ML20094M703
Text
'..;) 4;
~
- g UNITE] STATES
/
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
g nEason Isa g
y 7so noosavELr noAo t,
GLEN ELLYN, ILUNols 50137 May 14, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Region III Personnel FROM:
James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
CHANGE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL On June 19, 1984, Steve Lewis will be leaving Region III to assume the position of Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel in the Office of the Executive Legal Director (ILDl. Steve has served as Regional Counsel since October 1982.
Steve's replacement will be Bruce Berson. Bruce was an attorney in ELD from August 1977 to' April 1983. He has a broad background in NRC legal matters, having worked in the Hearing, Operations and Administration, and Regulations Division of ELD. ~From April 1983 to April 1984 Bruce was the regulatory affairs manager for Roy F. Westin Inc., the Department of Energy Headquarters' support contractor for the high level waste program. Bruce rejoined ELD in April 1984.
Bruce will report to Region III on June 18, 1984, but has already made one familiari: stion visit to the Region and plans to make one further visit to the Region before assuming his duties. Steve and Bruce are working to achieva a smooth transition of responsibilities.
0 lb James G. Keppler Regional Administrator e
e 4
4 B408150706 840718 PDR FOIA RICEB4-96 PDR
lN-
+
e e ner o
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
..../
Docket Nos: 50-329 MAY 2 61982 and 50-330
' Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201
Dear Mr. Cook:
Subject:
Issuance of Amendments No. 3 to Construction Permits -
Midland Plant,. Units 1 and.2 The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has issued Amendment No. 3 to Con:truction Permit No. CPPR-81 and Amendment No. 3 to Construction Permit No. CPPR-82 which were issued to you for construction of the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The amendments have been issued pursuant to a Memorandum and Order (Imposing Certain Interim Conditions Pending Issuance of Partial Initial Decision) by the Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
Board dated April 30, 1982.
We have determined that these amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signifi-cant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further conclud-ed that these amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the stand-point of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environ-mental igact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
We have concluded, based on the considerati.is discussed above, that:
(1)with respect to these amendments, the proposed facility can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the pub: health and safety, and (2) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimiual to the comon defense and security or to the health-and safety of the public.
l Copies of Amendment No. 3 to CPPR-81,' Amendment No. 3 to CPPR-82, and a related notice which has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register-for publica-tion are enclosed.
Sincerely, Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 3 to CPPR "81 2.
Amendment NO. 3 to CPPR-82 3.
Federal Register Notice cc w/ encl: See next page a s -s L n,
- ggoLTI
MIDLAND
--t Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers-Power Conpany 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Rona.ld G. Zamarin, Isq.
Division of Radiological Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
Department of Public Health Isham, Lincoln & Beale P.O. Box 33035 Suite 4200 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1 First National Plaza
- Chicago, Illinois 60603 William J. Scanlon, Esq.
2034 Pauline Boulevard James E. Brunner, Esq..
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Jackson, Michigan 49201 Resident Inspectors Office Route 7 Ms. Mary Sinclair Midland, Michigan 48640 5711 Summerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Barbara Stamiris 5795 N. River Stewart.H.
Freeman Freeland, Michigan 48623 Assistant Attorney General i
State.of Michigan Environmental Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Protection Division Consumers Power Company 720 Law Building 212 W. Michigan Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 Jackson,-Michigan 49201 1
Mr. Wendell Marshall Mr. Walt Apley Route 10 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Battelle Blvd.
Mr. Roger W. Hust9n SIGMA IV Building Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 7910 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Project Mr.- R. B. Borsum Argonne National Laboratory Nuclear Power Generation Division 9700 South Cass Avenue Babcock & Wilcox Argonne, Illinois 60439 7910 Woodmont Avende, Suite 220 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 James G. Xeppler, Regional Admini.strator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Cherry & Flynn Region III Suite 3700 799 Roosevelt Road Three First Nationat Plaza Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
!~
Chicago, Illinois 60602...
Mr. Steve Gadler 2120 Cartir Avenue ' ~
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108
Mr. J. W. Cook 2-cc:
Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak
~
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304 Mr. Neil Gehring.
U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr.- Ralph S. Decker Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN:
Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street Winchester, Massachusetts 01890
~
- g ug g.
4 S
O
.e e m o s e
g.8' UNITED STATES X
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
wasHINGTCN. D. C. 20$55 t3*****g CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT, UNIT 1
~
DOCKET NO. 50-329 WENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 1
Construction Permit No. CPPR-81 Amendment No. 3 1.-
The Nuclear Regulatory ^ Comission' has found that:
A.
With respect to this amendment, the proposed facility can be con-
~'
structed and operated without undue risk to the public health and safety; B.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and C.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements
~
have been satisfied.
2.
Accordingly, pursuant to a Memorandum and Order by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, dated April 30, 1982, Construction Permit No. CPPR-81 is amended by adding paragraph 2.G. to read as follows:
G.(1) The applicant shall obtain explicit prior approval from the NRC staff (to the extent such approval has not already been obtained) before proceeding with the following soils-related activities.
These activities, with the exception of those already approved
~
by the NRC and those that the NRC staff agrees are not critical, shall be controlled by a NRC staff-approved Quality Assurance Plan:
1 I
a.
any placing, compacting, excavating, or drilling soil I
materials around safety-related structures and systems; b.
physical implementation, of remedial action for correction of soil-related problems under and around safety-related structures and systems, including but not limited to:
(1) dewatering systems (ii) underpinning of-service water building L
\\
2-(iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the feedwater isolation valve pit areas, auxiliary building electrical penetration areas and con-i trol tower, and beneath the turbine building (i v) placing of underpinning supports beneath any of the structures listed in (iii) above (v) compaction and loading activities; c.
construction work in' soil materials under or around safety-related structures.and systems such as field.
installation, or rebedding, of cor.duits and piping.
(2) Paragraph 2.G.(1) shall not apply to remedial actions approved by
~^
the NRC staff prior to April 30, 1982, nor to any exploring, sampling, or testing of soil samples associated with determining actual soil properties on site which has the approval of the Administrator of Region III. These testing activities shall be controlled by a NRC staff-approved Quality Assurance Plan which includes procedures for controlling excavation or drilling activ-ities more than six feet deep in "Q" areas.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION P
rrell G.
1( ehhut, Director
- Division df Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance:
gy 2 61982 e
w es o e 8
l
+
- p as4 9#9, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o-U WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665
\\...f./
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-330 AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Construction Permit No. CPPR-82 Amendment No. 3
_. 1.
The. Nuclear Regulator,y. Commission. has found thdt:
A.
With respect to this amendment, the proposed facility can be con-structed and operated without undue risk. to the public health and safety; B.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and C'. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements l
nave been satisfied.
l 2.
Accordingly, pursuant to a Memorandum and Order by the Atomic Safety and I
Licensing Board, dated April 30, 1982, Construction Permit No. CPPR-81 is amended by adding paragraph 2.G. to read as follows:
G.(1) The applicant shall obtain explicit prior approval from the NRC staff (to the extent such approval has not already been obtained) before proceeding with the following soils-related activities.
These activities, with the exception of those already approved by the NRC dnd those that' the NRC staff agrees are not critical.
shall be controlled by a NRC staff-approved Quality Assurance Plan:
a.
any placing, compacting, excavating, or drilling soil materials around safety-related structures and systems; b.
physical implementation of remedial action for correction ~
of soil-related problems under and around safety-related.
structures and systems, including but not limited to:
(i) dewatering systems (11) underpinning of, service water building
t 2 '-
(iii) removal and replacement of fill beneath the fesdwater isolation valve pit areas, auxiliary building electrical penetration areas and con-trol tower, and beneath the turbine building (iv) placing of underpinning supports beneath. any of the structures listed in (iii) above (v) compaction and loading activities; c.
construction work in soil materials under or around safety-related structures and systems such as field insta11atf6n, or rebedding', ~of conduits and piping.
(2) Paragraph 2.G.(1) shall not apply to remedial actions approved by the NRC staff prior to April 30, 1982, nor to any exploring, sampling, or testing of soil samples associated with determining actual soil properties on site which has the approval of the Administrator of Region III. These testing activities shall be controlled by a.NRC staff-approved Quality Assurance Plan which includes procedures for controlling excavation or drilling activ-ities more than six feet deep in "Q" areas.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM1ISSION l
i Jtse irector Division o$ Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance:
WY 2 6 M2 O
ee sG p
- O e me e 6 # #
.. - + -
w
-r-- - -,- -- +
-e-,-+---..--..
v,w-.-
-,,,s...
-,.,-w,-w,,--wv,-u.------,----,--,--
ww,-
,-im
4 N
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-329 AND 50-330 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
~
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to a Memorandum and Order dated April 30
'1982, by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission has issued Amendment No. 3 to Construction Permit No. CPPR-81 and Amendment
~~
No. 3 to. Construction Permit No. CPPR-82, which were issued to Consumers Power Company for construction of Midland Plar.t Units 1 and 2, located in Midland County, Michigan.
The Board's Order, which imposes certain interim conditions on the construction permits pending issuance of a Partial Initial Decision, was issued in connection with ongoing proceedings with respect to an Order issued by the NRC modifying the con-struction permits for the facility. Notice of these proceedings was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 1980 (45FR19214). An amended notice was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1980 (45FR35949).
s The Commission has found that this action does not constitute an undue risk to the health and safety of the public, and is not inimical to the common defense and security.
In addition, the issuance of these amandments will not result in any significant envircnmental impact; and pyrsuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of the amendments.
i
}
h l
(
2 A copy of the Memorandum and Order, dated April 30, 1982, the construction permf ts, the amendments and other related documents are available for public inspec-tion at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. G.
and at the Grace Dow Memorial Library,1710 W. St. Andrews -Road, Midland, Michigan.
~
Single copies of the amendments may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,- Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Director,
- ' Division of Licensing.
0 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 26 day of May 1982.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WN 4
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
=.*
~
O D.S
- G a.,h wam -
'hid,F.!/r/ efan-I
/
yb CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER
\\
[e n%q'o UNITED STATES j
'E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
3 i
REGION 111 799 ROOSkVELT ROAD j
,[
. GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 e...
AUG 121982 Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midla:.d Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
Based on discussions between you and Mr. W. Shafer on August 11, 1982, we understand that you have stopped work in the remedial soils area in accordan'ce with Stop Work Order FSW-24.
Prior to lifting this stop work order in whole or in part you will obtain prior Region III approval. Such approval will b'e based on a clear under-standing and approval by Region III of the work activities to be undertaken.
If your understanding is different than the above, please contact this office immediately.
Sincerely, W
James G. Keppler Regional Administrator, cc: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
--) Resident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
,m Y20f/(voUN
ML puclut-: 9 CONFIEMATORY ACTION LETTER SEP 2 41982 Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 Consumers Poser Company ATIN: Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentismen:
This letter confirms the telephone discussion on September 24, 1982, between Messrs. Warnick and Shafer of this office and Mr. D. Miller and others of your staff regarding the problems in the remedial soils QC requalification program identified by Messrs. Gardner and Landsman.
The purpose of this letter is to document our understanding of the actions you have taken or plan to taka.
As a recult of our discussion, we understand that you have initiated or plan to initiate the following actions:
(1) All work on remedial soila has been stopped with the asception of those continuous activities such as maintaining the freeze wall and well pumping.
(2) All====4n=tions related.to remedial soils QC requalification have stopped and all QC personnel previously certified have been decertified.
i 1
(3) A retraining program will be established and conducted for all QC personnel who failed and for future failures.
(4) A written awa=1 nation will be developed for all QC requalification
--==4 nations. in the area _ of remedial soils.
t l
l o"*>................
su==an >.................
.*=*******..*
uc eeau m no soi uncu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
I 4
e.
g m
x..
