ML20094G441

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Testimony of Jg Keppler Re QA Problems at Facility & Corrective Actions Taken
ML20094G441
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 07/18/1984
From: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19258A087 List: ... further results
References
CON-BX15-012A, CON-BX15-12A, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408130315
Download: ML20094G441 (25)
v • d • e


Text

.

.[ M - 9 /gdf.

N'*

[..',

di O"

&};g,p UNITED STATES OF A'! ERICA

/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

.In the Matter of

)

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. 50-329 OM & OL

)

50-330 OM & OL

. Midland Plant, Units l' and 2)

)

(

TESTIMONY OF JAMES G. KEPPLER WITH RESPECT TO QUALITY ASSURANCE

.Q.1 Please state your name and positicsn.

'(

A.1 My name is James G. Keppler.

I am the Regional Administrator of the t

NRC's Region III office. My professional qualifications have been previously submitted in this proceeding.

Q.2 Please state the purpose of your testimony.

A.2 In my testimony to the Board in July, 1981, I testified on the more

.significant quality assurance problems that had been experienced' in connec-f tion with the Midland project and the corrective actions taken by Consumers Power Cc=pany and its contractors.

I stated that, while many significant-

. quality assurance deficiencies have been identified, it was our conclusion that the proble=s experienced were not indicative of a breakdown in the implementation of the overall quality. assurance program.

I also noted that

.while deficiencies have occurred which should have been identified earlier, the licensee's QA progra::, had been effective in the ultimate identification and subsequent correction of thes-deficiencies.

Furthermore. I discust 315 840718 PDR RICE 84~ 6

=m.

-~

~

~ ~'

=

+

\\

's.

s;

  • tha'rcsults of Rtgicn III's spscial quality essuranco inspaction of May 18-22, 1981, which reflected favorably on the effectiveness of the Midland Project Quality. Assurance Department --- implemented in August 1980. The thrust of my testimony was that I had confidence that the licensee's overall QA program for the remedial soils work and the remainder of construction would be implemented effectively.

It wasn't until April 1982 that I was made aware of additional problems with the effectiveness of implementation of the QA program. The problems came to my attention as a result of the April-1982 meeting between NRC and Consumers Power Company to discuss the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for hidland and the discussions held within the Staff in preparation for that meeting. The SALP report addres!..id the Midland site activities for the period July 1, 1980 through Jane 30, 1981.

During this period, the soils work activities were rated Category III, the lowest acceptable rating given by the SALP review process.

During the April, 1982 public meeting on the SALP findings, Mr. Ronald J. Cook, Midland Senior Resident Inspector, stated that as of that date he would rate Consumers Power Company soils work Category III, the same rating as it received for the SALP period. He had similar com-ments on other work activities.

Based on my July, 1981 testimony, I expected Consumers Power Company would be rated a Category I or II in the soils' area, as well as other areas, by April, 1982, and I was certain that my 1981 testimony had left that impression with the Board.

2

~

,n,,m.w...

..-e.

~ - - --

-e n

~

- On -the basis of f the above, I decided it was appropriate to supplement =y

' July, 1981 testimony.

. Q.3 What actions have been taken by Region III in response to the infor-mation contained in your previous answer?

A.3.I met with the NRC supervisors and inspectors who had been closely

. '..~...- : ::.. :

-:. ^ *

.:- *;. F ::1.2: -

~ involved with Midland during the past year to get a better understanding of

~

^

their concerns. As a result of these meetings, I concluded that the problems being experienced were ones of program implementation rather than problems with the QA program itself.

Because of my concerns, I requested the Region III Division Directors most f:

  • n?-

.act ve y involved with the Midland inspection effort to try to identify the i l

. fundamental problems and their causes, and to provide me with'their recom -

w

- mendations to resolve these problems. They provided me with an assessment of technical and communications problems experienced by the licensee and made recommendations with respect to ~he licensee's workload, institution of independent verification programs, and QA organization realignments.

' Dais response is included as Attachment A.

(Memorandum from Norelius and Spessard co Keppler, dated June 21, 1982.)

