ML20091H080
Text
.
m o
1 M'
0&
Q M6dfrend Project: P.O. Box 1963, Midland, MicNgan 48640 e Area Code 517 6314951 June 29, 1981 E
Mr. Cordell Williams, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
. i
Dear Mr. Williams:
I
^
Attached for your information is a copy of our letter to Mr. Dennis Saunders along with our complete evaluation of his allegations that we were not living up to the intent of the NRC Immediate Action Letter of May 22, 1981. We feel we have fully inves gated his concerns.
s D B Mi er i
Site Manager CC:
D. Saunders W R Bird, P-14-418A J W Cook, P-26-336B' R.I Cook, NRC-Site Attachment
~
l
- {
'N a
i v
==
6
,Mw" g
%\\
7'
-a, A.
.s s
m.
- s
% - q.e
' ~'
M,
'.p -
8 i
4
's T
i b
.5 l
^
~ '
w/
.e<o6c 0049 e40517 L
.{
~ :
RICE 84-96 _; [ RDR:
~ Mr
~2 g-a m
sd *
.,y
. w..~
D *L.:*e i.
.a n..9 f t aa,W u
i
\\
j EODIDEny Midland Project: P.o. Box 1963. M@and. Mictugan 48640 e Area Code 517 6314951
{
June 29, 1981 i
Mr. Dennis Saunders P.O. Box 2101 Midland, MI 48640
Dear Mr. Saunders:
On June 17, 1981 Mr. R. E. Whitaker of Consumers Power Company met with you at your offices in Auburn, Michigan to discuss your concerns with small pipe I
design at the Midland Nuclear Plant. Attachment #1 to this letter was prepared and given to you on June 19. Attachment #2 was returned to Consumars Power Company on June 26 with essentially the same information contained in Attachment
- 1. There were some minor changes in the descriptions and your job position.
Since the meeting at your offices, we have tried to investigate your concerns to the extent possible. We have talked to you numerous times on the phone asking you to be more specific with those concerns. You provided us with a specific reference on June 26, 1981 (FSK-M-1HBC-184-1).
During the period between learning of your general concerns and actually receiving your specific concerns, we have done the following:
i l
1.
We have gathered together all hanger drawing transmittal sheets issued i
since the May NRC Inspection. We have verified these sheets against the stress calculation status report or the calculation package and have found that all transmittals of new or revised hanger drawings were backed up by stress calculations which were Committed Preliminary Design Calcu-lations.
}
2.
We have reviewed the hanger drawing rad lines approved since the NRC Inspection. Of the 150 reviewed, we have found none that violated the l
specific written guidelines established for hanger red lines after the NRC Audit.
1 3.
With respect to your specific concern, we have verified that all activities done by Eechtel relative to that FSK had been performed in accordance with
. existing procedures.
)
l l
In listening to your concerns the past days, we believe that part of your concerns can be attributed to the fact that you were only at Midland a short time and did not have a full understanding of the procedures used at the site. Secondly, we I
l believe that, since you were unaware that the NRC did not stop small pipe hanger i
installacion at the site, this could have led you to feel that we were not I
l P
o e
Page 2 Mr. Dennis Saunders June 29, 1981 complying with the NRC's Immediate Action Letter. This was, in fact, not the Case.
Attachment #3 iis a press clipping that I believe best explains the thoughts I discussed with you on the phone.
6 i
We thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. It is very important that employees identify anyproblems that they feel are not being addressed. We believe we have thoroughly investigated your concerns. To the best of our know-ledge, and because of the hours we spent reviewing your concerns, we are confident that all small pipe and supports design and redesign are being performed in accordance with the intent of the NRC Immediate Action Letter and in accordance with present Bechtel Power procedures and specifications.
We are also forwarding your concerns and the results of our. investigation to the NRC since our compliance with their May 22, 1981 Immediate Action Letter was in question.
Please find Attachment #4 which is the official close-out of the allegation eval-uation.
/t f
b D B Mil r j
Site Manager CC: JWCook, P-26-336B WRBird, P-14-418A i
i b
i I
l l
(
1 a. ' 1;: _ d ',
k[
M 9
6 g
ATTACHMENT #1 1
9 9
e i
i I
e e
e I
1 t
i I
i 4
e 4
mae 4
I i
h e
e e
S b
I i.
1 U
4
' ~
-.--_.+.1...
,]
/
Page 1 of Je/
PROJECTS. ENGINEECING ALLEGATION EVALUATION
- - = = = -
cO= = =
POW 2f ouALITY ASSURANCE DEPARThiEN
[
1.
