ML20094M775
Text
,
-V; L M Ng
- y;.
p
(
4
'May 13,1983 Note to:. Ross Landsman Ron Cook Darl Hood
-Joe Kane
SUBJECT:
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE BOARD ORDER I'
_ I am enclosing CPC's testimony on the alleged violation of the ' Board Order.
. An investigation of the alleged violation will be coming out.in the future.
However, CPC may present their testimony before that time. Accordingly, it is necessary for us to go through CPC's testimony and determine where cross-examination'is appropriate.
Please analyze che testimony and I will contact you ' shortly for your comment.
l I am also providing a list of questions which should be addressed.
(1) Does Ross agree that minor excavations did not need specific NRC approval so.long as the papensork could be reviewed during site visits?
(CPC testimony, p. 3)
(2) What is a fireline pip 6?
(3) Did the Staff ever indicate to CPC that the fi. reline and deep Q excavations were minor?
(CPC testimony, pp. 3-5)
(4) Did CPC have any reason to believe the excavations were minor? (CPC,"
testimony, pp. 3-5)
(5) Does anyone recall the May 21, 1982 meeting in which Ross said specific approval was needed before the deep ~Q duct bank excavation could begin?
(CPC tesitmony, p. 5)
.(6) At the May 20 meeting, did NRC indicate that its technical concerns were with the backfill and not with the excavation? (CPC testimony, p. 8)
(7) Does the May 25 letter constitute approval for the excavation below the deep Q duct bank? (CPC testimony, p. 9)
JUN 6 =MGG 8408150723 840718 PDR FOIA RICES 4-96 PDR 4
4 i
n-,.
v.
.,-n,
,,,+,. _
+--,n---.,.,,.,,n,
_,,n-,
~,.
,r,w,.
e
e :,
s
,e 2-(8) Did CPC have any reason to believe the May 25 letter constituted approval for the excavation? (CPC testimony, p'. 9)
(9) Do we believe either the fireline or deep Q excavations were minor?
GQg
- g Michael N. Wilcove Attorney, OELD j
i b
f I
O e
S
[
+ - ~. - - - -. - -,..
m..yrw-
>~
u i'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEF0?2 THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 5ICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
,7
)
50-330 OM CONSUMERS POhIR COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50 '-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2 '
)
50-330 OL TESTIMONY OF JAMES A MOONEY AND R M k----iTR CONCERNING TEE iLLEGED VIOLATIONS OF TEE APRIL 30 ASL3 ORDER AND TEE MMCE,1982 CA3LE-PULLING INCIDENT gl.
Mr. Wheeler, woul'd you please explain the controversy-involving the excavation below the deep Q duct bank and the excavation for the fireline relocation?
A1.
In response to the Licensing Board's April 30, ic82 Order, the co=pany issued a letter to Bechtel stopping all work affected by the Order.
No work covered by the stop l
work order was allowed to proceed until the Company deter-mined that staff approval had been obtained and,gave. author-ization to proceed by means of issuing letters to Bechtel.'
In late May, 1982, an excavation permit system was es-tablished to ensure pro,per controls of excavation and to d
avoid damaging underground utilities.
Excavation permits were required for all excavations in Q-soils.
The permits included a block for sign-off by, consumers' construction, e
I '.
signifying that all necessary NRC approvals had been ob-1-
- -+e,-
en..
m,.w
,---,--,-r
-,,,en-w------.--r
~.,,-n,n---
- - ~~------- - - - - - - ~ - ~ - = ~ - ~ ~ - - '~ ~ * ~ ' ~
e:
g
/
.tained.
The procedure authorizing work by letter was also
- continued for work falling under the April 30 order, includ-
~
(.l..ing excavations.
4 f.. '...
The use of letters was superseded on June 29, 1982, by-a work permit'. system.
The work permit system applied to all
~
- work covered.by the April 30 order.
This system also made
' } use of forms requiring sign-off by the Conpany, indicating i
'that NRC approval had been obtained.
After institution of the work authoriratiozi procedure,, both an excavation per=it and a work pe.. it had to be secured before excavation work could proceed.
~
Between April 30 and early June, I took a nu=ber of specific excavation requests to Dr. Landsman for approval-prior to Company sign-off of an excavation per=it of work release.
Included a=eng the= were excavations for a freeze-hole extending 54 feet below grade, excavation of a 72-inch diameter pond fill repair, slope layback and auxiliary building deepseated benchnarks.
