IR 05000329/1980019
| ML19331C096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1980 |
| From: | Cook R, Knop R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331C090 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-80-19, 50-330-80-20, NUDOCS 8008140160 | |
| Download: ML19331C096 (4) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATvRY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-329/30-19; 50-330/80-20 Docket Nos. 50-329; 50-330 License Nos. CPPR-81; CPPR-82 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Midland Site, Midland, MI Inspection Conduc ed:
J e 1-30, 1980 7-7dd Inspector:
R.
o
/
'
2 6. 3 M r;c Approved By:
R. C. Knop, Chief
~7
~7 ~ 07 Projects Section No. 1 Inspection Summary Inspection on June 1-30, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-329/80-19; 50-330/80-20)
Areas Inspected: Examination of site conditions; 10 CFR 50.55(e); Report-able Item pertaining to Emergency Core Cooling Actuation System (ECCAS)
logic; investigation into alleged use of unlicensed radiographers; investi-gation into the installation of heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems; evaluations pertaining to repairs to the containment airlock doors; and installation of Class 1E electrical conduit clamps. This inspection effort involved a total of 76 inspection hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
l8008n olGo
.
.
.
DETAILS Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company Personnel-D. Miller, Site Manager
- T. Cooke, Project Superintendent
- D. Vokal, Senior Engineer P. Kyner, QA Electrical Supervisor Bechtel Power Corporation Personnel
- L. Dreisbach, Project QA Engineer
- M. Dietrich, QA Engineer D. Thompson, Lead Electrical QC Engineer A. Lobrovich, Electrical QC Supervisor B&W Personnel
- R. Shope, QC Supervisor Numerous other principal staff and personnel were contacted during the reporting period.
- Denotes those present during the exit interview conducted during the reporting period.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected 1.
Site Tours At periodic intervals during the report period, tours of selected areas of the site were performed. These tours were intended to assess the cleanliness of the site; storage conditions of equipment and piping being used in site construction; the potential for fire or other hazards which might have a deleterious effect on personnel and equipment, and to witness construction activities in progress.
2.
10 CFR 50.55(e) Reportable Item - Emergency Core Cooling Actuation System
,
(ECCAS) Logic On June 17, 1980, the Resident Inspector was notified that a condition exists which is considered reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e). This item pertained to the discovery that circuit drawings for two digital subsystems for ECCAS initiation were in error. These circuit drawing errors would allow the loss of redundancy and isolation of the digital subsystems and would prevent proper operation of ECCAS under conditions of loss of offsite QC power simultaneous with a LOCA.
-2-
.
.
It appears that the two out of four analog logic would function. How-
ever, ECCAS is dually initiated by the digital subsystem when required by the analog subsystem. With the circuit drawing error, the digital subsystem would not actuate ECCAS and would constitute a violation of the " single failure criteria."
In keeping with the intent of IE Information Notice No. 80-28 and Prompt Reporting of Information in Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e),
.
the licensee reported this item to the Regional Office on June 18, 1980.
3.
Investigation - Unlicensed Radiographics During the reporting period, a Regional Investigator and an Inspector from the Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch visited the site to inquire into activities of contract radiographers alleged to have sup-plied services in the area. This visit was the result of an on-going investigation into the use of radiographic sources by uplicensed users.
The unlicensed user in question was X-ray and Inspection Services (XIS).
j It was determined that this unlicensed company had not performed any radiography at the Midland Site.
4.
Investigation - Construction Activities Pertaining to Installation of Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems During the reporting period, the Resident Inspector was contacted by an individual wishing to make additional allegations pertaining to question-able construction practices by the Zack Co.
This matter was referred to
~
the Regional Office. The Regional Office made contact with the individual and determined that the information provided would not warrant additional investigations into alleged construction deficiencies by the Zack Co.
5.
Personnel Airlock Door During the reporting period, Regional Based Inspectors and the Resident Inspector met with licensee representatives to discuss the repairs to the inner Unit I and Unit 2 airlock doors and the evaluations pertaining to these repairs (Refer NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-329/80-15; 50-330/80-16).
,
Subsequent to this inspection, the Resident Inspector met with the licen-l see to more clearly define those areas where additional information is required for further NRC review. These areas include:
j A more definitive resolution and analysis for the use of wrap a.
around welds of varying thicknesses. No engineering justifi-cation has been supplied for the position that wrap around welds
"are for cosmetic purposes only and are not used to carry any load" which is stated in a March 7, 1980 revision to the stress report.
..
-3-
.
..
.
_
,
,, _
-
__ _.. _.
-.
.
l l
i b.
The original stress report does not appear to reflect the "as-
built" conditions of the doors with the incorporated repairs and subsequent weld configuration changes. There is no obvious cor-relation to show that the validity of the original stress report has been established when considering repairs to the door and wrap around welds.
It appears that only shear stress has been addressed in the ori-
.
c.
ginal stress analysis for those areas which have been repaired or show wrap around welds.
The licensee is initiating additional review into these areas.
6.
Class 1E Electrical Conduit Clamp Installation During the reporting period, the Resident Inspector performed additional review into the established quality control criteria for determining Class IE conduit clamp tightness (Refer NRC Inspection Report No. 50-329/
80-18; 50-330/80-19). Class IE Conduit Supports Specification and In-stallation E-42(Q) states, " Bolts in pipe clamps of rigid steel conduit shall be tightened a minimum of two complete turns past hand tight."
Quality Control Instruction E-1.0, Section 3.2, Installation of Bolts, Nuts, and Washers states, "Using a calibrated inspection wrench, check 100% of the bolts on two hole conduit straps, bolted connections of conduit and box supports, and attachment bolts for scheduled and un-scheduled boxes. Assure minimum torque, as shown on the Engineering Drawings, is achieved." However, it appears that this requirement only addresses the two bolt conduit straps as defined in Specifica-tion E-42(Q) and not conduit clamps of the single bolt type in ques-tion. Quality Control Instruction E-1.0 also states in section 2.1 as an In-Process Inspection Activity, " Verify that conduit cutting, threading, reaming, cleaning, conduit hand radii, conduit clamp tight-ness, pull box size and type, support type and support interval are all in accordance with the Engineering Requirements. The Resident Inspector could establish that some in-process inspection activities had been accomplished pertaining to tightness of conduit clamps. A cursory review of some Discrepancy Reports indicated that some loose Class 1E conduti clamps had been detected by QC Inspectors during the area surveillances. The licensee had used these activities to estab-lish the tightness of conduit clamps. Because of the lack of rigorous quality control inspection ctieria, the licensee initiated Nonconfor-mance Report No. M-01-9-0-048 which requests assurance that installed l
conduit clamps "were tensioned properly." This item is considered unresolved pending the response to the Nonconformance Report and addi-tional review by the NRC.
(329/80-19-01; 330/80-20-01)
l Unresolved Matters f
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. One unresolved item disclosed during the inspection is discussed in Paragraph 6.
I-4-I
_
_
.
- _ -.
. -.
.
Exit Interview The Resident Inspector attended the Entrance Interviews conducted by Messrs. T. Vandel and K. Ward, Region III Reactor Inspectors, on June 3 and June 17, 1980, respectively. The Resident Inspector also attended the Exit Interview conducted by Mr. T. Vandel on June 5, 1980.
The Resident Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted under Persons Contacted) on June 30, 1980. The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection effort to date. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
I i
l
I l-5-