Allegation Serial No 7
2.
Who received the anegation? #. Corcer-3 When was the anesatien received?
.St.
M c. 13,19 &/
k.
Hov was the anegation received?
ie, hon), face-to-face, by letter?
/ f, / f f/
l 6.
Na=e of the anesator:
de>iars 34-c/e
_5 7
Who is allegator's e=ployer and what is the allegator's position?
M m. /,
mic,v e J Lv A P En in. -r~
8.
Vhere can the allegator be contacted 00 $.'x AlOi
/Ao d l*~ ]
4 % 40 9
When vill the anegator make next contaet?
~kl Ar l
10.
Can the allegator's name be used in investigation of allegation?
ve_s j
(If Yes, vill allegator provide signature to this page Yd
)
l 11.
Will the allegator per=it his -name to be used in reports to the NRC?
v e.S 12.
Will the allegator provide details of his anegation to the. N3C? vm k u.,
(oC.2. - CCC f o$rce y%, jf=pec.c_s STANDARD INFORMATION CEECKLIST k2N/P&
'"Se*(tt-m t.v1 % N -
Ce=uleted By 1.
Notify the anegator of the procedure for invest ing allegations. N 2.
Explain that if the allegation'is validated, as NCR vill be issued and the allegator vill be provided with a copy of the NCR, subsequenth~6 Mbb' docu=entation and the closed NCR.
3 Explain that if required by 10CFR50.55(e) or 10CTR Pr.rt 21, the nonconfornance vin be reported to the NRC.
NM h.
Explain that if investigation does not substantiate the allegation of if the allegation is not safety related, it vill be dropped by e
((d QA at that tine and he vill be so notified.
5 Explain that the anegator vill be provided a copy of the final
[b report.
Signature of the anegator indicating (i) permission to release his name, in internal investigation of the allegation (ii) permission to release his name in reports to NRC if investigation determines that condition is reportable (iii) that Items 1, 2, 3, t.
I h, 5 in the checklist above haw been explained and understood.
Dated:
Signature:
DISTRIBUTION LIMITED TO THOSE PERSONS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH h.l.2 0'
q -
e
PAoJECTS. ENGINEE A!NG !
ALLEGAT10N EVALUATION l
== co=uc'=~ -
car====
l PO W ouALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMI l
Ctmp3!!y 1.
Allegation Serial No -
3 l
QA66-0 i
i I
i 2.
Does alleged condition affect a Q-listed system /co=ponent/ item?
Yes
>(
No 3
If "No" to 2, above, forward to Midland Project Management Organir.ation
~
i
)
or GPMD, as applicable, for further investigation.
l h.
Does alleged condition actually exist?
Yes No
)
What was found?
4 If "No" to h, above, terminate investigation, enter NA in Blocks 5 through 12, ' sign 5
Bloeis'13 and ik and distribute.
~
~
f 6.
Has-the. alleged condition previously been documented on a nonconfomance-type 4
report 2 I'
Yes No N 7
If "Yes" to 6, above, enter nonconformance-type report identification.:
8.
If "Yes" to 6, above, does nonconformabce-type report adequately describe
' alleged condition, is corrective. action adequategresolve the alleged conditiong and is corrective action. progressing ~ adequately?
Yes No' '
4 9
Describe
- any actions taken to resolve inadequacies found in 8, above:
I
]
s 10.
If "Yes" to 8, above, enter NA in Blocks 11 and 12, sign Blocks 13 and ik and -
dist.r.i.b.ute.
11 Does the alleged condition constitute a nonconforming condition which has not
-been previously documented?
Yes No 12.
If "Yes" to 11, above, prepare an NCR and enter the NCR No.
NCR No i
~
13 Evaluation Completed By/Date:
lai. Evaluation Reviewed by Manager, MPQA or Section Head, QAE&I/Date:
e 6[M -
rune a us p -y P ACJECTS. EWGINEE A:EG fTlp(j AND CONSTRUCTION-CORSUmETI
{
n i I v IM cWALITY ASSURANCE DEPA.RTMEff POWET C:mpany
.QA67-0 1.
Allegation Serial No 3
l s
Specifies of Allerations 2.
Wat is the alleged condition?
8e c.
a.c.[ e, c[
iI a
pa,e 3
What is the location of alleged condition? No s ee c./Oc e/
/
/oca dd b e c. us e. -
.'s is de.s oy n
., 0. s //en.
a h.
What syste=s, co=ponents, ite=s are affected by alleged condition? no d k a o.s.9 a $~
$ts
$r'*- e 5
For hov long has the alleged condition existed?