In the early part of June, I discussed with Dr. Lands =an the excavation permit system and the manner in which the Staff was approving work under the order.
With the creation of an excavation permit proc-ess, we anticipated that the NRC Staff could eventually find l
sufficient controls were in place to justify a broad work release for routine excavations at the site.
We believed
(.
l l
,.. +, - - -.,, - - -.. - - - - -. - -, - - - - -.,, - -,..
~.
2-(
(.
that such a work authorization was within the NRC Staff's
+
powers under the April 30 Order.
'S On June 11, 1982, Dr. Landsman and I discusshd the ex-cgvation pernit procedure.
Dr. Landsm'an, at that time, l
e; stated that he found tlie excavation permit procedure suf-ficient.
He indicated that Region III did not find it necessary to specifically review and approve -all minor
. excavations before work started, but that he would want to review the paperwork o'n all excavations perr.itted between L
his site visits.
He also stated that the excavation per=it procedure should be adhered to.
Based on th4 s discussion, I concluded that Dr. Landsnan had given approvil' to go ahead s
l l
with ninor excavations, under the excavation pernit I
s procedures, and subject only to Staff review after-the-fact.
n.
.l, We further understood that Dr. Landman wanted to review najor excavations, such as the excavation for the service water underpin"4ng, before the work started.
The fireline excivation was car.L : out to relocate a Cl fire protection line to an area w, ce would not be.
l-l L
danageu -y planned excavations t6 replace and rebed service water piping.
The old fireline, located near the circula-tory water structure, was abandoned.
place and a new line
/
was installed at a nearby locati.on.
The fireline was not a s.
category I pipe. '
,e
['
h%
s.
The excavation below the deep-Q duct bank involved a crossing of the freezewall and an underground electrical duct bank, ofter referred to as the " deep-Q duct bank."
To i
protect the duct bank, it was.necessary to discontinue the
'freezewall where it crossed the duct bank.
To prevent water from passing through this gap in the freezewall, a plug had to be installed below the duct bank.
The excavation down to the duct bank was 32 feet deep.
An additional excavation below the duct bank was necessary to install the plug.
J While I do'not recall specific discussions'concerning the permits in operatien h'e're, our general practic'e was to hold ir;ternal discussions before sign-off on an excavation
. permit or work permit for the purpese of verifying that the Work in question was authorized by the NRC.
Both the fire-line excavation and the excavation below the deep-Q duct bank occurred after my June 11' discussion with Dr. Landsman.
Both were minor excavations, which therefore did not require explicit NRC review and approval prior to commencement of the work, but which would be subject to NRC review at a later date.
Accordingly, the Company signed off on the excavation permits and work permits for these two excava-tions in late July, 1982.
At the time the Company signed off on these activities, l
I was unaware of Dr. Landsman's concern and desire that i
A i i 4
i
-,n.
,. ~ -
.-...,c
-w
.. =..
~
'f.
these two activities not be treated as minor excavations but that explicit review and approval be obtained for them.
Had I known of his concerns, I would not have allowed the sign-offs to occur and the excavatiiins to proceed'vithout his prior review and approval.
Since becoming aware of Dr. Landsnan's concern about these excavations,'I have learned that a Bechtel Renedial Soils Group Supervisor had personal neeting notes from a May 21, 1982, exit neeting with Dr., Landsman that suggest that-Dr. Landsnan had,recuested that further approva.ls be obtained 'before excavating under the. deep-Q duct bank.
I f
attended that neeting, but do not recall Dr.'Landsnan
~
expressing such a concern.
I was also unaware of the Bechtel Supervisor's notes until after this natter becane an issue.
The Bechtel Supervisor was not an individual responsible for dete_7inbg if.NRC Eu.horiration had been obtained.
Once I became aware that Dr. Landsnan was concerned about the excavations proceeding without prior NRC approval, I had the approvals for the work pernits withdrawn.
- e en e
u f.
Q2.
Mr. Mooney, do you have anything to add to Mr.
Wheeler's testimony on this subject?
l 1
A2.
Mr. Wheeler was operating on the theory that Region III, through Dr. Landsman, was the final approval point within the NRC Staff for this work.
The MemoEandum and order memorializing a conference call on May 5,1982, explicitly stated that either NRR or Region III could approve the work.
Quite frankly, it was not eminently clear which Branch of the Staff was exercising approval. authority.
C'ertainly,
'I believe that Mr. Wheeler's practice of seeking approval 4
+%ough Dr. Lands =an was permissible and prudent since Dr. Landsman was the NRC inspectcr closest to the work.
