IR 05000329/1981023

IE Insp Repts 50-329/81-23 & 50-330/81-23 on 811201-820630. No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Exam of Site Conditions & Laydown Areas,Onsite Storage of Matl,Mgt Meetings & Changes in Site Mgt

ML20062J767
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/26/1982
From:	Boyd D, Cook R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20062J746	List: IR 05000329/1981023 ML20062J744
References
50-329-81-23, 50-330-81-23, NUDOCS 8208160459
Download: ML20062J767 (6)

Text

. . . -_ -. - . _

.-

.

i

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!

REGION III

<

Report No. 50-329/81-23 (DPRP) ; 50-330/81-23 (DPRP)

Docket No. 50-329; 50-330 License No. CPPR-81; CPPR-82

,' Licensee: Consumers Power Company

1945 W. Parnall Road

,

Jackson, MI 49201

,

Facility Name: Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2

,

Inspection At: Midland Site, Midland, MI j Inspection Conducted: December 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982 Inspector: R. k 7 //4!b Approved By: D. C. Boyd C lef '7 26 8d Reactor Projects, Section lA i

Inspection Summary

'l

,

Inspection on December 1, 1981 - June 30, 1982 (Report Nos. 50-329/81-23; }

i 50-330/81-23)

Areas Inspected: Examination of site conditions and laydown areas; on site  !

storage of material; management meetings; change:; in site management; Cycle 2

,

SALP; damage to electrical penetrations; allegations . pertaining to small bore

! pipe welding; remedial soils work; failure of auxiliary feedwater headers; and assembly of CRDM' This inspection involved a total of 420 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector including 85 inspector-hours onsite during off shifts.

l Results: No . items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie ,

f I

l

,

l i

l I

I

!

, <

I

'~

Q KQ

'

PDR

)

,

.g-=m., -. ., ., -. . - - - - . . . - . . - , , - . - . . . - . , , --,.r. - , - .

,.., , , ,, - - - - - - . , . ,

~ -- -_ _ - -- - - . . .~ , . ,

'

.

.-

DETAILS i

!

!

,

. Persons Contacted i

Consumers Power Company Personnel

'

U. Cook, Vice President, Midland Project

. O. Miller, Site Manager

'

• D. Turnbull, Assistant Manager - Administration and Special Projects

• M. Curland, Site Project QA Superintendent 13 . Marguglio, Director, Environmental Services and QA l M4. Bird, Manager MPQAD , Schaeffer, Section Head, Electrical /I&C QA [ Leonard, Section, HVAC QA Howell, Supervisor, IE&TV Jones, Supervisor, IE&TV

' Allen,- Mechanical QA Nott, Electrical QA Cochrane, Electrical QA

'

R. Hendrix, Electrical QA i

Bechtel Power Corporation Personnel

!

M. Dietrich, Project QA Engineer I l

Numerous other principal staff and personnel were contacted during the -

reporting perio ,

• Denotes those present during the exit interviews conducted during the +

reporting perio !

i Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Noncompliance (329/81-08-01; 330/81-08-01): The licensee  ;

stated in their response to the referenced item of noncompliance that j a comprehensive audit was scheduled for August 31, 1981 to assess the effectiveness and compliance to Procedure FPG 5.000, Maintenance /Inspec- '

tion of Materials and Equipment Released for Construction (Reference letter J. W. Cook to J. G. Keppler dated August 21,-1981). This. audit, ,

which was also referenced in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-329/81-18; 50-330/81-18, was performed and the results and responses to open audit findings were reviewed. The audit resulted in ten findings issued closed and four findings issued open. Two of the open items were not acknowledged  ;

by the contractor as valid findings. However, these items were subsequent-  !

ly resolved by changing and/or adhering to the established procedural con-  ;

trols. All of the findings of the audit were resolve Other factions of the item of noncompliance were examined during the report- F ing period and found to be satisfactorily resolved. There are no further questions dbout this matter at this tim ;

c 2 [

g -- p. +_m-+.m *

.

