IR 05000329/1974010
| ML19329F124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1974 |
| From: | Rohrbacher R, Vetter W, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F120 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-74-10, 50-330-74-10, NUDOCS 8006200654 | |
| Download: ML19329F124 (11) | |
Text
-/
\\R..
-
-
.
.
.
. O'
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY OPERATIONS
,
REGION III
-
Report of Construction Inspection RO Inspection Report No.~050-329/74-10 RO Inspection Report No. 050-330/74-10 Licensee: Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson,' Michigan 49201 i
Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Licenses No. CPPR-81 Midland, Michigan and No. CPPR-82 Category:
A Unit 1, 492 Mwe
,
gg Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced D'ates of Inspection:
October 2 and 3, 1974 Dates of Previous Inspection: August 27 and 28,1974 (Construction)
f$
k fc'
//
Principal Inspector:
R. A. Rohrbacher
/#fdf 7Y
/
'(Date)
//JS9[
Accompanying Inspectors:
T. E. Vandel (Date)
/*YIvV'
M M. 7 '>, 7 [
I. 7. Yin (Date),
Othnr Accompanying Personnel:
D. M. Hunnicutt 1<
Keview By:
D. W. Ha es, e or Rea or Inspector
/O[,7q[i-Construction Projects
/(Datd)
.
p
-
L 8'00620'O[6
-
c.
..
.-
....
.,-
..-
.
...
--.-
--
____,_
____ _-- - --
_.
---
.
..
-
.
K SUMMARY OF FINDINGS b's_,i T
e Enforcement Action
'
A.
Violations No violations of'AEC requirements were identified during the current inspection.
.
B.
Safety Matters
.No safety matters were identified during the current incie:* ion.
-Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Action No previously identified enforcement matters remain unresolved.
Design Changes The licensee has evaluated and approved a change in concrete aggregate specifications and included these changes in Amendment No. 27 to the Midland PSAR.
These changes are being evaluated by the Directorate of Licensing (L) at the present time.
(Paragraph 4, Report Details)
Unusual Occurrences (~)
\\m /
None identified.
Other Significant Findings
,
A.
Current Findings 1.
Project Status The licensee estimated current project status to be as follows:
Engineering - 43% complete Construction - 8.8% complete The approximate amount of concrete placed to date is as follows:
Unit 1 - 5,740 cubic yards Unit 2 - 11,800 cubic yards Common facilities - 9,000 cubic yards
'
The Unit 2 reactor pressure vessel, presserizer, steam generators,
'
and reactor cooladt piping are scheduled to b2 ship; ed to the construction site prior to the end of 1974.
.
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
- f'~i L2.
Nonconformance~ Report Review
\\,)
'
s
~ Nonconformance reports, received by RO from Consumers Power Company (CP) under cover letter dated May 24, 1974, were
' reviewed to ascertain their significance.
From this review, four nonconformance reports.(NCR's).were selected for detailed review at the construction site.
The results of this review are contained in Attachment A to this report.
'
B.
Unresolved Matters
'
No new unresolved matters were identified during the inspection.
C.
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Matters 1.
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel) Quality Audit Findings (QAF) No.
C-3-3 (RO Inspection Reports No. 050-329/74-08 and No.
050-330/74-08)
i
~
This QAF. identified a lack of procedure relative to. reviewing and approving field prepared requisitions for Q-list materials.
.
A resolution to this QAF has been developed by Bechtel, and this matter is considered to be resolved.
(Paragraph 7, Report Details)
s 2.
Site Requalification Activities (RO Inspection Reports No.
050-329/73-05 and No. 050-330/73-05; No. 050-329/74-04 and
-
No. 050-330/74-04)
oCP and Bechtel reports of inspection and evaluation of stored materials, components,-and in-place structures were previously reviewed by the inspector. Eecent reports of inspection and evaluation of in-place components were reviewed during the
' current inspection.
This activity is being implemented in an adequate fashion, and the matter is considered -to be resolved.
(Paragraph 2, Report Details)
Management Interview A.
