IR 05000329/1980011
| ML19320A497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1980 |
| From: | Danielson D, Yin I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19320A496 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-80-11, 50-330-80-12, NUDOCS 8006250310 | |
| Download: ML19320A497 (5) | |
Text
-.
'
[
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-329/80-11; 50-330/80-12
~
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 Inspection Conducted: April 30 - May 2, 1980 Inspection By:
I. T. Yin
- b Ov /-s.~
~
'
-
Approved By:
D. H. Danielson, Chief J
o Engineering Support Section 2
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on April 30 - May 2, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-329/80-11; 50-330/80-12)
Areas Inspected:
Installation of safety-related hangers and restraints in-cluding review of drawings, procedures, and specifications; observation of pipe suspension system installations and snubber storage conditions; review of quality control records. The inspection involved a total of 16 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviat#.ons were identified.
80062go} \\o 1-
-
..
DETAILS Persons' Contacted Consumers Power Company (CPCO)
- J. L. Corley, QA Supervisor
_
- R. E. Wh. taker, QA Engineer-
- H. Leonard, QA Engineer
- D. A. Karjala, Project Management Organization Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
- E. Smith, QA Engineer
- M. Dietrich, QA Engineer
- M. O. Rothwell, Engineer
- P. Corcoran, Resident Assistant Project Engineer
- K. Nilson, Field Engineer
- E. D. Newman, Assistant Project Field QC Engineer Babcock and Wilcox Construction Company (BWCC)
- R. W. Shope, QC Supervisor
- Denotes those attending the exit meeting.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items j
(Closed) Unresolved Item (329/78-19-01; 330_78-19-01): The inspector re-viewed the snubber installation offset angle tolerance requirements stated in Paragraph 5.4.2, " Structural Attachment Deviation" of BPC Specification 7220-M-326(Q), Revision 4, dated September 14, 1979, and has no further questions.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (329/78-19-02; 330/78-19-02): The inspector reviewed the BPC Field Instruction, F1P-1.116, " Handling, Storage, and Installation of Mechanical Shock Suppressors," Revision 1, dated November 8, 1979 and the ITT-Grinnel Corporation, " Maintenance andInstallation Manual PHD-7594-1 for ITT-Grinnel Figure 306 and Figure 307 Mechanical Shock and Sway Suppressors."
Clarification should be made by the licen,2e on whether or not safety wires are required on PSC snubber extension connections.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (329/18-19-03; 330/78-19-03): This item was reviewed previously by the inspector and the findings were documented in RIII Report 329/79-01 and 330/79-01. There was no apparent analysis to address:
(1)
computer modeling of the existing hole locations on the anchor base plates, (2) restraining conditions at the bolt holes and the plate edges, and (3)
possible bolt load increase due to plate flexibility increase that was caused by additional drilled holes. The licensee committed to provide
.
further'information before the end of May, 1980.
-2-E
-,
- - -
-
~-
.a rv v
,
.
(Closed) Unresolved Items (329/79-01-03; 330/79-01-03; 329/79-01-04;
'
330/79-01-04; 329/79-01-05; 330/79-01-05; 329/79-01-06 and 330/79-01-06):
These are problems relative to weld cracks on pipe rupture restraints.
The inspector reviewed the BWCC NCR No. 459, closed on April 13, 1979, and had no adverse comments..In conjunction with the review of BWCC trend analysis on welding problems recorded in the monthly QA Status Report, the inspector stated that the use of the close loop repair procedure to document every day welding problems and repair was con-sidered acceptable.
In reviewing all 83 welds in Unit I and 62 welds in Unit 2 that had been completed since October, 1979, no weld cracking problems were identified. The revised WPS, including the buttering of the base plate, was apparently successful.