3. . Functional or Program Areas Inspected Site Tours At periodic intervals during the report period, tours of selected site areas 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 equip-ment; and to witness construction activities in progress. During these tours, storage discrepancies were noted in the pipe storage conditions at the Poseyville Road laydown area. These conditions are -

discussed in the next subsequent paragraph of this repor On Site Storage of Materials During the reporting period, the Resident Inspector noted the deter-ioration of storage conditions of piping in the G-15-N area of the Poseyville Road laydown area. As a result of this observation, the licensee generated Nonconformance Report No. M-01-3-2-006 addressing discrepancies in the laydown area. The licensee also initiated an audit pertaining to the piping and mechanical receipt inspection program - a portion of which addressed conditions of the outside .

storage area In response to resultant audit findings pertaining to the outside storage areas, Bechtel Power Corporation stated that

"QC and Field Engineering will continue to make weekly inspection tours of outside storage areas." and agreed (in writing) that the condition of the laydown areas would be "better controlled in the future." Management Meetings On January 12, 1982, the Resident Inspector participated in a manage-ment meeting with the licensee conducted at the NRC Region III offices to discuss the Quality Assurance Organization and staffing and the Quality Assurance proposed program for remedial soils work at the Midland Sit (Reference NRC Inspection Report No. 50-329/82-01; 50-330/82-01)

The Resident Inspector also participated in another management meeting held at the NRC Region III offices on May 14, 1982. This meeting addressed installation and overinspection of Class lE elec-trical cable (Reference: NRC Inspection Report No. 50-329/82-09; 50-330/82-09) Changes in Site Management On February 1,1982, Mr. M. Curland assumed the full-time on-site position of Site Project QA Superintendent. Establishing a full-time,' qualified QA Manager on site was discussed during the January 12, 1982 management meeting referenced abov ... - . -- - - - _ . . .- - .

t

'

.-

! Cycle 2 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)

_ During the reporting period, NRC staff meetings were held to discuss ,

the assessment of the licensee's performance. On April 26, 1982, the j results of these meetings and the Systematic Assessment of the Licensee  ;

l Performance was presented to the licensee at a public meeting held at  !

, the Sheraton Hotel in Jackson, Michigan. The SALP report was sub- l i mitted to the licensee by letter (with attachments) dated April 20,

{

1982, from Mr. J. A. Hind, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness ~

and Operation Support to Mr. J. W. Cook, Vice President, Midland Projec '

On June 21, 1982, another public meeting was held at the Sheraton ,

Hotel in Jackson, Michigan to discuss'the licensee's comments to the  ;

Cycle 2 SALP report which were submitted by letter dated May 17, 1982 i from Mr. - J. W. Cook, Vice President , Midland Project to Mr. J. G. . Keppler, 4 Region III Regional Administrato , Damage to Electrical Penetrations - 50.55(e) Item

,

'

During post-construction inspections of Class 1E electrical penetration i assemblies, rodent damage in the form of chewed insulation and exposed

'

and/or severed conductors was noted. Further investigation into the rodent damage revealed, in addition to rodent damage, a multitude of discrepancies in the penetrations. These material deficiencies consti- -

tuted conductor insulation cracking at module-conductor interfaces; ,

, cracks in the module epoxy insulation; inadequate crimping by use of i

improper sized lugs, improper crimping, loose terminations, and use l'

of the wrong crimp; butt splices improperly crimped which could be

,

easily pulled apart and were covered with questionable insulation;  ;

and loose coaxial cable connections. The licensee reported the rodent damage under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) on January 20, 1982 and later modified their report to include the additional non-rodent -

F induced damag ;

-

l

) On March 26, 1982, the penetration-supplier, Bunker Ramo, issued a j 10 CFR Part 21 report addressing the non-rodent damage to the penetra-i tion In this report, Bunker Ramo stated that damage was a result

! of excessively bending the wires by site personnel during their in-

spection for insulation damage caused by rodents. However, this does not appear to be a completely true statement. The Resident Inspector

examined penetrations stored in the warehouse which were never in-stalled and which had not sustained rodent damage but exhibited the [

same type of non-rodent damage described abov [

!

