IR 05000329/1980035
| ML19341A918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1980 |
| From: | Fiorelli G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19341A914 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-80-35, 50-330-80-36, NUDOCS 8101290283 | |
| Download: ML19341A918 (7) | |
Text
)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
REGION III
Reports No. 50-329/80-35; 50-330/80-36 Docket Nos. 50-329; 50-330 Licenses No. CPPR-81; CPPR-82 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road aackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Midland Nuclear Power Station, Unit I a nd l'n i t 2 Meeting At:
Holiday Inn, Jackson, MI Meeting Conducted:
November 24, 19au NRC Participants:
J. G. Keppler, Director G. Fiorelli, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch R. C. Knop, Chief, Projects Section 1, RC&ES D. Hood, Project Manager, NRR R. Sutphin, Project Inspector, RC&ES R. Cook, Resident Inspector, RC&ES E. Gallagher, Reactor Inspector, RC&ES Approved By:
G. Fiorelli, Chief
,/
A M'@
Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch Meeting Summary Management Meeting on November 24, 1980 (Reports No. 50-329/80-35 and No. 50-330/80-36)
Areas Discussed:
Management meeting held at the NRC's request to discuss the regulatory performance of the activities at Midland Nuclear Station Unit 1 and 2 as concluded in the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.
Results: A summation of the licensee performance evaluation was presented.
Areas of concern were discussed with corporate management.
The performance at Midland Unit I and 2 was considered to be adequate.
.
,
l Nr i
s
%
i
.
'
DETAll.S 1.
Persons Contacted Consumers Power Compigv S. H. Howell, Executive Vice President J. W. Cook, Vice President - Midland Project G. S. Keeley, Project !.94ger - Midland Project B. W. Marguglio, Direct c r Environmental Service and Quality Assurance W.
R. Bird, Manager - QA - Midland Project 2.
Areas Discussed A summary of the SALP program was presented, including the a.
development, the basis for evaluation, and its purpose.
b.
The results of the NRC's evaluation of the licensee's performance were discussed.
(A copy of the evaluation is enclosed).
Several top es related to enforcen.ent, the inspection program, and j
c.
regulatory planning were discussed with the licensee.
3.
Major Observations a.
Within the.reas reviewed during this appraisal period, the non-compliance history for issued inspection reports was low, however, when the items of noncompliance relative to the investigation of Zack activities at the Midland site are added, the numbers are high.
The investiga* ion report for the Zack activities is under review for escalated e..
cement.
b.
Of the twelve construction deficiency reports of problems reported by the licensee in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) requirements, four were deemed to be within the control of the licensee.
c.
The NRC acknowledged that the licensee had undertaken a major re-organization to improve licensee control of activities, however, some problems persist.
(See Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-36 and No. 50-330/80-37.)
d.
These significant problems were identified during the evaluation period. They were:
(1) RPV Anchor Bolts - two meetings were held rela *ive to these bolts.
It was recognized that these problems originated in the period of 1973.
!
-2-
-
_.
_.
.
.
.
(2) Qualification of QC inspectors for containment post tensioning work - additional t raining and instruction was required to bring the inspecters up to an acceptable level after identification of the problem by the NRC. The meetings in Rill were documented in an inspection report.
(3)
Investigation of HVAC Zack Company activities - a lengthy in-vestigation was conducted at the site.
Bechtel and Consumers Power Company were aware of continuing problems with quality requirements, but did not stop the work.
The investigation report is under review for escalated enforcement action.
The licensee was informed that the types of concerns which contributed to the three related problems were simular to there identified in previous years. While we recognized that CPCo had l
taken actions to improve its QA/QC operation through reorganiza-
'
tion and restructure, additional efforts were warranted.
4.
Overall Assessment Ine overall performance of Consumers Po er Company during the appraisal period, as related to the Midland Unit I and Unit 2 plants, is considered adequate.
5.
Planned NRC Actions Increased inspection effort is planned in the areas cf: Quality Assurance, Management and Training; Soils; and HVAC.
Enclosure: SALP Evaluation i
!
-3-
__., _
_
. _.
,
.
.
REGION:
-'*
LICENSEE PERFOR.ANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION)
FaC 1 A' * *h
.v i i.' C... w
"s...d '. w A
- i s ' -..4-0
"
n"
+
Licensee: Cenzuners Power ccry sny Unit Identification:
Docket No.
CP No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
-
,
_w
..,
,r..._ ; c c s. :. :..:. _ _,..
_.e.,,.,a,c
.-
,
._
t ::__a_,
o.,e e.,5, a,,:
c, n_ : 2,
....
.. _...
a
-
.
..
Reactor Infor=ation:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 5555
..-
. L..
sn a
- '
' ce w*er
..
.u.n.
s-cap w
Appraisal Period: July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1930 Appraisal Cc pletion Date: Ncrester 3, 1930 Review Board Members:
v e.
m.: -,, +.,
=.,.r.-.
Y -,
,
J w,- y y.,..,
u.
a....
.
- --T
. r. v. - '.4,
Lv..r+,,se.4.n an r 4,eo a.r.g,.c,,-.+. n.,.,. a...
a a
ca.r. e,
......,e..
r
..c.
...
J
....
...$..
..
f3
.. -..
.... +
a w. %..
m
.C e.
Ve. n e,,".v.l e,
~t
,e n. n. e e n.. n.e.
1, c.. v~ a c,
=..'*T.
i o t re
v
.- sy
.
. _ a
. c +:
A.
v
.
w e, +..
.r.
t.. ~ &r0,
t. s *. * *.
e es r>.
'n*. v.. a,... a, p..te.,
r_n.e~.4, e
,4.. - -- +
c.
A,
-
.
..e
..
u
....3 y;v.