The. following perscas attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection:
Consumers Power Company (CP)
S. H.' Howell, Vice President G. S. Keeley, Director of Quality Assurance Services T. C. Cooke, Project Superintendent H. W. Slager, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor J. L. Corley, Field Quality A'ssurance Engineer
~3~
'
_
.
-
p--
..
,
.
.
.
Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel)
(h.
.
( )
W. E. Ferris, Quality Assurance Supervisor
.
W. F. Holub, Project Quality Assurance Engineer B. A. Burgener, Project Quality Control Supervisor J. ' P. Connolly, Project Field Quality Control Engineer J. F. Newgen, Field Superintendent T. C. Valenzano, Project Field Engineer G. L. Richardson, Lead Field Quality Assurance Engineer W. J. Key, Quality Assurance Engineer B.
Matters discussed and comments, on the part of management personnel, were as follows:
1.
Those present were informed that T. E. Vandel would be the RO:III reactor inspector for construction for the Midland Plant in the immediate future.
In addition, the present RO organizational structure was discussed briefly.
2.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed activities and records for the containment liner plate protective coatings and had no further questions at this time.
(Paragraph 1,
-
Report Details)
'
3.
Changes to concrete aggregate specifications and related back-ground information were discussed. The inspector stated that
-~3 he had reviewed the PSAR changes (in Amendment No. 27), the ( }
Bechtel report on this subject, and had discussed these changes with L.and CP personnel. CP stated.that some additional tests are yet-to be completed, but no problems are anticipated by
-
either Bechtel or L relative to this matter.
Subsequent to this inspection, L informed RO:III that no immediate problems are apparent and that a final review by L of this change is expected in the near future.
4.
The inspector stated that, although the Bechtel welding procedures and materials control relative to the containment liner welding appeared adequate, some difficulty was encountered in retriev-ability of documents.
The inspector indicated that CP might want to review the procedure involved. The licensee acknowledged this comment.
(Paragraph 3, Report Details)
5.
Nondestructive examination specifications, covering areas of MT, PT, RT and technician qualifications were reviewed and were considered to meet applicable requirements.
6.
The inspector stated that several preselected nonconformance reports were reviewed and discussed with CP and Bechtel personnel, that the Bechtel field-file of nonconformance reports for the last three months were reviewed on a random sample basis, and
"that he had no further questions.
(s_/
-4-
\\
w:
.-
.
-. -
-
-. -
_
.
.
..
REPORT DETAILS ()
.
\\m,/
Persons Contacted The following persons, in addition to the individuals listed under the Management Interview Section of this report, were contacted during this
' inspection.
Consumers Power Company
'R. E. Whitaker, Field Quality Assurance Coordinator D. E. Horn, Field Quality Assurance Coordinator B. H. Peck, Field Supervisor
.
Bechtel Corporation L. R. Albert, Lead Civil Quality Control Engineer H. L. Boleen, Quality Control Engineer R. L. Anderson,0ffice Engineer / Quality A. L. Boulden, Lead Welding Quality Control Engineer Resultd of Inspection 1.
Liner Plate Protective Coating Activities A review was performed of Containment Liner Plate Protective Coating (
Specification No. 7220-C-110, Revision 6, dated September 19, 1974.
.\\,)}
The review included:
(1) requirements for subcontractor furnished data and samples; (2) methed and time for primer and surface coating curing; (3) Containment Vessel Liner Plate surface preparation specifications; (4) reference standards and applicability of these reference standards; (5) materials requirements; (6) Handling and storage requirements; (7) painter qualifications, including subcontractor QA manual for qualification of QA Engineering and D
QA personnel; (8) Inspection and testing regairements and calibration i
of test equipment and traceability of all a-J'i. cable records; and (9) QA submittals to the contractor prior to retart of work.
j A review of.the subcontractors QC Manual for the installation of protective coatings at the Midland facilities was performed. The review included:
(1) Issue No. 6 of the subcontractors QC Manual approved on September 13, 1974; (2) Procedure 3232, BCP06, dated September 12, 1974, (3) Procedure 3232, BCP0 2b dated September 27, 1974; and (4) Procedure 3232, BCP0 3b,' dated September 25, 1974.
Application of the primer coating to the containment vessel liner plating is just starting.
