? < 1 , ; . .:.
4 : W ? *_L.
'1.
D
... :.-.a.a
. -h. +L x, - * -~.+ 4 --
. .....a.. ~__.-_.~. "
V. .: . '
. a . /. S. . **
-~ g.=
- O 4 36 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 o east edge of the mechanical. electrical austilary butiding as laid out one 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
, F,.
,'- a result of the redesigned mechanical. electrical aestitary butiding. .
( (,
-f 1
To preclude recurrence. Independent verification of a bet 1 ding layowt > t .;j , ,? , W .. .
- - a j*-
will be double checked by addtttonal supervision and restewing calculations. . ,. ,; n. 2 4 *,. . " l.r., r %, b
'.pq '
.s) /, ' With respect to Intervenor Contention 1.2. en October 20.1978, the k
.J D.,g b.? f
. o .-=W .
.. *3 ?,
C,** 4p1tcant'nottfled the RRC of the extstence of volds to the concrete within. w9[f% - r . . .
# .'i+. ...
- ! % ,' ~
V , lif t 15 on the outer surface behind the 1tner plate in the thtt I reactor .
=
containment butiding exterior all from elevation 127 to 138. This deft. 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;
control. Brow 8 hoot conducted an investigatice 3? If ft 15 volds to deter. ' 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
./.:
\ .; .
p. '
*y
~w. .. * ,, { s .; ,
.'._ * ' . t;.. _
- f. '
Q ~
'o- ,
7;
- fe ;/.' . ,
l
$l
' 1 *
!*/ .
* . . {.'
;.s ..
T*,
', M, hL. * '
,, @y U * ::. ' ' c L?[. !*
*Q ' *
.h*
- c...,,.~.e.-..*.;..,-- :4. p ~ . . '. &
y1,s v .,. ,*p. l .
.... ,. ,or- ..**.
~
. . ~ . . . , .*... s. s , '
. t , . _ . a ? i N'< .. % J
- 4 , .,4
, , ? :L .m!,. . .
em o?.o.QP.hqig;, _J s.3.. . - --.----,,4_ _ - - - -_
= , .
*N* . . . - . .. .
* ' . l4 .y(( , k . .' , a e. 1 A. ;[-h
- n' 7. . .
**~ ' b S kES
} N* .
^
..m_a,..e .-
x- - '*^ - .^^
.. .,.-;.. u w & w M . :L 4 p<"*.
l 19D
- 37 - % ,
u. 4 Exploratory d'rtiling, sounding and 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 ere primertly of the unacce Calculations based upon this investigetton indicated that t there wthe t three locations restring grout .
, ajection behind ,
1tng the volds based P 81% grout was selected as an acceptable material injection 12 for ft1 on a program of laboratory and field tests. Following h there grout , locations were selected at randos fforadrilling the grout in place. to determine whet er were any ungrouted volds and to inspect the quality o No additional volds were
. P y
e ' t'ncluding t'he grout. concrete interface condtt'on. r tight. ..- found and,taterface between grout and concrete d ing us found to be
, Corrective action taken to prevent recurrence of stellarr- voids ur 3J s i rs future concrete placesent tecluded retraining t roblens of. construction sup . g,Q < '
- 2. u.
and engineers along with grality control personnel relative oOp' D.f. +,' %.';',
. . .~ ,
ii included considers. 2 which contribute to the fertulation of voids. Traprocedures n ng to )- Q'L.U K. ,4 \.- rl
- P " ;' . i
, {
g tien of epigrrent failure, e.cass placene'at tise. and proper kir'4.;(2,'e W .ch.
,f.y;J.
ye- 6 r's ,4,8 41J e.
~. a4d f '?.r[t i ld be noted t,
n; a g'*W-
,A
- yr a o* Ys. be followed in such an event. ?. . .%
N
@A i" ,A .
M,r Also in connection with Intervenor the Spitcant Contenttee 1.2. .
~
it sho
) 4.d 5 .
,'r*~' . , * - ategata this time that by a 50.55e letter, datedItner 4:neplate18.1379
* . p'
. y. ,
te
. y nottfled the RRC of volds in the cuncrete behind the li In' response to the the eighth itft of tintt i; reactor contatnnent bui d ng.d remedies were impl
)
~[I velds to 1tf t 8. stallar investigative procedures If f t 15.
an v,6 , , y .. sented as previously testifted.to in reference to . 6 . Old there cme e time. when the lett investigated
.k incorporated in Intervenor Contention 1.5. etch states:
i . 1
; . t g
'r .; ..
fc . a, . t ,
.. f
' 'g
. -: .i
. f. .-
.,. i-
.; . , 7.,r.# ,
t
.: s. .'
t , .
. ,i . ,
s,1 , v.. ~
.w. , . .e ,
g ; ; ,
$p 4 1
c (
+.
. . . . . . . s. , .
. . ,., . , . . : i.
... ..a - , , * . . ,
e,
..9- 2 . . / .
,9 '
# U.
~ * .
- - , .c .
W :.'. -.' .
.e . . : g1' s 3.; ' ,
. ,9 <~ ,;. : :.,
.;/
.:c y . l.:
1 ', lT .. T.y. ,-e
; !( - . g[ -l .
s a -
.y' N
07 87"7 '7~~ 7; E, , ' [ [' ' .' 5 2., ph*I ,
- ~.
hcl- m
** *
- mows . m . .m.
] I f 0 ; 0.Q.Q:{,5d,4 ,
g % t
..-.........a
. : - .4...s - : . , , . .: ... . . . .
.. .: ;..;a :- . . . ,
- % -%: .M..n~
; . R e 3.x~:
. y % *..p%.V.:S@,Q.4 *h-SO$*LM~ C
":M. ':. . : W.CP.f"%" "W S
- s
'a s . . ,
- . " - '~* - ' A ~ ~ ' - -
" ^ - *^ ^ ~
;' . s .- 2.,--
147 - t
. 38 '
t '.