Could ou describe your recollection of the meetings Q3.
j referred to in Dr. Landsman's memo?
A3.
With regard to the May 20, 1982 meeting referred to in Dr. Landsman's memo of August 24, 1982, I apparently had a different undeEstanding of the nature of NRR's tecMcal problems than did Dr. Landsman.
E J.
/
u
~
.f*
(.
Q4.
Could you explain?-
A4.
Yes.
The so-called deep-Q1 electrical duct bank is a safety-related electrical duct bank'[ located quite' deep in
~
the ground.
The technical questions'.'-d'iscussed at the May 20
?
~~
p f,
neeting concerned the nianner in',which this duct bank would
' be protected from damage at the ~ location where it crossed the freezewall and'the requirenents :for backfilling the nenitoring pits.
I understand that/the freezewall has been
' previously described t'o the Board,/ so I will not repeat a -
description here.. It suffices to say that without pro-tection, the freezewall could da= age the duct bank by caus-ing the soil beneath the duct bank to heave.' -
Initially, the Cenpany intended to insert the freeze elenents in a nanner which would have frozen the soil directly
' beneat.h the duct bank.
The Company preposed to protect the, duct bank fron any heaving which would have been caused by the freecewall by excavating the soil directly beneath the duct bank.
However, the Company abandoned this plan when it discovered that the duct bank was deeper than previously expected.
The depth of the duct bank precluded the, insertion of free =e elements at locations which would have insured the freezing of the soil beneath the duct bank.
At the May 20. neetiilg, the Cenpany advised the staff that the duct bank was deeper than expected and preposed an alternativ'e plan, involving excavating the soils 4
O
t,
- a 1(
below the duct bank and installing a plug, either of clay or concrete, which would serve in place of the freezewall at that
, location.
~'
At the May 20 meeting, the NRR representatives expressed concern with the manner in which the Company would permanently
~'
backfill the excavation around the duct bank, as well as excavations made to monitor the heaving of soil at other locations.
NRR was concerned that concrete would be harder than the surrounding soil and therefore might cause differential settle =ent if left there pe'rsamently.
Discussions relating to -
this per=anent backfill question were not ecmpleted at this meeting, but to my knowledge, no one frem.the Co.pany understood RR's concern as relating to the excavation, as opposed to the permanent backfill.
This point is highly relevant, since the Company would not have permitted this excavation to proceed if wa believed NRR had technical problems with it.
Afuer this issue was rh.ised in Dr. Lar.dsuan's memo, I as advised that,Mr. John Fischer, a Bechtel e=ployee, had personal notes of the May 20, 1982, neeting indicating that the Company would n'ot proc'eed with excavating the pit below the duct bank "until NRC approval."
I do not rem *~her such a commitment being made at the. meeting, nor do,I recall anyone from the Staff requesting such a commitment.
However, I do not dispute that the i
statement apparently was made at the meeting.
When I left the May 20 meeting, I understood the need for further contact from NRR on the backfill, but felt that the y
4 i
,_m.
_,,_m.._.
,___.,,.m_.
C[
CompanyandIblRwereinagreementontheexcavationitself.
However, quite apart 5 rom my uderstanding of the meeting, NRR gave erplicit approval for the excavation in a letter dated
~
May 25, 1982, four days after the meeting.
The May 25' letter states that excavations directly beneath th'e deep-Q duct bank had -
been approved. hhe letter also makes a clear distinction between excavating and backfilling, which at the time served to confirm my uhderstanding of NRR's concerns
[ /7 I N-/ M0")
$.w A/5/
/\\. (p I had further discussiens with representatives of NRR on this matter at a soils audit held July 27-30, 1982, at Bechtel's Ar.n Arbor office.
As my notes and the NRC =eeting s"-5ary, dated Nov d er 12, 1982, indicate, discussion at this audit once again focused on the backfill and did not relate to the excavation itself.
At the audit, NRR again advised the Company that a report was necessary prior to per=anently backfilling any of the excavation pits.
No such rendition was, plz.ced on er..vating soil.
QS.
Mr. Mooney, do y6u have anything to add on the fireline relocation question?
AS.
Mr. Wheeler explains his basis for believing this work l
,/
had been approved.
The fireline relocation jch, wh0-clearly falling within the scope of the April 30
/
i only ancillary to the soils remedial work.
That
/
/
/
.g.
/
~
a say that proper controls could be ignored or that NRC approval was unnecessary.