8/, c e Me
/V'M C in spec. bion euf,,sb sde d
$1ay '2.2 l') 8l 6.
What require =ent was violated by alleged condition?
MAC
.T-m e.c/t /e k e.$len
- 1. eEe e elade.J
- 1 22, / 9 P/
y I
7 To who= bas this condition been previously reported?
M ct /de-o/
av e.c m a ele de d isc o.r_T o"l a.J s'd$
F. Youmo
,[
S ux lcc a r-f Corear-e 1% e esm e d e $
Jun e F-JL 19 ?)
8.
When.vas the condition previously reported?
See
//c -
7 h
j I
}
9 What etions have been taken to resolve alleged condition and by whom have the actic.s beso tnken? Yo'$la-~] fre}s-e- ' Ausb?y 8.73 ur =-se e s's r-co fe.a r*3 ENe G.<lkm e 1av. Qeu;~ %, ~ < *H. ls
.J da, efu./ real/: eJ a/~ r aw.s
.la r -il,e moy 20 $ 3~,n e It.tst/ fs-e oe erad da ele f. e :,, e 54.z'
~
a*aJ red lined or ye vased al f htme d ~d he a.a s t-
- s.s r
10.
Is alleged condition covered Yety % nsting nonconformance report? wa /J, I
Me 4
11.
Prepared By/Date:
rez cJ.Ri:A-a/w/n 2
p a p e..+' =
.Allm.d en dsdin e
$c$
1.
T % b
~t % L.n f? Ja./
a., J
,,,, 6 a o JL e,-s h al
-rpro r-e.d lin s af k a y-d..s t 3.s
.S <
., y.s h -s 24 L&....
~
a kd
.., Iy preI.'~i.,..y c.
/.a.s /a J s' ems cad 4ee f4...
i eaies/~di..,s. a.s
. co n,ilha.d. p eeIt,ina ry de.s 13, ce y a ice d by.
iLe ve <6 /. ins}euedaam3 fr-8 el1.
Re sjels.~ f. E 3 s'ne e et9
-e..
e p
4 2.
T M l. Pra.wim da de.[.e e vised... ham c. -.. dawim s
6
,,4n l
li _, ~
j.._ -...-.. A e
... es e e e.
p ->s i61., u.'s,s o e;<l to.<e I.y.o.n y. p. -e.n dc r y,._
7 ea Ia f i..,.s-.,- -. f..
ea,,,
,,l+ a d f
..- e..
.c.. l.c.0 / a i1.ns:_ do._ sypa<}__._. B e sysie m
- de s, y,.
.*6"-e
.e.
i l
I
((
[ dM' ' 6 //P/9/ e-
' ~ ~
~.
- -~~., ~~'
t I
i l
+
l D
9 6
4 4
g
.O e
4
?
g
'I
- - - --+.,
.s.-..
-e 4
}
a i
ATTACHMENT #2 f
t O
a b
v f
S T
I s
e euMuS* se e
, o e
e
?
0
(,
5 b
I 4
e--
e s
j d,'
=
- e A k' m h:'
. - ;--w,. m o
-se-nc a snn
,ne-n-
=c-*
Page 1 cf JY FROJEc15. ENGmEEDNG
=
ALLEGATION EVALUATION
===uc =~ -
Power c'UALITY ASSURANCE CEPARTMENT a
1.
Allegation Serial No 2.
Who received the allegation? Pat Corcoran. Tom Supp1**_
n, a
.T i m n o i n a r.h 3.
When was the allegation received?
May 26, 1981 L.
How vas the allegation received?
ie, telephone,(face-to-face) by letter?
5 When was the allegation reported to CP Co - QA?
Monday June 15. 1981 6.
Na=e of the allegator:
D. P.
Saunders 7
Who is allegator's e=ployer and what is the. allegator's position? Con =ul t an t DPS Enterprises 8.
Where can the allegator be contacted? P. O.
Box 2101 Midinnd. vi e.h f aan AA640 9
When vill the allegator make next contact? June 25. 1981 10.
Can the allegator's na=e be used in investigation of allegation?
l (If Yes, will allegator provide signature to this page
)
11.
Will the allegator per=it his name to be used in reports to the NBC7 12.
Will the allegator provide details of his allegation to the NRC7Tes, if~ necessary".'
~
STANDARD INFCRMATION CHECKLIST Completed By 1.
Notify the allegator of the procedure for investigating allegatf ons.
2.
Explain that if the allegation is validated, an NCR will be issued and the allegator vill be provided with a copy of the NCR, subsequent docu=entation and the closed NCR.
3.
