ML19352A995
| ML19352A995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1981 |
| From: | Landsman R, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352A986 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-81-09, 50-329-81-9, 50-330-81-09, 50-330-81-9, NUDOCS 8106020525 | |
| Download: ML19352A995 (5) | |
See also: IR 05000329/1981009
Text
.
)
-
,
O
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSION
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND EhTORCDfENT
REGION III
Report No. 50-329/81-09; 50-330/81-09
Docket No. 50-329; 5'-330
License No. CPPR-81; CPPR-82
s
Licensee: Consumers Power Company
-
1945 West Parnall Road
Jackson, MI 49001
.
Facility Name: Midland Plant, Units I and 2
Zaspection At: Midland Site, Midland, MI
Inspection Conducted: March 25-27 and April 7-9, 1981
& f . N aan &
' w L --
hdo/7/
R. B. La
Inspector:
T W < %' 4.v>r,-4 _ Q
e/h iIl
g
i
C. C. Williams, Chief
Approved By:
Plant Systems Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on March 25-27 and April 7-9, 1981 (Report No. 50-329/81-09;
50-330/81-09)
Areas Inspected: Verification of QA Program for soil borings being conducted
as a result of a 10 CFR 50.54(f) request. The inspection involved a total of
50 inspector-hours on site by one 57C inspector.
Results: One item of noncompliance was identified in the area inspected
(10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, Criterien V - Yailure to fellcw procedures -
paragraph 4).
8106020 W
-
-
-
-
.
.
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Exit Meetina Attendees on March 27, 1981
Consumers Power Company
W. Bird, QA Manager, Midland Project
R. Hirzel, QA Engineer
.
N. Ramanujas, Staff Engineer
.
T. Cooke, Site Project Superintendent
D. Turnbull, Site QA Superintendent
Bechtel Power Company
J. Milanden, Manager of QA
M. Deitrich, Project QA Engineer
C. Parledes, QC Engineer
K. Kleinhardt, On-Site Geotechnical Engineer
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
D. Hendren, Project Manager
R. Ladd, Laboratory Manager, New Jersey
L. Campbell, OA Engineer
Corps of Engineers
R. Erickson, Staff Engineer
NRC
R. Cook, Resident Inspector
Exit Meeting Attendees on April 9, 1981
Consumers Power Company
W. Bird, QA Manager, Midland Project
R. Hirzel, QA Engineer
D. Sibbald, Projects
T. Cooke, Project Superintendent
Bechtel Power Company
M. Deitrich, Project QA Engineer
l
-2-
.
.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
L. Campbell, Project Manager
2.
Purpose of Inspection
The inspection was conducted to verify the quality assurance program for
the soil borings being conducted by Consumers Power Company. The borings
were performed in response to a request by the Corps of Engineers for
additional soil information in their review of the 50.54(f) answers.
.
3.
Review of Drilling Procedures
The inspector reviewed the Woooward-Clyde Quality Assurance Procedures
Manual dated March 23, 1981, for completeness, consistency with industry
standards and NRC guidelines d'tring the initial visit on March 25-27,
1981.
From the review the following concerns were identified and discussed
with the license (:
No procedures existed regarding shipment of the soil samples to the
a.
labo ra to ry.
b.
No procedures existed regarding various field testing instruments to
be used.
No procedures existed for anchoring the boring rig to the ground
c.
during hydraulic push of the soil samplers.
d.
No procedure existed covering the use of rusty Osterburg tubes.
No procedure existed for controlling the sealing wax temperature,
e.
f.
The procedure is not clear on how much bentonite will be used in
the grouting fluid.
g.
No procedure existed to certify the inspection personnel to ANSI
N45.2.6Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI</br></br>N45.2.6" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process..
h.
The procedure manual was signed and dated in the reviewed and
approved spaces, but no preparer's signature existed.
i.
No controlled document existed to specify boring locations, sample
depths and types.
j.
The hydraulic pressure gages on the horing rigs were not calibrated.
~
k.
No procedure existed for instructions on what to do if obstructions
were encountered during boring operations.
!
l
l
-3-
.
.
1.
No instructions existed to specify what precautions are being taken
to reduce the chance of hydraulically fracturing the dike.
No criteria was established to specify which soil samples would be
m.
chosen for testing.
Laboratory testing procedures have not been submitted or reviewed
n.
by CPCo.
No indoctrination and training of drillers to site procedure
o.
requirements was conducted.
.
The licensee agreed that no work would proceed until all items were
resolved. Subsequently the inspector visited the site on April 7-9,
1981, to verify corrective action of the previously mentioned concerns.
Pursuant to this task, the revised Woodward-Clyde Project Procedures
Manual dated March 30, 1981 was reviewed.
Soil sample shipment instructions are given in Geotechnical
a.
Procedure GP-8.
b.
Field testing instrument procedures are given in GP-7.
Boring rig anchoring procedures are given in GP-4.
'
c.
d.
The use of new Osterburg tubes is given in GP-5.
e.
Wax temperature is given in GP-5.
f.
Minimum percentage of bentonite is given in GP-11.
g.
Certification of inspection personnel is given in GP-1.
h.
The new manual is signed and dated.
!
i.
Boring location drawing C1145(Q), Rev. 7, dated March 27, 1981, was
reviewed.
,
J.
Pressure gages were calibrated.
k.
Boring obstruction instructions are given in GP-4.
1.
Thickness of the drilling mud is described in GP-4.
The sample selection committee has decided how test samples vill
m.
be chosen. As of this date, the Corps of Engineers has not
received the criteria for review.
CPCo is planning to audit the soil laboratory next week to review
n.
their Quality Assurance Program.
l
-4-
l
- -
__
_ _.
__ . . _ _ . . _ _
_ _ _ _
'
.
A training session for the drill operators was held on April 1,
o.
1981, and attended by all concerned parties.
These corrective actions satisfactorily resolved all previous NRC
concerns on drilling operations.
4.
Review of Contract Documents
The inspector reviewed the contract documents for the soil boring work
and identified that the approval of Woodward-Clyde as a principal
supplier of services was not complete prior to commencing soil boring
activities as required by CPCo QA Program Policy Number 7 and CPCo QA
Program Procedure Number 7-1.
This failure to accomplish activities
affecting quality in accordance with documented instructions and
procedures is considered an item of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50,
Appendix B, Criterion V as described in Appendix A of the report
transmittal letter.
(329/81-09-01; 330/81-09-01)
5.
Exit Interviews
The inspector met with licensee and contractor representatives at the
conclusion of the two inspections on March 27, 1981 and April 9, 1981
and summarized the inspection scope and findings. The licensee
acknowledged the inspection results.
,
-5-
l
t
_
-
--
. _ .