ML20091F409
Text
. _ _ _ - _.
ko fhkbE:
' Je r., --
e j,
')
e sm Me,q UNITED STATES s k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
S MEGioN m s
8 too noosavatr mono otra sLLvn. stumois sot:7 January 2, 1981 1
MEMORANDUM FOR:
N. C. Moseley, Director, Division of Program Development and Appraisal FROM:
James G. Keppler, Director
SUBJECT:
. SAL
- BOARD RESULTS FOR MIDLAND UNITS 1 & 2 FACILITY - NOVEFEER 1980 The Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Board (SALP) for the Midland 1 & 2 facility convened en November 3,1980. The Board concluded that, although significant quality assurance / quality control problems were identified during the appraical period, the Licensee's overall regulatory performance was acceptable. The Board recommended that aLL areas addressed in the appraisal continue to be inspected at the current frequency with three exceptions... an increased inspection frequency has been recownended in the categories of Quality Assurance, Management and Training; Substructures and Foundations; and Safety-Related Components (HVAC).
A Hanagement meeting was held at the Holiday Inn, Jackson, Michigan on November 24, 1980.
The results of the SALP evaluation, the recommended plan of action for Region III, and the report covering the meeting with the Licensee are enclosed for your use.
b,b vJames G. Keppler Director 4
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ encl:
4 J. S. Sniezek, IE:HQ D. Hocd, PM, NRR Regional Directors i
1 t
l
[. g g g49 840517 (RICE 84-96 PDR_
w-f a
m
--4~o
+
w
--m
-n m
-,o-~,M p---
g-n w
am, w-W'm-
--e
,- %we -+
h-s w--ws k
e-
ACTION PLAN Facility: Midland 1 & 2 Appraisal Date: November 24, 1980 1.
Escalated Enforcement Action Escalated enforcement action pending on safety related components a.
in HVAC system (subcontractor - Zack Company).
b.
Show cause Order was issued on soils related problems December 6,1979.
2.
Inspection Program Channes (include increased or decreased frequency)
Increased inspection - QA Management and Training a.
b.
Increased inspection - Substructure and Foundations c.
Increased inspection - Safety-Related Components (HVAC) 3.
Mananement Meetings Planned Management meetings were held on December 2,1980 and December 17, 1980 at RIII to review CPCo Midland QA reorganization activities. Additional meetings will be held to review -final status of the QA reorganization and adequacy of QA/GC staff.
1 4.
Status of Action From Previous Appraisals g
None 9
..-l i
b Yen W,, c,,
RapionalDirectorVV t
& *l
.i e
0-
'c.
UNili D 51 A1 ES i V.
fat:CL EAR llEGULATO!!Y cot.if.11SSION
]'**,',f E
RE GION lli 7D3 ROO:;[VELT ROAD o,s,.,;
- j cLtN E LLYN,lLLINOIS E0137 g
'DEC 18 Sh g0-3(
~
- C-3 4 Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 Consur:.crs Power C'.m!'any A1TN:
Mr. J.imes W. Cook
\\' ice Presi.h nt Midland Pr<, ject 1945 Vest Parnall Road 6
Jackson, hl 49201 i
Cent i c men:
1 j
This refers to the management meeting held on November 24, 1980, at the IIoliday Inn in Jackson, Michigan relative to our evaluation of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 attended by myself and others of my staff, and by yourself and other members of your staff.
i
{
The subjects discussed during the meeting are included in the Office of Inspection and Enf:,rcement Meeting Report and the Licensee Performance l
Evaluation which are enclosed with this letter.
It is our view that this meeting was effective in' communicating to you and your staff the results of our evaluation of your performance of j
licensed activities. Also, we hope it provided you with a better under-standing of our ir.spection program and objectives.
