IR 05000329/1979001
| ML19282C543 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin Ll T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19282C540 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-79-01, 50-329-79-1, 50-330-79-01, 50-330-79-1, NUDOCS 7903300318 | |
| Download: ML19282C543 (5) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-329/79-01; 50-330/79-01 Docket No. 50-329; 50-330 License No. CPPR-81; CPPR-82 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name; Midland Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Midland Site, Midland, MI
.
J Inspection Conducted: February 6-8, 1979 I'
/
/
/77
"
Inspector:
1. T. Yin b/ML W
/6/K Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief
.2 Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Inspection on February 6-8, 1979 (Reports No. 50-329/79-01; 50-330/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Installation of safety-related hangers and restraints including review of drawings and QC procedures. The inspection involved
.. <
a total of 14 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results_: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
.
.
,
,
o
.
.
79033993gg
.
.
'
DETAILS Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company (CPCo)
- D.
R. Keating, QAE Group Supervisor, Mechanical
- D. E. Horn, QAE Group Supervisor, Civil Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
- D.
Short, Field Engineer
- E. Smith, QA Engineer Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (BWCC)
- R. W. Shope, QC Superyisor
- D.
E. Kinsala, Project Engineer Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
- R. E. Sheppard, Resident Engineer USNRC - RIII
- R.
Cook, Resident Inspector
- W. Hansen, Reactor Ir.spector The inspector also discussed with other licensee and contractor technical and quality staff.
- Denotes those present at the exit intervieu.
.[,.
Licensee Action on Previous Identified Items (Open) Unresolved Item (329/78-19-03; 330/78-19-03):
Base plate drilled that were considered infringement of AISC minimum hole and edge distance
requirement. The inspector reviewed ITT-Grinnell Corporation (ITT-G)
d, Stress Report, " Hanger Base Plate Analysis With and Without Grout Holes,"
dated October 7, 1977, and questioned the design assumptions in two areas:
Three directional restraining at the hole edge appreared to be a.
unrealistic.
- b.
Complete freedom of plate edge appeared to be nonconservative.
S
'
,
e
,
-2-
_
.
'.
Therefore, the inspector took exception with ITT-G statement that, "The
,
grout holes between the bolt hole and the edge of the plate would be
.
a better case then leaving the grout holes between the bolt holes and the point of the load."
(open) Unresolved Item (329/78-19-05; 330/78-19-05): Pull tests had not been performed on nonconforming grouted anchor bolts. The licensee and BAPC agreed to perform these tests. Prior to the test, procedures will be established to determine sample size, acceptance criteria, and corrective measures if undesirable conditions are identified during tests.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Observation of Hanger Installation
_
The inspector observed several hanger installations at the lower level of the Auxiliary Building.
Three of the hangers that appeared to be questionable ~were.,. reviewed, and the results are as follows:
a.
Mark No. 8-1GCB-16-H2 (sk. 612-3-13) only two bolts on the base plate.
In review of the design loads, it appeared to be adequate.
b.
Mark No. 8-1GCB-16-H3 (sk. 1-612-3-14) the 3" structural beam appeared to have insufficient rigidity. The inspector erformed a simplified beam calculation, and considered it acceptable.
c.
Mark No. 18-1GCB-32-H4 (sk. 1-610-3-19) weldment was observed across the structural flange.
This is not allowed in BAPC specifications. Paragraph 4.2.4 of 7220-M-326(Q), " Technical Specification for Installation, Inspection, and Documentation of ASME Section III Fipe Supports, Hangers, and Restraints for Piping in a Nuclear Power Plant," Rev. 2, dated March 15,
. *,
1978, and Paragraph 6.2.2 of 7220-C-304(Q), " Field Fabrication,
Repair and Erection of Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metal," Rev. 5, dated October 10, 1978, state that, "No welding across the flange of the beam shall be done without prior approval of project engineering."
.
e,
'A BAPC Inter-office Memorandum, subject " Welding Across Hangers of Existing Beams and Columns," dated February 6,1978, estab-lished provisions for this operation based on stress evaluations.
