IR 05000329/1981007
| ML19347F970 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1981 |
| From: | Boyd D, Cook R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F969 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-81-07, 50-329-81-7, 50-330-81-07, 50-330-81-7, NUDOCS 8105260734 | |
| Download: ML19347F970 (4) | |
Text
.
.
)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
,,
REGION III
Report No. 50-329/81-07; 50-330/81-07-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 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Midland Site, Midland, MI Inspection Conducted: Februa y 15-28 and March 1-31, 1981 Inspector:
R.
.dook
/
$$/lCk i
Approved By:j. C. Bo h f
- / Be/1/
D
'
Reactor Project Section 1A
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on February 15-28 and March 1-31, 1981 (Report Nos. 50-329/81-07:
50-330/81-07)
Areas Inspected: Activities pertaining to resolution of item of noncompliance pertaining to 10 CFR Tart 21 notification of possible defects in diesel genera-tor link rods; examination of site conditions and laydown areas; measurement of diesel engine link rod clearance; lubrication defects for diesel engine turbocharger thrust bearings; bomb threat; and soil boring activity. This inspec-tion effort involved a total of 70 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
a
-
~.
.
- -
.-
__
--.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
'
,
i
'
1.
Persons Contacted s
'
Consumers Power Company Personnel
!
D. Miller, Site hknager W. Bird, QA Manager
>
- D. Turnbull, Site Project QA Superintendant L. Howell, IE&TV Supervisor M. Schaeffer, QAE Electrical Supervisor H. Allen, QA Mechanical i
E. Jones, QA Electrical D. Martin,' QA Mechanical R. Hirzel, QA Civil l
Bechtel Power Corporation Personnel
,
M. Dietrich, Project QA Engineer Numerous other principal staff and personnel were contacted during the reporting period.
i
- Denotes those present during the exit interviews conducted during the reporting period.
2.
Licensee Action on Previousiv Identified Itens
'
(Closed) Noncompliance- (50-329/80-31-01; 50-330/80-32-01). During the.
reporting period, the Resident Inspector reviewed training records and verified that jobsite " key personnel" were instructed in recognizing j
corresponden.e which could constitute 10 CFR Part 21 reporting obliga-l tions. The training session was conducted on December 16, 1980 by Mr. L. Dreisbach, Bechtel Project Hunagement Staff, AAPD. The list of
.
.
,
attendees included Project Management personnel, Purchasing and Pro-
curement personnel, QC personnel and Site Engineers.
The Resident Inspector also reviewed letters to nominally 65 actisc-suppliers which reiterates purchase order obligations to notify Bechtel Power Corporation when notification of 10 CFR Part 21 items are made to the NRC. Each letter references, by purchase order number, the category of equipment and contact persons.-
,
The licensee makes a periodic posting of instructions alerting personnel to 10 CFR Part-21 notification obligations. These instructions are writ-ten on colored paper and conspicuously displayed at appropriate locations on the site.
I Based on the above reviews and efforts of the licensee, the item of non-l compliance referenced in Appendix A of NRC Inspection Report No. 50-329/
80-31; 50-330/80-32 is considered closed and no further action is consi-
'
dered at this time.
l l
-...
.
-..
.
-
_
_
.
.
...
-e 3.
Functional or Program Areas Inspected s
a.
Site Tours At periodic intervals during the report period, tours of selected
,~
site areas were performed.1 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.
,
During one of these tours, it was noted that some of the dunnage and pipe storage in a laydown area to the east of Unit 1 contain-ment was deteriorating. The licensee subsequently issued Nonconfor-mance Report No._M-01-3-1-020 to address.this situation. All other-laydown areas were inspected and appeared to be in satisfactory condition.
b.
Transamerica Delaval. Incorporated.10 CFR Part 21 Notification -
Link Rod Defect During the reporting period, -the licensee completed _ examination of the Midland Site diesels for evidence of shallow counterboring.
,
None of the diesels showed evidence of counterbore discrepancies.
- Therefore, this 10 CFR Part 21 item identified by Transamerica
+
Delaval, Incorporated has not been classified as reportable under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e). Consumers Power Company QA l
witnessed clearance checks of six of the six link rods on three of the four diesels and four of.the six link rods on the remaining _
,
l diesel. Consumers Power Company QA physically checked one link rod on each diesel engine.
c.
Transamerica Delaval. Incorporated.10 CFR Part 21 Notification -
Turbocharger Thrust Bearing Lubrication During the reporting period, Transamerica Delaval issued a Part 21 notification stating that relatively rapid wear could be experienced in the thrust bearing of the turbocharger because of inadequacies of the lubricating system.. The lubricating system supplies' oil to the turbocharger only when the engine is running and prevents oil flow when the engine is in standby mode. Because of the quick start
[
unique operations of nuclear plant standby diesel engines, rapid wear can be expected in-the turbocharger thrust bearing. Trans-america Delaval has proposed a modification to alleviate this con-dition and Consumers Power Company indicated that they would request the modification.
Appropriate action was taken when the Transamerica Delaval Part 21 notification was received into the tracking system for evaluation as to the need for reportability under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(e) and a Safety Concern and Reportability Evaluation report
.
.. ~
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
. -. -
_ _ _. _._ _ --.. _ _, --
.
was generated. The licensee'has determined that the item is not
'
reportable at this time. This decision was based on evaluating the diesel testing frequency of the unit which experienced the failure and comparing that to the diesel testing frequency for the Midland Site diesel engines and determined that a similar failure would not occur until af ter approximately twelve years of operation. Consumers Power Company deduced that the chance of having more than one simul-taneous failure of diesel engines during the twelve year period was miniscule.
d.
Bomb Threat At 5:40 a.m. on March 23, 1981, the Midland County Sheriff's Depart-
,
ment received an anonymous telephone call stating that bombs were at
'
the Midland Nuclear Plant. The licensee was immediately notified of this and implemented safety / security procedures, e.
Soil Borings -
During the reporting period, representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Office reviewed the licensee's activities pertaining to taking boring samples which have been requested by the NRC for evaluation of the soils settlement at the Midland Site. No borings were physically taken during the reporting period. The in-spection efforts pertaining to the above are documented in a separate NRC Inspection Report.
Exit Interviews The Resident Inspector attended the Exit Interview conducted by Mr. R. Landsman, Region III Reactor Inspector on March 27, 1981.
The Resident Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1).
on March 20 and March 31, 1981. The inspector sumnarized the scope and findings of the inspection effort to date. The licensee acknowledged the findings reported herein.
.
.
.