- ~
t CONFIRMATORT ACTION LETTER Consumers Power Company SFP p 4 ggy We also understand that you will meet with our staff on September 29, 1982, to describe what measures you will establish to accelerate the requalification and certification of the QC personnel involved in the balance of plant quality program.
If our understanding of your actions is n.c in accordance with the above.
please contact this office iammediately.
Sincerely.
James G. Keppler Regional Adininistrator, cc: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decke.r, ASLB Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
William Paton, ELD l
- "'C'>.M.I.
v:=:=r) Ah4
....a...n.............
..... v.i. s............
..Ke W
e cm> 9.]A
... 9....Y...a'...
..9.q................1......'......
- 4:c ronu aisiio,soi ncu o24o OFFICI AL RECORD COPY
'usopo iseo-32 4
.!/r/ e fe'L
'hiofeF I
pa a'oug CONFIRMATORY ACTION LETTER UNITED STATES o,^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
I REGION 111 1
7so ROOSEVELT ROAD 8
g.....,o
. GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 AUG 121982 Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
Based on discussions between you and Mr. W. Shafer on August 11, 1982, we understand that you have stopped work in the remedial soils area in accordance with Stop Work Order FSW-24.
Prior to lifting this stop work order in whole or in part you will obtain prior Region III approval. Such approval will be based on a clear under-standing and approval by Region III of the wori ;ctivities to be undertaken.
If your understanding is different than the above, please contact this office immediately.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Regional Administrator cc: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
---.$esident Inspector, RIII The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer, ASLB The Honorable Jerry Harbour, ASLB The Honorable Frederick P. Cowan, ASLB The Honorable Ralph S. Decker, ASLB Michael Miller Ronald Callen, Michigan "Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall Colonel Steve J. Gadler (P.E.)
7Y.20F/(0 0N'
- Q,
-....m (h
MIDLAND REACTOR HOLDDOWN BOLT CHRONOLOGY 2/8/73 heat "000" shipped from Shill Steel.
11/6/73 specification 7220-C-233(Q) issued for client review.
12/27/73 Rev.1 of specification issued for bids.
1/30/74 heat "00" shipped from Armco Steel.
'2/5/74 heat "00" received at Southern Bolt Co.(SB).
~
-3 /11/74 heat "0" and "000" shipped from Bethlehem Steel.
3/25/74 heats "0" and "000" received at SB, shipment complete by 3/27/74.
4/74 initial attempts to secure bolt vendor fails.
4/29/74 telecon on adding a-jam nut to bolt design.
'5/2/74
~ DCN #1 adds jam nut to bolt design.
5/3/74 Revision 2 of specification issued for procurement.
5/23/74 FMR-C-1104 issued.
4 5/23/74 attempt to procure bolt material only.
5/30/74 Bechtel bid request inquiry (material only) material is 4145, ASTM A-490,
~
1 6/74 attempt to procure bolt material only fails.
6/28/74 bid requests sent out to companies for manufacture of bolts.
4 7/5/74
. TWX MVSS-Bechtel, bid on bolts only.
7/23/74
.MVSS sends in bid (Inryeo also bids in this time frame).
7/26/74 MVSS proposal (cites ASTM A-490).
7/30/74 J. Dyson Co. s,ent specs for bolts (changed from 7'2%" to 7'4" long).
4
'~
8/5/74 decisions made as to applicable NDE requi-ements during this week.
f 8/8/74 TWX Bechtel-MVSS sends NDE requirements, j
8/8/74 TWX adds NDE requirements to Contract (supplier withdraws 7).
8/16/74 TWX MVSS-Bechtel, is 4340 steel acceptable 7 8/19/74 letter, Dyson Co.-MVSS, material we have on hand cannot hope to meet specs.
3/19/74
-TWX, MVSS-Bechtel (to be repeated 8/23/74). Need correct specification.
8/21/74 TWX, MVSS-Bechtel, ASTM A-490 is not correct specificatLon to use.
1 r-n,
~n
4 r
2 8/23/74 TWX, A-490 not right spec., bolts will be brittle if tensiles to A-490.
8/23/74 TWX,MVSS-Bechtel, need spec., trying to find material (svhilibity critical).
8/28/74 response to transmittals.A-490 is right spec., 4140/5 not approved.25 mil exp.
[
8/27/74 Bechtel memo.25 mil exp. for charpy test, other requirements.
8/28/74 -
MVSS advised ASTM A-490 is not right spec.
8/30/74 SB quotation utilizing ASTM 354.
9/3/74 TWX, MVSS-Bechtel, proposal for boles: ASTM 354, 4140 steel, 25 mil lat. exp.
9/5/74 Bechtel advised that MVSS contacted ASTM member to discuss, spec.
9/7/74 memo, verbal purchase order,"MVSS has started fabrication"(?).
9/8/7*
TWX, MVSS-Bechtel 9/10/74 letter, SB-MVSS, heat treat (HT) procedure, 4140 steel, tem;,er at 1.000 degrees.
9/10/74 BEBC 527 Ok's use of ASTM A-354-BD for bolt specification.
9/12/74 TWX, Bechtel-MVSS, change spec.,can use 4140, need HT and MI procedures.
i
~
9/13/74 date of purchase order,.not procede until procedures approved.
5 9/16/74 letter:MVSS cancels contract with J. Dyson & Sons for bolts.
9/16/74 request for approval to formalize contract, Rev. O.
79
/W
" g, 9/27/74 SCN 4004, total re-evaluation of NDE requirements for spec.
10/1/74 memo gives history of bolts to date, spec. changes, testing changes.
10/3/74 TWX transmits testing requirements per SCN 4004 to MVSS.
10/4/74 phone call, Yettke-Grote, questions on 10/3/74 TWX.
10/7/74 TWX to MVSS answers phone call questions.
10/8/74 Bid. (includes 25 mil lateral expansion charpy criteria)(SB-MVSS).
5 10/11/74 SCN 4005 issued to alter SCN 4004 (on basis of questions from MVSS).
10/14/74 request for approval to commit (formalize contract) Rev.1.
10/16/74 MVSS QC manual approved.
4 10/23/74 TWX, SCN 4004 will be sent to MVSS.
10/25/74 Bechtel receipt of HT procedure.
-c.
3 i
11/4/74 purchase order revised, new purchase order number.
11/5/74 HT procedure rejected by Bechtel (level 4 )
11/7/74 TWX, MVSS-SB, customer has rejected HT procedures.
11/7/74 Revision 2 of specification 7220-C-233, 11/8/74
- FMR-C-1004-3, Rev. 2 of purchase order 7220-C0233.
11/11/74 TWX recieved, do not perform HT until procedures approved.
11/11/74 TWX to SB received, HT procedure to be per SCN-4005.
12/3/74 quotation, Rex-SB, 200 studs, 800 nuts.
12/5/74 Spec. 7220-C-233(Q) Rev. 3, incorpprate SCN's 4002-4005.
12/9/74 Transmittal #24, is Rex HI OK?, bolts ready to go to Rex.
12/13/74 FMR C-1004-4, Rev. 3 of purchase order (adds SCN's).
12/16/74 TWX. Bechtel-MVSS approves Rex HT procedure, but STOP WORK (now need 6/1/76).
12/19/74 letter to MVSS on revised HT procedure "SB outline" of EI procedure.
I 12/20/74 Rex HT procedure #1, Rev. O date (transmittal #24, temper 900-1000 degrees).
12/26/74 TWX #25MVSS-Bechtel, " unable to stop fabrication".
12/74 -1/75? studs shipped from SB, recieved at Rex.
1/28/75 Rex material test, specimens # 1,2,6,7,8,9,11,12 2/4/75 letter, SB-MVSS material cannot meet requirements.
2/5/75 phone call for test results for HT (above).
2/6/75 MVSS sends TWX to Bechtel with Rex test results 2/12/75 phone call, Goin to MVSS, want RC 45 for bolts (TWX to Bechtel, same subject).
2/17/75 Rex material test of material salt quenched (experiment).
2/18/75 memo to Castleberry, 6 tests, exceed RC 38 (BCBE 536).
3/14/75 plant design guide, metallurgical design, Rev.1 (never approved?)
3/20/75 telecon, hardness problems, test results unacceptable.
3/21/75 TWX confirms telecon, results unacceptable, not change hardness spec.
3/24/75 Rex :naterial test for material water quenched (experiment).
4/1/75 phone call, 850 degree temper test run.
- 3. -
4 4/3/75 SB-MVSS letter on test run, justify,825 ' degrees? wrong hardness, meeting?
4/7/75 TWX, Bechtel to deal directly with Rex} but only if really*necessary.
4/7/75 Rex asks if 850 is OK, also Rev. 3:of; Rex HT procedure (verbal OK for use).
4/8/75 telecon, Hutchinson, Goin confirming letter, 850 OK per Bechtel.
4/11/75 ~
Notes. 4140 marginal,4340 better, Exce'ssive hardness, whare tested?
4/11/75 confirmation letter recieved at SB.
4/14/75 memo, Castleberry to Parker, hardness spec, can accept with spec exceeded.
4/16/75 Rev. 4 of specification.
4/18/75 date on record for austenitizing load #4 at Rex.
4/18/75 memo, Parker to Castleberry, hardness, tempering, material is marginal.
4/21/75 letter, MNSS-SB, required occumentation (recieved 4/24/75) 4/75 date on HT records (charts) supplied by Rex for documentation.
4/20-25/757 heat treating of bolts in furnace HA-4 4/22/75 h7 material test report by Rex,1-4 of 19 total.
4/25/75 HT material test report by Rex, 5-11 of 19 total.
4/25/75 date observed on HT record for 5th load (3rd load?).
5/1/75 Bechtel approval of Rex HT procedure, Rev. 3.
5/5/75 Powers (SB) QC visit to Rex.
~
5/16/75 HT material test report by Rex,11-19 of 19 total.
5/28/75 19 test reports sent to MVSS with du my documentation package.
5/28/75 LEl>C 796 cannot reduce tensile values, Rockwells hard to obtain.
6/3/75 HT material test " machined from 2" of end of bar".
6/9/75 HT material test " machined 7" from end (or bar)".
6/16/75 E material test " stud #1 from heat "000"".
6/18/75 HT material test " stud #8 from heat "000", 850 degrees".
6/27/75 E material test " machined from center of bar", heat "0000" marked " scrap".
6/75 date on E charts supplied by Rex for documentation package.
7/2/75 E material test report " machined from center of bar" heat "00".
t if4
- di i p-
,y
[
g 5
2 7/3/f5 letter to Rex advises of future shop inspection.
7/8/75 HT autterial report, heat "0000", 850 degree tempering temp.
% 7/9/75 TWX, no inspector needed at Rex for 7/15/75 shipment inspection.
7/11/75 TWX to Rex. advised by MVSS, no Bechtel insp. required until notice.
p 7/11/73' Rex surveillance, no contact due to personnel unavailability, l:
l 7/14/75 chemical inalysis of steel done by lab for Rex.
JU lI 7/15/75 Rex HT Rev. 4 reduces number of required tensfie tests.
gl, 7/15/75 jobsite (Midland?) meeting,' Bechtel & MVSS, required test reports.
7/16/75 Rex surveillance, studs already HT'd and tested.
(
7/17/75 memo BCBE 604 physical and mechanical tests are by heat #.
t 7/18/75 Rex HT procedure, Rev 4 sent to Bechtel, recieved 7/22/75.
7/21/75 "date observed on HT chart for heat"00"(thermocouple chart),
,,i l'
7/21/75 TWX dated 7/18 recieved, need charpy's, CMIR's, shipping procedures.
7/22/75 Rex }N procedure Rev. 3 dated b/7/75 approved (TWX).-
7/24/75 Rex HT. procedure, Rev. 4, approved by Bechtel.
- j>
7/25/75 letter, Bechtel-MVSS, mentions 7/15/75 ' meeting.