However, measures to determine acceptable welding across the beam flange was not a part of the approved design and review procedures for both existing and new hanger installations. This is an unresolved item (329/79-01-01; 330/79-01-01).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.,
,
-3-
.
.
2.
Hanger Drawing Review
.
The inspector reviewed a few hanger drawings selected at random.
The following deficiencies were identified:
Mark No. 2 1/2-2CCB-2-H4 (sk. No. 2-604-7-16, Rev. 3), a note a.
on upper left corner stated, " Weld only on loagitudinal axis of beam."
This was in contradiction with field weld symbol showing fillet weld all around the beam. The licensee contacted ITT-G and found out that the note was really applicable to the existing beam.
b.
Mark No. 2 1/2"-2CCB-5-H6 (sk. No. 2-604-9-25), a note on upper lef t corner stated, " Weld only on longitudinal axis of existing members." Cont.rary to this note, the weld symbol showed a double fillet weld in cross-sectional direction of the existing beam.
The adequacy oL hanger drawing review, and the installation of these hangers will be further examined during a future inspection. This is an unresolved item (329/79-01-02; 330/79-01-02).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
3.
Weld Cracks on Pipe Rupture Restraints Some of the primary loop pipe rupture (whip) restraints had been welded by BWCC to BPC installed embed plates.
The lug and the embedded plate thickness ranged from 3" to 3.5".
The fillet weld size varied from 3/4" to 1",
there were no full penetration welds.
Since mid-January, 1979, twenty-one (21) out of the thirty-six (36)
welds were found to be cracked during visual and MT examinations.
In his review of the resolutions to this problem, the inspector noted that the following areas required further observations, reviews,
,,
...
and clarification:
Although one nonconformance report (BWCC NCR'No. 459) was written a.
for the first cracked weld, the overall problem was not documented in NCR's, instead, a Close Loop Repair Procedure was used. The
-
-inspector questioned (1) whether or not this had by passed the
,
ALAB 106 Condition requiring licensee to submit NCR's to NRC RIII
<
for review, and (2) why a QA trend analysis had not been performed based on NCR's and other deficiency reports generated by the NSSS supplier. The licensee's QA program requires this type of analysis to be performed. This is an unresolved item (329/70-01-03; 330/79-01-03).
',
b.
The ASME Code Weld Procedure Specification (WPS) that produced
.
,
the cracked welds was changed to be in accordance with AWS
-
.
requirements. By switching to AWS, (1) the WPS did not require requalification, (2) PWHT was no lo< ger a requirement,
-4-
.
.
.
.
,
and (3) there was a small increase in the allowable preheat temperature. In addition, BWCC required weld buttering of the
.
base plate prior to welding. The inspector considered the WPS to be basically unchanged, and questioned using the same WPS that produced cracked welds.
This is an unresolved item (329/79-01-04; 330/79-01-04).
c.
While removing the cracks from the weldments, new cracks were identified in the base metal. Arc-gouging was employed to remove all these defects.
The inspector note the following:
_
1 (1) Carbon-arc gouging into the base metal could have changed the design weld prep configuration.
,
.
(2) BPC UT acceptance of the base plate prior to welding of the lugs, may not be conservative.
(3)
If base. metal cracking was caused by excessive heat deposit,"the BWCC WPS may not be acceptable.
This is an unresolved item (329/79-01-05; 330/79-01-05).
d.
Work continued as usual, there appeared to be no attempt to:
(1) determine acceptance of the twenty-five (25) welds, that were produced using weld buttering and a higher pre-heat temperature, and (2) study the effects of the residual stress resulting from repeated veld heat deposition on a restrained embedment plate that showed various UT indications prior to the welding operations.
This is an unresolved item (329/79-01-06; 330/79-01-06).
Unresolved Items
.
Unresolved itens are matters about uhich more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in Paragrahps 1.c, 2, 3.a, 3.b, 3.c, and 3.d.
Exit Interview
.
a
'
The inspector met with site staff representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection on Feburary 8, 1979. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection.
The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
'
'
.
.
-5-
.