IR 05000329/1979005
| ML19274F101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1979 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274F100 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-79-05, 50-329-79-5, NUDOCS 7906130127 | |
| Download: ML19274F101 (5) | |
Text
.
tr U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-329/79-05; 50-330/79-05 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: Corporate Office of ITT-Grinnell Corporation Providence, Rhode Island Inspection Conducted: April 5, 1979 M
b w+ t Inspector:
1. T. Yin f
'e..Nn..hk Approved By:
Danielson, Chief
/8 7I
'
Engineering Support Section 2 Inspection Summary Insper. tion on April 5, 1979 (Report No. 50-329/79-05; 50-330/79-95)
Areas Inspected: Review of licensee corrective actions related to 50.55(e) reports on undersized welds. The inspection involved a total of eight inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No itt:ms of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
.
'
11:
......
't.
.
.
79061301a7
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company (CPC )
- R. Southon, QA Group Supervisor ITT-Grinnell Corporation (ITT-G)
- P.
Stanish
- V.
Ferranini
- N. De Cristofaro
- R. Masterson
- A. S. Laurenson
- R. Mulcauey
- D. Sewell
- M. Crosso
- H.
Thielsch Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
- W. Moring
- D.
Riat
- R.
Tomlin
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected on October 27, 1977, the licensee reported to RIII in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) requirements that prior to April,1977, weld sizing for pipe hangers supplied by ITT-Grinnell Corporation (ITT-G) was not it compliance with the applicable ASME,Section III, subsection NF, speci-fications. To the date of November 4,.1977, the licensee's contractor, Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC), inspected the welds on 32 of the estimated 700 installed hangers supplied by ITT-G.
Of the 112 velds on the 32 hangers, 25 did not meet code and ITT-G's drawing minimum size requirements.
Interim reports on the status of resolution were submitted by the licensee, the final report was forwarded on September 8, 1978.
The inspector reviewed BPC Management Corrective Action Report
"lj[".c (MCAR)-18 " Final Report, Apparent Undersized Hanger Welds," dated g
,~
May 9, 1978, and discussed this review with CPC and BAPC representatives f(
" on the phone. Since most of the questions involved ITT-G's method of calculation and basis of assumptions, the licensee requested that a
..
..
-
2--
.
meeting be held at the ITT-G office to resolve the RIII questions.
This report documents the audit conducted by CPC and overviewed by the RIII inspector. The inspector's areas of interest included adequacy of the original ITT-G hanger calculations and specific questions relative to BPC Report on MCAR-18.
1.
Review of ITT-G Procedures for Hanger Calculations The inspector reviewed the following procedures:
QA/QC Procedure No. E-03N001, " Design Input," dated a.
July 27, 1977.
b.
QA/QC Procedure No. E-04N001, " Design Process," dated July 26, 1977.
c.
Pipe Hanger Division Procedure No. 3, " Engineering QA Procedure," Rev. 6, dated April 6, 1977.
No apparent problem areas were identified during the review.
However, procedures for work done in 1974 and 1975 were unavailable for review. This is an unresolved matter.
(329/79-05-01; 330/79-05-01)
2.
Review of ITT-G Original Calculations a.
One of the hangers with an undersized weld, Mark No. 10-1HBC-136-H1 (Sk. No. 1-616-6-14) was reviewed by the inspector. The original calculation sheets including the use of the structural computer program STRUDL require further review and explanation.
b.
Four hangers, Mark No. 8-lGCB-16-H3 (Sk. No. 1-612-3-14),
Mark No. 18-1GCB-32-H4 (Sk. No. 1-610-3-19), Mark No.
2 1/2-2CCB-2-H4 (Sk. No. 2-604-7-16) and Mark No. 2 1/2"-
2CCB-5-H6 (Sk. No. 2-604-9-25) were brought up for discussion by the inspector. These hangers had been observed during previous site inspections.
ITT-G representatives stated that they were not prepared to discuss this item at this time.
The adequacy of ITT-G hanger calculations will be reviewed during a futu.e followup inspection. This is an unresolved item.
(329/79-05-32; 330/79-05-02)
m 3.
Design Interface Between ITT-G and BAPC M.
~
~
During his review of the ITT-G hanger calculations, the inspector
-
-
identified that ITT-G computations stop at the hanger structural
'
'
components wher. they are welded er fastened to the BAPC designed-3-
.
.
structures.
In discussion with the BAPC representatives at the meeting, the inspector was unable to obtain BAPC's methology and deflection criteria on how they determined the overall accepta-bility of the henger system design. This is an unresolved item.
(329/79-05-03; 330/79-05-03)
4.
Review of MCAR-18 The inspector's questions involving the use coefficient of friction, the torque value for the studs, and the selection of structural beam formulas were resolved during the meeting. Relative to questions that some shop welds were not being identified on the sketches, lack of free body force diagrams, and correlation of directions on the sketches to loadings, the licensee stated they will provide the inspector with additional sketches on up-to-date hanger installation detail drawings. This item is considered unresolved pending review of the licensee submittals.
(329/79-05-04; 330/79-05-04)
Unresolved Matters Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompliance or deviations. Four unresolved items dicciosed during the inspection are discussed in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in the Persons Contacted paragraph) at the conclusion of the inspection in the ITT-Grinnell corporate office on April 5, 1979.
The inspectors outlined the scope and purpose of the inspection and summarized tP results of the inspection. The licensee acknowled;ed the indicated results of the inspection.
_
'
.
..-.;
.,
'M
-
.
.
-4-