Explain that if required by 10CFR50.55(e) or 10CFR Part 21, the nonconfor=ance vill be reported to the NBC.
h.
Explain that if investigation does not substantiate the allegation of if the allegation is not safety related, it vill be dropped by QA at that time and he vill be so notified.
5 Explain that the allegator vill be provided a copy of the final report.
Signature of the allegator indicating (i) permission to release his name in internal investigation of the allegation (ii) permission to release his name in reports to NRC if investigation determines that condition is reportable (iii) that Items 1, 2, 3, L, 5 in the checklist above have been explained and understood.
u fyf o,OS,1 % /
Signature:
em%
Dated:
DISTRIBUTION LIMITED TO THOSE PERSONS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH L.1.2
~
Yare / c1 3 PROJECTS. Et#GtNEE AING c===
ALLEGATION EVALUATION
-m =~stauc= -
Power QUAUTY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT,
company
)
QA66-0 1.
Allegation Serial No j
s 2.
Does alleged condition affect a Q-listed system / component / item?
Yes 1 No I
=
3 If "No" to 2, above, forward to Midland Project Management Organization i
or GPMD, as applicable, for further investigation.
h.
Does alleged condition actually exist?
Yes I No What was found?
5 If "No" to k, above, ter=inate investigation, enter NA in Blocks 5 through 12, sign Blocks 13 and 1h and distribute.
6.
Has the alleged condition previously been documented on a nonconformance-type '
report?
f Yes No I
i l
If "Yes" to 6, above, enter nonconformance-type report identification:
T.
8.
If "Yes" to 6, above, does conconformance-type report adequately describe alleged conditien, is corrective action adequate 3, resolve the alleged condition, and is corrective action progressing adequately?
Yes No 9
Describe any actions taken to resolve inadequacies found in 8, above-10.
If "Yes" to 8, above, enter NA in Blocks 11 and 12, sign Blocks 13 and ik and distribute.
j 11.
Does the alleged condition constitute a nonconforming condition which has not been previously documented?
Yes
. No 12.
If "Yes" to 11, above, prepare an NCR and enter the NCR No.
NCR No 13 Evaluation completed By/Date:
14.
Evaluation Revieven by Manacer, MPQA or Section Head, QAE&I/ rate:
.m a
,,,~
y--
w g
e Page 3 of 3 pao.'ECTS. ENGINEE4:NG Po'"'er "
ALLEGAT10Fi LVn'LUn^m" c "
cA "
^"" "'" " "-
w i IVW ouAuTY AssVAANCE DEPARTMENT Company QA67-0 1.
Allegation Serial No s
Specifics of Allecations 2.
What is the alleged condition? See attached nage a I
i
~
f 3.
What is the location of alleged condition? No specifie p1an+ 1 n, e + 4 n.,
because it is a design question.
H h.
What systems, co=ponents, items are affected by alleged condition? vn+
r., n 1
at-this time.
i 5
For how long has the alleged condition existed? qinn, the van 4 nan =>+#=
{
which ended May 22, 1981...
"~~~~~~
6.
What.requirenent was violated by alleged condition? van T
..a 4 e+.
g,, t y,,
Ietter dated May 22, 1981.
i 7
To whom-has this condition.been previously reported? An attemnt was--made to -
ainous, it~with P.
co rco ran.
T. - Surplee, and J. Reinsch on-May 26, 1981.
t 8.
When.was the condition previously -reported? -Sea--Item 7 9
What actions have been taken to resolve alleged condition and by whom have the actions been takent Midinnd Prr jeet Gunlity Assurance is reviewine the Redlin i
T)rawing. Transmittals sud the actual redline drawings for the May 20 v-tn Tme 18. 1o81 time period to detarmine what was redlined or revised Ys#kIftgekD$d$tl68 itMerMSy dn VAfist%d2bE$onformance report?
i 10.
Prepared By/Date:
1
\\
l
=
l l
DP SA UNDERS ENTERPRISES 1
P. O. Box 2101 Midland, Michigan 48640 Phone:
(517) 662-6669
.1 l
i t
I i
Alleged condition l
1 1
1.
That Pravin Patel and maybe others had approved l
redlines of hanger drawings for systems; that had only preliminary calculations rather than t
committed preliminary design calculations as j
l required by the verbal instructions from Bechtel Resident Engineering.
(
2.