7/29/75 date on test report for documentation from Rex, 194 bars noted.
7/31/75-letter, SB-MVSS copies of CNIR's and nut charpy tests, (in error)?
7/31/75 I date of QC approvals on shipping documents.
8/4/75 documentation submitted to Bechtel?
x 8/4/75 test run on 4340 material (Ft. Worth).
8/18/75 Rex surveillance, all studs rejected for MT indications of more than 1".
8/14/75 TWX, delete 25 mil lateral expansion criteria (nut charpy SPS lab report)
.f
- 8/15/75 SPS lab report on Charpy impact test specimens (lacks later wording).
l t'
8/19/75 telegram en charpy impact specimen tests, add wording.
8/20/75 Rex surveillance, 4 studs ground to determine depth of indications.
n s;;,
8/20/75 Powers (SB QC) visit to Rex.
g
.f,8/22/75 Rex surveillance (reviewed progress on nuts, nuts released for shipping).
fy M
________________.__i_
'l 6
8/25/75 BCBG 881 on wording of charpy specimens test.
8/25/75 letter, SB-Rex, send studs back, submit bill (recieved st ' Rex 8/29/75).
i ; 8/26/75 MT report date,147 studs have linear indications,13 have cracks (rejected).
8/27/75 ~
TWX reducing diameter by.060 notes Rex mechanical properties test 8/27/75' S'. MT procedure, Rev. O date.
9/11/75 Rex surveillance, all studs have been shipped back to SB.
9/22/75 Rev. 5 of the specification (?).
-9/29/75 letter, SB-Tech Steel & Alloy, new material purchase order.
9/29/75 telecon, Yettke, Hutchinson, Newgen, Grote.
9/29/75 Bechtel TWX on reducing bolt diameter.
9/29/75 MVSS sa3 s studs not pass MT af ter machining, want to try new material notes that studs are on the " critical path"," running out of time" 9/29/75 SB.HT procedure, Rev. 1.
9/29/75 TWX, reduction of bolt diameter by.060 approved.
9/30/75 final Rex surveillance.
9/3 0/75 TWX, history of studs, start again, material suppliers withdraw (MT required).
)
10/1/75 phone call, SB has 4340 material, trail runs at Superior HT co.
10/3/75 hand grinding of indications at SB, reconsider use of lathe,.060 deep.
10/3/75 BCBE 625 bar suppliers have withdrawn, machine more than.060??
10/8/75 telecon with Tech Steel and Alloy.
10/10/75 memo on shop inspection, Rex finished, need SB surveillance, grinding, MT.
10/15/75 TWX to MVSS, will. studs be delivered 1/76? Superior HT procedure? Disposition?
10/22/75 Phone memo, SB has 85 studs which pass NT examination.
10/29/75 SB surveillance, bolts being evaluated.
10/30/75 le tter, Newgen-MVSS, Superior RI procedure, hardness, temper temperature.
11/4-5/75 SB surveillance, machining of studs.
11/11/75
. TWX, SB proposes turning bolts to 2.257 diameter.
11/18/75 SB surveillance, machining of bolts.
11/20/75 SB sends SB MT procedure to MVSS ("now have proper equipment").
w m
~
_ ap-
'.s -
F 7
- ?
_11'/20/75 TWX, can reduce stud diameter to 2.257".
11/25/75' SB surveillance.
I 1
'12/3/75 SB MI procedure Rev. I sent to Bechtel.
)
}
12/4/75 SB order to Tech Steel & Alloy for Unit II material (7),
-12/4/75.
letter, 77 studs pass shop Mr procedure 12/15/75 SB Mr's bolts during this week, machining of bolts. continues (surveillance).
1/4/76 97 bolts pass MT during this week, are released for shipment by inspector.
-1/6/76 date of inspector-witnessed MT tests at SB.
1/7/76 visual -inspection of studs at SB, QC agr. signs paperwork.
1/7/76 procedure for hand grind..ng approved by Bechtel.
1/13/76 Bechtel inspector and SB QC mgr sign paperwork.
1/14/76 96 bolts shipped to construction site at Midland.
s 1/15/76 approved hand grind procedure sent from MVSS to SB.
I 1/22/76 Unit I bolts (96) arrive onsite at Midland.
1/21/761etter, MVSS-SB, error in P.O. 24-hr test is required (done?).
i/27-30/76 SB surveillance.
1/30/76 visual inspection of bolts onsite at Midland.
l 2/16-20/76 SB surveillance, nuts inspected.
2/20/76 Unit II material shipped to SB from Tech Steel & Alloy.
3/12/76 SB surveillance, newly acquired material for anchor bolts.
. i 3/17/76 withdrawal from stock request for bolts _(for construction).
3/24/76 SBsurve111ance, replacement for new material rejected (?).
SB surveillance.
4/20/76
~ ' 4/23/76 '
SB surveillance.
4/29/76 SB surveillance, linear indications at 1 inch, 4 equal spaces due to chuck, j
5/5/76 SB surveillance, grinding of indications.
5/11/76 QC agr. signs CMTR's for Unit II bolts.
5/13/76 ~
meno on final shipment of studs (Unit II).
l
. < ~v s
e 8
1 5/12-14/76 final SB surveillance
-5/17/76 correction instructions, add 2 HT reports & tensile values (Unit II bolts)
F 8/30/76 memo on ASME code usage for component supports.
10/22/76 telecon
~
11/8/76 SCN 6007 adds 25 mil lateral expansion as charpy test criteria 4/77 Unit I studs embedded in concrete at Midland 7/23-30/79 Studs tensioned (Unit 1) 7/26/79 Stud #35 tensioned (as part of above tensioning) 9/14/79 stud #3 found to be broken 9/18/79 broken end of stud recovered.
10/1/79 teledyne contacted 10/19/79 broken stud #3 sent to Teledyne.
12/19-20/79 second broken stud observed in outer ring.
12/20/79 PN III 79-66 issued on broken studs.
s 12/21/79 second broken stud sent to Teledyne.
1/22/80 PN III 79-66A update on broken studs.
1/25/80 Teledyne report.
2/5/80 third stud found broken.
2/14/80 meeting at SB, NRC, Bechtel, Consumers, SB personnel (no Rex personnel).
- 2/27-29/80 NRC investigation onsite at Midland.
3/5-6/80 NRC investigation at SB, 3/12-13/80 NRC investigation at Rex.
3/18-19/80 NRC investigation at Bechtel (Ann Arbor).
3/20/80 NRC investigation at MVSS 4/2/80 call to" Consumers (Wood) ten questions from investigation & review.
/' /80 investigation report drafted
-/: /80 investigation report issued
/ /80:
close-out meeting with Consumers, Bechtel.
l
q.
t.
Consumers Power James W Cook Vice President - Projects, Engsneering and Constrsection
' General Offices: 1946 West Pernest Road, Jackson, M1 **201 e (S17) 788 0453 November 23, 1981 Mr J G Keppler, Regional Director
.0ffice of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Re'gion III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND PROJECT -
MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50-330 UNIT NO 1, REACTOR VESSEL BROKEN ANCHOR BOLT -
FII" 0.4.9.35 SERIAL 15035 l
REFERENCES 1.
CONSUMERS POWER LETTERS TO J G KEPPLER, SAME SUBJECT a.
HOWE-267-79 DATED OCTOBER 12, 1979 b.
HOWE-311-79 DATED DECEMBER 14, 1979 c.
HOWE-51-80 DATED MARCH 3, 1980 d.
HOWE-80-80 DATED APRIL 30, 1980 e.
SERIAL 8971 DATED MAY 16, 1980 f.
SERIAL 8809 DATED AUGUST 1, 1980 g.
SERIAL 9330 DATED JULY 24, 1980 h.
SERIAL 9787 DATED DECEMBER 10, 1980
- i. SERIAL 11524 DATED MARCH 31, 1981
- j. SERIAL 12051 DATED JULY 17, 1981 2.
J G KEPPLER LETTER TO S H HOWELL, DOCKET NOS59-329 AND 50-330 DATED AUGUST 18, 1980 3.
R L TEDESCO LETTER TO J W COOK, DOCKET NOS 50-329 AND 50-330 DATED MARCH 6, 1981 4.
D S HOOD LETTER TO CONSUMERS POWER DATED JULY 7, 1980 Enclosures 1.
Report entitled, " Reactor Pressure Vessel Support Modification for Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Midland, Michigan, Report No 3", dated November 1981.
2.
Letter Report - Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) Project 5355: Expanded Criteria for Acceptability for Service of Midland Unit 1 RV Anchor Stress.
oc1181-0965a141 C-1 1 ^ ^ - AO %
n s I,luO V ch i '-
3 SERIAL 15035 2
References 1.a through j were Interim 50.55(e) reports, concerning the broken anchor bolts in the Unit No 1 reactor vessel support skirt.
Reference 1.g provided interim technical information concerning the reactor pressure vessel support modification and the schedule for the accomplishment of that modification. Reference 1.h provided the description of the analyt'ical techniques being used that the NRC had requested in Reference 4.
Enclosure I to this report supersedes References 1.g and 1.h by providing updated and current information as to the design of the modified support system, analytical techniques to be used and the completion schedules. provides a report from Teledyne Engineering Services on expanded acceptance criteria for the anchor stud stress.
The two enclosed reports comprise a complete and current package of documentation describing the design concept, the analytical techniques to be used and the completion schedule for the modification of the reactor vessel support system. The reports are in concurrence with the requirement in Reference 3 to keep the NRC informed of developments and progress made by the Company with regard to this issue.
Immediately following NRR's review of the enclosures, it is the Company's intent to meet with NRR staff members on December 3,1981 to present a summary of these reports and to resolve any concerns they might have and thereby obtain formal recognition that the conditions and understandings specified in References 2 and 3 have still been satisfied.
This letter is intended to be an interim 50.55(e) report transmitting our final technical report on the reactor vessel anchor bolt modification.
The final 50.55(e) report will be submitted on or before December 3,1981. Upon completion of this task, the final designs and analytical results will be reported in the FSAR.
JWC/BFH/c1 oc1181-0965alh1 s
s SERIAL 15035 3
e CC Director of Office of Inspection & Enforcement (15)
Director, Office of Management, Information and Program Control (1)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board CBechhoefer, ASLB w/o MMCherry, Esq RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector FPCowan, ASLB w/o RSDecker, ASLB w/o HDenton, NRC (5)
SHFreeman, Esq, Ass't Attorney General w/o JHarbour, ASLB w/o DSHood, NRC (2)
FJKelley, Esq, Attorney General w/o WHMarshall WDPaton, Esq w/o MSinclair w/o GTTaylor, Esq, Ass't Attorney General w/o t
oc1181-0965a141
f3 PRET.TNTRARY NOTIFICATION e
Data: 1/22/80 PRELIMINARY NOTITICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE--PNO-III 79-66A This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE
~ safety or public interest significance. The information presented is as initially received without verification or evaluation and is basically all that is known by IE staff as of this date.
Facility: Consumers Power Company Midland Unit 1 (DN 50-329)
Midland, Michigan
Subject:
BROKEN REACTOR VESSEL ANCHOR BOLTS AT WIDLAND 1 CONSTEJCTION SITE This PN is an update of PNO-III-66 issued on December 20, 1979.
The following information was received by Consumers Power Company on tests performed on the Midland 1 reactor vessel anchor bolts.
1.
Test results indicate that most of the bolts have a hardness value above the ASME material specification Limit (indication of brittleness).
2.
The cause for the two bolts previously reported broken at Midland 1 was due to stress corrosion cracking in conjunction with the potential sub-standard mechanical properties of the bolts.
3.
The 96 bolts received by Midland may have been part of a larger order of bolts heat treated at the same time by the J. W. Rex Company. The disposition of the remaining 90 bolts from that order is not known at this time.
ALL information to date indicates that the bolt material in Midland Unit 2 is acceptable.