(

In July-1982 1 recognized that more NRC' resources were going to have to be provided in overseeing activities it Midland and created the Office of

+

l 3

  • .s e.

s

...-w s,n.

,.~.~--*-.-n.

-e e-

-n-o.= * ~--= ~- - + - - - - * ~ '

--.~~=~-v~q~

L..

~.

~ '

Special Cases (OSC)'to managu NRC field activities at Midland (and Zimmer).

Mr. Robert Varnick'was assigned Acting' Director. A Midland Section was formed comprised of a Section Chief, two regional based inspectors, and two resident inspectors (the second resident inspector reported onsite in August 1982).

Before* meeting.with representatives of..the.. Office.of Nudlmar React:ot...,

Regulation (NRR) to discuss cptions for NRC action in connection with Midland, Mr. Warnick requested Senior Resident Inspector Cook to provide a su= mary of the indicators of questionable licensee performance.

Mr. Cook provided a memorandum documenting a number of problems and concerns, which is included as Attachment B.

(Memorandum R. J. Cook to R. F. Warnick, dated July 23, 1982.)

Mr. Warnick and I met wi.th representatives of. NRR. on July 26,1982 to.

discuss Consumers Power Company's performance.

This meeting resulted in recommended actions concerning third party reviews of past work and ongoing work which are described in Attachment C.

.(Memorandum, Warnick to Files, t,'

dated August 18, 1982.)

.I Fo11ccing.the meeting with NRR, Mr. Warnick discussed with members of the 4

Midland Section positions concerning third party reviews developed at the meeting with NRR.

The members of the Midland Section were not convinced the recc== ended actions were the best. solution, since the causes of the problems had not been clearly identified.

Instead, they proposed a somewhat different approach consisting of an augmented NRC inspection effort coupled 4

_s%,..

.e

+,,, eo e,.an,e +-s-~

= = +

.w.'

P'**

- ~ '

Q

. with other actions to strengthen the licensee's QA/QC organization and

~

management. 1This proposal is docume'nted in Attachment D.

(Memorandum,

.c

.Warnick to~Keppler, dated August 18, 1982.)

In response to these suggestions, Mr. Darrell Eisenhut, Director - Division of Licensing, NRR, and I met with top corpo, rate management representatives from Consumers Power Company on August 26, 1982 and again on September 2,

,1982, to-discuss NRC's concerns and possible r,ec,ommended solutions.

Because it was not clear to the NRC staff why Consumers Power was having difficulty implementing their QA program, we requested them to develop and sumb'it to the NRC actions which would be implemented to improve the QA program imple-mentation and, at the same time, provide confidence that the program was being implemented properly.

Consumers Power subsequently presented its proposal for resolution of the' identified problems in two letters dated September 17, 1982, which are included as.Attcchments E and F.

(Letters Cook to Keppler and Denton, dated September 17, 1982.)

i L

These proposals were lacking in detail, particular1y'with respect to the

,1.

plant independent review programs. Following a meeting between NRC staff

[

members and Consumers Power Company in Midland on September 29, 1982, Consumers Pcwer submitted a detailed plan to KRC on October 5, 1982 s

concerning the planned third party activities (Attachment G).

Consumers ss '

Power Company's proposals (Attachments E, F and G) are currently under I

- review by NRC.

l l

5 p

-N-i-

  • y,.-t

,w--a,,--,-

,,y.-*" * * * " ~ * ~ * ', ~r--

gy,-,,.,p.,,,m-y%,

,,-9 g,

-w,

,9..m y

's*M*-***-

f

*W"

'~

.m,-

a m se w.,

e.

-.4-rety

=.w

-.~

m.

=

--.9y--,y

g..

.Q.4 Do ycu b311svo that construction of the Midland Plant should bo

~

permitted to continue?

A.4 Yes. This portion of my tiestimony discusses what has been accom-plish'ed.and what will be accomplished in-the,near future to provide.a.

basis-for continued construction of the Mid, land plant.

  • 4 Consumers-Power Company will have independent. third. party assessments of...

the Midland construction' project. These assessments will include reviews--

of safety related work in progress and of ecmpleted work activities.