-1 t' .
'There are steel reinforcement bars which are alssing from U
.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.* ~
.I A. Yes. During an investigation conducted -
between June 12 14. 1979 . 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 doewunts checked. The various Individuals interviewed had no knowledge of h *.+, #. any re.bar missing from any structure including containment. For addition 41 iy 4.
.A ^
follow-vp activity see !&E Report 80-08. 7
,; 'j;j 1...-
I show yee a letter.' with attactments, dated February 16. 1979 to . .
~ ' . . .? ,, ,
O. + . . Houston Lignting and powr Company making reference to Report 79 01 and ,
* '.:k* . ,' ,1 I ' 3 ]
marked for identification as Staff Exhibit No.17. Are you able to ident{fy I f UM '-et hf,',((k %
^ h.,.,*'[j.
"c e
4 ,5 %, . 4 .
- pI 3 4
this doctzient and its attachments?
.* M. ' 'r[b .E . ?.
- v,. . - ,' *l.4.
f4j.i
<c .'a, ,
- s. y. . . , . . g* 1, 7 .
A. Yes, the letter transmitted to Mouston Lighting and power, Company q s ? 6 At -
- ,. f f , ' -
' a report detalling the results of an NRC investigation conducted between -
- y, If*
' ' * ~~ ~ January 23 and February 2.1971, together with a Notice of Vto14 tion. %
l
."u : _
l 4 Who conducted this lavestigation? ( This investigation was performed by W. L kbacek. Reactor Inspector.
' A.
., :1 R. E.14411. Chief. Engineering Support Section and J. J. Ward. Investigation
.. .<;g,. "9 . '
7 Specialist. Region TV. -
..T /< .
M Q. Who reviewed this repert?
'e
'.i "J
g O b C ; , , . ~~.. *
- Uf . ; ,' S-l3 i *
,.s. **# '
.' '5 d .
; M, ,
.h .
- 4 2 g I* .* y . .
.e . *
.l ,
-* . e
- 1
.I
,_., .- m *., r -- -*
n g.g -
,s -u
,p,
.y . . .. . ,
i . . .
~ * * - , * ' q s . . . . ...e)
,~.s...: . ,,.e j .. . .u :. .
.Q s.e
, u m, , .
'#" 6 u-y' t ,
= %=4, 1:
, r, .;
.. .-
- s- . ,
Q
* . [, *
'* ,% .y
. e f , . . ". ; $.
', '1' , .
* * * - d, '.
,..3 -
+1 "
& s asy. * -
).
- !s
. ;. - p ..
- f. 71 @,
M , , , e.\'
'f' (,1
- m. < . , ,y . , g.=..y; g
. :nyv y; 134 g e m',-Q.}.,= .%.W. -
N . .,- 4-
.tm _ in c : . : J'u + -- _..- .s_.- .__. _
. s J.Y
,4
-4 m .m 3 .. . ,,g
o- '
- .c . . -- - . , .
~-..:. ..; _-...:..,.,~- - - - ^- - .
. .g._.. .@. w -w .
O 4 ~
.-.__m,. x. u r , , , . , _n: ? l' . : -
- u .
~ .6 ,n.
\.
14 ?> , I
^
3
-n. I A. This report i.as reviewed by V. A. Crossman. Chief. Projects Section. l-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. 4 How wre these allegations investigated? Q. A. The investigation team reviewed record copfes of C4dwelding check (- 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. ! \..-
'~I 3
i A. . It tas deteralned fras a review of the Cadweld records that Cadw r , enaratnation checklists vers being transcribed by individuals other than the
+ . , . .
onstte Cadweld inspectors. It was determined that this activity affects , .
* .'-i' 'u c.2 -
s% - *
. ' E j ?). *T. ~. &. wality control, and accordingly, a notice of violation was issued in coe. 1.:
'- ;'f,
,O s 4. w .
.j- i5*.
.r,
', - nection with Inspe-tion Raport 79-01 for fatture to provide proce.dures for a.
.3f.g :.t% ..,,
%' , *.y
* .- g ,' . .
c5
,4 a. .t,. y All other allegations art not substantf ated.
3
-N.->. .{ , ....r.,.,,.,..,y quality control activity. -
The, concerns tacor; crated in Intervenor Contenthe 1.6. are further
.Sr Y ', ?
d . addressed ty this report. ' j >. Did Houston I.lghting and Power Company respoad to the f tas of I. Q.
, 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 ,. f tion as Staff .
,and Power Campsey to1 NRC. Re2 on IV. and marked for identif ca 4
E.thibit No.18. and ask you if you are able to identify this letter.
~'
, .1 . i
. . ,s? , .. q ,
,Ih N ,
P 2 -: 3-. ,- , .. - -. -
~,
_. f: ., . p
- a. ,
..h :
. . . 8.
g .e [ .
.d. e .,
.)s .A I
9 . M %. .. ,. ~..m. ' ' -- -
~.-
l s.y . l
'6'
.,e
':-2 -- - -
e,
@ ) .; _.lh5b.2.63.0 i
..y,'*,j , .
\ .a a wq
i --. m . . ,
. ~,: .
.*; '.~.. .n c. . ,. r .. .e . . .* ~ c , r..
- ~.' . ..~.._;
~.T. * .,. h. <vn;;** "-. .~. .~. ,
. . ..-* s t. ..n.,.>...',...u
..=.
- y. ., ' : . ' ,. y. . . . ). 's
.. e , , ,
. :. T. t.q
,.v. ... . e:M2S T.;*M WiM*Eti.ht' *r-~ *-e*w" a ~:J.w o "r .y.e... < ^" ' ' .
, e .[b.
" ' ~ ' ' '~ " ' ' ^ -^ - ' ^
~
.w _=,__..w..,, .c . su; i ..u- - - . . . .a .: , c..
r 143
. 40 ^.