The Licensee is planning to meet with consultants and Bechtel next week to i
review the data further. Region III wiLL follow this problem at the Midland site.
No press release is planned by the Licensee until the final evaluation of the material is made. The NRC does not plan a press release at this time.
l-Distribution:
Transmitted H St Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Bendrie S. J. Chilk, SECT
_sissioner Gilinsky Coa.ainsioner Bradford C. C. Iammerar, CA Commissioner Eennedy ACRS Qor Distribution)
I Transmitted: MNBB P. 31ds IE:XOOS (IE: BQ Dist.
- L. V. Gossick, EDO H. R. Denton, NKR I. 1.'Ornstein, EDO R. C. DeYoung, NRR J. J. Fouchard, PA R. J. Mattson, NRR Landow (6 min /page)
N. M. Baller, MPA D. Vassallo, NRR J. J. Cummings, CIA R. G. Ryan, OSP D. Eisenhut, MRR E. E. Shapar, EID SS Blds (MAIL) l W. J. Dircks. NHSS R. Hinogue, SD l
S. Levine, RES IE:IOOS
\\
i
.ynET.TNTMARY NOTIFICATION
-~
~~
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
' The State of Michigan is being notified.
The information was provided by the Licensee at the Jackson, Michigan corporate office at approximately 12:30 p.m. on January 21, 1980.
fl
' aA 2
Contact:
R. C. Knop, RIII
. F oretti, RIII 384-2578 384-2603 i.
Distribution:
Transmitted R St Chairman Ahearne commissioner Bendrie S. J. Chilk, SECY p
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford C. C. Iammerer, CA
, Commissioner Kennedy ACRS (For Distribution)
. Transmitted: IDfBB P. Bldg IE:200S (IE: BQ Dist.
'I.. V. Gossick, EDO E. R. Denton, NRR I. 1. Ornstein, IDO R. C. DeYoung, NRR J. J. Fouchard, PA R. J. Mattson, NRR 1,sadow (6 min /page)
N. M. Baller, MPA D. Vassallo, NRR J. J. Cummings, CIA R. G. Ryan, OSP D. Eisenbut, MRR E. E. Shapar ELD BS Bldg (MAIL) l W. J. Dircks. MMSS R. Minogue, SD l
S. Levine, RES II:IOOS PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
,....-...,,.....,...,...........c,..
I C I PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION 9'
Date: 12/20/79 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE--PNO-III-66 This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE safety or public interest significance. The information presented is as initially received without verification or evaluation and is basically all that is known by IE staff as of this date.
Facility: Consumers Power Company Midland Unit 1 (DN 50-329)
Midland, Michigan
Subject:
BROKEN REACTOR VESSEL ANCHOR BOLTS AT MIDLAND 1 CONSTRUCTION SITE Consumers Power reportea to RIII (Chicago) that a second reactor vessel anchor bolt on Midland Unit 1 was found broken on December 19, 1979. A previous bolt had been found broken on September 14, 1979 and was reported as a 10 CFR 50.55(e) item at that time. Both bolts were heat number 654N136.
They were treated at J. W. Rex Company and supplied by Southern Bolt and Fastener Corporation. The material originated at Bethlehem Steel. Fifty-eight bolts of this heat number were installed in Unit 1 and none in Unit 2.
Teledyne Engineering Services is currently performing a series of tests on the first bolt material and results are expected in the near future.
It is not known at this time if this heat number was supplied to any other reactor site.
This PN is being issued because of possible generic considerations. Region III is following up on this matter.
No press release is planned by the licensee or the NRC.
The State of Michigan is being notified.
This information was provided by a regional based inspector at Midland site at 1:30 p.m. on December 20, 1979.
ffC V
Contact:
R. C. Knop, RIII G. F orelli, RIII 384-2578 384-2603 Distribution:
Transmitted H St Chairmaa Ahearne Commissioner Hendrie S. J. Chilk, SECY Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford C. C. Kammerer, CA Commissioner Kennedy ACRS (For Distribution)
Transmitted: MNBB P. Bldg _
IE:XOOS (IE: HQ Dist.
L. V. Gossick, EDO H. R. Denton, NRR H. L. Ornstein, EDO R. C. DeYoung, NRR J. J. Fouchard, PA R. J. Mattson, NRR Landow (6 min /page)
N. M. Haller, MPA D. Vassallo, NRR J. J. Cummings, OIA R. G. Ryan, OSP D. Eisenhut, NRR H. K. Shapar, ELD SS Bldg (HAIL)
W. J. Dircks. NMSS R. Minogue, SD S. Levine, RES IE:XOOS PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION
. ew ff m *J n. f1 *? / L o T vJJfu em 7
,g W
P
~
.D NAC W11VCT MGG7?N6
'l 2.- 8 0 Y. V.
WC#02 boL T5 xmyg-coupe y riri.e-
~
.D. A Amf77M&
CN*
QA GRut" sus'V.
R n 'l w A u b -
C9eo C; + b
& L/iS ~~~
J. L. b. hec CPb
$ 3 4 G e = g J p..
{ la. bcG.
btAA Asse Projdl&pa 4Dr eis ;, m ck FLJ,Q Pe w R-e. swpf C k a+e-h YVC5 Ck Oss7mncht 5'vgv [
R uu Goauer)
Rc e.vr. 1-ic20. sva/2..
L.
/4 u, w'.5/,,
&Pr.
i *- ls~*ius' ~ %
y
[E~.
dn
~
$$C 2 /.LL.
$s,Y.2l:seNe/sr--
A. J'. ccoI4
- 4c
&sevT as&9g W
dMEd' 5. %f.
R TE _
~
7 9
-e-e e
b 4446m e
t
--+
9 e
. ew
<e mm 6
9 O
y Y
- W ee 4
mW -
l i
i 4.
. & tie: "24:
n.,
SAh f.YDU-.$3 1.
1 N a n:
'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Q-/
F 3,
n
/
LE REGION lli
{
~
- 8 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD e '
O GLEN ELLYN,ILLINOls 6o137 r
o
.y 1
FjUN 2 7 E MEMORANDUM 10R:
Dudley Thompson, Executive Officer for Operations Support FROM:
James G. Keppler, Director, Region III
SUBJECT:
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY - RECOMMENDED ORDER We recommend that an Order be issued to Consumers Power Company requiring licensee action to correct unacceptable anchor bolts at the Midland facility.
This is a significant technical problem. Recognizing that a hearing is pend-ing on an Order related to inadequate foundation materials at the site, and recognizing the technical significance of this problem, we believe that an Order requiring corrective action is warranted. A draft letter to the li-censee and Order is attached for Headquarters use.
Certain items of noncompliance were identified during the course of the investigation and these are included as an attachuient to the draf t Order.
Considering that these items occurred 4-5 years ago, we see no purpose in requiring a response to the items of noncompliance. The Order requires the necessary licensee corrective action.
We have been in contact with NRR personnel who are evaluating the licen-see's proposed corrective action. While they indicate that their review is not complete, they believe the proposed actions will be acceptable upon final review.
Please let us know if you have questions on this matter.
k
-Q&
4 Jame's G. Keppler Director i
Attachments:
~
1.
Draft Letter to licensee w/ attached Order 2.
Draft Investigation Report cc w/ attachments:
H. D. Thornburg, RCI J. Lieberman, ELD cc w/ attachment 1:
R. DeYoung, IE
_ c=ffn % % 't /lL
'utvw'vJt" f
P' p.,
UNITED STATES
+*
'o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
3,,
g REGION 111 f3 a
799 MOOSEVELT ROa0 (1\\
,e*g GLEN ELLYN,ILLINotS 80137 Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 J
Consumers Power Company
~
ATTN: Mr. Scephen H. Howell Vice President 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 2
Gentlemen:
This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. J. E. Foster and C. M. Erb of the Region III Office during February 27 - May 2,1980, re-garding the procurement and manufacture of reactor vessel holddown studs utilized for Midland Unit 1.
Our findings were discussed during a meet-ing between J. G. Keppler, Director, Region III and you and members of your respective staffs on May 2,1980.
Our investigation findin'gs indicate serious deficiencies related to the for these important specification, material selection and, heat treatment to iden-items, and we are concerned that your system was not sufficient tify these deficiencies. Based on our concerns relative to bolting ma-cerials, we are issuing the attached Order requiring specific corrective actions.
'4
-f.,
j f
' E.
..o' Consumers Power Company Items of noncompliance identified during this investigation are attached
~
to the' Order. We recognize that the reactor vessel holddown studs were manuf actured approximately five years ago, and conditions relative to Therefore, no response their manufacture cannot be altered at this date.
to the specific items of noncompliance is required.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosure, will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Your response to the enclosed Order and future inspections will determine if further escalated enforcement action is required.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.,
Director Office of Inspection and 1
Enforcement
Y?-
- ~
'.e fl
.I
,', 4' Consumers Power. Company '
u I "
Enclosures:
' I* /
1.
Draft letter to licensee e
with enclosed Order 2.-
Draft IE Investigation Reports L.
I-No. 50-329/80-13 and No.
50-330/80-14 cc w/encis:
Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry, Chicago G
2
- q
.s s'.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE NATTER OF:
Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-329 Midland Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-330 Units 1 and 2 I
The Consumers Power Company (the " licensee") is the holder of Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 and No. CPPR-82 which authorize the construction of The construction per-two pressurized water reactors in Midland, Michigan.
mets expire on October 1,1981 and October 1,1982 for Unit 2 and Unit I respectively.
II In February 1980, the licensee reported that three reactor hold down bolts '
on Unit I had failed. An investigation into this problem, which was con-f cluded on April 18, 1980,- shows that the hold down bolts on the Unit 1 j
The reactor vessel are unacceptable per ASME III and ASTM specifications.
bolts were made of improper material and not properly heat treated or Improper engineering judgements including specification of material tested.
P
/
Consumers Power Company.
and quality assurance deficiencies led to the problem. The related violations of NRC regulations are set ferth in Attachment 1.
Under existing criteria, the bolts are rejectable on Unit 1 and similar bolts on Unit 2 and the steam generators are questionable.
III I
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regu-lations, activities authorized by construction permits or portions thereof may be suspended should the Commission find information which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a construction permit on an original application. We conclude that the engineering and quality assurance de-ficiencies which led to the failure of the reactor hold down bolts are an adequate basis to refuse to grant a construction permit, and therefore, suspension of certain activities under Construction Permits No. CPPR-81 1
and No. CPPR-82 is warranted if these safety related issues cannot be resolved.
IV In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE LICENSEE SHALL:
y
's
.t A.
,s Consumers Power Company
- a) obtain approval of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the method of repair of the reactor vessel anchor bolts for Unit 1; b) provide assurance that anchor bolts for the Unit 2 reactor vessel and the steam generators meet existing criteria, and if they do j
not meet existing criteria, obtain approval from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of the method of repair of these anchor l
bolts; and 1
c) assure that other safety related bolting and component support materials have been procured according to the proper quality standards and codes and provide a written report within 30 days i
I to the Region III office as to the extent of the materials re-viewed.
Until such time as items a), b), and c) above are complete, the licensee shall cease all further safety related construction work regarding the bolts in question or other construction not approved by NRR to provide compensation for the unacceptable bolts, i
V The licensee or any person whose interest is affected by this Order may within twenty (20) days of date of this Order request a hearing with i
f f
e c.
,.-.y,,,,_e---,,m_,,,,,,-_,
,,,,,.my
,.m.----m..w
,--_m,
b*
t Consumers Power Company
- respect to all or any part of this Order. In the event a hearing is re-quested, issues to be considered will be:
1 1) whether the facts set forth in Section II of this Order are correct; and I
2) whether this Order should be sustained.
1 I
Any request for a hearing shall not stay the effective date of this Order.