.
E. J. GE11Egher, EeEOtOr InspeOtOr V.. =..
T.v.cy.-+w
,.
va:
.a.e S n.+. n,
.s-.A.
,
wa.
n
-
s.
.
.
r e - ',.
- .utaan.
'..n. e v a n + n.
...u.
-s...
s..
--.
ya.
.
1/.. Twk.
O.eaa+ e w T v..e. o. = +w v,.
_.
.
.....
. n
.J.
t a.- a. +.+.,
O.._ a +,,
T..e.e o.., +. v,.
n n.
-.
..w.
y E. 'E. Lee, Ee30 tor Inspector E. D. *iard, Ee&OtOr InSpe0tCT T
v..a..,.r.,. a C +o v,
T..r.5 - o.., + n.,
c.
n
+.
A.
...
y
,, - -.
-
-
-
-
...
..
. -.
.
.
.
A.
Na-ber and :lature of Noncentlianc Itenc
.
-
Nonecnpliance Category Unit 1 *
Lr.c ? *
Violaticns
-
-
Infracticns
(10)
(10)
Deficienciac
2 Areas cf Nencompliance Unit 1 (Points)
Unit 2 (Points)
Criterion II
10 Criterien III
10 Criterien IV
(10)
(10)
Criterien Y
(10)
(10)
Criterien V
2 Criterien VI
10 Criterien IX
(10)
(10)
Criterien XIII
10 Criterien XVII (10)
(10)
Criterien VII (10)
(10)
Criterien VIII (10)
(10)
Criterien X (10)
(10)
Criteri:n XV (10)
(10)
Criterion XVI (10)
(10)
Criterien XVII!
(10)
(1))
Iters cf nonecrpliance nct yet issued with respect to the investigation of Zack Cc=pany activities at the idland site.
E.
.unber and Nature cf Deficienev Fercrts
?'elve Construction Deficiency Reports (CDR's) were received by the regicnal office during the period of July 1,1979 through June 30, 1930. The nature of these repcrts covers a bread rance of material and ecnstruction problems as listed below:
1.
Centainment ecclers, water supply problem 2.
Small break /RC Pump cperatien interaction 3.
States sliding links, defective clip (Electrical)
L.
Tendon wire lengtn problem
Station batteries inadequate
- 6.
Hilti drop-in anchors
- 7 RPV anchor bolt failures 8.
Beration system inadequacies
Gould starters
- 10.
Epoxy coating of primary shielding valls 11.
Letdevn coolers supports over-stressed
- 12.
USSS cc=ponents viring problem
- Indicates nay have been licensee controllable i
i I
,
C.
Escalated Enforcement Actionn Civil Fenalties Ncne Orders December 6,1979, an crder modifying construction permits No. CPPR-61 and CFFE-82 was issued by the NEC prohibiting certain construction activities relating to soils problems.
Ir.nediate Action Letters March 21, 1980 an itaediate action letter was issued by the Region III office of Inspection and Enforce = ant concernt g stop work by the Zack Corporation of all safety related ceating and ventilating equiptent installations.
D.
Manacement Ccnferences Held Durine Fa.
Twelve Months 1.
Second Corporate Management Meeting - January 11, 1980 in Consurers Fever Company corporate office.
2.
Qualifications of QC Inspectors - Post Tensioning -
October 25, 1979 in RIII office.
Management Freblems covering HVAC and Reactor Vessel Anchor Bolts - May 2, 1930 in RIII office.
E.
Justification of Evaluations of Functicnal Areas Categorized as Pequirine an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See evaluation sheet)
l J
1.
Quality Assurance, Management and Training vill receive an increase in inspection frequency to verify that the reorganized QA unit is perfcrming adequately and that identified problems are rcsolved.
2.
Soils will receive an increase in inspection frequency to assure that.
corrective actions associated with the Diesel Generator building and other areas are effective.
HVAC vill receive an increase in inspection frequency to assure that corrective actions associated with the installation of the HVAC systens are adequate to insure adequate installation of those systems.
l t
"
.
.
.
..
.
.
i
'4
'
D
,
,
e6 o
. 1:
Inspection
_ _.
_ _ _.. _ _ _..
_
frequen<.y_and/or Scope
,
I l'UNCTIONAL AREA Incre.. a llo. Change Decreast
,
1.
Quality Assurance, l'anager,.ent & Training
__ X _ _
_ _ _..
. _ _ _... _
2.,
Substructure & fcundations X
~
'
3.
Concrete X
4.
Liner (Containment & Others)
.
X 5.
Safety-Related Structures
,
6.
Piping & llangers (Reactor Coolant
,
& Others)
X 7.
Safety-Related Co:.ponents (Vessel, Internals & ilVAC)
__XJiV6C )_.
___ _
._ _ _.
8.
Electrical Equipr,cnt
_.J._._-__.
. -
_ _
9.
Electrical (Tray & ltire)
.L
._.
_ _
._ _.
10.
I ns t rur.e nta t i on X
_.
.____... _
11.
Fire Protection X
_.__,_ _ _
12.
Preservice Inspection X
13.
Reporting
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.
_.
. _. _...- _
.. _.
_ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _..
-_ _ _ _ _
_. _. _. _
_ _ _ _. _. _ _ --_ _ __
s
.
~ - -..
-. -, _. - -. _ - - -. _. _ _.. _ -
. - - -. - - - - _ _ -
- - ~ _ - ~ ~
. _. - -
._-
__
- - - _ -. _ -.
- -. -
-
.__
_. -..
-
_
_ - _--.- _.- _
-- -
. 0,,.
5, bb
. h-
,
(Designated Regional l'anager}
'
I' '
-
..d.'
-
- ji h'._
Datc
.
.--
-
._
_.
,w