Stone-and Webster'has.been selected by Consumers Power Company to perform the assessment of the remedial soils work. The scope-of, and contractors for, the remaining assessments are presently under review by the NRC staff.

Along with the independent third party reviews, the Office of Special Cases, Midland Section; has expanded its inspection

  • effort &nd 'has'- taken actions to assure compliance with the Licensing Board's April 30, 1982 requirement that the remedial soils work activities receive prior staff if approval. Specifically, the Midland Section has established a procedure M

i,

'for staff authorization of work activities proposed by Consumers Power Yi-Q Company (Attachment H, Work Authorizat. ion Procedure, dated August 12, I l '-

l4 1982); and has caused a stop of the remedial soils work on two occasions:

August, 1982 and September, 1982 (Attachments 1 and J, Confirmatory Action

Letters dated August 12, 1982, and September'2I., 1982, respectively). The Section has also started an inspection of the work activities which have

.been accomplished by Consumers Power Company in the last twelve months in 6

l..

t

+p_

...~

.. -. ~....

3 fy

,.} '

the diesel ~gsnarstor building,.the service water building, and other safety related areas. This inspection was started during October 1982 and is continuing las of the filing date of this testimony.

Based upon-(1) the third party assessments of the plant which will be performed, (2) the' increased NRC inspection; effort, and (3) the work authorization controls by the NRC, I believe that work on the Midland Plant may continue. As demonstrated by the previous stop-work' effected'in~

the remedial soils drei, Ehe stiff Eill tAke whatever action is necesdary

~

~

, ]

to assure that construction is in accordance with applicable requirements and standards.

t J

. l:

.i i

4 s

w

i. j.

f t

6

~ ~ - - -,

-# 7

f~ -

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'f4jg./d@O m-

)

, Jr

REGION III

// J C2 " 0

~

OUTGOING TRANSMISSION SERVICE REQUEST M,4 AC.df4q;

/

d Number of Pages 7

!!7,!f 3

):

Oh N 6~ AYFLRdd R. M,+ e u l k 2d.

OPA r

ion AJEws

/2 e l vere ~-

FOR WP & D/C USE_

tts Bldg.

)( g)C System 6 (WP) crs Rapidfax t

3M Ext #727 3M Ext #728

< s Bldg.

FT5

. Spri ngs '

ste BM9)

Consnercial I*

Time Started I

Time Completed (Actual Minutes)

IV Operator

,y

,!nt at

- sed.

irmine rtate Office tify recipient &~ fax number gnate-include fax number

e Z

[y>

ri aev 1/27/a3 2.ls/ v1

-9 s-w 9

,-w,

--,a6,,,r e-w ge,-'---+

-'*1

,-e%-m,

,+-

ew-

-m,

-r---w ec-----*yey--w-e-

- --w-M-77 tn-y-y9&FT-'

-bw'r

~ ^

\\

14. ~

N x

NRC PROPOSh5 S120,000 FINE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE VIOLATIONS AT MIDt.AND 1

1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region III of fice has proposed a $120,000 fine against Consumers Power Company for an alleged breakdown in the quality assurance program at the Midland Nuclear Power Station construction site in Midland, Michigan.

- An NRC inspection of equipment installation in the plant's diesel generator

. building between October 12 and November 23,1Y82, identified numerous items of noncompliance with NRC Quality Assurance requirements.

The fine consists of two violations, each carrying a 560,000 penalty.

The first violation is for multiple examples of' plant personnel failing to follow procedures, drawings and specifications in the instalt.ation of equipment.

-2n one instance, an inspection program was not established to ensure the segr'egation of electrical cables in accordance with design requirements.

In other cases, changes.

in drawings or specifications were made without proper authorization.

The second violation was the result of the NRC's determination that quality contrul supervisors instructed quality control (QC) inspectors to suspend' inspections when excessive numbers of deficiencles were observed.

The construction oeing inspected was.then turned back to the construction staff il for rework. The intent of this practice was to improve construction quality prior to the QC inspections..In some cases, however, the fotLow-up QC inspections focused only.

on the previously identified deficiencies, instead of conducting a full reinspection.

Tnis practice, therefore, provided no assurance tnat unreported deficiencies were Later identified or repaired.