FOR THE NUCLEAR RF.GULATORY COMMISSION l
t Victor Stello, Jr.
Harold Denton Director Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Office of Inspection and Enforcene.t Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of
, 1980
Attachment:
l 1
8' Attachment
, NOTICE OF VIOLATION Docket No. 50-329 Consumers Power Company t
Docket No. 50-330 This refers to the investigation conducted by representatives of the Region III office at the Midland site on February 27-29, 1980; with subsequent visits March 5-6 at Southern Bolt Company; March 11-12 at J. W. Rex Company; March 18-19 at Bechtel; March 20 at Mississippi Valley Structural Steel, April 18 at Bechtel, discussed during the May 2, 1980 meeting at the Region III Offices.
It appears that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC requirements as noted below. Each item is an infraction.
that.
1.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IV, requires, in part,
.i
" Measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements, design bases, and other requirements, which are neces-sary to assure adequate quality are suitably included or referenced
. whether in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, purchased by the applicant or by its contractors and subcontractors."
i I
l 9
e e
',. Attachment 1 Governing procurement specification No. 7220-C-233(Q), Revision 3, states that reactor vessel anchor bolts and nuts will be utilized
~ as ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers),Section III, Divi-sion 1, Class I component supports. Complete requirements for Section III, Class I component supports were incorporated in the Winter 1973 amendment to Section III, and were identified as Component Supports, Subsection NF.
The purchase order for reactor vessel anchor bolts was dated September 16, 1974, making the applicable ASME Code Edition Winter of 1973 or Summer, 1974.
Contrary to the above requirement, Subsection NF was not made the requirement for reactor vessel anchor bolts with the following re-sults:
ASTM A354 Grade BD was specified as the stud material, which a.
did not have an ASME code allowable stress at the time of order, September 16, 1974.
While fracture toughness tests were made, no attention was b.
given to the brittle fracture indicated by lateral deforma-l tion tests.
u we,5;;: * "'? ? h >"l.^t,'M _
4, fson[,,;;
. AMG Y !P:,
^
N ".;.* Lum.
trv.5fec7M iN - m~.,
fWI
/f MW/M & M fg
-+
.c
.,4 r '- Attachment 1 O
F 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, requires, in part, that " Measures 3.
shall be established to assure that... heat treating, and nonde-structive testing, are controlled and accomplished by qualified person-nel using qualified procedures in accordance with codes, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements."
Contrary to the above, measures did not assure that heat treating and nondestructive tests were controlled in'accordance with applicable codes and specifications. Examples are:
1 The Southern Bolt Quality Assurance manual in Paragraph 2M, a.
Section 10.0, requires that purchase orders state "where the heat treater is to Brinell (hardness test) pieces."
Contrary to this requirement, no location (e.g. surface of bolt) 3 for this test was cpecified in the heat treatment purchase order.
I b.
ASTM Code requirements (A-354, A-370) provide for hardness testing of bolting materials. These requirements call for surface hardness tests, with subsurface tests being allowed under specific and limited conditions.
..- --~.,. -
~.----..,,n.--.
---.---r,-,-
l Contrary to these requirements, greater than specified hard-I ness results on the surface of the studs led to performing hardness tests at the mid-radius, on the end of tensile test
~
specimens. Conditions to allow such testing under ASTM Codes were not present, and such tests defeat the purpose of the hardness test as a nondestructive test.
The heat treat procedure utilized for treating the reactor c.
studs, J. W. Rex (il, Section 2, states that a " furnace load shall consist of approximately 10 pieces plus test bars."
Contrary to the above, furnace temperature charts submitted for documentation (dated April, 1975) indicate that tempering furnace loads exceeded 10 pieces f38-39 studs were tempered per furnace load).
(It is also noted that, in one case, two test pieces did not accompany production bars during heat treatment. Therefore, the test results for this test piece may not represent those for the production pieces).
d.
Purchase Order #24844, from Mississippi Valley Structural Steel to Southern Bolt and Fastener Corp., in section 5, indicated that " total material traceability is required."
J. W. Rex Heat Treat Procedure, J. W. Rex #1, Rev. 4, in sec-tion 2, required testing and documentation to be on the basis of material heats.
~
Contrary to the above, material traceability was not maintained in that J. W. Rex was not notified that the studs to be heat treated consisted of two types of steel and four material heats until initial heat treating had been accomplished.
l 1
7'% ~ ~.
j#
.,,. /
. J-U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g :,.
f 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III
} Report No. 50-329/80-13; 50-330/80-14 License No. CPPR-81; CPPR-82; Docket No. 50-329; 50-330 Licensee: Consumers Power Company
+
1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 i
Facility Name: Midland, Units 1 and 2 Investigation At: Midland Site, Midland Southern Bolt Company, Shreveport, LA J. W. Rex Company Lansdale, PA Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co.
St. Louis, MO Investigation Conducted: February 27-29, March 5-6, 12-13, 20, April 18, and May 2, 1980 Investigator:
Date l
J. E. Foster Inspector:
Date C. M. Erb Reviewed by:
Date C. E. Norelius Assistant to the Director Date R. C. Knop, Chici Projects Section 1 Investination Summary Investigation on February 27-29, March 5-6, 12-13, 20, April 18, May 2, 1980 (Report Nos. 50-329/80-13; $0-330/80-14)
.', 7 --
,5~,
7%_3. '.
y Y
t.d 1
Special, announced investigation concerning manufacture Areas Investimated:
and installation of reactor pressure vessel holddown studs utilized in Midland The investigation required 150 inspector hours by two NRC personnel.
Of the areas investigated, 3 items of noncompliance were identified:
Unit 1.
Results:
(Infraction - Inadequate Procurement Document Control - Details section, Fara-Details Sec-
, graph 6b; Infraction - Inadequate Control of Special Processes -
gion, Paragraphs 6d, 6e, 6f; Infraction - Inadequate Control of Purchased
.flaterial,EquipmentandServices-Detailssection, Paragraph 6f).
1 9
i G
4 1
I
,__.-..m..
s.
?~
DRAR REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Consumers Power Company (CPCo) personnel notified On September 14, 1979, NRC Region III, by telephone, of the discovery of a broken reactdr vessel I reactor vessel. This condition was holddown stud on the Midland Unit gubsequently reported under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e) 6n with interim status reports on December 14, 1979 and October 12, 1979, As Two other studs were subsequently found to be broken.
March 3, 1980.
this condition reflected a significant deficiency, an NRC investigation was initiated to review the materials, manufacture, and installation of the studs.
SUMMARY
OF FACTS 4-5, 1980, Region III (RIII) inspectors visited the Midland site on February the supplier's facility on February 14, 1980.
{
{
and also attended a meeting at The results of this inspection and meeting are reported in IE Inspection Report No. 50-329/80-05, 50-330/80-05.
The investigation into the causes of the stud failures was initiated by a 27-29, 1980.
Subsequently, visits were made site, visit during February to the principal contractor (Kississippi Valley Structural Steel), the creating supplier (Southern Bolt and Fastener Corporation), the heat facility (J.W. Rex Co.), and the Architect-Engineer (Bechtel Power Corporation). During these visits, pertinent files were reviewed, and personnel were interviewed. Materials gathered during these visits were intensively reviewed.
The investigation findings indicate that the root cause of the anchor stud failures was the failure to characterize the studs as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)Section III, Class 1. Component Supports (Divi-This failure allowed use of ac American Society of Testing and sion NF).
Materials (ASIM) etandard specification which would not be allowed under Division NF.
Among contributing factors were:
The ASTM specification utilized (ASTM A-354) allowed use of American 1.
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 4140 and 4145 steel in stud manuf acture.
in the diameter This material is very difficult to properly heat treat Difficulties in through-hardening of the required for these studs.
steel in the larger diameters may produce a hard surface and softer center.
The heat treater had extreme difficulty treating the material and ob-Finally, hard-2.
taining acceptable hardness and tensile test results.
ness tests taken from halfway between the surface and center locations provided acceptable hardness results, but did not indicate the unac-Two reported tests ceptably hard surface (44-48 Rockwell C).
test pieces which did not receive the same treatment as the production run of studs. _
D R P d=
- 4 p
Charpy' impact tests were obtained for the studs, and test results provided
.l indications of questionable properties. However, these impact tests had i
3.
been performed 7 h r'information only" and the results were not reviewed.
Previously reported manufacturing problems had not triggered any concern which would cause a review of the Charpy tests.
l Several Quality. Assurance deficiencies were noted; (1) lack of licensee l
~
(2) failure to advise the heat treater of different heats involvement; of material; (3) inadequate document review; (4) failure to respond to T
indications that the stu'ds were deficient; (5) failure to review ma-i
.. terials previously purchased, when the purchase specification was revised; and (6) miscalculation of the stud stress area resulting in a slight over-specification stressing of the studs (this item was licensee identified).
- The stud failure mechanism has been identified as stress-assiste corrosion cracking, resulting from properties of the stud material.
The licensee is in the process of de-tensioning the Unit I studs and I
evaluating their use.
l Tests indicate that some studs utilized in Unit 2, although of different material and heat treatment, have above-specification surface hardness Some steam generator bolts are also questionable and are.
readings.
under review.
A Bechtel memo-An unresolved item was identified during file reviews.
randa indicated that it had been project practice not to include refer-ence to ASME III in design documents. It is not known if other items 4
An unresolved ites is f
were procured without reference to ASME III.
I one where more information is needed to determine if noncompliance exists.
I i
)
I I
r
[
'.4
^
i l
i DR AFT DETAILS 1.
Personnel contacted Consumers Power W. Bird, Manager, Midland QA J. Cook, Vice President, Hidland T. Cooke, Project Superintendent J. Corley, Section Head, IE&TV S. Howell, Senior Vice President H. Hudson, Procurement D. Keating, QA Group Supervisor B. Peck, Construction Supervisor H. Slager, Materials Section, Design R. Wheeler, PND-Civil Section J. Wood, Quality Assurance Group Supervisor Bechtel Power Corporation J. Barbee, Supervisor, Codes and Standards W. Barclay, PFQCE A. Boos, Project Field Engineer C. Boyak, Project Engineer R. Brown, Attorney P. Corcoran, Resident Assistant Project Engineer L. Davis, Construction L. Dreisbach, PQA Engineer M. Elgaaly, Project Engineer P. Goguen, Field Engineer H. Hudson, Procurement J. Russell, QC J. Rutgers, Project Manager R. Sevo, QA Engineer E. Smith, QA T. Suplee, Project Engineer D. Yuan, Project Engineer Mississippi Valley Structural Steel M. Cohn, Engineer J. Pantukhoff, Vice Prgsident So,uthern Bolt and Fastener Corporation R. Alexander, Vice President K. Day, QC Administrator T. Goin, Field Sales Representative j
E. Nelson, President D. Sibley, Quality Assurance J. Williams, Shipping J. Wood, Purchasing 5-6!
MI.'f% Y!M *,** y *;,*p; w._.
-+
lI..
({' -
>.1
.. _.. A.}_;,.[U, g-}
..-. N. :
r
^
T 4j q
j J. W. Rex Company G. Derstine, Director, Quality Control K. Krewson, Division Superintendent F. Vasso, Sales Mapsger 2..
Introduction The Midland Nuclear Power Plant, Unit I and 2, licensed to Consumers
?
Power Company, is under construction on a site approximately one mile Bechtel Power Corporation is the Architect-
, south of Midland, Michigan.
Engineer and Constructor for the plant, designed to utilize a Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Steam Supply System. Unit 1 is designed to supply process steam to nearby Dow Chemical Corporation in addition to pro-ducing electric power.