Because the fireline relocation was essentially an ancillary task, I do not believe the company had discussie=s with NRR coNcerning it.
Q6.
~
Mr. Mooney, could you please describe yo views of the so-called able-pulling incident" of March, 982.
A6.
Because I was. personally involved in these discussions, I wish to explain y v'iew of the " cable-pulling" incident -
\\
referenced in the Attachments to Mr. Keepler's testinony.
This incident has been the subject 'of a for=al NRC'
/
' investigation as to whether naterial false statements were nade.
I believe that the inciddnt arose because of
\\/
ineffective co==n* cation between the Company and the NRC
/
Staff.
/
The Cenpany proposed a qua12.ty assurance plan for the auxiliary building un erpinning wo\\
i rk to the NRC in a letter da'ted January 7,1982, and at a neeting with Region III on Overthenexttwo\\
/
'nonths, discussions January 12, 1982.
between the Co=p/ y and the Staff continued regarding which an i
\\
~
i underpinning activities were to be Q-li ted.
l On March 10, 1982, there was a neeting betwe NRR and Region III. 'At this nesting, Conpany /.
\\
l '.
/
CL~t6
)
[p@* O.g UNITt3 STATES N
- ]-
g g
REGloN lli
")
o NUCLEAR RE!ULATORY COMMISSION j j F-g
/>e 7DB P.oosEVELT ROAD
~
~
oLEN ELLYN, ILLINol5 80137 i
2p,
/
Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 i
Consumers Power Company ATIN:
Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project
(-
1945 West Parnall Road
- Jackson,
.I 49201 Gentlemen:
This refers to a special investigation conducted by Mr. C. H. Weil of this office on April 6 - June 17, 1982 of activities related to the Midland Nuclear Power Plant authorized by License Numbers CPPR-81 and CPPR-82.
The investigation was conducted to determine whether misleading information was provided to NRC Region III inspectors on March 10 and 12, 1982 concerning the installation of underpinning instrumentation at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.
Af ter reviewing the results of the investigation and our enforcement policy, we feel there is insufficient support for escalated enforcement action regarding a material false statement. However, the major issue that cabic pulling started the day after thu Q requirements were imposed on all remedial soils work leads us to believe that our inspectors' interpretation of the statements made by a member of your staff were reasonable. We are concerned that these statements misled our inspectors.
We wish to impress upon you the seriousness of misleading our inspectors.
We feel it is your responsibility to ensure that in the future all information provided to the NRC is factual.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).
6 t-S ie d 6
gpg gg g g,ap ep
-Me M*O-**
- N O
o m
n c
k g '"%.y%
UNITED FT AT[5 qj NUCLE AR REGULATORY CO?/..055 TON
'[
c - (," h,
~
REtloN lil
/. E 799 MooSEVELT McAD
!j 5
- '4[*
OLE.4 ELLYN, ILLINots 80137
. \\
.w : yt' R
x
-f--
.+
))a-Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 Censumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. James V. Cook Vice President
~
Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, M1 49201 Gentlemen:
This refers to a special investigation conducted by Mr. C. H. Weil of this of fice on April 6 - June 17,1982 of activities related to the Midland Nucleat Tower Plant authorized by License Numbers CPPR-81 and CPPr.-82.
The investigation was conducted to determine whether misleading information was provided to h*RC Region III inspectors on March 10 and 12, 1982 concerning the installation of underpinning. instrumentation at the Midland Nucicar Power Plant. The report setting forth the results of the. investigation is enclosed.
Although the results of the investigatior. verd inconclusive and ve.<lo not plan to take any enforcement action, we are concerned that statements..
made by a mc=ber of your staf f were considered misleading by our inLpectors. Censiderint the fact that cable pulling was started the day af ter the requircr cnts v4.re imposed on all remedial soils xork,.7.
r-appreciate why our insps. tors believe they were misled.. h.kish zo.._ c.: c.
ii;f.
~.
emphasize the importance of your ensuring that in thdYu'tuEeM1 ^~"'
- N
-JC.:- '
information 'provided to the NRC tis factual." ^ Y,d*J9A,M,,f Y II.'-MyQ '.k.T'[:.f 7'
- .w a= - : :~:.~-: =
5 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790la), a copy of t[t[sN' erd *th TMM[, AC
~
-enclosure will be placed in th(FRC Public,Documentgm1 Bless $tMyou notify t
..?. )h?[ ij.