That Pravin Patel revised hanger drawings and they were possibly issued having only preliminary j
calculations, not committed preliminary design l
calculations to support the system design.
i
(
S l
l
}
1 fa l
l_ z_. _ _ _ h _ _ _ __ _ _.____ _ '
Form 47 27s ATTAC10fENT #3 CLIPPING SHEET ~
_ m.,S CORSumBIS Midland Daily News CLIPPED FROM PAPuffer 8
CUPPED BY g
Midland w
5-28-81 CITY DATE OF ISSUF l
3
~
g e P i p"e"-* *"*workm,*,,g.%
1 **
1=
.g q
, stood str e a w :
i
'a
' Cook said "I guess we didn't.say,
.. ' , i.'?
' Completely stop what you s're doing.'
i gt =,P.,2!g i',
- stop work.' I guess it-(the.immediate
> -r
.If Consumers is sensitive to the words
~. t q???.'.; yl.:
action, letter) didn't really say stop work.
P.O 5iCQ
. the audits were to performed was He said his Inte retation fofe when *.
By PAUL RAU
.5.< L'r
" based on words we had during' the Daily Sews stan writer week'* with Consumers. '
~-
Installation N backloseed sman-bore Cook' said it will be satisf5ctory.if';
pipe can cont rue st the-)didland nui
- the backlogged ddsign packages.; art 4 3
f clear plant wutnut nrior mudits nr.de-
- ultimately audited.*.* but'said th'at
_sig n criteria. 1,ffic2als et=rifM
. procedure.could. lead.to problems'lf the j
- ~ ' -
P. design calculations are.later-fpry '
ound confirmed Tuesday._
cine paany news said Saturday.'
. be incorrect. '
..gg.
based on -an interview -with.in.planti f '"If they haye to'go back und. tear out !
- Nuclear Regulatory Comm.assion,in -
j the work..that does not mak'e sense to*5 spector Ronald T.' Cook, that such work r.me." Cook 'salit. '. f i 4 *.-h" err,Qc'-
~ had been halted by the NRC pending After the NRC identified theIcalcud M Er:2 N'"C -
. NW ~F ' ' O
.lation problem, lant isite rnanager.
the audits.
The NRC's Region 3 Office of Ins'pec -
Donald Miller sal '70 stre'ss' engineers.
tion and Enforcement. at Glen Ellyn,,
- worked over the holiday. weekend,to Ill.;-said Cook may have "misunder--
.'oheck design packages for errors e stood" the intent of an immediate ac.
"w faund nothina technigs!!y' wrong.
tion letter issued,to., Consumers-Power -
.with any of the piping we've put in or Co. Friday after. a -week.long taspec-its tiesign.'t Miller said....
c.~ e i
Miller and Saar1~said the exit inter ~
J-J -
, tion.
-a 4.
The inspectido found that calculation view with the NRC which completedh
~ -
summaries were msssing from some
- last week's in'spection was " extremely;
m-- +. _.,ma -iii pipe design packages. The NRC letter.
upbeat and 5ery positive.". f.if asked Consumers to-stop issuina new -
Miller said Region 3 DirectorJames
design packages.wmen are mecmoleo
) Keppler told the utility he was reserv-:
ano to "periocicatry audst -pacmares.
Jing final comment on the Midland in.'.
alreaav processes to maneaum the,-,
spection until later,,but Jhat Keppler correct e= le"'="-
=*M "**d-P ihad said." Consumers 'sho' ld:be weryl But the letter did not recuireD'on-satisfied to have'this' team' tome in!
u '
sumers to audit h=rkla==ad d**'*a packsses first before * '" *" "i"*.
i bere und give.the..plantj'.a% passing
., j a,r,6 Jij" g * ' f. *
-l M.;.,
q grade."
J could be installed, as C-ar had ia**e p'retea according to NRC's-R*='an 1 si7 Consumers. ' ".K... ~
. The. audit does stat-have.to.be per9 formed before the backl work can1ie ins'talled. It has-to be ormed-befomh
" new work car. be released (for'instaHa-
~ tion)." huclear plant spokesman.Nor.~
e?
I I
man Saari said.
p j
He said the plant received numeroes,,
calls over the Memorial Day weekend from some of the project's 700 pipefit-tert who had read Saturday's article.
. g.,...
and wondered if there wou%be work,'
M sy for them Tuesday.
j
.. " Work.c'an.continoe on previously is.C 4
sued fabrication drawings." said Jan;.
.gf.. ; ;
Strasma. NRC Region 3 spok.esman.
He said Cook was. not directly in-T.
..2:5.A volved in all aspects of last week s in.
~
- - C spectiont "Perhaps he misunder -
5 - 1..- :. l e
{
5Ib5b i
~.: --- $
3'
.n2tp
G
- ATTACIOiENT #4 8
l I
I.
i e
1 l
t i
i I
u M= 9 f
4 1
4 i.