The reactor pressure vessels for these units are supported by a reactor Two vessel skirt, which rests on a sole plate in the reactor pedestal.
rows of reactor holddown studs (48 inner, 48 outer) secure the reactor These studs are 2 1/2 inches in diameter, 7 skirt to the sole plate.
feet 4 inches in length, weigh approximately 124 pounds each, and are secured to an embedded anchor plate. By design, the studs were to be These studs are designed to pretensioned to 75 KSI (See Exhibit I).
accomodate postulated accident loadings (vessel tip and uplift) and perform no critical function during normal reactor operation.
While the reactor holddown studs are studs by definition (no bolt head is present) the terms stud and bolt have both been used to des-cribe this equipment.
3.
Scope This investigation was conducted to review the history of the reactor pressure vessel studs at the Midland Plant as to their specification, The materials, fabrication, heat treatment, testing and installation.
investigation focused on the studs utilized for Unit 1.
The chronology of the NRC investigation is attached as Exhibit II, and a chronology of bolt manufacture is attached as Exhibit VI.
4.
Technical Background The hardenability of an alloy is defined as its ability to trans-form to a fully hardened structure (martensite) throughout a cross section from the austenitizing temperature in the quench medium Statements from the bolting section of the 1978 Metals used.
Handbook indicate that (1) "As strength increases and section size increases, hardenability becomes the most important factor in choosing a bolting material," and (2) following an oil quench, i
the center section of a bolt should be 90% martensite.
4140/41f5steelforstuds25inchesindiameter The choice of AISI by 7 feet 4 inches in length, weighing approximately 124 lbs. each, makes meeting this important metallurgical requirement extremely difficult. Test results indicate that the studs have varying pro-e
Uggn s.
t.
the heat treatment did not produce uniform re-W perties, indicating thatHowever, due to the properties of the steel itself, it is l
suits.
4140/4145 steel could have been adequate y questionable whether AISI i h rejection races.
. heat treated in this size range without h g steel is a commonly utilized bolting materiaI, found AISI-4140-4145 It is recognized by the ASTM Code as*an ac-ceptable material. in smaller diameter bolting, in a range from 1/2 -
in many applications.
1 3/4 inches. In this size range, the material can be heat treated 2
In larger sizes the material is very difficult
~ to through harden, with the center of the material being several with relative ease.
points Rc (Rockwell Hardness) sof ter than the surface.
the As a consequence of the material properties and heat treatment, surface of the studs is extremely hard, while the mid radius proper -
i ties barely meet or are below the hardness and mechanical requ re-ments of the stud specification.
Certain anomolous indications raised questions about the stud material.
In addition to hardness gradients across the studs, test records indi-cate some locations along the length of the studs are harder than other locations.
The bar stock utilized for reactor holddown studs did n Such bolts are typically purchased as vacuum-degassed steel, The material is then machined to the needed bolts.
and purchased oversize. size, eliminating surface defects which could be a ca q
tion when magnetic testing is done.
The application of the studs is as important as the material in judging The studs are considerably stressed, ar;d embedded in con-The crate, conditions conducive to stress assisted corrosion cracking.
suitability.
is threaded areas provide a notch area where this failure mechanism most likely to occur.
I 5.
Review of FSAR The Midland Final Safety Analysis Report refers to the reactor vessel anchor bolts specifically in several sections, and by inference in other sections.
3.8.1.6.4.1, Section 3.8.1.6.4, " Containment Liner Place," in Paragraph
" Materials," nctes that the bolts are to be to ASTM 354, grade BD (modi-fled).
Paragraph 3.8.3.1 1 describes the bolts, but does not discuss their
. design.
Paragraph 3.8.3.4.1 addresses Reactor Coolant Equipment Supports, Seismic on Page 3.8-49, refers to design standards for bolts utilized inThis s Category I structural supports. i
A:
Revision 17, dated January, 1979, and was in response to NRC questions This section appears to commit the licensee to on FSAR statements.
resulted in the revision of Section 3.8.3.4.1, 110.51(3.9.3)
The question dealt with anchor bolts, and support designs.
NRC question 110.57(3.9.3) requested further clarifying information noted above.
NRC question after the initial response to question 110.51, and also applies to
~
bolting.
~ The licensee stated that this response had been mislocated in the FSAR, and was not meant to pertain to reactor vessel support bolting.
Table 3.8-32 appears to apply to the bolts, again describing their material as ASTM A-354, Grade BD.
Figure 3.8-30 is the drawing in the FSAR reflecting stud location and arrangement.
None of the FSAR sections appear to specifically cosusit to ASME Sec-tion III for reactor support holddown bolts.
6.
Manufacture of Holddown Studs AISI 4140 and 4145 (low alloy) hot rolled steel Material purchase.
rods, 2 1/2 inches in diameter, were utilized for stud manufacture.
a.
The steel was purchased from Shill Steel (heat "0000," and not utilized), Armco Steel (heat "00") and Bethlehem Steel (heats "0" and "000") during February 1973 to March 1974. No special require-ments were imp; sed on the material, such as vacuum degassing or Chemical analyses supplied machining to reduce surface defects.
As the by the suppliers showed typical values for these steels or purchase order, Southern Bolt and Fastener (Southern Bolt) did not know how this material would be utilized, and was simply Southern Bolt personnel advised that this stocking steel rod.
material was utilized due to unavailability of other grades of steel or larger diameter material.
Discussions indicated that, at this time, Southern Bolt and Fastener was a relatively small firm which manufactured bolts 1
and studs by cutting and threading steel rods and forging heads This was.their first significant nuclear order.
for bolts.
Requirements for reactor vessel anchor studs were included in Bechtel Specification No. 7220-C-233(Q), " Technical Specification.
b.
Specifications for Purchase of Hiscellaneous Metal for Consumers Power Company."
The ' specification, in Revision No. 3, dated December 5,1974, and later revisions, included in Section 5.10 the notation that "These anchor bolts and nuts will be utilized as ASME Section III, l-r j
L l
e.
.a b../~~h I
~
Division 1, Class I, Component Supports." File information, j
+
(See Exhibit III) indicates that this notation is not an i
and ASME Section III was intended to govern the pro-
- error, curement of reactor vessel anchor bolts.
WhilecomponentSupportsweredescribedinASMESectionIhl,1968, a separate Subsection, NT-Component Sopports, was added to the 1973 Winter Addenda of the ASME Code, and '. ras required for ma-f
~
As j
terials purchased to ASME III specifications six months later.
the purchase order for the reactor vessel helddown bolts was issued on September 16, 1974, the studs should have been characterized as ASME Section III, Class 1, Subsection-NF materials (the reactor pressure. vessel code dated 1968 is not applicable to these bolts File as they were not a part of the reacter vessel contract).
documents indicate that attempts were made to specify the studs However, the specification L
to the equivalent of NF requirements.
does not meet NT requirements in several significant areas, in-cluding ASTM specsfications, materials, and testing requirements.
l Failure to properly characterize the studs is contrary to 10 CFR l
50, Appendix B, Criterion IV, and the Procurement Specification No. 7220-C-233(Q).
(50-329/80-13-01, 50-330/80-14-01).
Included in file documentation was a memo (See Exhibit IV) in-dicating that it was a project practice to refrain from citing It is not known ASME Section III in purchase specifications.
if other items were procured without reference to ASME Section This is an unresolved item (50-329/80-13-01U, 50-330/80-14 j
III.
l
-01U).
l As originally issued for procurement on May 3, 1974, Bechtel l
Specification No. 7220-C-233(Q), Revision 2, required anchor studs to ASTM A-490-1971 requirements.
ASTM A-490(1970) " Quenched and Tempered Alloy Steel B>lts for Structural Steel Joints" included a range of 1/2 inch to 4 inch This was changed in 1971 to allow diameter bolts in its scope.
a range of only 1/2 - 1 1/2 inch diameter bolts under the speci-The vendor, Mississippi Valley Structural Steel (MVSS) fication.
advised Bechtel that ASTM A-490 (1971) did not apply to bolts 2 1/2 inches in diameter, and following discussion, the speci-fication was revised to require ASTM A-354-1966 (Quenched and Tempered Alloy Steel Bolts, Studs, and other Externally Threaded ASTM A-354 is not acceptable under ASME Section III.
Fasteners).
When ASTM dc-fenations were changed from AFTM A-490 to ASTM A-354, a requirement for Charpy impact test (a measure of ductility)The to show a minimum lateral expansion of 25 mils was deleted.
revised specificatica required ". harpy impact test results "for information only." Bechtel personnel advised that this require-ment was deleted on tLe basis of an engineering decisi.n.
Grade BD allowed the use of a number of steels, ASTM A-354-1966 I
as long as they met the chemical, tensile, and hardness require-i - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
y/
UKMl ments specified. Whsn the vendor proffered AISI 4140 4145 material, Bechtel advised them that it would be acceptable if it met the speci-fication requirements. However, Bechtel file menos indicate a recog-nition that AISI 4140-4145 material was " marginal" for the application, and suggestions were made by Bechtel personnel to pure (s'se additional bolts because of expected test failures. No action was,taken in e
response to these comments.
m As originally issued, the stud specification did not contain testing requirements. Specification Change Notices (SCNs) added these re-quirements (SCN 4004 dated September 27, 1974, SCN 4005 dated October 11, 1974). Following these changes, the purchase order was modified to include the testing requirements.. The specification provided values for minimum yield, and minimum but not maximum, tensile strength, (See Exhibit V, two pages of the Specification).
c.
Fabrication. The AISI 4140-4145 rods were cut to size and threaded I
at each end. This was apparently completed in early December, l.
1974.
l
('
-d.
Heat treatment. The studs we:e shipped to the J. W. Rex Ccmpany l
(REX), Lansdale, PA, sometime during December 1974-January 1975.
i Southern Bolt personnel irdicated that REX was selected due to availability and size of rod they could accommodate.
J. W. Rex personnel indic4ted that they were not initially noti-fica that there were four heats contained in the stud order, and for several months treated the studs indiscriminately as though all material was one heat. This is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Ap-pendix B, Criterion IX, and material traceability requirements contained in Mississippi Valley Structural Steel, Purchase Order 24844 and J. W. Rex Heat Treat Pr cedure #1.
(50-329/80-13-02, 50-330/80-14-02).
REX documents indicate the first full heat treatment (austenitizing l
and then tempering) was performed during late January 1975. The REX Laboratory Mechanical Property Tert Report for this treatment (tests performed on reduced size mechanical specimens), dated January 28, 1975, indicates tensile strength values of 144,500-158,000 PSI, yield strengths of 116,200-130,800 PSI and Rockwell hardness of Rc 37-42.
Twelve of the values reported do not meet requirements, including those pertaining to hardness. These results tiere reported to Southern Bolt, Mississippi Valley Structural Steel, and Bechtel.
Mississippi Vslicy inquired if the specification could be changed to ASTM A-35'.-74 Grade BC, or if hardness requirements could be relaxed. When questioned by Bechtel as to the amount of relaxation on hardness specifications necessary, they requested an allowable Rockwell hardness of Re 45.
Bechtel advised that the test results were unacceptable and hardness requirements could not be relaxed.
Southern Bolt we.s advised of this via telecon on March 21, 1975.
This information was passed on to REX.
- .0 -
I
________._____________________..__________m
Qg
.y Several tests were made at the REX facility in attempts to ascertain A
a heat treatment procedure which would yield acceptable studs.
request to lower the tempering temperature was made, partially as a A letter from Southern Bolt to MVSS, dated result of these tests.was used as partial basis for the request to lower April 13, 1975, It geflects a resultant hardness of Rc 37 tempering temperature.
However, the REX file test for from a tempering run at 850 F.
this run indicates a hardness value of Re 41 (all other reported
_~
As the tempering temperature requested was
[
values were correct).
within the allowable rangg per pTM A-354, the change from a tem-900 -1000 F to a tempering temperature of pergnstemperatureof 850 F was approved by Bachtel.
Further heat treating was performed at REX, and 21 schanical These property tests were run between April 22-May 16, 1975results Five of the reported values did not by letter of May 28, 1975.
