.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FDfISSIONOFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

REGION IV

Report No. 50-445/79-26; 50-446/79-25

Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2

Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company2001 Bryan TowerDallas, Texas 75201

Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 & 2

Investigation at: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas

Invertigation conducted: October 11-22, 1979

Inspector: @./. f 9.dwd-aMb //!Trh9[ R. G. Taylor, Resident Reactor Inspector, Projects Date

Section

Approved: k ///8 9u-e--W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date

Investigation Summary:

Investigation on October 11-22, 1979 (Report No. 50-445/79-26; 50-446/79-25)Areas Investigated: Special investigation of allegations by a former siteconstruction worker of improprietics in the civil construction phase of thisfacility. The investigation involved ten inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.Results: Three of the allegations were determined to be factual, but withoutmerit since they had been detected and corrected within the licensee's QAprogram. One allegation had no merit and one could be neither substantiatednor refuted.

[44tr J24

7911L 00'

.

INTRODUCTION

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2 are under con-struction in Somervell County, Texas, near the town of Glen Rose, Texas.Texas Utilities Generating Company is the Construction Permit holder withBrown and Root, Inc. as the Constructor and Gibbs and Hill, Inc. as theArchitect / Engineer.

REASON FOR INVESTIGATION

A person who visited the Region IV office made allegations of constructionimproprieties at the Comanche Peak Station.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

A person who identified himself as a former Brown & Root employee visited theRegion IV office at approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 9, 1979. The personstated that he wished to discuss deficiencies in safety-related constructionat the Comanche Peak Station. The person was then interviewed by personnelof the Region IV Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch. Theinterview developed the following allegations:

Allegation 1:

In the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building at elevation 807', rebar was omitted infour columns in the EA wall. The alleger stated that he had acquired theinformation from his general foreman and that site engineering personnel(names unknown) were aware of the omission.

Allegation 2:

In the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building, the concrete slab acting as the ceilingabove elevation (floor) at 832', in the area just before entry into theUnit 1 Safeguards Building, had a 20' x 20' honeycomb area which wasexposed upon concrete form removal. The alleger indicated that he wasaware of the corrective action taken, but felt it had been simply dry-packed.

Allegation 3:

In Unit 1 Containment, there had been a mixup in anchor bolts. The allegerindicated that 3000 anchor bolts had been interchanged, some having beenfurnished by " Boston Made" and others by " Southern Made."

Allegation 4.a:

There is general cracking of floor slab concrete in the plant buildings.

Allegation 4.b:

Horizontal tie rebar was omitted in Unit 1 Containment / Containment Wall.

144t 025-2-

-_ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _. _..._ _ . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . . .. ._ . . _ .

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are based on review of various documents, technicalliterature, and observations by the NRC Resident Reactor Inspector. Supportingdocumentation for these conclusions are referenced in the attached details.

Allegations 1, 2 and 3:

These allegations were found to be based on factual events that had beendetected and documented within the context of the licensee's QualityAssurance system as required by Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. Two of threealleged events were corrected in accordance with sound engineering practices,while the third was evaluated by the engineer and found to be adequate inthe "as is" condition.

Allegation 4.a:

This allegation has no apparent merit. Hairline surface cracks in concreteare not considered to have any effect on structural integrity.

Allegation 4.b:

This allegation could neither be substantiated nor refuted based on avail-able evidence but is thought to refer to an event involving the omissionof horizontal ties in the upper part of the Unit 2 Containment wall whichis discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-445/79-18; 50-446/79-18.

1449'J26-3-

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

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted

Alleger - A person, referred to as the alleger in the text of this report,who was previously employed by Brown & Root (B&R) at CPSES.