i
~
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Tederal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
b i
1
-,r i
i
. 1 i
I i
/
l Y
~W 1
i 4
~
z
Consumers Power Company No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have any questions concerning this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Director
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-35 and No. 50-330/80-36 cc w/ enc 1:
Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry 1
t s-[x pt RIIgI RIII, g RIII s/
r RIII RII,1 Rill 7
Cookf)P~
i Sutphin/sd Knop N
'p s Ke['Pl e,r Fio li i,
'l "
l 12/12/80 s
i T
--%%-e
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCEMENT REGION Ill 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 Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name: Midland Nuclear Power Station, Unit I and Unit 2 Meeting At: Holiday Inn, Jackson, MI Meeting Conducted: November 24, 1980 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 Mr tedd 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 I 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 di,s,qus e d v orate management. [TliTyerfo'rmanc)
- at,,N(d)JGitTdd'J.yag_gss.LO(th cori _te_
aWegyatief
~
i t
\\'
dl a
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Consumers Power Company S. H. Howell, Executive Vice President J. W. Cook, Vice President - Midland Project G. S. Keeley, Project Manager - Midland Project B. W. Marguglio, Director Environmental Service and Quality Assurance W. R.wBird, Manager - QA - Midland Project 2.
Areas Discussed a.
A summary of the sal.P program was presented, including the development, the basis for evaluation, and its purpose.
b.
The results of the NRC's evaluation of the licensee's performance were discussco.
(A copy of the evaluation is enclosed).
/
c.
Several topics related to enforcement, the inspection program, and regulatory planning were discussed with the licensee.
3.
Major Observations Withintheareasreviewedduringthisappraisalperiod,thenod-a.
,'compliinis hittery for issued inspection reports was'l'o# however, y
when the items of' noncompliance relative to the investigation of
- Za_cfactivitiesattheMidlandsiteareadded,thenumbersare,higjf.
The investigation report for the Zack activities is under review for escalated enforcement.
6 b.
Of the twelve,gsjirbuttToiTe}Elency. repor s of problems reported b
- the licensee in accordaiiU with 10 CFR 5.55(e), requirements, ere deemed to be;within~~the' iron'trolgthe_licensg.
The NRC acknowledged that tee'Tfeenice liid'undfrtake'n 'a"safor*Fif c.
Tr'Isntrattee'tfiajireEliceiisee control or activities howevir,y g one p.v. wers persas (SeTinsheft'f iiRepart's"NC50k29780-3b and'N C O W /8 -
d.
These significant problems were identified during the evaluation period. They were (1) iMVged@@- two meetings were held relative to these ecognizedthattheseproblenspriginated"in' thy e
e 1
(2), Qualif f catior. of_QQ,.inspec.lort,_for_ containment _ post tensioniny
,_worg-additionaltrainingandinstructionwasrequiredtobring the inspectors up to an acceptable level after identification of the problem by the NRC. The meetings in RIII were doc.unented in an inspection report.
(3) din $$IitTsity:CtOlyjCitathlomPany activitieg'- a lengthy in-vestigation was conducted at the site.,Bechtelgadjonsumejs
.Powet Company were aware 'or continuing problems.with qualit/
requirements _, but did_RM 6 0PZthe,. works The investigation reporf Ii~~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 taken actions to improve its QA/QC operation through reorganiza-tion and restructure, additional efforts were warranted.
4.
Overall Assessment
..Th'e_overall.per%EE3 of Consumers P.ower Company during the appraisal (period, as related to the Midland Unit 1 and Unit 2 plants (is~considere/
- A*b Sk 5.
Planned h7C Actions
I s$c re a s e d'i n spe e t l on' e f fo rTii~pIIn n eTWth'e~a ies s'~o fr~
~
., Managemen(. andJ,ra,ining({ol{gangg^
~ ~QU,illt;y~ Ass [darica[,
Enclosure:
SALP Evaluation 4
s d
)
i i
I r
0
l REGION:
III LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CONSTRUCTION)
Facility: Midland Units 1 and 2 L
Licenaea: Consumers Power Company 1
Unit Identification:
Docket No.
CP No./Date of Issuance Unit No.
50-329 CPPR-81, December 15, 1972 1
50-330 CPPR-82, December 15, 1972 2
Reactor Information:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 NSSS B&W B&W Mut 2h52 2h52 Appraisal Period: Ifuly,1..19Qto, June __30...T986,/
Appraisal Completion Date: November.3, 1980 Review Board Members:
J. G. Keppler, Director, RIII G. Fiore111, Chief, Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch, RIII
- 3. C. Knop, Chief Projects Section 1. RC&ES, RIII D. W. Hayes, Chief. Engineering Support Section 1, RC&ES, RIII E. J. Gallagher, Reactor Inspector j
K. R. Naidu, Reactor In.}ector i
R. J. Cook, Resident Inspector C. M. Erb, Reactor Inspector i
P. A. Barrett, Reactor inspector l
E. W. Lee, Reactor Inspector t
E-D. Ward, Reactor Inspector i
I. T. Yin, Reactor Inspector I
l
?