Reviews to determine the degree of implementation of the procedures and evaluation of the painting
,
will be accomplished during subsequent inspections.
.
sc-5-(v)
u
.
F~ ~
.
t
.-
- ,.
_
_
- -,.
.
.
2.
Site Requalification Activities (N The licensee arranged for specialists from Bechtel to inspect and (_-)
evaluate the condition of stored materials, components, and in-
'
place structures to determine restoration and requalification needs to assure that specification requirements would be met.
This activity was started in May 1973 and is nearing completion.
Reports of the above activity were periodically reviewed by the inspector during previous inspections.
During the current inspection, recent Bechtel reports relative to inspection and evaluation of in-place structures and components were reviewed, including concrete, reinforcing steel, anchor bolts, and water stops.
In addition, a Bechtel matrix of components, requirements, status of activities completed, and applicable documentation was reviewed. This activity is being accomplished in an adequate manner, and the inspector had no further questions.
3.
-containment Liner Welding A review was performed of the containment liner welding for Units 1 and 2.
The review included:
(1) review of QC system relative to welding, nondestructive testing, and recording of information, (2)
review of welding records, and (3) observations of welding performance.
The results of the review are as follows:
,
a.
Review was performed of the general welding specifications,
'()
the six welding procedures authorized for use on the containnent ( j liner plate welding fabrications, and the weld procedure qualification documentation. No problem areas vere identified, and the velding procedures were determined to be properly qualified. The Bechtel documents reviewed included:
-
(1) General Welding Standard GWS - Structural, Revision 0, dated April 9, 1973.
-
(2) Welding' Standard Performance Specification WQ-F-1, Revision 0, dated August 1, 1973.
(3) Post Heac Treatment of Field Weld, PHT-500, Revision 0, dated May 25, 1973.
(4) Post Weld Heat Treatment of Field, PHT-501, Revision 0, dated April 16, 1973.
(5) Welding Standard, WD-1, Revision 0, dated September 1973.
(6) Welding Standard, WFMC-1, Revision 0, dated May 1973.
.
-6-
.
o
.. -
-
-
-
-
-
--
- -
.
.
.
(7) Welding Specification 7220-C-111, Revision 5, dated July 10,
-
.
1974.
-
,m (
)
.
.
x_,/
(8) Welding Procedures No. PI-Ac-Lh, Revision,0; No. PI-A-Lh,.
$
Revision 0; and No. PI-S, Revision 0, dated May 6, 1974.
(9)
Specification Change Notices:
.
~
(a) C-111-4009, dated August 22, 1974; allows use of welding procedure PI-F (A-C0 )-3u, dated September
22, 1974.
(b) C-111-4007; allows use of welding procedures PI-F (C0 ) (structural) Revision 0, and PI-F(G) (structural)
Revision O.
b.
Nondestructive examination specifications were reviewed by the inspector.
The review covered inspection specifications of:
'
(1) x-ray and gamma-ray radiographic examination of welds in nuclear components, vessels, and piping fabricated by Bechtel and its subcontractors, (2) magnetic particle examination, (3)
liquid penetrant examination, (4) qualification and testing
-
of personnel, and (5) interpretation standards of radiographs.
-
The. specifications were determined to be written in accordance with the requirements of the applicable codes, such as ASME Sections I, III, V, VIII and ANSI Codes B31.1.0 and B31.1.7.
The following' documents were reviewed:
(1) Bechtel Nondestructive Exanination Standard Procedure Specifications:
(a)
RT-XG-1, Revision 0, dated March 26, 1973; (b)
RT-X-G-2, Revision 0, dated January 22, 1973; (c). GR-NDT, General Requirements, Revision 2, dated November 15, 1971; (d)
MT-P-1, 2 Revision 0, dated May 18, 1973.
(2)
Bechtel NDE Standard Performance Specifications:
(a) NEPQ-MT (Levels I and II), Revision 0, (b) Personnel Qualification, dated June 26, 1973, (c) NEPQ-MT, MP ' methods that meet SNT-TC-1A, Supplement B.