~
p
+-'
- ' N J i
this letter and submit written. application to withho'id 'infornation
' ~ ~
contained therein within thirtylays of the date of -this 7etter. -Such _ ", _
..f, f.,, ~
application must be consistent with th2 requirements of 2.79.0(b)(1).
L~
i 4*V '. '
l
-:~~;i k"~.W'.~ =
.. i. &.,.
. 1._%.<.;g -&,.J, -'.e i.e.-
L'.
l
~
...... Q... -.. p.?..$'. ' ~4.&.. '..
1.C's.$.[*p' "i. '
-e s iv
-;*i 9 n,Q>,
,, e..g.,.
.,4
--e--.*==?=
~,
.~
. ~... ~ _..
..a,xg=. n-# ~^- M --
.:r,aah -&k-%$
" * :n.A,
.*tp.u-k.._ % Mei-:%.,,
. rQ
--~-
=- -
~ -
~ - ~
.,-_y w-c
o.
, o c~c
~
. ;-l
') 2:1f W7142..,
Ab E(ja* *849(g, uniTa3 stavas
[,.J NUCLEAh RE'ULATORY COMMIS$10N s
o asosow ist
{
- l' ToonoossvsLTnono g
otsu sLLyn, stunois son?
j g
e...e JAN 18 N
[
/
7)
Docket' No..~ 50-329
{
9 yi "d,,
. Docket No. :50-330 Consumers Power. Company ATTN:. Mrc James W. Cook
- VicePresident Midland Project 1943 West Parnall Road Jackson',' M1 49201 Centlemen
- -
This refers to a special investigation conducted by Mr. C. H. Weil of this office on April 6 - June 17, 1982 of activities related to the Midland Nuclear Power Plant authorized by License Numbers CPPR-81 and CPPR-82.
The investigation was conducted to determine whether misleading
.information was prov:.ded to NRC Region Ill inspectors on March 10 and 12, 1982 concerning the installation of underpinning instrumentation at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant. The report setting forth the results of the investigation is enclosed.
While the investigation failed to provide conclusive evidence that a material false statement was made with respect to the status of the underpinning instrumentation, several members of my staff believe they were misled by re= arks made b employees during the meetin'g-Q onsueers Power Cop any_and Bechtel in Washington, D.C., on March 10 and the subsequent telephone call on March 12, 1982.s When I look_at_the_.fac.t. g &
that cable pulling did not commence until March l'1 M 982, the day before 9eg the phora call, and our inspectors were told that " instrumentation is h
i essentially well underway," I can appreciate why our inspectors believe they were misled. On the basis of that statement, the NRC decided not to include the instrumentation work under the quality envelope.
As you know, the NRC regulatory program is based on the premise that information provided by licensees and their contractors is factual and complete. The review, evaluation, and inspection processes involved in the regulatory program rely on that premise. In that inaccurate or incomplete inf ormation could result in decisions which adversely affect
~ ~ '
' ' ' ~.,
7...
- ... - =. n
-~~:.--*'.
\\.
WRs c ee u..
- 5..
.-h- - :.. = '..:- : l = - _= - = ~ ~
~ -~~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ' ~
Q 4 ~/ ".P S' "8 UNITEo STATES
[N t
-/
,p Ic.
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIOTV
- s
'g y
is.
S t s:som iii J
g
'.j vos noossvsLT noAo
~,,
8 GLsN ELLYN, ILLINots s0137
+.,
/
=...*
JS - 9W Docket No. 50-329 f
Docket No. 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen:
This refers to a special investigation conducted by Mr. C. H. Weil of this office on April 6 - June 17, 1982 of activities related to the Midland Nuclear Powcr Plant authorized by Licence Nmrbere CPP2-81 and CPPR-82.
The investigation was conducted to determine whether misleading information was provided to NRC Region 111 inspectors on March 10 and 12, 1982 concerning the installation of underpinning instrumentation
.at,th Midland Nuclear Pp er Plant. J A /ts.ptZ2,AN/k~/CLt/ UA M
3 Q O U. O M M S u f'A. S 4 D U Ct;f A Although the results of the investigation were inconclusive and we do plan to take any enforement action. hare concerned,that statements not made by a member of your staff were considered misleading (by our inspectors @ e wish to c=phasfze the importance of your tnsuring that in the future all infomation provided to the NRC is factual.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the dr.te of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application eust be consistent with the requirements of 2,.790(b)(1).
s e
,~
M s k ' 7 f. _..
..m...
. g.
.t...
