IR 05000329/1975007
| ML19329F111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1975 |
| From: | Hayes D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F108 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-75-07, 50-329-75-7, 50-330-75-07, 50-330-75-7, NUDOCS 8006200637 | |
| Download: ML19329F111 (8) | |
Text
_-
...
.
.
.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFDtISSION OFFICE OF-INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
.
,
REGION III
.
. Report of Construction Inspection
.
IE Inspection Report No. 050-329/75-n7_
IE Inspection Report No. U50-330/75-07
.
Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Midland Plant License No. CPPR-81 Units 1 and 2 License No. CPPR-82 Midland, Michigan Category:
A Type of Licensee:
PWR (B&W), Unit 1-650 MWe PWR (B&W), Unit 2-818 MWe Type of Inspection:
Routine, Announced Dates of Inspection:
October 23 and 24, 1975-9
- q-(A u 4*
Principal Inspector:
I. T. Yin
/
Jo 73'
'
(Date)'
.
Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel:
None y
.,
,
Reviewed By:
D. W. Ilayes
'
[b [6/f3 Senior Reactor Inspector
'(Date')
Construction Projects Construction and Enginecering
' Support Branch G
!8006200 [G
,
'
F
.
.
.. -
.
,
..
.
,
'*
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
/T e
U.
Inspection Summary
..
Inspection on October 23 and 24, (Unit 1 75-07) and (Unit 2 75-07):
Followup inspection on Unit 2 NSSS equipment onsite-storage, previously identified unresolved matters and review 13f the engineering evaluation of auxiliary building rebar nonconformance.
- Enforcement Items
~
None.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
'
None.
'
Other Significant Items A.
Systems and Components
The Unit I reactor vessel is _scheiuled onsite by October 26, 1975. As of October 24, 1975, the vessel has been unloaded from the barge and set on railroad cars 26 miles from the site.
[~')
E.
Facility items (Plans and Procedures)
B NJ
,
None.
C.
Managerial Items An interview was held with the newly appointed Consumers Power
-
Company's (CP's) Director of Project Quality Assurance Services-Department (PQASD) Mr. F.' Southworth.
The topics discussed
included: -(1) past work experience, (2) nuclear plant con-
-
struction and operation, (3) awareness of NRC regulations, (4) present plans (5) future departmental goals, and (6)
,
planned site visit schedules.
- D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by Licensee None.
. E.
' Deviations
None.
,
-('~)
-2-
\\s /
-
.
.
.
7.
m
g-
..
-
-
y..
.
,.
F..
Status of Previously Reported Unresolved Items
[}[
(1.
Unit 2 NSSS Equipment Onsite Storage (R0 Inspection Reports e.
\\,,/
No. 050-329/74-ll and No. 050-310/74-11)
Removal of the Spraylat coatidg and the installation of
-
tarpaulins have been completed for the major components.
-This item is considered resolved.
(Report Details.
~
Paragraph 2)
2.
Item No. 6, in-Appendix A, IE Inspection Reports No. 050-329/75-05 and No. 050-330/75-05 The PQASD of CP'has issued summaries of CP, Bechtel Power
' Corporation (BPC) and Babcock and Wilcox Company (B&W) work programs and interfaces for the Midland project.
The organizational structures, including QA work relations, are also included in a diagram.
-Management Interview A.
The following personnel attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection:
- Consumers Power Company (CP)
G. ' S. Keeley, Project Manager
/N T. C. Cooke, Project Superintendent (,)
B. H. Peck, Field Supervisor H. W. Slager, Midland Project Quality Assurance Administrator J. L. Corley, Quality Assurance Superintendent Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
.
T. C. Valenzano, Project Field Engineer G. L. Richardson, Lead Quality Assurance Engineer
-
J. P. Connolly, Project Field Quality Control Engineer Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
J. L.'Hurley, Assistant Project Engineer B.
Matters discuss d and comments, on the part of management per-sonnel, were as follows:
'
l 1.
The inspector stated that, he had reviewed the engineering analysis of the auxiliary building rebar nonconformance relative.to the affect on structural integrity and had no further questions in regard to this matter.