Heinspect1ons wilL be required for those areas where this QC practice was utilized.

This inscection practice also resulted in incorrect data being fed into the Licensee's Trend Analysis Program, thereoy inhibiting the utility's ability to determine

'2he root causes of de*1ciencies and to. prevent their recurrence.

.,. In a letter en Cont.umers announcing the proposed fine, Regional Adninistrator James G. Keooler said tne violations demonstrate tne company's "f ailure to exercise y

~ _

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

i

~

, RIII February 8, 1983

- land. plant.

It includes a reinspect. ion of safety-related systems, third-party. reviews to monitor. proj ect. performance, and QA/QC organizational

~

changes,-among other-things.

Consumers also will be required by the NRC to determine the extent

- to which QC supervisors ins tructed inspectors to limit their findings of deficiencies and to inform the NRC of what corrective action will be taken to prevent this from occurring-in the future.

The.ticensee has until March 10, 1983, to either pay the fine or

to protest it. If the-fine is-protested and subsequently imposed formally by the NRC staff, Consumers Power may request a hearing.

Fcb$uary8,1983 1

e

.1..._..-.---,.

---w - -

~ ' ' ' ' '

- -, - - +. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ * - ' ' * - ~ ~ ' ~ ~

A

+

'N.,

e OPENING REMARKS JAFES G. KEPPLER REVIEW OF INSPECTION FINDINGS WAYNE D. SHAFER RESPCNSE IF DESIRED CONSLERS f0WER COPPANY WHERE D0 WE G0 FROM HEPE?

J#ES G. KEPPLER OTHER MATTERS J#ES G. KEPPLER 2

e

~~

~

  • ~" '

s.

,e

--w w-m

--n-w-

y wr,-

y-

,e c

4

-nm--

y e-p--

'.s.

ty w

4

?

r e

.[h
  • L 1 Hl} __

Q v v*. tg %,(

jl'u..m./:u

$ /-I I'

d,_,

u.

d.2 - 4ss.

/'

-s 4

6 I

k I

i I

lg o.c.Lia tv/' y*w\\ b~.j's< -s n (.w.s. i; I I c- } -ili 1 - I ' ~ i.Y ' ' < i-i:.~.. ~" t e A, . ( , v., %= t 0 1 .e....-...

F i SPECIAL HARDWARE INSPECTION OF THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUIDING OCT,12 - NOV, 25,1982 WE ARE CONSIDERING THE ISSUANCE OF TWO t%JOR ITEN OF NONCOWLIANCE: e. 1. THE FAILURE TO IWLEENT BE CUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRM AS REDUIRED BY CRITERION II, 2. THE FAILURE OF QC INSPECTORS TO DOCUNNT ALL OBSERVED NONCONFORMANCES DURING INSPECTIONS. THIS PPACTICE WAS INITIATED AS A RESULT OF f%NAGEMNT DIPECTION. a, N1 - 8 e -.n.. ..,~o --. ~. - - --

e. ~ ~ o 9 ITFM 1 CRITERION III: DESIGN CONTROL SIX EXAPPES CF NONC0PPLIANCE. THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAPPIIS: 1

1. -

PEASURES WERE NOT ESTABLISHED FOR TE SEECTION AND REVIEW FOR SUITABILITY OF APPLICATION OF MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DIESEL GEERATOR EXHAUST PUFFLER, 2. THE FAILURE TO ANALY2E TE FOUR DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING P0NORAILS AS SEISMIC CATEGORY 1. 3. TE LICENSEE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED THIRTY-TWO DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXHAUST SYSTEM HANGERS WITOUT TR/WSLATING TE APPLICABLE 4 i ,,c, e, < s REGULATORY REDUIREENTS INTO DESIGN DOCWENTS. t 5 i f w+* gw-* m a e ga. e emwe - es..mp-**.A eao o=

  • ew m war. m e

o-a, =eee s se ewm. ..m+.*se noems .o-re ~ wrme*eo ee emwer. owe e .. __,__._..e. ..e. ..?...