A record review was conducted for a selected liner plate fabrication c.
picked at the cite for investigation. The following information
,
was reviewed and.found adequate:
-7-
,
,
V
'
-
r.
.
,
.
r-
,..,, -
--
.. _.
. _ _...
,,__4.
_
,m,____
,
.
.
.-
-
.
..
y
,
,
i
.
s
-
..
(1) ' File numbers coincide with ID numbers on the liner plate.
(N Records showed work has been done.
Records also contained
\\,,)
- -
,
"
as-built markups and slab and heat numbers of the added plates.
.
(2) A trace of a Mill Test Report (MTR) verified slab materials of indicated heat number are in compliance with the ASTM specified.
(3) The repair requirements shown in NCR No. 121 indicated assembly No. S5-1-U-2, at elevation 744'
6", was repaired in accordance with the specified repair procedures, 7220-C-111, Appendix B, Revision 3, and prewelding was inspected by approved NDT methods.
Work acceptance was signed by engineering and responsible QC personnel on July 29, 1974.
n
- .
(4) Qualification of the welders who performed the liner plate repair work were checked by the inspector.
Records showed that these men hcve either passed the exact test required for such operation or equivalent tests with a higher degree of requirements.
-
,
(5) Qualification of.NDT technicians were checked by the inspector.
Records of four (4) such persons have shown competent levels and passing grades in different examination g
The Bechtel standard
)
performance specification for determing the abilities of Bechtel personnel to properly perform and interpret required testings appeared to be satisfactory, d.
The weld material control was inspected at the weld rod issue station, and it was determined that the procedural controls
are being followed as follows:
(1) No persons, other than those authorized, are permitted inside the storage room. An authorized personnel name list is posted on the door.
(2) Welders are not allowed to ctMain more than one (1) type of electrode at one particular time.
(3) Upon issuing the electrodes, an issue slip must be accompanied
,
containing such information as rod material, size, welding procedure, heet number and authorized approval signatures.
(4) Only one-type of welding electrode is permitted to be stored in one electrode stabilized oven.
-8-bG
.
.
-
y
.
_ -.
..
L (5) color codes and tags are employed on electrodes and their
!
'
shipping boxes.
,
\\m_/
' '
(6). Rod oven heat temperature is calibrated every three (3)
months.
(7) Damaged, coated rod is bent and dumped, together with stuba, into'a disposal container.
Such a container features trap openings on locked tops.
4.
Concrete' Aggregate Specifications
.
Due to the recent' difficulty in obtaining concrete aggregate meeting the fines specification.(ASTM C-33) for the Midland project, Bechtel made an engineering evaluation which indicated that increased fines, within certain limits of type and amount, would not be f
detrimental to the concrete. CP and Bechtel have discussed the
,
proposed specification and PSAR changes with L.
The technical and background information is included in a Bechtel report, titled "Use of Coarse Aggregate With Varied Percentage of Material Passing the
- 200 Sieve", dated July 24, 1974. The licensee has evaluated and apptoved these changes, which are included in Amendment No. 27 to the Midland _PSAR.
These changes are being evaluated by L at the
'
present time.
,
5.
Third-Party Rev4.ew of QA Program for Midland Plant Construction
{
A licensee representative described the activities of an outside
~
consulting agency in evaluating the CP QA program.
The representative
'
said that the consultant is utilized to:
(1) perform overall QA program audits, (2) review CP audits of contractors performance to L
date, and (3) revise the QA manual.
"
A number of recommendations relative to CP policies, the QA program, and the necessary procedures are under consideration by CP management at the present time.
i 6.
Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) Corrective Action Status An apparent error was identified during an RO review of a technical specification, relative to the manufacture of reactor pressure vessels for the Midland Plant, at a B&W facility located in Mt.
'
'
Vernon, Indiana (R0 Inspection Reports No. 050-329/74-09 and No.
050-330/74-09)..During this inspection, correspondence between CP and B&W was reviewed relative to Technical Procedure No. 12-2-GEM-5
" Maintenance of. Welding Equipment." The B&W response, dated September 30, 1974, was considered adequate, and the inspector had
,
no further questions relative to this matter.
'
i
_g.