In regard to the soundness of the embedded base plate material, the BWCC weld repair procedure for lug welds shown in Attachment
"A" of the Field Construction Procedures, requires reporting to BPC Engineering if more than 5% of the embedded base plate had to be removed because of inclusion or cavities found during weld repairs. The inspector reviewed weld repair records for Weld No. W23-56, No. W28-1, and No. W26-4, and has no further questions.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (329/79-05-01; 330/79-05-01): A copy of the ITT-G Pipe Hanger Division, " Engineering QA Procedure" used by the corporation from 1972 to 1975 was provided for the inspector's review at the site. No questionable areas were identified as a result of the review.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Primary Loop Pipe Whip Restraints a.
In 1979, Davis-Besse 1 reported to RIII a problem of underdesign of the pipe whip restraint bolts. Since Midland I and 2 are of similar design, the inspector reviewed this matter and found far more extensive utilization of the connection bolts in Midland than in Davis-Besse. The areas reviewed included:
(1) General arrangement shown on BPC drawing C-676(Q),
Revision 2.
(2) Hot Leg Restraint 1-3A shown on BPC drawing C-437(Q),
Revision 7.
(3) Hot Leg Restraint 1-15A
.own on BPC drawing C-437(Q),
Revision 7.
(4) Hot Leg Restra'r
'A shown on BPC drawing C-435(Q),
Revision 10.
(5) Type 40 Restraint shown on BPC drawing C-488(Q), Revision 3.
(6) Type 38 Restraint shown on BPC drawing C-487(Q), Revision 5.
(7) Type 28 Restraint shown on BPC drawing C-485(Q), Revision 5.
(8) Type 10 Restraint shown on BPC drawing 483(Q), Revision 3.
-3-
-
.-
__
_
,
- l I
During the discussions, the inspector stated that further review
of the adequacy of the pipe whip restraint design is required by the licensee. This is an unresolved item (329/80-11-01; 330/
80-12-01).
i b.
Subsequent to the site visit, the inspector was informed that
-
test results of samples of pipe whip restraint bolts indicated lower than acceptable strength in two of the four lots.
(1) Lot #1 was manufactured to A-540 specifications by Southern
,
Bolt Company. The three bolts tested were 6-1/4" by 1-1/8".
All three bolts failed at less than 45 Ksi. They should have failed at greater than 77 Ksi.
(2) Lot #2 on the same order and using the same specification as Lot #1 was manufactured by Texas Bolt and successfully passed the tests.
(3) Lot #3 was manufactured to A-490 specification by Southern
,
Bolt Company. The three bolts tested were 4-1/2" by 1-1/4".
Two of the three bolts failed at 50 Ksi. They should have failed at 102 Ksi.
(4) Lot #4 was manufactured by Southern Bolt to the same size and specification as Lot #3. All bolts successfully passed the tensile tests.
During a telephone call on May 7, 1980, the inspector requested that the licensee forward to RIII the bolt design specification, procurement specification, and qualification test requirements for his review. This is an unresolved item (329/80-11-02; 330/
80-12-02).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identifiad.
2.
Observation of Work and Conditions Installation of Decay Heat System pipe whip restraints was ob-a.
served by the inspector. The work was performed in accordance with BWCC FCP72A, " General Procedure for Installation of Decay Heat Line 12-2CCA-18 and 12-2CCA-61 Restraints," Revision 7, dated April 23, 1980.
b.
The condition of PSC mechanical snubbers stored in Warehouse No. 2 appeared to be acceptable, c.
A number of rigid strut PSC snubbers were observed by the inspector. These included:
.(1) MK. 2GC3-16-H16
.
(2) MK. 2ELB-10-H29-4-L
.-. _ -__ ___
..
I (3)
MK. 2FCB-15-H2 (4)
MK. 2 EBB-14-H15 One questionable area was identified, i.e., the washer-spacers between the ball bushing and bracket were not installed on MK.
~
2GCB-16-H16. The licensee committed to correct the problem and
~
consider provisions to prevent recurrence.
This is an unresolved item (329/80-11-03; 330/80-12-03).
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-ance, or deviations. Three unresolved items disclosed during this inspec-tion are discussed in paragraphs 1.a, 1.b, and 2.c.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) at the conclusion of the inspection. The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the inspection. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
.
-5-