. CRITERION V: INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND DRAWINGS SEVENTEEN EXNPLES OF NONCDPPmIANCE. THE R)LLOWING ARE EX FAILURE TO INSTALL DIESEL GEERATOR ENGINE CONTRO 1.. WITH REQUIRENNTS AND DRAWINGS. FAILIFE TO IDENTIFY BY YELLOW PAINTED ENDS AND/OR SE 2. STOCK STEEL. FL#E CUTTING OF DIESEL GEERATOR KFFLER StPPORT SL 3. 0F TE VENDOR DRAWING. -- > A*' b d '"'b t THE EIGHT BRACING TOP GUSSET PLATES FOR THE HV f 4. SIZED ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS. l> l l l t

  • - - - ~ +. - - -

~..., _ _ =~e-- e -p e m-7-ee- ..myy y. g----- g p j-2---. p. k .c gms---p-y,tv,9.%-wa%-te-y,w-yv.,ve. .m-e,---,p-.---y e wgw'pwep--9, e

  • -e+-

\\ l t CRITERION VI: DOCTENT ONROL ONE EX#RE OF NONCDPLIANCE: E PEASURES WERE NOT ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THAT HMGER ISOM WERE DISTRIBUTED TO TE SITE DOCTENT CONTROL CENTER. t k 1 L

      • '""****f' a

.s

s is l: l CRITERION VII: CDNTROL OF PURO% SED MATERIAL, EQUIPPENT AND SERVICES l i 10E EX#RE OF NONCOPPLIANCE: I THE FAILURE OF SOURCE INSPECTIONS AT TE SUPPLIER FACILITY AND RECEIPT P INSPECTIONS AT TE MIDLAND SITE TO IDENTIFY NONCONRR%NCES OF THE WIRING l; h IN TE DIESEL GENERATOR ENGINE CONTROL PANELS. J f 'd _ l k .M+7 ) / (% w. I D, . _w.-w.d 1 0 o' l 1', I 4 4 r l l l 1 \\* r - + + = =- -,~=--~--+9,m,m 9,.-3--

ymg, my,-

~,,,""**"'*~'~~~~""~~~~~#.s-9*""t"'em"--""""-WW-wM"-"-"'""TFw

  • "*-* * * * ' * * ' " ' " ' ' * ^ ' * * "

' ' ~ -~~** --v -%.,y,y W ' Tm'"a*-79'7Pe'-'wu'"T-*v-ev-@w'""'&

x x e ,s N 1 -i ..i .f l 1 \\ i y A CRITERION IX:, CONTROL OF SPECIAL PPDCESSES ONE EXNPlf 0F NONCOPPLIANCE: THE FAlllJPElTO VERIFY PREHEAT OF EXISTING STRUCRlRAL STEL TO A T8PERATljRE 4 OF 70' F AS REQUIRED BY SITE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE AWS 1974 CDM. e h Ii-i j. 4 t 5 N 4 f w ,w sw- ..,e ..*+s ,e. ..eg,,,,,.a.g...g3. a .,.#+,,..e. -,e.. .9,.,m. _.. pw _. p,.. m*

a CRITERION X: INSPECTION TWO EX#FLES OF NONCCIPLIMCE: 1. TE FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AN INSPECTION FP0 GRAM TO ENSURE SEGREGATION 0F'CONTFDL MD INSTRlfENTATION CABES. - L.k. -.. J. E x.u>. n 2.- TE FAIUJRE OF QC INSPECTIONS TO DETECT AND IDENTIFY NONCONFDPMCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF TE INAC F/N SUPFORT STEEL. K1 % q c,;i i.j,~j % C / 2 +I u - /. b. 4 4 ?, 9 I t

  • NWee* *
  • e
  • N..

rv w. o..+=ee.gg sr.,gy, e e,g,,,ym. .pw.m.%., p c .,n, r.-.~ .-,,,.n. .--m..--,

g._ s, s,. i

y-1 l

4. '% ^ d F t .L [\\, 's El \\

D p.