A. Yes, this letter submitted the response of Mouston Lighting and t y Powe Company to the N3tc flotice of Violetten, accompanytag Inspection Report F9-01. f, Q. Are you able to sumartte the corrective action proposed? L A. Yes, the Licensee proposed a procedure be followed to control the . transcription of Cadwelding exanetnstion checklist records. - Q. Did the ItRC Region IV conduct a felleuup tmestigattan to deter. . - ' mine whether Houston Lighting and Power Campany had tapteested the tro. '. ~
- 12. 1979?
.o cedures it represented it would vade-take in its letter of furth k i
+ -
- 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 "
;'g
)
Are you able to identify earted for identification as Staff tahlblt No.19.
. c.; 2 ' ;** c !.; '
this doctnent and its attactmentst .
.d'....i. Yes. the letter transsitted to Houston Lighting and Portr Company (*a- =>
- p. y, <
A. ' +
's tr.. (;~* ,4 .'.
y%s:,f;;w*fy-lf,,..sg r. *,
.* f-
.+. . % .; a report det:111.a2 the results of an MRC inspection conducted between p#,,*,
~pl"N, ..#., p.l * * *Mfa< . . .'s Among the items inspected. was the Licensee's n" ".', ,
, sag- b April 17 and 20. 1979.
.' - , .7.s .
corrective action in response to the Notice of Italation accotwanying hReport
~e . v 3. ' "- . V'
. . z* .,' 6
..( '
, .4 !. - ,
79-01. I Q . .d".:N N.'-Q - Q. Who conducted this inspectient 5
.I j
- A.
This inspection was performed by W. L Ikbacet. Reactor Inspector.
,. .l ,JI, ., M Region 17. .
f'~h
' .'(gt 0. Who approved this inspection? * '
.Z
- 1. ". h.,? ' A.
1 hts tospection ses approved by W. A. Crossaan. Chief. Project r I 1 9ym . Section. Region IV. '
. l
; . . 1 y .,~~. .
L. t
.,f...
- s.-*
, 5 e, ,
r
* " . ' p -1.
i.
*l.
h [*a '. .,. - .
- . r i
... . 3. ., . - . - -
y}'. y .
~
~ i ;,. . . . . . . . - . , .
,'g'l .__,,,.m.._ -
f ,',,,,..
- y- . ",.". . ..
^
x, ,;; g
.I
,j =.
, ' ,*** ..T,
, i_,. _
..r.4 7
. .e g.
L. . .
. . u
,;. y i ,
., .- q;,
..t
$. . . .,t . . . < 7 a
s.n.. .
/
2 .. h .
- w. .ry *
. ' e T.i. , e -
-: ;) .
w :Z* a 7, *
- tl3. . _
**,a . , . .
Vf. ,, , __ _L..,, . ' ' ~~ u .
.q ; ,
7,s ., q . , s.< ,. . _' - l ~4;. ' %..
- _z .e
~ _. n_. !-. ._ .
q ,
' ; w. ---. , .
,w ; O.,,.Q.g.@, g
. :.v' g
_ 4*OM_'_
A. ; * -! *: " + 1 . . ~ . . .: .' . .
. . ~ . . ~ . . . - . . - -= * . . - 'n - ', ,
. _ .. : x-- ~ m m
,e nmim&-s=~ * # i %.* E.1 %l;.~ :.r w.w.n .:._ J.:.~.'.s
- ;_. ,u 9 N ,.:4. ;:e.?.-~r ~2t~ m. .p x;. ,x -j. .
-~e, . ... = s pC panh.w.l: .. .:K. _
t .
. .i
.c .
dL- ' a -Q; *^~" '
. . _ . - , 2 -x ._. ;_ . ;u.'+h S E ^ A 'Y* -
4
'150 ?
1
. 41 i.
,H r 1 Q.
Are you able to sumarize the nature of the trtspectica and the ,
. conclusions reached in regard to the earlier violettoet ,
G Yes, the Inspector observed that procedures had been revised in , y,
,' A. ~
g the Cadwelding' precess to include instructions for the transcription of date [. 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 -
#1 A. ,a . .;f.1 .
a report detalling results of an NRC inspection condacted betwen Mrth . 20 p'
- 4 '. .
- g. .-
f.0*
- 4 and 23, 1979 together with a Notice of 1tolation.
. .c. .. j .. [.
, s Who conducted this inspection?
.,,.. O. . ,,
.9.3. ]., ,
- A. The inspection was performed by V. 4. Ittba'at, iteactor Inspectoe. . ,
'l
-[ . ,. $ .
l$. L. D. Stibert. Reactor Inspector. R. E. Hall. Chief. Engineering Support {.$ 6
'.,' - :. d .J , p. q Section. Region !Y. ,
s@%,.g
. . . =r.
!."*1 [e $, , .h,p', s, -
l' .r- i . 9;-
, 7..g ,
u Ro reviewed this report? ~ c% v# c O '; g . n.? ~ , . ./. .s*q f Q. r. i
* r.. ?R2'a .n- .T
.i A. - This report was reviewed and approved by V. A. Crossaan. Otef.
'2-
- .z-
- . , ,2
- w n, h' Projects Section. and R. L Hall. Otef. Engineering Smocort Section.
iT . ' .V4. . , , : . .
..b '~ pegion IY. t.
- f. . 3 s Wat was the reason for this inspectiont
'e 5' Q.
, .i ,Z. i !(l , A. 1 hts was a routine unannounced inspection of constructtee activity
- s .
W.
..y a .
4 4 at the South Texas Project. - 3 -
. ."; .%. m ~ -~
- Old this inspection result la any items of noncompliance? .
Q. F'
~ *9 . .y . 3 Yes. on March 22,1979 during observation of concrete placement. .r..n , . :,
A. c
" ' ;.y .
~
1, .: . an !&E inspector observed pools of standing water betneen the toterter fore T:
.;9
, , /.' ,. n.
A . * $* , .