(Report Details, Paragraph 1)
j
,
j ~~(
.3-V
-
e
'P'
. -
,
_
.-,
_
_.
_..
_
-
.
_.,. _
_. _
.._
h i.;
.
'....
-
,
.
.
-'2'.
The protection of Unit-2 NSSS equipment stored onstte i
- has been a concern during previous inspections. - To
.,
. 'date, damaged Spraylat coating has been. removed from-
~
major components and covers'have been installed.
--
,
E-Although some. work remains to be completed this item-
.
is' considered resolved. - (Report Details, Paragraph 2)
-
i i
,
k
.
I i
I
..
i
+
.
t
'
.
'
i L'
<
,
I
'
i
.
i i
A
'
t
'
&
.
.
I -
4"
-
I
.
l.
,
!.
4-
-
i.
!
<
~
h
.
+
'
T
-
-
,
.
.
,
- '
- .
.
._
k LW-
%
. -..
s=
..,~.4
.-...,
v-=%,
<..w...
m.4
...,#..
,v.,_..,,,,.
,[,m,%.,,..%.my,,ww,....,,,y,w',,wn.,,,y
,_m,
,
p-4fy_.
,,,y
-
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ -
.
,-
-
REPORT' DETAILS
- ~
A
.,
r i
-
V[
Persons Contacted.
The'fo11owing' persons, in addition to the individuals-listed under the Management Interview section of this report, were contacted during.the inspection.
' Consumers Power Company (CP)
"
R. 'W. Rogness, Senior Engineer D. E. Horn, Field Quality Assurance Engineer - Civil Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
W..F. Holub, Project Quality Assurance Engineer
'
-
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
M. El-Gaaly, Civil Discipline Engineer R. V. Regupathy, Civil Discipline Engineer Results of Inspection 1.
Auxiliary Building Structural Rebar Nonconformance d
'
It was reported by the licensee on August 21, 1975, that a
,
m
.
' number of tiebars had been left out during auxiliary building s
concrete pours.
Bechtel Nonconformance Report NCR-326 identifies that the missing 42 sets of tiebars are located'
in the "Hk" line wall, between column lines 7.8 and 8.6.
The approximate dimensions'of the wall are 15' x 15' x 3.5',
'
with an 8' diameter pipe tunnel opening.
The original desiga called for 23 sets of double No. 6 ties for the
,
horizontal concrete beam and 19 sets of double No. 6 ties for the vertical beam, above and on one side of the pipe tunnel.
Instead, only single No. 6 ties had beca placed during the pours.
f In the original calculation, the wall was modeled as a thick plate with fixed edges only on three sides, since there is no structural continuity between the wall and the Unit 2 reactor containment building.
The moments and shears caused by the saturated soil pressure (a static loading) were obtained
'
from tables contained in "}bments and Reactions for Rectangular Plates", by W. T. Moody, published by the Bureau of Reclamation.
-5-
+
us_ >
l
i
'
'
r-.
,
n ;, _
_
_
--
.
.
.- ~
_ -_
h
,
..
-,
..
=
Results were modified with consideration of the open tunnel area j-s
~ which calls for additional local reinforcement.
The dynamic
,
-(
l effects were calculated, based on " Design of Earth Re'taining
Structures for' Dynamic Loads", presented at the 1970 ASCE confer-
,
ence, by H..B. Seed. The static and dynamic loading combination was computed in accordance with the' requirements indicated in Midland PSAR, Appendix 5A.
The evaluation of the existing condition for structural adequacy was performed, applying mtI/Stardyne 3, " Static and' Dynamic Structural Analysis Systems", a computer program developed by Control Data Corporation.
The use of a finite element analysis, instead of table values, means a large difference in design time and cost, but will likely prove that, with the missing tiebars, the design intent still will not be violated. The loading criteria, the nodal description and system modeling, based on the Martin Trian-gular Plate Elements (part of Stardyne 3) and the configura-tion (nodal coordination) were checked and verified by qualified engineers. The program output on bending moments, shears, and torsional moments were plotted for all~ critical wall sections. All calculated stresses, based on computer data, met allowables in stress catagories of; (1) bending of edge beam, (2) torsion in the slab and edge beam, (3)
shear in edge beam, (4) adequacy of stirrups (tiebars)
around the hole, and (5) bend moment in the slab.