Principal Licensee Employees

Site Quality Assurance SupervisorSite Resident Manager

Principal Brown & Root Employees

Site Chief of Security

2. Background Information

At approximately 4:00 on October 9, 1979, a former Brown & Root employee" walked-in" to the RIV office indicating that he had allegations regardingdeficiencies in safety-related construction at Comanche Peak. During theensuing interview, the following specific allegations were obtained:

a. In the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building at elevation 807', rebar was omittedin four columns in the EA wall. This construction was completed inearly 1978, probably in March or April. The omission of a portion ofthe prescribed rebar was reported to him by his rebar General Foreman.He also indicated that a Gibbs & Hill (G&H) or B&R engineer also wasaware of the omission; however, he could not recall his name.

b. Also, in the Unit 1 Upper Auxiliary Building, the concrete slab pouredfor the ceiling above the elevation 832' level, in the area just beforeeatry into Safeguards Building 1, had a 20' x 20' honeycomb area whichwas exposed upon removal of forms. He was not aware of correctiveaction taken; however, he felt that it had simply been dry-packed.This placement was made in August or September of 1978.

c. In Unit 1 Containment, there had been a mixup in anchor bolts. Heindicated that 3000 anchor bolts had been interchanged, some havingbeen furnished by " Boston Made" and others by " Southern Made."

d. Two unsupported general allegations were also made regarding generalcracking of floor slab concrete in the plant buildings and omittedhorizontal tie rebar in the Unit 1 Containment wall. Withoutspecifics, the alleger was advised that these could not be pursued.

3. Investigation

The above allegations were forwarded to the NRC Resident Reactor Inspector(RRI) at CPSES for review and investigation. The RRI obtained and reviewedthe Brown & Root personnel file on the alleger to establish that the alleger

} kk ' h27-4-

. - - - - .

.

could reasonably have some knowledge of the alleged improprieties. It

was established that he had been employed at the site during the occurrenceof most or all of the alleged incidents.

The RRI discussed the allegations with the site QA Supervisor who theninformed the RRI that essentially the same allegations had been telephonedto the President of TUSI/TUGC0 by the alleger on October 4, 1979. Theallegations received by the President of TUSI/TUCCO were forwarded throughlicensee management channels to the Resident Manager for investigation.An interview of the Resident Manager indicated that allegations 1 and 2made to the NRC were the same as two made to the licensee. The allegerapparently did not restate allegations 3 and 4 to the licensee but addedtwo others involving a scheme for pilferage of "consumables"; i.e., non-safety material such as lumber and ice chests.

The licensee's site QA Supervisor was found to have initiated a search fordata relating to allegations 1 and 2 based on the comparable allegationsmade to the President of TUSI/TUGCO. His s~;sech reveeled two Brown and

Root Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) bearing directly on allegations 1 and2. These will be discussed later in this report,

The RRI asked that a comparable search be initiated relative to allegations3 and 4 received by the NRC. A complete document package on allegation 3was immediately offered to the RRI covering allegation 3. The searchrelative to allegation 4 was not possible due to the lack of specificity.

4. Analysis of Allegations

Allegation 1: Omission of Reinforcing Steel from Columns in theUnit 1 Auxiliary Building

Reference to design drawings revealed that there are only four columnsin the EA wall of the Auxiliary Building. (See Figure 1,2-33 of theFSAR) These columns, as well as the entire EA wall, cxtend virtuallyfrom the building foundation to the roof. Brown and Root NCR C-806,dated October 27, 1977, stated that it had been discovered, whileerecting reinforcing steel for the EA wall above elevation 831', thatreinforcing steel in four columns had been omitted ?.n the precedingerection attivity; i.e., between elevation 807' through 831'. TheNCR stated that twelve bars, each one inch in diamecer, were omittedfrom each column and that four separate earlier concrete placementswere involved during a period from May through October 1977. The NCRinformation was submitted to the Architect / Engineer for resolutionwhich was provided by Design Change / Design Deviation Authorization No.486, dated November 1, 1977, au*horizing not only the omission of thesteel between 807' and 831' elevation, but further directing that itbe omitted in the balance of the columns through elevation 873'. Theengineer stated that the omission of the steel would still allow tuecolumn to accept all design loads with adequate margins. The RRIreviewed the involved design detail drawing in conjunction with thisanalysis and determined that the omitted steel constituted 50% of the

vertical steel on one of the four column faces and that the remainingsteel is of the same spacing as the comparable steel in the wall facecontinuing from column to column,

1444' )28_,_

.