O i
4 1
I
~
r
o -
Page 1 of gy PR2JEcTS ENGINEERING ALLEGATION-EVALUATION
>~o c==rauct = -
cas==
Powtf cuAuTY ASSURANCE DEPARTLiENT
[0 1.
Allegation Serial 'No T
p 2.
Who received the anegation? 8. Co r-cer 3.
When was the anegation received?
.5'.t.
J.~e.13,les/
i h.
Hov vas the allegation received?
ie, ho M face-to-face, by letter?
l
- 5. " When was the allegation reported to CP Co - QA7 fff m. Le
/ f, / f?/
l 6.
Name of the allegator:
denari 84-ce-5 l
l T.
Who is allegator's employer and what is the allegator's position?
M m. /-
wd ved hv A h Em ineasin 8.
Where can the allegator be contactedI [C M.2/ O I
/M, d [~ 2
- EO 9
When vin the anegator =ake next centact?
l 10.
Can the anegator's na=e be used in investigation of allegation?
ves (If Yes, vill allegator provide signature to this page
)
i
+
}
-11.
Will the allegater per=it his na=e to be used in reports to the NRC?
ye.S 12.
Will the allegater provide details of his allegation to the NRC7_pa k,.,u,
,,..J 66.2.. ggg f re e STANDARD IliFCRMATION CEECKLIST Co=eleted Ev 1.
Notify the allegator of the pro edure for investigating allegations. N 4
2.
Explain that if the allegation is validated, an NCR vill be issued I
and the allegator vill be provided with a copy of the NCR, subsequent b docu=entation and the closed NCR.
3 Explain that if required by 10CFR50 55(e) or 10CFR Part 21, the nonconfor=ance vill be reported to the NBC.
NdM k.
Explain that if investigation does not substantiate the allegation of if the anegation is not safety related, it vin be dropped by QA at that time c.nd be vin be so notified.
[
5 Explain that the allegator vill be provided a copy of the final b
report.
Signature of the allegator indicating (i) per=ission to release his name in internal investigation of the illegation (ii) permission to release his name in reports to NBC if investigation deter =ines that condition is reportable (iii) that Items 1, 2, 3 -
h, 5 in the checklist above have been explained and understood.
See A l$s<$s,~,s $ $ 2.
E* Y
~
Dated:
Signature: sty edore
=$
Denets f $.a.ders i
DISTRI3UTICN LIMITED TO THOSE PERSONS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH k.1.2
PROJECTS. ENGINEERING I~
ALLEGATION. EVALUATION QUAllTY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT,;
coas==
= =~s-c'ioa -
Powtf Company 3
1.
Allegation Serial No -
QA66-0 8
e 1
2.
Does alleged condition affect a Q-listed syste:n/ component /iten?
Yes X No n#
3 If "No" to 2, above, forward to Midland Project Management organization 1
I
~~ r GPMD, as applicable, for further investigation.
o
!i h.
Does alleged condition actually exist?
Yes No X
l t
What was found?
f 5
If "No" to h, above, terminate investigation, enter NA in Blocks 5 through 12, sign Blocks 13 and ik and distribute.
6.
Has the alleged condition previously been documented on a nonconformance-type f
report?
Yes No N s
7 If "Yes" to 6, above, enter nonconformance-type report identification:
NA 8.
If "Yes" to 6, above, does nonconformance-type report adequately describe alleged condition, is corrective action adequate M. resolve the alleged condition, and is corrective action progressing adequately?
- //A Yes
- No t
9 Describe any actions taken to resolve inadequacies found in 8, above:
Nb i
\\
10.
If "Yes" to 8, above, enter NA in Blocks 11 and 12, sign Blocks 13 and ik and' distribute.
- //A 11.
Does the alleged condition constitute a nonconforming condition which has not
//d been previously docusented?
Yes No 12.
If "Yes" to 11, above, prepare an NCR and enter the NCR No.
l~
NCR No NA 13 Evaluation Completed By/Date:
14.
Evaluation Reviewed by Manager, MPQA or Section Head, QAE&I/Date:
WW Cbt4/9I p & i d cf.n/r/
e
" EI$#""=
LLEGAT10N EVALUATION
""5= =
CUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT '
.POWtf Cm;any QA67-0 1.
Allegation Serial No 3
Scecifies of Allegations 2.
What is the alleged condition?