Because of the damage incurred by the electrical penetrations, the

"

licensee is replacing all No. 2 AWG through No. 20 AWG modules with

replacement modules which appear to have a superior quality over the originally installed equipment. The licensee'is repairing the rodent damage where possible and replacing other penetration components where necessar i The licensee has embarked on a more aggressive and comprehensive

, program of rodent contro !

-4-

.I

-

,p. 7 - - . ~ ~ , ,----,a,.,-qc ., v--., . ,-, -<,,,--...c- , . . . - - - -.y. ,m-g --- + ---.-n, .n,w ,.,-.m.,-, -- , .-- - - -

, . - . . -_- .,

~

, .

i Allegations Pertaining to Small Bore Pipe Welding  !

'

i During the report period, the Midland Site Resident Office received -

allegations from RIII pertaining to inadequacy of welding small bore '

socket weld ,

,

'

A Regional based Inspector with expertise in NDE techniques and the Resident Inspector visually examined more than 30 socket welds of

'

1 and 2 inch diameters in an area which may have been the basis ' for

! tlum allegations. No discrepancies were noted. An additional 48 small bore pipe welds were examined by the NRC during a subsequent 4

,

inspection to establish the quality of QC inspections performed.

!I (Reference NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/82-04; 50-330/82-04 l and 50-329/82-12; 50-330/82-12). No rejectable welds were note l Remedial Soils Work ,

curing the reporting period, several staff and public meetings were s

,

held to discuss the requirements for performing remedial soils work, f The Resident Inspector participated in a portion of these meetings 3 and enforcement actions taken pertaining to dhe remedial soils. More ~

detailed documentation of these inspection findings are contained in _

.

those NRC Inspection Reports addressing the soils issues. The great-

' est source of contention in these matters is defining the scope and ,

extent of QC/QA involvement - or the "Q-ness" of the remedial soils *

-

wor Dr. R. Landsman, a degreed civil engineer from the Region III ,

'

offices has been delegated by Regional Management to follow the i remedial soils wor . Failure of Auxiliary Feedwater Header Because of the damage incurred by the internal auxiliary feedwater '

i headers at the Davis-Besse, Rancho Seco and Oconee 3 nuclear genera- l

'

ting stations, the licensee has been contemplating modifications to

'

,

their steam generators. These modifications are being performed on the operating B&W plants referenced above. However, the licensees are proceeding at their own risk as the modification using external  !

auxiliary feedwater header has not been approved by NR f i

Af ter the April 23, 1982 meeting in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss '

the failure of the internal auxiliary feedwater header, the licensee

. appears to have adopted a cautious approach to contemplating any  :

( auxiliary feedwater header repairs until more is known about the fix and the fix is approved. The Resident Inspector concurs with this i approac >

f j. Assembly of Control Rod Drive Mechanisms - Unit 1

!

During the reporting period, the Resident Inspector witnessed cleaning, [

assembly and installation of two control rod drive mechanisms (CRDM) l

'

,

for Unit The procedure had been reviewed and assembly of the CRDM's

,

i

?

L I

k

'

i i

-

.-r . . , . . -,, .v v y _ , - . , . , . . , . - . - ___y, . ..y..,_.._ - , . , --,_,..__..-.m~,. , _ . . _ . , , . _ . , . _ _ . . - _ ,_..m . -

-

..

appeared to be in accordance with procedures. Adherence to clean room procedures and practices were observed. No discrepancies were note Detensioning of Reactor Vessel Holddown Bolts During the reporting period, the licensee detensioned the reactor vessel holddown bolts for Unit 2. In preparation for detensioning, the licensee measured " lift off values" - the force required to remove loading of the nut. The Resident Inspector witnessed selected portions of the detensioning evolutio . Exit Interviews The Resident Inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) at various times throughout the reporting period and summar-ized the scope and findings of various pertinent aspects of the inspection activities and to discuss issues relative to the Midland Sit ,

The Resident Inspector attended dhe following exit meetings:

January 8,1982, R. Gardner January 22, 1982, C. Jones and K. Ridgeway March 19, 1982, R. Landsman and R. Gardner April 14,1982, R. Landsman and R. Gardner June 3,1982, F. Hawkins (

,

6