- s. .; ,4 ,
~
q. n
-..*;= .]&,3
- e. y. . .
. .&. . . -. .y?. '. ' . ;,-
m:q. J'.V ..' - -
* ' f, . -l . J. '-
'i.' ~
w
- e. m ..:...
.~[...,,e,.. .., ,_. , - ,,;..- "... . , .
* %::l.y,
~
.;3.x
. ^* ,p: .
I
,,, . .o . : ..- . .
- e% 7 -
- hE ,- a.u .; , ,-- -
. '- p*v.
3 Y ' 5
, s.;l.4
*' . :W -
1. N.-
%.. 1 -_- -
'* 2
~**^.N '*
w
.fr(.
.? .. .
.s
'* { v' -
.%.
- y. ..f.< t. .
<;p%
V-v . s
*.-M,s y W
yyt
. L.
W. R . G. -'.4.ertYq . ' 3; ',.%.'...
.' m h.
.-L w. - Sf.Q.'I-[ - ;, . w w. l.* ' E '.C ~. [ m; , - _ ' ' -j,*
? ;, ,
y .: g I-n.. w % -.m G 4 ".
*o- .
~
u
- 0..:1.h&' '
"s 6.,'.4.21 a
e . ,.. ., ','q: w n . . .~ . . .. : O 1 2 " E# ~ ESU. N; .c-
- ./.: :
O ~ -M
. . . .r.
bb$2 . ~-Nr... s.NbMOA. . '? ' N.EY(hbNtNSMb.~--
* :1
- ,- s a.---------^
-- l- _ w . _ ;, . :.; i 1 _
,. . 1
- b. -
< . 42 ,
t 1 grow and Root gaality control procedures specify -: that . and the water step. - * , r. i before depositing concrete. foreign materials and standing water shall . be la addition, on two occastons, :during * , reoved from the aree of placement. . the initial phase of concrete placement, concrete was observed being' i.l .
. . ymoved laterally, by vibrators, by as such as eight te' ten feet, i a ','
Q. Did Houston Lighting and power Cospeny respond to these* items of
; k ,
nonctop11ance and make certain comettaents regarding
- corrective I
act om? A. . Yes. l .. N
,. dated May 3.1979, to meC. Region IY. from s O. I she'v you a letter. M HoustonhLil ting and Power Company, and marked for identification as;*' ...a ~ .: -
t
;Staff J.sy Lthibit No. 21. and ask you -if you are able to identify this letter..
a j P.4 +
.. g < A.- Yes, this' letter conveyed to MRC. Region 1Y. Houston Lighting andgg 2
- .~Qa.
[ .
/.s* .y ..
Power Cepany's respense to MRC Inspection Report 79-04 and the items . J . '.. t . of
- w L noncompliance set forth in that roport. J.- A -
.. - $! k;9 %
e e , Q. . Are you able to surnartse the corrective action Houston Lighting
$ l L y ~ ' ,-d ** ,, 4
- 1.M
\
-- e ... and Power comitted to 45 a result of the itens of noncampilance set forth . g,.l{,y g . r ;.y .f~N. o; v,1. .?. .g'
. ?.$ ' , ,
'., , , , -,, ,, 7,k.5,
e- .,',-r in Report 79-04? Yes. Hovsten Lighting and Power Ccepany ctrinttted that ,a tretning i
, f=ar
, . s-
**."' .> g[ ,' A ,,,
A. for the appropetate construction craft : t. [ ., 'f
; session had been held April 11,1979.
@ - '. "' i ,
h; pers:mnel covering concrete placement and surface preparation. In addttfon. , 4 i,g# '
*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 t
-3 .v c #4 .
Q. , it ; ..-
- 7lc that Houston Lighting and Power Company' performed the corrective. ,action -
. 4 - . , 2.mm.
cynitted to in its letter of May 3. 19797 u-
,c,Nl '- . ,
Yes. - .-. . g_.- A.
~
'. ~ f M. .**
arz , - 8
. ..y .. u
.v. %.. .
o.
. f,n .
4..
.. V. .
L*s
, ., . . . O-Y f,1
- w. .. w a .
(a : Q.- ~ ' . - > - t Ja*;. -e
, nr. , ..%. *
~,p .=.
n ~
- i.w*1, L
.* h w
. K:7 s,.,
,~
n.3 '
.d.4 .y. . " ;
)
^
.' v, L31 9
.a ,
', w M ."-
.g *,
lT4 .. g-
,t m '., ,.
e .q
.'# .r. ,
1 - V V qd - ['
- av
'y 7 ". "- 7 c.W " - w . 4 " ' .a* f,; . .
m ,,
'.79 ,
N(/;/ w -Ls
.p*g.5.6'-'J.:: c x_ .
." ~ &:C , - - '~ > le:4 w ._ _( .
f T 01.0.1 1 F.6s.6_.1 ~m. f.T. 00193 .- -
' j .,
..- .4 :.- , *
- -- . ;. na,- 2*f, ,
C'.d. %5 % .e-- . 's s ,.- n ._ ___w_,
.- M- - - .
- . .. a . :. *- 1. .~ _ -. c i 1.
15 :.
' i J
. 43 =
< ' ~
)
Q. I show you a letter, with attactments, dated August 3.1979. to h Hou,ston Lighting and Powe Company making reference to Report 7912 Are you able to identify , marked for identification as $taff Exhlblt No. 22. '
- a. .
this document and its attactnents? E-A. Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston Lighting and Power Company a report detalling the results of an NRC f aspection conducted between Aly 5 b. During the inspection, personnet tratatng records were restewed and 19, 1979. .
,- training session had occurred.
to determine whether the 4 ril 11, 1979,
,. [". ,-
. What' conclusion was reached with respect to the corrective action '
Q. ,
.}.g ' the Licensee represented it would undertake as a result of the Motice of . . .W 4 - S' g Violation issued in connection with 79-047 the training ..;. y A.