These results apparently meet minimum yield value requirements.
were not reported to Bechtel.
Further heat treatments were run at REX, utilizing 850* F as a 27, 1975 Results frge tests run nn June tempering temperature.
F) were reported for formal and July 2,1975 (beat "00" at 925 Test reports were to be on pieces accompany documentation.
However, records indicate that two tests run l
production runs.
on July 2, 1975 were for test pieces which did not accompany the production pieces, and one hardness value appears to have This been reduced from Rc 39 to Rc 38 on the REX file report.
is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX and the J. W.(5 Rex Heat Treat Procedure #1.
Steel from Heat "0000" could not meet specification requirements, and it was apparently scrapped. No information concerning the disposition of this material could be developed.
There are some indications that the heat treatment was improper as to temperature actually induced in the studs during tempering.
Furnace heat charts for most fur. ace runs were from wall thermo-couple readings, and for heat "00" the thermocouple placed on A comparison of the furnace charts in-the studs was utilized.
dicates that the studs did not heat as rapidly as the furnace wall, and may not have reached tempering temperatures for the desired length of time.
There are also indications that the presence of a suspending nut as part of the heat treatment fixture may have caused that por-tion of the stud covered by the nut to heat more slowly than other sections, and hence be tempered to a lesser degree.
Consumers Power personnel have obtained flow rates for the oil bath quench, and have indicated their belief that flow rates This would affect the hardening of the studs.
l t=
.?
From a review of test records, the dates or. s.he furnace hsat charts (date of. heat treatment) supplied for the formal documentation package are in error (only month and year were noted oa these records).
M tual dates were determined from dates on test records and pen-In some cases the date is ciled dates on furnace chart margins.
nearly one month in error.
Furnace charts submitted for documentation indicated that 38-39 r
This is contrary to 10 CFR studs were tempered per furnace load.
7 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX and J. W. Rex Heat Treat Procedure
(
- 1, which required a maximum furnace load of 10 pieces plus test l
~
(50-329/80-13-02, 50-330/80-14-02).
l bars.
the heat treatment of the Midland studs REX personnel stated that frustrating order that they had taken. They was possibly the most noted that the studs were in their facility over six months, when a routine order is processed in approximately two weeks.
Tensile, yield, and hardness testing was performed at t
e.
Testing.
allowed, tensile J. W. Rex Company following heat creatments.
No test and yield tests were performed on reduced specurens.
pieces were preserved.
1 REX personnel stated that hardness tests were performed on the The tests performed stud surface for the initial hardness tests.
to June 1975, were subsurface tests done on the tensile I
l subsequent j
specimens themselves at the mid radius of the bolt.
l l
there was discussion of ASIM A-354, Correspondence indicated that Paragraph 4.3, which states " Acceptance on the basis of the tensile f
requirements shall take precedence where minimum requirements are subject to controversy." It was indicated that a part of ASTM l
A-370, which gives hardness testing guidance, was also discussed.
l in the threaded area This part provides for an " arbitration point" and mid radius hardness testing in the thread areas.
of a bolt, This portion of the specification is intended for use when the readings are in dispute.
Hardness rests are non-destructiva examinations, of ten done on Many standards (such as ASTM each piece of critical equipment.
A-490, ASTM A-540) specify such _ surface hardness tests be per-The sections of ASIM discussing subsurface tests, men-tiened above, were apparently intended to be utilized in case of formed.
i controversy over requirements, not in case of unacceptable results Therefore, the subsurface tests do from surface hardness tests.
This is in not meet the requirements of the stud specification.
noncompliance 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IX, and ASTM Code requirements (ASTM A-354, A-370).
(50-329/80-13-02, 50-330/80-14-02).
Charpy impact testing was performed on the studs and nuts following by a laboratory at Standard Pressed Steel (SPS).
heat treatment, l
Charpy acceptance criteria of 25 mils lateral expansion had not and the been removed from the purchase order to Southern Bolt, SPS lab noted this requirement on their nut Charpy impact Test - ---__ _ L
f~
When reviewed by Bechtel, they were advised to delete Report.
this statement from the test form. SPS did not place it on the stud Charpy Impact Test Report. Values reported for lateral expansion on studs range from 1.5e9 mils and would not have met
~
the lateral expansion requirement for the studs had it been im-posed.
It was noted that the notarized Charpy Impact Test Report in the r
site documentation file contained the statement "Charpy test specimens on studs were taken longitudinally, more than one inch below the surface and from the mid ten inches of the seven foot
~
four inch stud. Tests were run after heat treatment. " This is not contained on the SPS file copy of the report 4
statement and was apparently added following notarization of the document.
Magnetic particle inspection was performed on the studs by Peabody 8, 1975, the Bechtel shop inspector witnessed Testing. On August this testing, and observed unacceptable linear indications (ex-It was found that Peabody was using ceeding one inch in length).
a less strict standard than specified, and all of the tested studs were rejected by the Bechtel shop inspector.
and actions were The studs were then returned to Southern Bolt, taken to remove the indications. The studs were variously hand ground and some 20 were machined to 2.257 inches in diameter.
During the period September 30, through October 3,1975, actions to procure alternate bar material were taken by Southern Bolt File memos in-(AISI 4340) and to begin stud manufacture again.
dicated that this action was apparently begun on the belief that the studs could not be acceptable due to difficulty in meeting Due to withdrawal of material magnetic particle test criteria.
suppliers, this course of action was abandoned.
Records indicate that on January 6,1976, the Bechtel shop in-spector witnessed magnetic particle testing at Southern Bolt and to Midland.
These studs were approved 97 studs for shipmentUnic 2 bolts were subsequently manufactured utilized in Unit 1.
of AISI 4340 steel and heat treated at a different. facility.
Quality assurance review. During this investigation, aspects of f.
File reviews quality assurance related to studs were reviewed.
indicated that Consumers Power personnel had no active involvement, in stud procurement or beyond approval for financial expenditures, document review.
No Bechtel shop inspection was performed until after the material treated, anj had been procured, the studs manufactured, heat the Shop inspection points are at magnetic particle examined.
discretion of the purchaser and inspection prior to final shipment was chosen. _
DR/R
=
17,[1975,'I(BCBE604)Bechtelpersonnelaccepted y
By memo dated Julytesting on the basis of heat numbers, but required the Charpy impact tests to befas'specified in Section 5.10.4(c) of This required at least Bechtel Specification No :7220-C-233(Q).
two Charpy tests for heat."0" (approximately 6,325 pounds), and However, only one test was one test for heats "00" and "000."
supplied for each heat, and this was not identified during docu-This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion
~
ment reviews.
-(50-329/80 VII and Procurement Specification No. 7220-C-233(Q).
03,50-330/80-14-03).
As the Charpy impact' test had'been required "for infonnation only" no technically knowledgeable personnel reviewed the test results.
Bechtel personnel indicated that tests "for inforniation" are not reviewed unless manufacturing problems are identified.
The following indications of manufacturing problems, did not re-sult in further review:
(1) Questionability of material.
Early failing tests.
(2)
(3) Request for relaxation of hardness requirements.
Magnetic particle examination failures.
(4)
Length of time to successfully heat treat the material.
(5)
(6) Total length of time for stud manufacture.
Review of the Southern Bolt Quality Assurance Manual irdicated that it contained requirements for the content of the heat treat-ment purchase order (Document sent to Heat Treating Company des-27, 1972)
Section 10.0 of Revision 4 (February cribing treatment).
in Paragraph 2.M., requires that the purchase orders state "where the heat treater is to Brinell (hardness test) pieces."
Southern Bolt personnel indicated that they could not locate a copy of the heat treatment purchase order for the Unit I studs, but provided a copy of the heat treatment purchase order for The required information on hardness tests the Unit 2 studs.
location was not provided on this purchase order, and there is no blank provided for recording this information on the standard This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Cri-heat treat form.
(50-330/
terion IV and the Southern Bolt Quality Assurance Manual.
80-14-02).
7220-233(Q) was revised by Specification Bechtel Specification No.
This change added Charpy Change Notice 6007 on November 8, 1976.
impact acceptance criteria to the section of the specification per-However, no review of taining to reactor vessel anchor bolts.
materials procured prior to this change was made to ascertain whether the change affected-their status.
Bechtel personnel stated that their review of the specification, done when bolt failures were identified, determined that this revision had been intended for another part of the specification. -
i pgp.n
=
A review of pertinent codes indicates that, in the diameters and -
.y l
strength ranges specified, Charpy impact tests have no acceptance criteria.
l 7.
Installatica f
There were no indications of shipping deficiencies or receipt inspection problems other than the failure of the document review to note 2;
that furnace loads had exceeded those set by the Heat Treatment Procedure.
~. '
The studs for Unit I were. embedded in concrete during April 1977, and tensioned during the period July 23-30, 1979.
The licensee advised RIII that the studs were over-tensioned due to mis-The studs were preloaded calculstion of the effective stress area.
to an initial stress of 75 KSI in the shank area, but should have been l
The effect of this mis-preloaded to this figure in the thread area. calculation was to prestress the b j
the specified 75 KSI in the thread area.
l A review of Region III records of inspections pertaining to reactor vessel anchor bolts revealed that during an inspection on November 16-19, 1976, a citation was issued to the licensee for failure to protect someThere were no other in of the threads in embedded bolts for Unit 2.
tion reports relevant to reactor vessel holddown bolts.
8.
Identification of Problems t
workmen placing jam nuts on the tensioned studs 14, 1979, found that a stud (with a nut attached) had failed, and could not be On September This stud was subsequently retrieved from a scrap pile.
located.
Consumers Power advised RIII by telephone of this discovery on and followed with a formal letter under the September 14, 1979, Status reports dated October 12, requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).and March 3, 1980 advised of the status of 14, 1979, 1979, December Two additional studs were subsequently found to have their review.
failed.
9.
Consultant Review Consumers Power contracted with Teledyne Engineering Services to per-form a failure analysis of the Unit I studs, and a review of Unit 2 studs.
Their initial report " Investigation of Preservice Failure of Midland 25, 1980, indicates that RPV Anchor Studs," (TR-3887-1), dated January the studs have a severe hardness gradient, and indicates the failure mechanism as stress corrosion cracking.
- 10. Management Meeting A management meeting with representatives of Consumers Power Co., and
'Jechtel Power Corporation was held at the RIII office on May 2,1980. - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- f During this meeting, the findings of the investigation were discussed,
'a '
including matters which were being considered as items of noncompliance that time).
(no delineation of noncompliance items was made at Consumers personnel indicated that they disagreed with the RIII position regarding ASME Section III applicability.
Consumers and Bechtel personnel discussed possible modifications being c
Any considered to compensate for the identified stud deficiencies.
engineering changes formally proposed will be referred to the Office
~ ' of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for review and acceptance.
I studs were in the precess of being The licensee advised that Unit detensioned, and detensioning of Unit-2 studs was planned for the near future.
1 11.
Unresolved Items f
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required items of i
in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, Unresolved items disclosed during noncompliance, or deviations.
the inspeccion are discussed in Paragraph 6.B.
Attachments:
Exhibit I. Reactor Vessel Support Diagram (Bolts)
Exhibit II. Investigation Chronology Exhibit III. File Information Related to ASME III Exhibit IV. Memorandum on ASME III Usage Exhibit V. Stud Specification (2 pages)
Exhibit VI. Stud Manufacture Chronology
, 1 i
0-4 W.*n.9 t:
- -- g S
d.i g g..g'. f..'.-se.. tv 385- [.
~ a., N 1 s:
t', C:M' 'I'd.
fr:e...'t.'
s*
ang r.
s.
c.ar
- q...o.., *.