The only unaccounted for disparity between the allegation and thereferenced NCR is that of dates of occurrence, a difference of fiveto six months. The RRI has concluded that the the allegation andthe NCR are related to the same event since the allegation, as stated,was hearsay information and the construction of the columns involvedwas a one time event. Therefore the alleged time frame is in error.

The RRI had no further questions regarding this allegation.

Allegation 2: Honeycomb in Concrete Slab in the Unit 1 AuxiliaryBuilding

The licensee research revealed that NCR C-1034, dated July 19, 1978,had been prepared to document the concrete honeycomb areas involvedin this allegation. The Architect / Engineer's direction was to removethe honeycomb back to sound concrete. The void area was then to befilled with dry-pack concrete and/or small size coarse aggregate con-crete, 11 in accordance with a standard, engineer approved, repairprocedure lor such work. The RRI observed various phases of the repairwork from August 1978 through January 1979 when the repair was finallycompleted. None of the observations indicated a need for concern onthe part of the RRI since the work was being done in a manner typicalof acceptable methods of repairing such concrete structures,

Allegation 3: Mixup in Ancnor Bolts

The licensee's site QA Supervisor indicated a matter similar to thisallegation had been the subject of a "possible" Significant Con-struction Deficiency Report to the NRC, Region IV office in 1977.He offered a substantial file folder for the RRI's review. The filecontained copies of Brown and Root Nonconformance Reports M-704 andM-722, dated July 18 and July 25, 1977, respectively. The reportsdescribe a mixup in a group of about 2000 bolts and nuts used forembeaded equipment anchorages which were supplied in part byBostrom-Bergen Metal Products (Boston Made) and Southern Bolt Co.(Southern Made). It was not significant who supplied the nuts andbolts but rather that each supplier had been authorized to supply nutsand bolts of somewhat different steels in terms of chemical composition.One composition was amenable to tack welding of the nut to the boltprior to embedment in concrete while the other was not. The NCRsdescribe a combined engineering and construction management solutionto properly identify the differing materials and to utilize thematerials which could not be readily welded in a different method ofass.mbly.

The above matter was reported to the NRC and was followed to conclusionas indicated in Inspection Report 50-445/7i-09.

The RRI had no further questions relative to this allegation.

}k-6-

- .

.

Allegation 4:

As indicated under paragraph 2, this allegation includes two separateitems which will so be treated in diis analysis.

Allegation 4.n: General Floor Cracking

During the past fire.een months, the RRI has toured all of thesafety-related plant areas several times each month. The RRI hasnot observed cracks in the floors of the buildings that he wouldconsider significant in terms of possibic structural failure; i.e.,cracks which are open to such an extent that awl or pick can beinserted to a substantial depth in the crack. The RRI wouldexpect fine hairline surface cracking to occur and normally notnotice it. Such hairline cracks are cn unavoidabic occurrencein heavily reinforced concrete structures, particularly in wallsor flocrs with a relatively thick cross-section. According torecogn. zed technical literature such as the U. S. Department ofthe Interior's " Concrete Manual," tha cracking is caused byd:.f fering amounts of thermal expansion between the interior ofthe member and its exterior created by the chemical reactionprocess referred to as hydration and commonly called curing.Such cracking is usually very tight and when investigated, extendsonly into the concrete to the most exterior layer of reinforcingsteel, typically one to two inches below the surface. This typeof cracking is not considered to have any effect on the integrityof the structure.

Allegation 4.b: Omitted Horizontal Ties in Containment 1 Walls

The RRI has not been able to either effectively substantiate orto refute this allegation. It is hypothesized that the allegermisconstrued an event which occurred in the Unit 2 Containmentwall just before his final period of employment. This eventinvolved the initial omission of horizontal ties (more commonlyreferred to as shear ties) in the upper part of the Unit 2 Con-tainment wall and is discussed in Inspection Report No. 50-446/79-18. This hypothesis is based on substantial indications thatall of the allegations made were essentially based on hearsayinformation relative to events about shich the alleger had littleor no personal knowledge.

\ k hh* b

-7-