? CRITERION XIII: HANDLING, STORAGE #0 SHIPPING ?L Si- - ONE EXMPLE OF NONCOWLIANCE: ~ q: FIW DIESE._ GENERATOR BEARING KFR.ER Pl.ATES WERE NOT MAINTAINED SINE TEIR INSTALLATION. i-i, ' } I b .I ( g 4 4 4 3 L c =,' e 4 4 6 4 / . i n# & ;- w -- 1

..u.. N s 1 ' CRITERION XV: NONCONFORMING MTERIAL, PARTS, OR C2FONENTS TWO EXAlHIS OF NONCOIPLIANCE: 1. EASURES WERE NOT ESTABLISHED TO~ ENSURE THAT NONCONFORMING MATERIALS WERE NOT UTILIZED IN SEISMIC CATEGORY I SYSTEMS. 2. Th0 NONQNORMING CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY TE NRC AND C0fFIRED BY TE LICENSEE WERE NOT D00MNED ON A NONC0ff0RMMCE REPORT. ..i e v -} M ---. -- - ~. -.,----- - - ~ ~. --. w-y- ,%.m.. 9 -,,,,-.9 7.a9,. , tww t r Me-em& ------ w W-u-'tN-7e-'wre F --P-si r-vi wM

      • '--7w+

.s J l (- y, 4-*

i I

.-~ y- \\,s - y.~~- ITEM 2 CRITERION XV: NONCONFORMING 1%TERIALS, PARTS, OR CCFFONENTS 7 - ONE E)@PLE OF NONCCPPLIANCE: TE FAILlRE OF QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTORS TO DOCLNENT AU. OF THE DEFICIENCIES WHICH TEY OBSERVED DURING THEIR INSPECTIONS, 9 u,l} _ , i. ,&..., ~.t..... 1~ ) '... r.., c,,.. ; Q. v,, - Q f,, g ,(.,,,, ..-4,2-g.. /; 4 t.s .t j 4 6 l 3 1 4 k I e G ,, = = -.m wem....-.e.6 .ge.,e..gy mrw%,.,...*M ag.'*p**--p r+we'm-*.*e ,e e -g o =seye e v .,,,-.-w-- ,.s.-, 4 n.. ,,, - -,, +. - - .,aa- ,- - - - - r

".54m e"S. Se # 0 e p. .-gbg a v Dasa h t,.' a se e e e n s. Q ,) -1 ,%.L.. A .f i %\\ ~ ~ r -- A. ~A. -e- ~ 4 '7 h } s [ t t Q I h5.,, h,t bic j. . _,, g,. ( h ~ ^w 48 h b4 y s \\ ~ . / .s .~.., s.... , a 4 T 4 + h

i u /;

.\\,uf.).a % u 1 l 6' h O -. y m. c T.

4. t ene,.. _

_ wee wee-me e e- -+-.--,* .-e-p - -,.

        • =-e-+=-

a

    • ee-aw.--r-oem---ee-+----=

w +- =

C I V [_. *1 E'.IA L T Y A C T I O N EA No. 83-3 CP.No. EN No. ' Licensee: CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Rec 'd HQ 1/7/83 fm Reg. III 1945 WEST PARNALL ROAD Assigned to: ES ELD JACKSON, MI 49201 Type License: Reactor (const.) [] Facility: MIDLAND Reactor (oper.) [] Docket No. 50-329, 50-330 Materials [] License No. Fuel Facility [3 Other: Proposed Penalty: $- Date: Type Case: Imposed Penalty: Date: Exposure [] Payment: Date: False Statement [] Close Out: Date: Operator [3 Physical Security [3 Remarks: Quality Assurance [3 Radiation Safety [3 Reactor Safety [] Transportation [3 Other: . S ummary : I e O T l %.e-- w

                • F

~' ... -... - _,. _... "..... _. _. _ "..,.. -, -. - _ ' - ~. _ - - _.. - _,,., - _ _ '.. ', _ _.,,.,.m _m.,.__

e -, y .-,.,-..s.. L '( M f ;[ .~ '%s -~ UNITE 3 STATES < [r.,0 [

  • g.

NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION ) (, j ' y ', > ='- REOloN lli ~ j 7eenoosavsLT no4o S, f . al.aN ELLYN, ILUNCIS 60137 33 1 i my MEMORANDUM FOR: James'G. Keppler, Regional Administrator FROM: R. F. Warnick, Acting Director, Office of Special Cases

SUBJECT:

MIDLAND MONTHLY STATUS REPORT Enclosed is the monthly status report for the Midland Project. The report is for the period of December 1.1982 through December 31, -1932. RFQ)awhk R. F. Warnick, Acting Director Office of Special Cases

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enc 1: D. G. Eisenhut, NRR J. H. Sniezek IE 4 4 0 Y Of o I a t j j An 7_ DJtut j Q (p m, e v -f ,v.-.v... ---.---,---,-.--,m,--m--.in ..-.-o --,-,,.----,-,.-,er-. - -,,.. -,..

4 - o -i- .m A U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III r, MIDLAND MONTHLY ~ STATUS REPORT i DECEMBER 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1982 4 4 Y ', I T 4 mm

  • P a

i' t e O $ )0 t =

  • 4,T di

(- 7 2 ,4.l. 6 uu.f***wh d'e*k. p

m. W p pgeepa w

,gm p 4 'a 4pp a e., ei. a e 4.6m $..m-th pwmWe4-* +**=o*Werm4h

  • 49***'**

wwy -wme**p g- ..%,.&py4gy.-g..--p3,y,w-3

9..,. 7 9 9 yy g pg,-gg. y _. g9g,,p,pg.47,& g y y epw& we>yyy

'y* @ r-t

  • e =q % pe w w r-y----p WMme 'e e

--e gi ere w y -w ei--p em -w*y-tFry -w c y g y -W e-cy e

^ ~~ ~ ~.,

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT MIDLAND ISSUES- \\ . 1.- Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) The licensee, as a result of audits of HVAC work activities, determined that welder certifications and welding procedure 3 qualifications were inadequate. All safety-related welding on

j HVAC was stopped by the licensee' on November 30, 1982, and 151 craft workers were laid off. PNO-III-82-130 was issued.

During this reporting period the licensee h a begun developing f ~ a new set of welding procedures. . 2. Electrical 4 The licenses continued electrical cable reinspections. Two (2) 1 additional improperly substituted cables have been identified. ~ A total of six (6) substituted cables, of approximately 4000 cables reinspected, have been identified. Approximately 5000 cables remain to be reinspected. t 3. Remedial Soils Work Authorization On December 9,1982, the NRC authorized the licensee to commence construction work on piers 12 East and 12 West under the Turbine a Building. On December 13, 1982 Consumers Power Company began work on the piers. During excavation for pier 12 the licensee ran into concrete fill. The chipping and removal of the concrete .} has caused the work to proceed slower than the licensee had previously expected.

.(

'] 4. Consumers Power Company Construction Completion Program On December 2, 1982. Consumers Power Company presented to the Region III staff a plan to establish confidence in the adequacy t.! of safety-related work at the Midland Site. The licensee's initial Y Construction Completion Program (CCP) required a substantial j reduction in most of the safety-related work activities and a l subsequent reduction in the workforce involving approximately l ;; 1100 people. Implementation of the CCP required removal of j construction equipment from the work spaces and building cleanup j in preparation for a complete QC inspection of wery safety-related j system in every area. PNO-III-82-131 was issued. ~ [ Region III hss prepared a draf t report of the October-November team [. inspection.. Escalated enforcement action is being considered. [- An enforcement conference with the licensee is scheduled for l( January 18, 1983 in RIII. s eu _ _.~..., _. ...__.a...h,.. ......-..m. __,._....--._.~__._.-_m..m ..._,,..,_.,_.._m.__,._..,__.,,

x N < s.-;, i men, ting was held on Decembcr 7. 1982 with IE, NRR, cnd ELD to discuss the findings of the RIII October-November team inspection and the licensee's proposed construction completion program. A meeting with the licensee to discuss the CCP is scheduled for 'ebruary 3, 1983 in Midland. It will be open to public attendance. t e 9 w u e hg O = e '1:. 4 6 g 4 ) +.., _... -+e,,-e ..me+---- -s

?