Jf ef;:':r
.'2. ;;..:.'.. =:,Q.t'g,
<p,3 l! l,/ (%q::r.. r [ y; y g u h j a - *** V, f.. h,g.. ,./ w g iis .r ';. \\, (,- (!"~' . ~: F.- ' / a .. - w 3 '..,...,
- g&'r*
~b 3,.', hy
- 1
.?-
- .::.:~.
me. s .. '.,Q. i u =m w.,a...<...- 3' ,g _ _ .( y 6.t.- . -.c MN i i -. e.g. w q .q 2 %se z- / y.- :: s a-r -.,,,e q _.yj + r (; ; '. 2.k '.Q.~ '/y ,9 Y 3 Lr
- t..
4 f l-( '. I !,y,..,- g "' g y.s ... ~ p. iR... ns- !W-. *.. eecTiou /Ei i ..w. y .,c.yt PL AlJ -,, o.,.. a,m..., m.,,, -..v..- CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Reactor Yessel Support (C-376 Rev 9) FSAR Figure 3.8-30 ' F ' 2/79 Revision 18 e
.v D..$PbFT N .t NRC INVESTIGATION CHRONOLOGY 9/14/79 Licensee reports stud failure. 10/12/79 50.55(e) report from licensee. I rk2/14/79 interim report on 30.55(e). 2/4.5/80 Inspection of studs on site. 2/5/80 Third stud found broken. Meeting at Southern Bolt, NRC, CP, SB personnel. 2/14/80 NRC Investigation initiated, Midland site, 2/27-29/80 3/3/80 second interim report from licensee. I NRC investigation at Southern Bolt and Fastener. 3/5-6/80 Inspection Report 80-05 transmitted (2/4-5/80 inspection report). 3/20/80 3/12-13/80 NRC Investigation at J. W. Rex Company. NRC Investigation at Bechtel of fice, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3/18-19/80 NRC Investigation at Mississippi Valley Structural Steel. 3/20/80 Call to Consumers passes on issues for resolution. 4/2/80 Phone call to clarify issues for resolution. 4/15/80 NRC Investigation at Bechtel, Ann Arbor (answers to questions). 4/18/80 5/2/80 Meeting with Consumers Power. Exhibit II
.' ~ ( FILE INFORMATION RELATED TO ASME III APPLICATION T (excerpts) pro'j ect en-9/23/74, telephone call memo by R. Grote to R. Ryde bolts are classified asl accordance with ASME Section III - NF," "the subject A'SME Section III Class I component supports." "(Note: these an-9/2T/74, Specification Change Notice (SCN) C-223-4004:ch nent supports)." " Pro- 10/1/74, memo BCBE 436, by R. E. Felton to R. L. Castleberry (pg. 2): jact engineering has affirmed the magnetic particle examination requirem f: on nuts, the reason being that ASME Section III governs the procurement o reactor anchor bolts." 4/11/75, unsigned notes identified as having been made by Mr. John Hink: "the RVAB (reactor vessel anchor bolts) are classified as component sup-be ports in Section NF, Section NF is not mandatory," " design appears to fairly close to the design requirements of NF." 4 I Exhibit III I n, ,.-,-e,- w,
J ? DR-rAF ..'.J Lm Bechtel Memorandum ~ Location: A2-6A To: R. L. Castleberry Date: 8/30/76 kom: G. Tuveson Job No. 7220
Subject:
Midland Units 1 & 2 File: C-2135 application of ASME B&PV Code Section III Division I Subsection NF Requirements to Component Support Structure The above mentioned subject was discussed between M. Rothwell and M. Elga 19, 1976. A. Desai and B. Dhar of civil group on August It was agreed that to be consistent with Midland project position, the ASMI But the de-code would not be directly referred to in the design documents.possible, the to the extent sign, fabrication and construction would meet, ASNE code requirements within the applicable boundaries. the intent of the code, civil group will add a section Accordingly, to meet When required, the design drawings to the specifications C-38 and C-233. will call out the applicability of this section for a particular structure. typed copy of handwritten memorandum Exhibit IV
shall b2 in acesrdance with' Al J1.1 szeczon.... 5.9 shcar Stu The material chs11 conform to oithar ASIN A 307 or ASn! ths fc11owinr,. A 108 cc applicable, cnd shall meet the t qu[irementecentained / hL jb*gkg [ in AWS D1.1. ~ 5.10 Reactor Vessel Anchor Bolts and Nuts 2hese anchor bolts and nuts till be utilized as ASME.Section (NOTE: III Division 1 Class 1 component supports.) Bolts shall be AS111 A 354 Grade BD, with the following addi- '5.10.1 tional requirements: ASTM A 614 as specified in Section 5.10.3 below. 7 a. AS13f A 354 Section 4.4 and Table 3 - Mechanical tests on b. machined specimens from the Crade BD 2-1/2 inch dia=eter bolts shall have a minimum yield strength of 130,000 psi, minimum elongation of 14 percent and minimum reduction of area of 35%. ASTM A 354 Table 2 - The Grade BD 21/2 inch diameter bolt 150,000 psi, a c. .shall have a minimum tensile strength of minimum proof load of 120,000 psi and a minimum yield strength of 130,000 psi. Tne bolt :sterial shall be subjected to impact testing d. as specified in Section 5.10.4 below. Nuts shall be in accordance with AS111 A 194 Grade 2 or 2H, 5.10.2 with the following additional requirements: ASTM A 614 as specified in Section 5.10.3 below. a. ASTM A 194 Section 5.1 - Certified Material Test Reperts If ladle b. shall be in accordance with ASTM A 614 Section S. analysis is not availabl.e a check analysis may be substituted. ASTM A-194 Section 9 - The cone stripping test is not c. required. d. ASTr! A 194 Section 14.1 applies. e ASTM A 194 Section 14.3 - Certification shall be in accor-s.
- dance with ASTM A 614 Section 8.
The nut material shall be subjected to impact testing as f. specified by Section 5.10.4 belcw. l nf cha cubjcet nuts The materints, testing and documentatie-1 A 614 sich the ( 5.10.3 and bolts shall be in accordance with AST: following additional requirements: ASTM A 614 Section 9.1.2 - The written procedure shall be a. submitted to the Buyer. 3A EXHIBIT V page 1 of 2 ,. - - - ~. - ,--a.-..,-,..,-..n w
kj 'i! l f 4, ASTM A 614 Section 9.1.4 - The writt n procadura shall b. ,f ~ be submitted to th,e Bayer. t,- c.- ASTM A 614.Section 10 is required.
- 4., ASTM A 614 Section 11 is required.
ASTM A 614 Section 12 is required. 2 a. ASTM A 614 Section 13 is a Seller's option to ASTM A 614 4 f. = Section 12. The Charpy V-notch test (Cv) shall be required for the bolts j 5.10.4 and nuts in accordance with the following: I 8 Testing Procedure - Test procedures shall be in s. accordance with ASTM A 370-72a. Location and Orientation of Test Speci= ens - The Cv i=7act test specimens shall be prepared with the longitudinci axis. b. of the specimen located at least 1/2 radius or 1 inch below the surface plus the machining alloaance per side, which-The fracture plane of the speci=en ever is the lesser. i shall be at least i dia=eter or thickness from the heat i treated end. I Sampling Trequency - 0ne test shall be made for each lot ~ of material where a lot is defined as one heat of caterial c. heat treated in one charge or as one continuous operation, not to exceed 3,000 lbs by weight. Condition of Material - The test specimens shall be taken d. ~ after heat treatmant. Test Temperature - The Impact specimens shall be tested e. at 40'F. f.' Certified hbterial Test Report - The test tempersture. lateral expansion, absorbed energy and percent shear fracture as well as the orientation m'nd location of all tests shall be reported for information in accordence with ASTM A 614 Section 8. Randling, shipping and storage shall be in a manner that shall avoid damage to the mate. rial. The Seller shall sub c.it written 5.10.5 procedures for handling and shipping-for approval by the Euyer prior to shipment. 4 i E3HIBIT V e 3B page 2 of 2 w- -,3-
m-
,,w -p -,ww,,e-.--.--,__.w-,-- a. -- a-
N M.i E l \\ / 3 glza l bs STUD MNUFACTURE CHRONOLOGY f.- 11/6/73 Specification 7220-C-233(Q) issued for client review. / 3/25/74 steel heats "0" and "000" received, "00" and "0000" received previously. 6/28/74 bid requests sent. 8/5/74 Decisions made as to applicable nondestructive tosing requirements. 8/8/74 TWX adds nondestructive testing requirements, original supplier withdraws. 8/21/74 TWX, MVSS-Bechtel, ASTM A-490 is not right specification. F/23/74 TWX, MVSS-Bechtel, need specification, trying to find material. SV23/74 Bechtel response TWX, A-490 is correct, 4140/5 steel not approved. 8/27/74 Memo, test requirements, tensile values, 25 vils expansion for Charpy test. 9/3/74 TWX, MVSS-Bechtel, proposal, ASTM-354, 4140 steel, 25 mils expansion. 4 9/10/74 Memo BEBC 527, approves use of ASTM A-354 as specification. 9/16/74 Contract date. 10/1/74 Memo, history of studs to date. 12/20/74 Rex heat treatment procedure fl, revision O. 12/74-1/75 Studs shipped from SB to Rex. 1/28/75 Rex material test report, specimens #1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12. 2/4/75 letter, SB-MVSS, material cannot meet requirements. 2/6/75 TWX, MVSS-Bechtel, provides Rex test results. 2/12/75 Phone call memo, SB requests relaxation of hardness to Re 45. 2/18/75 Memo, discusses six tests, hardness relaxation request. 3/21/75 TWX, test results unacceptable, not relan hardness requirements. 4/3/75 letter, SB-MVSS, justifying 850 degree temper (reported hardness t is wrong). 4/11/75 Notes, 4140 marginal, excessive hardness, where was hardness tested? 4/18/75 Memo, hardness, tempering, material is marginal. 4/22/75 Rex material test, test 1-4 of 19 finally made. 4/25/75 Rex material test, tests 5-11. 5/1/75 Bechtel approval of Rex heat treatment procedure, revision #3. 5/5/75 SB Quality Control manager visits Rex. 5/16/75 Rex material test, tests 11-19. 5/28/75 19 test reports sent with " dummy" documentation package for review. 6/3/75 Rex test, " machined from 2' of end of bar." 6/9/75 Rex test, " machined from 7' from and of bar." 6/16/75 Rex test, stud #1 from heat "000". 6/18/75 Rex test, stud #8 from heat "000", 850 degree temper. 7/2/75 Rex test, " machined from center of bar," heat "00". 7/15/75 Midland meeting, Bechtel and MVSS determine allowable numbe of tests. 7/17/75 Memo, BCBE 604 -physical and mechanical tests to be by heat number. 7/21/75 date on thermocouple furnace chart for heat "00". 7/24/75 Revision f4 of Rex heat treatment procedure approved. 7/29/75 date of material properties report supplied for documentation. i 8/18/75 Rex surveillance report, all studs rejected for linear indications. 8/20/75 15B Quality Control manager visits Rex. i TWX on reducing diameter of shank of stud by.060 inches. 8/27/75 TWX, history of studs, start again, new material suppliers withdraw. 9/30/75 11/11/75 TWX, SB proposes turning some studs to 2.257 inches in diameter. l 11/20/75 TWX approves turning to 2.257 inches in diameter.. 96 shipped. I 1/4/76 97 ctuds pass examination, are released for shipment, studs received at Midland site. 1/22/76 SCN 6007 adds 25 mil expansion criteria to stud section, possibly in 11/8/76 error. l 4/77 Unit I studs embedded in concrete at Midland. l 7/23-30/79 Unif I studs tensioned. 9/14/79 first stud found to have failed. 1/25/79 Teledyne Engineering report on stud failure mechanisms. Exhibit VI _ - -,, _.-- -~_ -. -., - -,, ~,, -.., - ..,__..,,,--,,.-.r-.-}}