= > +..
..,g.,,
. = _ _.... _. _. _
- ~'T.
/ W
- H g
"~
,yg-
-s
,e W.,e.! -
.m. _T \\.,),
- W" 1
b l$ _ DSS..h..b8A4CU'AYAN au Q~ R ;
hu:
a nof$r.
=eg t;r A2, /'L
/
e
__ M J
~
A_ -
. mos 1l.~"
. -ga
.~.I.
m s
s
]
56
~T te/
r
.=
Ja h
~
=*
)
L.
a m.:_
7 2
~
._Q
/
ANfa-,p-ep
~~
s am.~,
l A.
=... -
f l
1 l
\\
i l
\\
n n
e
- ' ~ '
- A...w
~.
... [, b ^ '.
~[ - 2 ~~ ~
~
y
[
w
. :.in A L
s:::.
/>,.
w.-.
.,i.-.
m
.e' *tsangg
-a
- . 8.W:2 4
s j
,o_
)
A-A A=
T r -
^^:
__b
~~
~
7 1
.- -Mb M
0._
-l-y,x
..V-_
f-
^
~
y/
7
' ~ ~
_ /.
WN l
fm
- .. f,a _-x.-y,4t-A -.,f h
_,, d_
^
. W.
3
.: M~ i +r= %.
~
, f, r
e 9
e.
e.. e e.
+$q Y
f.., ;.
8 S
'5
} - --- e A
1.
- D A
.=O" g
- 4, 8
)
e.. m *
/
s 0
=
e
]*
d e
w.
a e.
- O
.H.i p?,..
....ed.
W
- Q 6.
.4*,
be 6 e-e y a., e.
e O
, g.pe e
' ~ ~
- Mr.**
- w 8%',
p.,'s e.E a s....
m e
- /
O ss L.:
- eaume, e
se..
T em
_.g--
o 6-9
-.......i.
.W e.6
. 41.e N ee h -
- g... m.T
. w~,e M
M..
..*4
- $ g
' r :.%
--~--.~.-
=
..A. [tt gall.w yties-no,, a afa_f ntafad
..g tusss s a du 601
_- f f
s 4 y upm d -non a. ' _._
d
~~~
l lase _ @ s., ) d.
.d.le a}. ['uu k w c4 rock khs th.t seart. Wa/es so ~ ~ t wa//._ g det) Se/s Vion 8ffuYe e.n on ly 3 byf s .@ wd...... __ l%yy = (3). h d.. f alc(ny 0.e d lay y ...:.1~~~ ~ ' ~ v g; /se,n 3 u s % s <c k a J 7r,J / y ...dedna I [ A e ~ly I. ~ ~ ::~~ ~ ~ Eshn M,m. &i nu W3f', wcVe h'bry'<A'.... -..o. - D S56 W Y _. dM. ~+...,3% _ _ _ = _ =
- 9 e
. (9_h..ta wm na \\ fe Q d e k.. ..-ges.fgrcNseAcA-Q W g _CHL _ __M.._.._ _ C cinf...W..._ _..pic Nvr CCNSNTfif VN- ... Gr/65d #g l G3i ...... n... ha......5._ 0? SWE l. i tk.- yfb p j . f.9 pc 4 .Qp_ r .s. Qb. l r l 7 l 1 .a e --s- -, --..---,+-w-
..-_-.~ -~. ? ]
- 'I u\\
, }.f 3 g .f./ ', h.s ' i.? ,E Based on Boos' s'tatements of March 10 and* 12,1982, I understaod the instrumentation Serdi @T UT pf Wientbh (i.e. strain gauges for the Auxiliary Building WNYYMYYgg gett][ would not be included in the. remedial foundation quality assurance program, as work had I, begun before March 10, 1982. On March 17, 1982, I was at the Midland site, along with Region III Inspector ~ Ron Gardner,,to observe the remedial foundation work, and we observed cables being pt fortheAuxiliaryBuildingsettlk truments. These cables were being pulled withoutqualitycontrol! Later that day I questioned i j A496t* Mike Schaeffer of the Consumers Power Company Quality Ahmtect Department about ( ImMU the absence of the quait quality control for the cable pull. Schaeffer informed me the installation of the sett18 uments for the Auxil ty.~ iding began on March 11,1982[Wthatthecablepullingwasconsideredto be under the quality assurance program for the remedial foundation work. Also, Schaeffer stated 15 .:E"IkIDE yggld y,s.t,9pped stue Aen sud k e pl/g,cadwm u the,y. y cane snuxxxx1xxp111nx aetsk & rhe cm On the morning of March 18, 1982, I observed cab'le pulling was continuing without quality control i6(Ngldy dThfhud
- -M_.