--m,---,w m-e ee-m-g gm-----, -o---'--6 m-- -ws----- e ,w~r --"*---'v"'=*'"-*"'"* ~ ' " '

~

~

f '*- h "8 f %,'o, UNITED STATES .p y J . b'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h yg,j 'Q REGION lll . p 799 ROOSEVELT MoAD N s;r oLEN ELLYN, ILLINo18 80137 ' +,. ' ' ' '. MAR 1 4 1983' MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator FROM: R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases

SUBJECT:

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT FOR FEBRUARY, 1983 Attached is the status report for the Midland Project for the period of February 1-28, 1Q83. Should you have any questions regarding this information please contact, W. D. Shafer of my staff. fffk)& R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases

Attachment:

At stated cc w/ attachment: D. G. Eisenhut, NRR J. H. Sniezek, IE A. B. Davis, RIII 't' 5 g. f' % 5 ^n l J I h t I rl'tQ)/IJ ~ I - 9 c e Y t ---,._-,m, .m v u-.---__n,, .,--,-,--_.~...,,,wys.,y,,m--,_r, eve- --.y-- --w.v_-.---rmwwv>.,g- ~ w .e y,.-

En rtoog UNITE 3 STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8),J 'k-ntoloN les 7ee moosavsLT moAo 3.- .p P. GLEN ELLYN, ILI.jNCIS 80137 g gv March 3, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: W. D. Shafer, Chief, Office of Special Cases, Section 2 c.- FROM: R. J. Cook, Senior Resident Inspector, Midland Site'

SUBJECT:

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ' Attached is the status report for the Midland Nuclear Construction Site covering the period of February 1, '1983, through February 28, 1983. The status report contains the input from each member of the Midland Inspec-tion Site Team of the Office of Special Cases. ,{., R. J. Cook Senior Resident Inspector Midland Site Resident Office cc/ attachments 1 R. F. Warnick R. B. Landsman R. N. Gardner B. L.. Burgess l j-i SX o / q ///1 1// b J t "! I Q IIV (

.~

.. ~.,. .~ v~ ~ N s

SUMMARY

OF SIGNIFICANT MIDLAND ISSUES 'l. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Qualification of welding procedures commenced on February 14, 1983, and to date, approximately 115 coupons for sheet metal welding have been completed. ~ Two welding procedures have been sent to MPQAD for final review prior to qualification. In addition, the Zack Company and Bechtel Power Company held a meeting on February 22, 1983, to establish commitments for procedures review and approval prior to restart of work activities. 'Ihe NRC review of the Zack welding requalification program, addressed - in the Construction Completion Program (CCP), is expected to take place by March 18, 1983. 2. Electrical Installed cable reinspection continued with one additional improperly substituted cable found. Currently, seven substituted cables of approximately 7,300 cables inspected have been. identified. Approxi-mately 1,800 cables remain to be reinspected. Evaluation of the safety significance continues through the use of a nonconformance report. 3. Remedial Soils Work Authorization Concrete pours for Pier 12 East'and West were completed during this report period, and load transfer to the piers is expected during the second week of March. Four point. jacking of Units 1 and 2 Feed Isolation Valve Pits (FIVPs) was completed on February 12th and 19th raspectively. After jacking of each FIVP, new cracks were found and one crack under the top slab 4 of the Unit 1 FIVP reached the alert level of 10 mils. The NRC has requested the licensee to perform an engineering evalua- ' tion to determine the cause of FIVP top slab

  • cracking prior to excava-tion underneath the FIVPs.

Authorization for Pier 11 East and West was provided to the licensee by the NRC on February 22, 1983, and Pier 9 East and West was authori-zed on February 24, 1983. 4.. Construction Completion Program Public Meeting

A public meeting was held on February 8,1983, between the NRC and Consumers Power Company to discuss the licensee's proposed Construction Compietion Plan and to allow public comment on the program.

t ) j w n ^~ .,..y>, -~'~~**~~*****"~~~~***T^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ ,,.--,.._-.~m ,,v ,r....,..:. -, _.. _,. ~.,..,.. _. _.. ,,_,.,, -,,+ - -..,.....__,,...-_- r.. _,_}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20094G441&oldid=4325393"