(en)
The computer program selection and loading conditions were
considered to be appropriate.
The computation and verifica-tion were handled in a professional manner, and documenta-tion appeared to be sufficient.
Based on this review together with a similar evaluation carried out by the licensee Engineering Department and corrective action to
,
prevent reoccurrence, the inspector stated he had no further questions in regard to this matter at this time.
_
2.
Unit 2 NSSS Equipment Protection for Onsite Storage Af ter removal of the damaged Spraylat coating from the reactor vessel, the two steam generators, the pressurizer, and the reactor cover head, custom designed tarpaulins were installed on these components with proper framing to prevent moisture condensation. The installation was considered to be in compliance _with approved procedures.
The tarpaulin material appeared to be strong and durable, the vessel internal moisture control was in effect, and the dunnage for supporting the equipment was in good condition.
Although work remains to be completed for the primary piping, sufficient evidence exists to indicate protection of NSSS equipment onsite will continue and this item is considered closed.
O a
!
'
-6-
.
,,
.
.
.
....
-..
.
J.
Open Items Identified In' RO/TE Inspection Reports Since 1970 A-The following open items,.-listed in the appendix of IE Inspection
.
().
Reports No.- 050-329/75-04 and No. 050-330/75-04, were resolved
.during this: Inspection. To date six of the 16 open items
.
remain unresolved.
IE:III Summary of IE:III CP's Report Open Items Resolution Report No. No.
Section 70-6 F
Summary 4 Concrete pour loca-The additional QA/QC II-9-b'
tion QA and QC did personnel training
,;
j not promptly ident-records were reviewed g
'
ify and correct by the inspector. The apparent deviations present work perform-from the standards.
ance is considered sat-isfactory.
70-6 J
Management Questionable practice Records show that Interview of only having one reviews of QA audits No. 7 signature appear on were performed by QA audit forms, i.e.,
different people since same person requested then,
by, audited, by, and reviewed by.
.
%1.
70-6 K
Management Incorrect concrete Field audit checklists Interview formula number on had included formula No. 8 concrete transit number check as part of
,
II-8-6 ticket - steps will the review of batch
II-8-d be t'aken to assure plant tickets.
'
review of documenta-on Class 1 pours.
Printout malfunction.
-
73-3 C
AEC Letter Perform evaluation The application of 6-21-73 of compliance of Regulatory Guides in electroslag welding.
all disciplinary Regulatory Guide areas for Midland is 1.34.
CP will fol-presently under re-Management
-
Interview ~
lowup on audit.
view by NRC-RL.
This item is being removed B-4 from IE:III list of
-
Results of unresolved matters.
Inspection 4-C m
LJ-7-
,
e r.
'
,
,
,,
,-
-
-@-*
,
.....
,,
A
-
.
.g IE:III Summary of'
IE:III CP's -Report Open Items Resolution f
f'~s
Report No.
No..
Section
73-6
.P QAF-7 Requirements-for'
Bechtel Quality receiving, inspec-Audit Findings No.
l tion, storing, pro-007 dated July 18,.
tecting and use of 1973,-indicated materials not in-that such require-cluded in Midland ments were included FIM.
in Midland FIM Procedure G-1, para-graphs 2.5 and 3.10.
73-11 E
l-b-4'
QA administrator on-Such activities had site one day every been documented. In two weeks.
view of present con-struction activities and licensee's and A-E's QA/QC perform-ance, subject require-ment is recommended but not considered
.
mandatory.
f)
74-10 D-1 Results of Third party (2) review Review of CP's QA
\\m_/
Inspection CP audits of contrac-Audit Reports had No. 5 tor's performance to been performed by the date.
GE Apollo team.
The inspector reviewed the records and con-
'
siders this item
closed.
.
t
\\
.Q,).
-8-c
.
.
,
.
!
l.
>
. - - -
.
..
.
....
--