ic ia;; pr_ _ _..;, and I informed Mr. B. W. Marguglio,. Conrumers Power's Director of the, Midland Project Quality Assurance Department. Margugito stated the cable pulling had begun prior to March 10, 1982; there fore, i the cable pulling was not a part of the quality assurance program for the remedial foundation work. Also, Marguglio stated it was his understanding that Consumers j { Power Company Vice President Jim Cook and NRC Region III Director Jim Keppler had i previously agreed the Midland project would not be cited by the NRC for things Y thatwere,.._'..'.__"-d)under remedial foundation work quality assurance program, i dN9'[db Y Mn d t w ul &, Margoglio informed me that he had stopped the cable pulling 1982 On March 19 ltnM be j because it (me considered % under the remedial foundation work quality .ans rance programelnd pYoc H3 Wca 6. (W. f ...I- .,.,,_,...r,.
i j I am presently employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Coaunission Region III as r81de1F Cd/[fMyMe* Ch5 p t I was recently assigned to inspect a remedial foundation werk at the Midland Nuclear Power Plant construction site in Midland, MI. 1 \\ ilM On March 10, 1982, I ="..LJ a meeting in at the Nuclear Regulatory Cosumission's headquarters in Bethesda, MD. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the ~ application of quality assurance criteria and procedures to remedial foundation _ work underway at the Midland site. During the meeting it was agreed between the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission and the Consumers Power Company that work 1 started before March 10, 1982, would not be included in the remedial foundati n work quality assurance program W o h C ctn = A r. % ese by TW 'M WOJ. One of the topics of conversation at the March 10th meeting was the status of the installation of instrumentation to measure the settlement of the 'tidland i Auxiliary Building. Mr. Al J. B os, the "7 rwa dover Corporation's Assistant chtel' lad 4 A at 3,.... Project Manager at Midland, esseed the arvr m vy m rYai========1 instr 5ments were Las4-ZrA<G Tet't audat K.utistico TV8 britw to measure the settling of the Auxiliary Building,was andAwould not have to de included in the quality assurance program under consideration for the remedial 1 foundation work. On March 12, 1982, I participated in a telephone conversation initiated by the Consumers Power Company. The purpose of this telephone call was to have Consumers Power Company identify the items, either completed or where installation was, underway not,to be included in the quality assurance program for the Midland remedial foundationwork.Duringthistelephoneconversation,AlBoosstated,bauges, backup gauges, have en procured as non-Q but would be calibrated under a q program. These are existing dial gauges. Our instrumentation is essentially well under way. Wiring has been pulled - raceway has been installed.?, 9,.. ~ r. r> b n g r ---e---.-,p. ,,-.,..------.,,,-,,-,----e---- ,-wn-,
,,-.w.---+.ana.._m--,-
--,---em---,,--m.,-wmne----~
~.., LS ' SAFETY' CONCERN AND'REPORTABILITY EVALUATION NI
- DROWSE. SCREEN
" 3., l ". ".'. ~ 2 :,._ ACTION NUMBERY-/S 1274. SCRE NUMBER: 42 _ $I T ~ ~ '9~' ' COMPANY!t0DE:.C- ...::lTYFE: ,.:SCRE~ 4: ' ~ 'TO'HAHAGER HPQA-FRON: 1RCBAUHAN - n F lE. ' ' F ILE NO : TION :. - HPDQAJ ' ' - .5 .ORGANIZA