The tralning records indicated that on 4rtl 11.1971. >.c. y.,' a , a session took place addressing adverse consegaences which may result F,' j from
- ,. v.
.. N j~ o. ..c
. ; .- .'s-' . ??.f. l s sy, qi % failure to remove water frtu construction joints and frm, over cons 01fdation d 1.h .
of concrete. The report also deals with the repair cf voids in the concrete f,. L ,4. % v
. >S'*, ,,.
u y f[.'. .
.' !b 7. n. t pA. ~.%[ h.;r*.y. 7':p1.. ,
- p ;. .s r . a
'. i ~ g .a, .ps .m in the steactor Containment Ou11 ding of Unit 1.
(p s ~-T.
~ #
- , , , s' Q} 30. 1979 to
. Q.&.. ..
-ss- ,. .a-Q.
I show you a letter, with attackents, dated April
} ,'_ .
2
'~-
Houston Lfghting and Power Company making reference to Aeport P{ 79.C$ - an f ' Are ym able to identify
.f marked for identification as $taff Exhibit No. 23. ,
. ;.". this deciseent and its attactments?
"N ,
Yes, the letter tranmitted to Houston Lighting and Powe Caspany l# q
- A. .
. . a report detalling the results of aa MRC taspection conducted i.between 'dk .- m and 6.1979. together with a Motice of Violation. '
l vii.' Who conducted this inspection? , Q. I c ]. ' A. This inspection was perfor=ed by W. G. Hubacek. Reactor Inspector.
' [
-l .
and L. E. Martin Reactor Inspector. Region IV.
.y . ' t -
a, . 4
*^ r .
6,.
- .w r-
~~.u h' . . --
- - - - * -*= '
.,5 ,
g . r.--,?y.~~-==- -
;.+ -
1 - . I w/.
-g
- ..-
- i.
.1 r.
. .Q
. ~1
'l .
.;' . e P5 - ?
- ..c:n 1 g.
. {- .
j N..
&n
% g.: n.: ~.# . - - . .QY
?W, - ~ . ._ .3 ,. ; --~ '
,'. E :.} f.M. q'C ' .
g e -s c L '. x: n , n '-
.I og r i rf:' -
D. C.i.f.'.6D.6l4.8 ld - i
.. . ~ . - e
. ,c :
. . .n. . :n . _ . . ,g. ; _ _
.7..y
.-e ... m
-~ ~ _--
-a
- o-~=.... n _x - - a.. .
. i
~-a n. .u,. _ ,. . , _ ;; . a . - x _-+. .
. x _ U. . _; _*__._ __ -. .- . -
si Fg% 8 r
- d. O d . .
a. l
; b
. 44 .
me reviewed this report? S ction, 4 A. This report was reviewed by W. A. Crossaan. Chfef. projects e Region IV. .i and R. E. Hall. Otfef. Engineering Support Section. i What ws the reason for this inspectient f. Q. tion activi. ' A. This was a routine, unannounced inspection of construc l ment storage at the .. f f ties. including observation of housekeeping and ega p _ South Texas project. lt of this c
')
Were any ttans of noncomptf ance fdentified as a resu Q.
.t .l _ , p.y Investigatienf 05 due to yu P
A. Tes. a Motice of Violation was attached to Report 79-llow procedures for storege [; . Houston Lighting and powe Campany'sation fallere to fo of'nonconformance [. . t . of material and failure to follow processess for prepar ,
- ' ,[.
- reports. l i s?
a 2
.- , (4* .j ,
Would yms sw:sarize dat gave rise ilto4.1973. thesethe, vio at on h. E * ' ' ,i
. A. . . .(s r. m ,
Q. Tes. durfng inspection of the storage area on Apr
* - - ' ' "2 e i %<@ ...A7 v
- 7. #w ) 2 .. -. *' , y . r ,M d to the Unit 1 A.
fg i
.': n* -[, . ' ~.~. -...l
.4. o . .
Inspector observed that the Scron necyete a result of water Evaporator store i ., s
.. ..r.
Mechanical Electrical Avalliary hfidtag, was wet asla addition, ,' ) as 1
E- ;
** draining' from wrt areas located above. t Meet Removat pump Ntor l
maintenance records en February 9.1979. a Residusction box was obse
. was found to be wt and the motoe terufnel canne . '.g tions* regstres ;, .? *
- full of water. '
+ 1'.
The Westinghouse
- Technical Manual e dry placeand and theOperating Instruc .
.g'. that the loron Recycle Evaporator be stored la a enr , t the description of Brown and Root quellty assurance procedures regifre tha stabitsh 3_ the u:- ',
a nonconforming condition provide sufficient detall to e te description . of events pertatalng to the nonconformance and an accura O i * .
- L-G .
- ~-
yy
..t
'C 5, a-.. .~~ - 6. #
- 'EE..".. ,
.-f - y.i $. ,- =,
.' ,': } ,
. t..
., r-V. .
1
- x,;.
c..
.. .< 7,.-
*- t
~* *.3,
. , p D 4
. 5-
" 'd
['
.'p...
.k*
s i
. ?. f.my- w.
. - . . m, , m , , w_. . - - y
.,e y g m -
c; . . ;.
- - - .- u. .. .
,(
#**%~A w A.
" '0'" ' .O.t.l@#,_5! ;
-~ _ ^*= * . , ,
. e.- ..
; , ,:g
.} ~., [ . . ; :.g
?;
., ; & - a ., . . .': R.
- l ~. .
. - 9 ,. ,
4 _ , CL.: .w : - #W .;n ._ :. g. =. . _
.. A. :x - - ,. = _ :_._ ~
-I i
.< x
.154 ,
e
. q-
~
t
. 45 ~
I the nonconformance.' In the applicable nonconformance report, ne reference e was.made to the motor terminal connection hos being full ef water or the-r- , possibility of water being in the motor. Accordingly, these two incidents
- constituted infractions and a' Notice of Violation was issued.
i Q. Did Houston Lighting and Power Company respond to this Notice of [' S Tiolation and make certain representations regarding corrective action? ,
,u s ' A. Tes. " .