8e c.
a bac [ c c[
qqe Y
.6
+
3 What is the location of alleged condition? Me S ec c/bc a /e /'
/o *
- IsW Y cle.siRn
=p a e s b/cm,
b e c a u.s e.
oY
[
' k. N' hat syste=s, cecponents, items are affected by alleged condition? no d k a o.s.s l
J tL <~.,
&;-e j
l 5
For hev long has the alleged condition existed?
8/mee dde
/V/ C im oeedte wl,, el ude el -Mar 2 2 l98-l r
- 6..EnakTequirement was violated by alleged condition?
M4C T-m e. el/ /e ke. blev, l-e dbe e dalc. af
$1w 32, I 9 P/
7.
':;o-whom h'as-this-condition-been previously -reported?--- An--- a z'de o/
-,w
--m a de-de---d i-se ew r-- -l} wlE F. - Yc' o n e-
.T S vios /ce---
- e --~ -
l.
/ Co,- e e r - - H,a 1.;>aed
-l' - & e --
1.- n H
- - ~
8.
"h:2 r:a-the-eendition-previously reported? - - -Ser
//c
-- 7 9
What actions have been taken to resolve alleged condition and by 'whom have the actions heen 1;aken? P1&le.--)
fre,*ss. ' Gusb Av A.73 ar~c e W
r~e vie.s r%
d$e G.Jk-e L,.r.
C. s t, n s -s W. I.r
.J da. fo./
all.%ed eh. N im.s
\\
av So is Tune 18.14t/ Jome seriod de de /. e
- m e Jb s t' der Ue K
ad M it w=J waf led.
ndition c seat.Lovered Yvt'Ut Yx'at brrneisting nonconforma.ance report?
Is alleged co.f or
~ =~t re d line re v 10.
y h/c
'l 11.
Prepared By/Date:
^
128cJ.91-A-c/t e/tt
$\\
pay e. 'l.f l Wilm e.d c~ d 'd w t
- j. _ rk. b t ca. vin A.Ja./.....
0 d
,,,.y 6 a od4acs h. al a e p ra a c d
.--..ce.dIc.,a.s..T k a 3.
d e..st 3.,
S. <
, y.s h
.s 24af l&
ha d.
. I.. p r e I.' -., i-. 7 e.1e s /. J ams c dl, a.
- 24. -
Y co n, illa.d. p ce /i-, t-a ey 4a., ;3,,
e ai es/~ di..,.s.. a.s....
cc.g o :<e d_ by__ f4 e_.xe < 6 /.- i.n.s } eve}iem.s. :_..fs.an,. 8 el}e /
Re.si.als.~ f_. E 3 n e e ri+3 l
2.
T.ha1__f<< &..Aade/..ee vised h-ge <. d ca.si m s a.~ d.
&e w e < e... p
- ss i6 l._.i s3 o ed _h a a 4,3_o., /.._ p ne Ir__,t~. ;
y y
..ca/a fio n.s, m E. ea m, iB d
p <e Ii-t,,. y de,s.c3,,.
c
- c.. ). e o f a d i a c s _ d o-- ssyp e < d _.. 24 e sy.sde -,.. d c. ray r,... _
=
I
_.3_
l.. (J G
91 -
W.
'= -
.i.
l
=.=.:_.....
=..
l
\\
_.... y a
_.,i
._..._....l
.S k
' * *li' f,*i'{],{,y 1 '(',* '
- 77g J
- ' / j gasc
.g g
o
\\
'o UNITED STATES I
! \\*.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
..[1
- 4 hg.,., /' /, f c
REGION lil aL o,"f'c,ljh,%j' 799 HOoSEVELT ROAD y
g br
,y' GLEN ELLYN, ILLINolS 60137
+....
May 22, 1981 t No. 50 M Docket No. 50 330-Consumers Power Company a
ATTN:
Mr. James W. Cook 4
Vice President n
Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
Based on Discussions between Mr. J. W. Cook and Mr. R. C. Knop on May 22, 1981, we understand that you will not issue fabrication and construction drawings j
for the installation of the safety related small bore pipe and piping suspen-sion systems until steps one through four belcw have been completed and audited.
1.
MED 4.37-0 will be revised to include requirements that the specific revision number of the specification or procedure, of which the calcu-lation was based on, is identified in the calculation package.
(Note:
This action was completed on 5/21/81 by issuance of Revision 16 of MED 4.37-0).
2.
Conduct document control review to ensure that all the applicable up-to-date specifications and procedures are in place in the work locations.
i 3.
Conduct training on MED 4.37-1 (Design Calculations), the importance of following QA procedures in general,. and use of sp'ecification M 343 j
for all personnel within the small bore piping design group perform-ing stress analysis for safety-related piping.
if 4.
