ML19329E515
| ML19329E515 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/11/1976 |
| From: | Howell S CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| HOWE-161-76, NUDOCS 8006160314 | |
| Download: ML19329E515 (3) | |
Text
, S
.s g'-
b l /$ f,
e.,
a
- s
/ N C0HSum0iS s
[
r&v.mg e
r
'ew/
Companv.
. ~..,
...n, General Omces 212 West wenigen Avenue. Jackson. MicNgan 49201 e
November 11, 1976 Howe 161-76 Mr J G Keppler, Regional Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road
' Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR FIANT -
DOCKETS #50-329 & #50-330 On June 18, 1976 I sent you a series of responses to certain issues concerning Midland. Issue Ir3 was" Design Engineering Review and Approval of Fabrication Drawings and Changes Thereto"and our response contained a discussion of the issue and our plan of action (Attachment I).
The plan of action described was implemented, but after several months of use, severa.1 problems have arisen. Because of the backlog of drawings to review, a severe bottleneck has developed in being able to proceed with construction.
Additionally, we have found a new problem in that there are now two sets of drawings both reviewed by design engineers, but with the possibility of discrepancies between them. We have found this on several occasions.
The intent of our original commitment was that the rebar end up placed according to a drawing which has been reviewed by the design engineering group. We er.amined the situation and decided that the intent would be met and our problems overcome if we would change our procedures so that the final inspection (both by Bechtel I
Quality Control and the Consumers Power overlay inspection) be done to the design drawing.
This change in approach was discussed with E L Jordan of your office on October 22, 1976 and was agreeable to him with the caveat that we met the requirements of Regu-latory Guide 1.55 (particularly Section C.2.a). That was agreeable to us and we have made the change effective November 1, 1976, s
I am enclosing as Attachment II a revision of Issue #3 which reflects these changes.
k
<.We 800818o 3 9
/
g NOV 151976 4- (
m
- I 3-1 Attachmrnt I Issue #3 From S H Howell Lett to J G Keppler, 6-18-76 (Hove 95-76)
/
3.
DESIGN ENGINEERING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FABRICATION DRAWINGS AUD CF1d:GES THERETO A.
ISSUE A review of those nonconformances which relate to missing rebar has dem-onstrated that there vere cases, where Bechtel nonconformance reports were issued, in which the fabrication drawings or field sketches were in error. Since these fabrication drawings and field sketches are used during the installation of rebar and have been used in the inspection of rebar placement, these errors in fabrication drawings may have contributed significantly to the deficient rebar placement.
B.
PLAN OF ACTION Consumers Power has evaluated the Bechtel position relative to review and approval of fabrication drawings. Bechtel vill change its system to require the Project Engineering group review and approve all fab-rication drawings which are used by field forces for the installation and inspection of rebar placements.
In addition, Bechtel vill complete the following studies and provide recommendations to Consu=ers Power:
(1) Determine if the Project Engineering group in the Ann Arbor office or a Project Engineering group at the Midland site should perform the review and approval of fabrication drawings.
(2) Prepare a i :t and description of the nature and use of each type of field sketch which relates to rebar placement and determine if Field Engineering or Project Engineering should be responsible for review and approval of each type of field sketch.
(3) Determine when the modified review and approval program can be implemented.
Since Eechtel Project Engineering vill review and approve the rebar fabrication drawings used for rebar placement, Eechtel Quality Centrol may use fabrication drawings for inspection of rebar placement. Also, Quality Control may only use those detailed field sketches which are reviewed and approved by Project Engineering'.
Consumers Power vill review the changed procedures and studies resulting from this plan.of action prior to imple=entation.
9 o
6/16/76 N
A 3-1 Attachment II 3.
DESIGN ENGINEERI"O REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FABRICATION DRAWINGS AND CHANGES THERETO A.
ISSUE A review of those nonconfonnances which relate to missing rebar has dem-onstrated that there were cases, where Bechtel nonconformance reports were issued, in which the fabrication drawings or field sketches were in error. Since these fabrication drawings and field sketches are used during the installation of rehar and have been used in the inspection of rebar placement, these errors in fabrication drawings may have contributed significantly to the deficient rebar placement.
B.
PLAN OF ACTION Consumers Power has evaluated the Bechtel position relative to review and approval of fabricatien drivings. Bechtel vill change its system to require that the Project Engineering group review and approve all fab-
~l rication drawings in compliance with section C.2.a of Regulatory Guide 1 55 In addition, Bechtel vill complete the following studies and provide recommendations to Consumers Pover:
(1) Determine if the Project Engineering group in the Ann Arbor office or a Project Engineering group at the Midland site should perform
~
the review and approval of fabrication drawings.
(2) Prepare a list and description of-the nature 'and use of each type of field sketch which relates to rebar placement and determine if Field Engineering or Project Engineering should be responsible for review and approval of each type of field sketch.
(3) Determine when the modified reviev and approval program can be implemented.
Bechtel Quality Control vill not use fabrication drawings as a basis for their inspections. They will use design drawings as a basis for their inspections.
1 Consumers Power vill review the changed procedures and studies resulting
)
from this plan of action prior to implementation.
l l
Revised i
ll/k/76 i
1 l
l l