Q. I show you a letter dated May 25. 1979 from Houston Lighting and ).
~ -*
Power Co pany to Region !Y. marked for identification as Staff Exhibit L-w .. No. It nnd ask if you are able to identify this letter.
.g,w[ ,
[
. A. Yes. this letter constitutes Ituston Lighting and Power Company's >.
- : response to the itms of noncompliaece attached to 79-05. .~
.?
7'.
.-@M.~1 . ,
n Are you .able to susuarize the corrective action comettted to by .. Q.
-iQ' ., , . .. .
.)
n .
' ' Houston Lighting and Power? * . . . .
s . , , ,
. t A. Yes. the 1smediate corrective action consisted of cove *ing the
.f ', ' * . y 3. l .:. ~*
.c,r. .
lores Raycle Evaporator with an interie structure that met the storage
,* j.. g4ff
. . . y .. .mh 9)$.. ..".'
.. -tj .requireents. Si May 4.1979, the interis structure was rep 1' aced with a 4
' #p
.v # . In addition, the tJ'
' durable structure also meeting the storage regatrements.
- 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
.'.;;) ".
ca report mast include a description of the segaence of events pertaining to s . '.[J..j, Y. I the nonconformance. t 4. .* Did the NRC region staff subsegaently conduct a fell p inspec. - .
- 7 Q. -
., .? n
( .:
.~. y.- tion te determine whether Houston Lighting and Power had taplemented ; the ,
1 r i19 n- * ' f', f ,7 * *
- l
'w. a ,. ,
.r... .
j .-
. ,J
.* < 9
- l * *
*b
. c. ,
q s... A N, , ' -
' N ",? - .
9,'.5j , .. ,- ; f- . - Q
- 't ",'.
( . :.
'. c'll y-4
',? ;
_' g1 ] 7 3.j. . -
' ; * , (.
3,. . ,* . - ,- r' e )l ,, q G.
,.IN s
- h*
- '. La
,.j V.
* - [.'."; i g ' ,r f.4
**).'
. '% 4
- av fr s
*M -
p.
,. ,h :. .* ;wl .y
- fdt U * ~- [ . . -
, ,h ., f.
.3 '.
. .. 'i.[ F .
.u..
'P.,k- .
- J 2.0.Qi # @..Q,6 .
.%A .
u_-- - .
- * . ~.~ . . : . - :; .. : . ';; . -. ; .:: - . Lv.' + - . . .: ::.......
* ~~- - .
m . . .-
..n , : . .. . . w ,'. ; :.,..': . : q' : . -
- - . .h. .:a ,, , ~
a - ..w._-.~ .
, . . . w w w :-~ w -- &
. '* M
;s ' ' d e " " P' W C ra M ,. e - ' -
m.1 y
. 15g . r-
~
A V .
.u.- -
-]
1
- corrective action it represented it muld endertake in its letter of my 25 e
19797 . . I a A. Tes. ! m 14,1973 I shes you a letter, with attachments, dated hveber (. b Q. 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. . A. Yes. the letter transmitted to heston Lighting and Powr Company i 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 s,i the items of noncompitance set forth ta 79-05 to assure impimentation. .
~~ . > *.w"/u.,l Who condected this inspection?
4 < h !. Yhts inspectica us conehacted by W. 6. hbacek. :-
.. t,. o A. -
. J P/.4 -
. m e reviewed this taspection?
A. es,; . O.
*', . q.
.T.
' y,P.
':N g I
- r, ~ ,/.,a
~
l , A. This inspection us reviewed by M. S. Phillips. Resident Reactor IAspector. Projects Section. Region IV and approved by W. A. Crossess. Q*.f. y . .i . (- [n %.D.r I -~; >n .f
.co.7]*
Chief. Projects Section. Regten 17. .
?-
t'. .X... . . . .. . .
.o j g 9 O
, ;. r - ,
mat findings and conclusions were made by the Reactor Inspector , b. . * ' -
.~.. y.- i., ~.p. .
+. . ..' ..,1. - y; y.,. . 4 *
, . . p' y' e. < , 7,~,
3,1 - <
.-. with respect to the'correc+.tve actica taken in, regard to the items of non-f x c. -
.A7 3, .J%
compliance previously' set forth ta Inspection Report 79 0$1
... =
*s,..' ,,. " Vi* * - - ,' .
The taspector revtewed the corrective actions described ta the g
' A. L Licensee's response dated m y 25,1979 and revleued maintenance and to.
;-[.g? spection records for the to'ron Recycle Evaporator, as well as observing that ether egipment stored'la the kchanical Doctrical Aust1tary Butiding met ,
8 -
- ,.t.'. R. ,
. spectfications. s. - .
.V,.. ;, . * : '
s 7-- D.' . , .- .', ' >
? ,
.y;.,y .
,.g
. . ..-.I - .
- . a.
ty . - - 2 9 y- - u - ..
~--
V
, -: ~; .
. ~ ..
,l. * :. '.. . y .
k.
. . .. 2
.n -
e
. Y.; 7 , -
-.*""...,J,.,;, . . . . . %' * :
'p, . -
~
.'~%.,. Q. - P'.
'. ','*.D.4 , .,
3 ..5 g.,
- -. r.
7;4 ; W , s., u
-- ' u.
6 *.
- y. . ; ..
~
A,. 1 .
' ief .
t b,
.3. -
p ': I .w t .
";;. n. , .
( ..[.
.Y '
e L a.- y., r-; q y. 1 , _.:' P* '
. i 9 -
.i'. ' V w., '
, Sf L ,;'
- i
,qQ Y. ,
"- s. q .N,5 * * :.
.-a.'< t. - g : y 2:
. - ~. g;.a... . . t'm.
Th.'