Establish plans and schedules to review all small bore piping isomet-rics that have been issued without supporting calculations properly packaged to the revised MED 4.37-1 requirements.
5.
Perform the reviews identified in Item 4, above, to accomplish the
.l following:
a.
Bring the calculation documentation up to the level required by MED 4.37-0, Rev. 16.
b.
Ensure that the calculations are technically adequate.
In conducting those reviews, the highest priority shall be given to E.0W CO?Y
~
!I gwTocTKONR grp ow.m 7 l
Consumers Power Comp -- "sy 22, 1981
._ y.;.y.7 7 ;.g.g YELLOW COPY r
piping isometrii' drawings issued for construction but not yet installed, in the order of install Ation.
6.
During the conduct of the reviews, identified in items 4 and 5, you will document all discrepancies and will notify cognizant NRC Region III staff of any significant discrepancy.
(An example of a significant discrepancy is if the reviewed calculation indi-cates that stresses in the pipe that is depicted on an isometric drawing issued for construction exceed code allowables).
I 7.
Audits will be conducted at completion of steps one through four, and periodically during steps five and six, to ensure adequacy of the program.
Please inform us immediately if your understanding of these items is different from that stated above.
Sincerely, G G&.- ;;.
j/ James G. Keppler Director cc: Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission i
Myron M. Cherry, Chicago I
i I
t l
. M a j (' r; Of r?1
.l. W.*
i RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII RIII Q #
p.i L
au&p,e k
streeter/np Hayes [
Kno Heishman Davis Kepp er i
t*
9&'
.,_ !,e. c,.,I,i C.i s i5
-i --
.j.
hk&
bb ie tso UNITED STATES
/
'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[
't
'^
irt ;$
REGION til E
5'\\
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD 0,,
GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 60137 y
s, s
October 28, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS OF DENNIS SAUNDERS The attached memorandum dated October 20, 1983, documents the concerns of i
Dennis Saunders recently made to a member of my staff. This memorandum is I
forwarded for your review and any actions you deem to be necessary, as his concerns appear to be within the area under your purview.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact J. J. Harrison (388-5635) of my staff.
!'i Sf a.M 2Mk R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cassa
Attachment:
As stated i
s i
l t
t i
'h h
u7.- - -
t o..T i ;' 'i NUCLE AR REGULATOM COf.if.11!. A
'51 REClON lit
$g 1 7ss noostvtot noAo
>- :- y /, [f CLEN ELLYN. ILUNOls 605 37
- s,.....J l
0C1 2 0 C'T MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Files i
I' FROM:
J. J. Harrison, Chief, Section 2 Hidland i
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH DENNIS SAUNDERS g
On October 17, 1983, I was requested by the Regional Administrator to contact Mr. Saunders, as Mr. Keppler was involved in a conference.
At approximately 4:00 p.m. (CDT), I telephoned Mr. Saunders. Mr. F. Hawkins of Region III staff was present to assist in the call.
Mr. Saunders (telephone number (301) 565-3955) made the following statements concerning the Midland Nuclear Plant:
"Tell Jim he is the one who must sign-off on the plant."
"In my opinion it's a serious problem...the underpinning of the Diesel Generator Build-ing."
I corrected this statement. Underpinning is related to the Auxiliary Building and Service Water Pump Structure.
He further stated that, ".
. loads during an earthquake over the nearby salt cavities were analyzed incorrectly as only a static load."
"Absolu.ely ridiculous to continue work on the Midland Plant, do not have a fix at one million dollars / day while we don't know what the earthquake loads are because of the salt cavities."
He further suggested, "You should stop work until you find out what the loads are during earthquakes with salt cavities below it."
Mr. Saunders stated he had performed some rough calculations showing the significance of his projected loads.
l Mr. Saunders inquired as to the involvement of Jim Foster at Midland.
I told him Mr. Foster currently was not associated with the Midland Project. He stated
" Foster not involved was good."
He asked if I was an engineer, and if I knew the difference between dynamic and static loads.
He also wanted to know if I knew about the $25,000 fine and five years in jail i
and that I had better think about them and be careful. He further stated the NRC had better think about Article 203, and tell Jim, "...not to expect any help from Denton."
1 9
_L-
s 4
s b
Region III File 2
I told Mr. Saunders his concerns would be relaye( to Mr. Keppler.
GugfAal.ugrid J.;J. Harrison,Chiefg f. Q. Ndwm Section 2, Midland cc:
J. G. Keppler R. F. Warnick G. W. Roy t
I I
r RII Harrison /Is 2
I 10/20/83 1
8 f
n f 4