-
C E
a
-
r_..
.
I
.
o
,
,
,.
-
-
.- -
.
. -.. -.. -.
_ _.
- cc
+
o
,
.
..,
'
....c C~'C);.;
-7.
Bechtel Quality Audit Finding (QAF) No. C-3-3 This QAF identified a lack'of procedure relative to reviewing and i
approving field prepared requisitionsifor Q-list macerials. A
. procedure for the above has been prepared and is to be included in
the-Bechtel Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual.
This procedure will give Bechtel project engineering the responsibility to supply the quality related requirements and Bechtel quality engineering the review and approval responsibility.
This QAF was initially closed out by Bechtel QA on March 5, 1974, with an additional note dated
May 7,_1974, relative to additional procedural requirements.
8.
Nonconformance Report Review
- -
t-The Bechtel field file of nonconformance reports (NCR's) were
}-
reviewed and considered adequate relative to procedural requirements.
j_
In addition, about 25% of'the NCR's,' generated by Bechtel during
- -
the last three months,were reviewed in detail.
The NCR forms were determined to be adequately. filled out, readily available for
' review, and response to questions by the inspector relative to specific NCR's were considered to be adequate.
i
Attachment:
'
Attachment A i
h
.
T
+
t.
'
.
'
.
%
--10
-
J r
-
b i
.
,
.
t
%
- .
p.
.
- .. -... -
-
,
,
...
.
-.
-.
a.....-
...
.
-.,. -., -.
-
.
',
ATTACH!ENT A
'
"
MIDLAND PLANT NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS
/~ N
.(
)
- ,
The t.onconformance reports (NCR's) received by RO from CP under cover
letter dated May 24, 1974, were reviewed to ascertain their significance.
These nonconformances were identified during the normal performance of licensee /cor. tractor QA/QC activities at the site.
From this review, the NCR's listed below were selected for more detailed review at the site during the current inspection. The selection was. based on potential significance and/or leck of sufficient information on the NCR form.
.
Results of Inspection-
.
Based on a review of records, discussicns with CP and Bechtel personnel, and observations at the construction site, it was determined that the
.
procedural requirements ware met and that adequate, corrective actioa had been initiated and/or completed.
1.
Bechtel NCR No. 86, Containment Liner Plate Coating (April 11,1974)
The primer coating on two liner plate assemblies did not meet the th'ickness specification. Disposition required sandblasting and
,
recoating. This work was done, and the NCR was closed out by
'
Bechtel on April 18, 1974.-
2.
CP QF-10, Containment Liner Plate Radiographic Work (March 28, 1974)
p)
This nonconformance is associated with Revision 3 of the applicable (
.
specification (Bechtel Specification No. C-111) for this work.
The intent of Revision 3 was to implement the requirements of Amendment No. 23 to the Midland PSAR relative to NDE requirements for liner plate welding. However, it was not fully implemented in the field.
'
Subsequently, Revision 4 was issued and used, which is in a
REGION lll
,
fi t 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD yng:pgong GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 6o137 (312) 858-2660 R'd Inspection Report No.
050-329/74-10 A.
RO Inspection Report No.
050-330/74-10 October 29, 1974 Transmittal Date
Distribution:
Distribution:
RO Chief, FS&EB RO Chief, FS&EB RO:HQ (5)
RO:HQ (4)
DR Central Files L:D/D for Fuels & Materials Regulatory Standards (3)
DR Central Files Licensing (13)
.
B.
RO Inquiry Report No.
Transmittal Date
x
)
Distribution:
Distribution:
.j
'
RO Chief, FS&EB R0 Chief, FS&EB RO:HQ (5)
RO:HQ DR Central Files DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)
RO Files Licensing (13)
RO Files C.
Incident Notification From:
(Licensee & Docket No. (or License No.)
Transmittal Date
Distribution:
Distribution:
RO Chief, FS&EB R0 Chief, FS&EB RO:HQ (4)
RO:HQ (4)
Licensing (4)
L:D/D for Fuels & Materiale DR Central Files DR Central Files
~
.
.
/
\\
e oi.
-
T d!
'
-
r,
.
,,..
,
,-