=
A.
Nurber and Nature of Honecepliance Iters Noncompliance Category Unit 1
- Unit 2
- Violations p_/,(10)
(1_0_/.
(10)
Infractions Deficiencies
_1,j Jl Areas of Noncompliance t' nit 1 (Points )
Unit 2 (Pcints) e Criterion II 10 10 Criterion III 10 10 Criterion IV 10 (10) 10 (10)
Criterion V 30 (10) 30 (10)
Criterion V
.lt 2
2 Criterien VI 10 10 Criterion IX 30 (10) 20 (10)
Criterion XIII 10 10 Criterion XVII (10) 2 (10)
Criterion VII (10)
(10)
Criterion VIII (10)
(10)
Criterion X (10)
(10)
Criterion XV (10)
(10)
Criterion XVI (10)
(10)
Criterien XVIII (10)
(10) 3 Items of noncompliance not yet issued with respect to the investigatien of Zack Co=pany activities at the !'idland site.
B.
Nu-ber and Nature of Deficiency Reports _
Twelve Construction Deficiency Reports (CDR's) were received by the regional office during the period of July 1,1979 through June 30, 1980. Tne nature of these reports covers a broad range of material and construction problems as listed below:
1.
Containment coolers, water supply problem 2.
Small break /RC Pump operation interaction 3.
States sliding links, defective clip (Electrical) k.
Tendon wire length problem
-}
, 3, Station batteries inadequate j
f** j Hilti drop-in anchors l
J7{
RPV anchor bolt failures 8.
Beration syster. inadequacies
}
..;9 Gould starters 1
t*10.]
Epoxy coating of primary shielding walls il.
Letdown coolers supports over-stressed g
Q1]2 NSSS components viring problem l
}
d d ndicates may have been licensee controllable 4
]
1 l
h
.a C.
Escalated Enforcement Actionn Civil Penalties None Orders
@cembSr kl979, an.or'defmodifying construction per.*ip No. CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 was issued by the NRC prohibiting certain constructiof
.factivitie'srelatingtopoilsprobie@
Inmediate Action Letters March 21, 1980 an immediate action letter was issued by the Pegion III office of Inspection and Enforcement concerning 'stop.vork by the' Zacg Corporation of all safety related heating and ventilating equipment installations.
D.
Management Conferences Held During Past Twelve Months 1.
Second Corporate Management Meeting - January 11,1980 in Coneu=ers Power Company corporate office, f>Qdif1'chionso'fQCInspectors1~ Post,Tensioningf-
.....,~.
~
2.
OctobE 2T;~T979 'in RIII office.f ~
.c
.w
,, w -.
3. Management' Probleas' covering"HVAC and Reacton Vessel. Ancho/
Bolts - May 2,1980 in nm wudy."~"'~~
% -~ % _.,.,,.
.-~~.-
E.
Justificatien of Evaluations of Functional Aress Categorized as Requiring an Increase in Inspection Frequency / Scope (See evaluation sheet)
~
1.
Quality Assurance, Management and Training vill receive an increase in inspection frequency to verify that the reorganized QA unit is performing adequately and that identified problems are resolved.
2.
Soils vill receive an increase in inspection frequency to assure that corrective actions associated with the Diesel Generator building and other areas are effective.
3.
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.
i i
i h
1 3
E I
f I
b n
4 Inspection Frertuency and/or scop,e FUNCTIONAL AREA Increase llo. Change Decrea 1.
Quality Assurance, Manageraent & Training /
X _f-
- 2. J ubstructure & Toundations j y;
3.
Concrete x
4.
Liner (Containnent a Others) x 5.
Safety-Related Structures y
6.
Piping & 14 angers (Reactor Coolant
& Others)
X 7.
hfets-Related Components (Vesself
-.. Interna w a nvm.;.j g,g 8.
Electrical Equipment x
9.
Electrical (Tray & Wire) z_
10.
Instru:.entatien X
=
11.
Fire Protection x
12.
Preservice Inspection x
i 13.
Reporting O..
% _ /_! __:_ c b.. _
(Designated Regional l'anagt j
3; g__..
Oate 4%
i.
i