~ . '~,
.. a
.y.,,--y.,.
- * .*..+. *. .~; , '
=.7. . . , m
.-W '
-...v'a. Y' r .. < .,- -
i p
..Q1Q.::. ss%@ a. d g$i 6. *GJ '
.M
~
-Q
-~ -
- n. : ,w
* . . . : ., .,......,..-u; . ..;,...
;; Q . . ,, , .
M... *1:?.Y ' 67C.:..i. .. ; ; .. '. Q.' y .._ 5 d_
.f.....,,..........
_ _....',.* % ,'._< f,.: ,:. - . .-.. ,
.. . .;.a..a.._,.
. .. -.ww .- .
w.w>. _' x.w.u._ g. w_ ., g . _
. 15(o) .
- i~ -
'.j 2
. . 47 i.-
. 4 g
I shoe you a letter, with attachments, dated June 8,1379. to 7.~ I Q. 09. and morted P Houston Lighting & Powr Corspany making reference to Report 79- ( . . Are you able to identify this ' 4 for identification as Staff Exhibit No. 26. . document and its attachments! , g A. Yes. the letter transmitted to Houston dLighting betwen.Mey 15
& Power Company 8
- report detatltng the results of an MAC investigation conducte .
and 23. 1971. . i Who conducted this investigetton?
- Q. *
' il W. G. Hubacet and W. A. Crossman. Regten !Y.s -'#
cs , A.
"I'Y Whc reviewed this repoFt? * .M Q. .s ':h;.s 73 '
A. This report was reviewed and approved by W. A. Crosynan Chief. - a
^ , ..
p.gf Projects Section. Region !Y. ' '
s .
1 Q. What us the reason for this investigation? S, ~M .
- k. \ [
/**'3 -
m May 1. 2.'and 7,1979. Region IV received telephone calls Oa:( freeQ W. .;3 A. t l h .L'.,'yc'.P.t"(w <"..
- quaitty conty:po ro . r{
q.
'2
,4 an individual who made allegations that the responsible i 2 g*j'@.;
.U' : y' , ' -.i ./ #
4 , inspector refused to sign a concrete pour card dfor lift 5 of the Un ."*--*c-, t br
- V- .
), ,
]
s .. 7 . Reactor Contatreent Building, and further. that there were widesprea.' r
. ,p .
~~ s n ' discrepancies in the documentation of Cadweld as-lutit locations. ' , ' .
;; How was the Investigation'into these allegations conducted? C )- -
Q.
.) An onsite t'nvestigation was conducted in May of 1979, all wality L w
.f
- ' A. i rs
. M. . . control inspectors f avolved to the placanent ofrespenst.'
itft 5 and- their superv so d The .'..
'W , ' i *L'd were Interviewed and the pour cards for lift 5 were reviewe .d .
e: ble cality control inspector had in fact refused to sign the pour card ue
- {,yj l l cement
* @. to preplacement debris; however followingl some additiona prep avisor signed g..
- g. . preparetton by construction personnel, the quality contro super .
. . .h .
T %;. . the concrete pour card. It could not be estabitsbed whether or not the
@l..
,j
- e
' Qr p;
- - s. n t;.
~ - * :- .
** ~ .j?
-;.l}'
~ . ; .
es=..-_ 7 ._ ' y.... P**. .4 I ,
.g
"- .j 4
,, ,k~ *,
3 .: . '**
. m. .L. .
- d. _. . :' . ~ .
W .' :
~,
. .' t'- e
+G-t
..,,J t
.vs
.n .
. 3. .
+
M s ir.. ] lthe m. c .. l.:Q i[.?.v ~* ..
+
;: ^
;-( . .
(. er
..lI h. t -
- RCwd 1
.. f'.[ s - - ~. ; . a . ,, . -
.7QiWG.7p{}sf, g.g35'""'" '
^
1-.NN(ll.N3 m 1 ww :.~i gg c Y Y;Y$3.6 . i . :n . - , , . . = _ _ -- - -- . , , ,
~ -
' ~ ~ ' ' ' "
L. % .c- - ' ~ -
.: iii*4 % .?- w p
.s;.';,
..a__..-_.-
- a. .,
- . u .M . ' ' A ~ G - - ^^
__.A_ n_.m m. .
. , . - v.
157- 0
' 1 - 48 ( ,
'2.
final cleant'iness of the area was acceptable as it was no longer accessible c e, for visual inspection. This procedure was not in violation of any specift. 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 [ approximately 30 folders of Cadweld records against information provided in I> t'
-1 - the allegation. Most of the allegation was substantiated, however, discrepancies 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. 9I' 78. This further addresses contention 1.E. ;..;
i Was any corrective action mandated as a result of this i*. * ' .
'U. .Y . Q.
?.>, * -F i,:a
,favestlgation? t... .
e .* .. r-
- r. y A. No however, it was noted that the Applicant's progress with -% > -hs. .;-
- - d'.* .
m: :. ns ,. ,
- r- 27m 1-5 4 .&d.;., p a j-respect to correcting Cadweld records wu1d be inspected during subsequent
, .~ . A,g,~,',, [';'.I . 2 % nQ h: 3
.- 1 I&E inspections.
i f%"j NI"' 'j
'# Q. I thew you a letter, with attactments, dated October $.1979, to ?-* .
* .- V i' s '
, 2 ; 't~ ;. ,, - :Q-) ,-
Y Houston Lighting & Power Capany making reference to Report 79 13 and marked '
.I ,. g
'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 . :,'
' ,. -}.] - m report detailing the results of an NRC inspection conducted between August 8 "
, . t.-s. -
- l. '
and 10.1979. ,
. ~.4 .
Q. Who conducted this inspection? M)
- A. This inspection ws conducted by W. G. Hubacek J ! Tapta.
2' . 1.1 '
- H. 5. Phillips, all of Region !Y and L. E. foster of Regten !!. {
s,. - ._. .
= =c .~. ,
>J p -pg .
_._........s c.. a . ,.1 . ~ .. ~.
,; . .y
. Y:. ,. .
. v .; ; -
* ,j e.y -
, . ' - . r..
- 9. ,
[ . .;
.;Y- : k l
' r.-
,a I . i t.< .t s*!
1 b
, s.
ce
~ .
?
- h t.
.-r-=- :'; # . m. - - .~ -
l 5
- v. ~ - c m m,-
-q;n _ _x - . . _ . - - :. - . _ . ., . - - .
0.iO.Q36ii6(gj 00133 .
'M. _t e ,a
^
- - - - ~ - '~
~ -
.. . .) .- . . .a . . , _ _
. . . %' . %. --,..:. r ~; .l.a
._ .. - __ m . ..s..__ __ _
- i- w _, ___. ww .,
- $E '9
. 49 '-
a 3 p. Q. n o reviewed this report? > A. This report was reviewed and approved by W. A. Crossman and R. E. Hall. Reg 1on !Y. ~ s What us the reason for this inspection? Q. I. A. This was a special announced Hid-Tern Osality Assurance inspection to determine the estabitstsient and :splementation of the Applicant's gaa11ty -
.l..........- ..
assurance program. . How was this inspection and review conducted? Q. E A. An onsite review encompassed review of the QA management s'tructure. m i-.
'P 1
h: procureent control procedures, document control procedures, design control
' ~ '
procedures, vendor surveillance, audits, QA/QC organization and site
. - f. .
~
construction activities. n
- , , , .' + .
.,+.. What conclusions were reached as a result of this inspectient x/.-:' .
~ , 1 Q. .
.4
,.. =v f,, i. , '.-i
. Of the eight areas inspected. ffve ites of noncompilance were A. lp -! '. g
- *- :y i ' Specifically, the Apolicant was cited for its -
W.. . ? }M [' *'.*,,(t "? = s i$l';p. > ;
<. l cp .--t
. 'r identified in three areas. i l.g . ,
a
,1 failure to follow procedures for maintaining QA manuals, fatture to follow '
', 7 4 ,.~. ; . . ' g vn ::p*;l*{kp[. procedures for performing site audits, failure to f;.itneate ersonizational
. . 5. , .. '.
~
.,. f 2 .n changes in the QA manual, fatture to maintain completed endit checklists te 4 N:f- > . .
.T the audit files, and failure to destroy or stano as deleted QA procedures no q
, :e;
. . In addition to these matters the inspection aise footed 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
.o Q.
. .t%., ,
la' Power Company to the MRC Region 17. and marked for identification as Staff Are you able to identify this docWent? Exhibit No. 28.
- p. -
1, .
- y N
wv . p r. l 9.D 'h^
.u
. p -
.._;*V4 '
. ..A
{y.
. .' f.y
.c..-
*d ,' , . . .
- .7,",? ..- '
1 3 . ?? 1 V: ' i*
.'.{ff 1, , p
~ ..
- l. .. Q r [s .-
I Le *N l . .)% . h~. . i r.y .. , imf. .y e-:-
. u .c. , ~* . . f , .gfuese
.,,.1 y" ' c 1 .
,j %:-%s_.: . - ;c.:
v ;m.5~.,m..-
;v. . . -n
' .g,s.
).g -_-._- ;;;:
%- >. w. . .
0,2.OA.j_9.6 ,. ,,--~- 37;! 0; 1Q 3,/
- . - . . _ = ___ _
- - - _ _ - -: . 33 ' ~; e ; : ,":' , - '
": . _ .. . _ ; g;. ; . l ~. . ' ', , , ,.j . , ..f_*.3 * *'_ tz. * # . . .
4
-q; .
. , , _ , ;,, . .m ., s a, . ..,
*'L' n _-. '
vO 7
, ,- 3. a : ."_ .
M, I. 153 i <.
) .s .' '
?) I .
50 .
<.s I A. -
Yes. this letter sets forth Houston Lightin ' propoled corrective action in responseg &toPower NRC tospany's i e
\
forth in Report No. 7913. nspection findings set Q.
,"? stafff
)las the proposed corrective acti on deemed sufficient by Region IT
[ A. No, by letter dated JawJary.31 IU a
'..< nottffed that its letter of November 2.1979 did1980. Mouston Lighting .
of13the items of noncompffance cited in the Notice of Vinot adegsate 79
..Jz. =
~ olation, accompanying a 0.
- 0. .4<0.- I show you a letter morted for identification ,
.;%p, so. 25 and ask you *ther this is the asistC staff 1etter Exhibit of J 'G "
.;p%.c
'ME
-[ for clarification of the corrective actio Power?
anuary 31. 1980, asking ,ap
,s, . , .
4 n proposed by Houston Lighting & -:. . .~ N. A. Yes, f P.M. u yi ,' .:2. s . - Y)g s .'.c.,.,. m..s ? H' .'.. ,, r; M-:..M. i<. .% ^. l Q.
; (i-."
W,. .w. Did Housten Lighting 8 Power supply furthe f* i '+. ^ .'_. . ~i cp k ?i MIi of Violation attached to Inspectfonr Report response to73131 the Notice y . ]-#d.- g.. .: .+ bg,' ;4 3.'s.a ;'; i" 9k ( N ,' . '. r 'A. . - -- -
' Tes. by letter dated February q
' i
.. 26. 1980. No ; ;.:-* '
.,: . .. g ', N ,. 3i revised its corrective action to satisfy a the St ff uston Lighting' & Power , .
O..n letter of January 31.1980 V
; ' c; ',,'
. O
- JE conceres set forth fe its -
j c;. 1 ,
* 'i. Q. , ,
1 I show you a letter from Hovsten Lighting & Pow j ' yp. A Region IV. dated February 26.1980 er Carpany to . L 7,3N i r -
.. & 1 Exhibit No. 30 and ask yee if this is the lett. and marked for identificati .
- }}