- 15:1 = ' :: %': -
~ 1 ~
- [. F -
l 9L DISCIPLINE: PRIORITY CODE ~: 05 TREND CD: DNT' i l ORIGINATION DATE: 20282 LI N- 'IS. CONCERN A PART'21?: -NO' WHEN: 0 BY WHON: .IS.NRC AWARE OF THIS: l~ I= .WHEN, AWARE: 0. -TIME -WHOM: y } JPRESS PF 8 FOR CONTINUATION SCREEN l-l_ --] 9 b l s 0-r. LO-H !I HOW WAS C0llCERN IDENT(WHEN WHERE): DURIl4G THE JAN.-29 i?82 SEISilIC ' DESIGH STATUS REVIEN tiEETING IN Atill ARBOR, BEClllEL 'PRdSEilTED A FLOOR-RESPONSE SPECTRUN CURVE FOR THE REACTOR BUILDING COMPARING Tile ORIG-INAL SPECTRA-WITH THE CURREllT SPECTRA. THE COMPARISON (ATTACHED)- i 9 INDICATES A DEGREE OF NON-CONSERVATISH:IN THE ORIGINAL SPECTRA AT CERTAIN FREQUENCIES. DRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN: THE HON-CONSERVATISH:IN THE ORIGINAL !I SPECIRA AS SHOWN ON THE C0tiPARISON DATED 012782 APPEARS TO lie A RE-SULT OF THE ORIGINAL USE OF CE-931 WHICH RESULTED IN A C0liPOSITE n00EL DAMPING WHICll WAS TOO HIGH. BLC-11329 (ATTACHED), DATED 081401.- L - STATED TilAT Tile USE OF CE-931 WAS NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM DUE TO OTiiER r I HOWEVER Tile SPECTRA COMPARISON PRESEllTED ON JAN. 29 0FF-SETTIl1G FACTORS,1 DID IN FACT RESULT IN A SPECTRA WHICH WAS TOO LOW. INDICATED THAT CE-93 IliMEDIATE REPORTABILITY EVALUATION: NOT REPORTABLE, FURTHER. EVALUATION i 9 ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR FURTHER EVALUATION: NAME: BECHTEL ENG. DATE: 0 FINAL REPORTABILITY EVALUATION: PRESS PF8 FOR CONTINUATION SCREEN 9 APPROVAL OF EVALUATION MANAGER HPQAD: NAMF: WRBIRD DATE: 20302 JUSTIFICATION OF-EVAL (RECORD ATTACH ID NO). DECHTEL ADVISED DURING THE JAN. 29 HEETING THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGil HAD -SUFFICIEllT HARGIN ,9 RELATIVE TO THE NON-CONSERVATIVE SPECTRA HOWEVER FIllAL DETERNINATION RE GARDING REPORTABILIT( CANNOT DE MADE UNTIL THE-NEW ANALYSIS IS COMPLETE. lO FINAL APPR0 vat SIGet11GR HeQAD:. WRnIRD t DATE: 32284 TIME: 0 -k. flRC NOTIF E TION 110W: TELECON O s-DATE: 34y34 TIME . 500 Q. INDIVIDUAL NOTIFIED: RON GARDHER
REFERENCE:
OCR CHRON FILE il0 20053 PRESS EHlER TO DISPLAY SUS VALUES a J
- ,- - =p SAFETY COilCERi1 AND REP 013TADILITY EVALUATI0tt DROWSE SCRELil ACTION NUHDER
S-771 SCRE NUMDER: 19 C0hPAllY CODE: C TYPE: SCRE TO ilAtlAGER HPQA FROM: RCDAUMAll ORG AtlIZATION : tiPDQAJ F ILE 110 : 15.1 DISCIPLIllE: PRIORITY CODE: 00 TREND CD: DitT ORIGItlATION DATE: 42081 IS C0ilCERN A PART 21?: NO WilEti: 0 BY WHOM: IS tlRC AWARE OF THIS: WilEtt AWARE: 0 TIHE Wiloti: PRESS PF 8 FOR CollTIllUATIOil SCREEll HOW UAS CONCERif IDEllT(WHEtt WHERE): Tile ISSUES COVERED BY Ti1IS SCRE WERE IDEllTIFIED BY DECitTEL AllD CONSUHERS POWER DURIllC PREPARATIUlf FOR lilE APRIL 20 HRC STRUCTURAL AUDII. ADDITIOilAL II~EtiS tiAY BE IDENTIFIED DURIt1G THE AUDIT. u DRIEF DESCRIPTIOli 0F C0tlCERN: DURIt1G PREPARATI0ll FOR Tile t1RC STRUCTURAL IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT VARIOUS El1GINEERING ACTIVITIES RELATED TO AUDIT, DESIGN REQUIRE ADDIT 10tlAL ATTENTI0il TO DOCUMEilT FULL Col 1PLI ANCE PLAtlT WITH PROJEUT LICENSING AND/OR DESIGN CRITERIA. THESE ITEMS WERE DISCUSSED WITH BECitTEL Oil APRIL 13 AND ARE SUMMARIZED ON THE ATTACHED BECHTEL PREPARED LIST WilICH DOES fl0T IllCLUDE ITEMS COVERED BY PREVIOUS u SCRE
- S OR EXISTIl1G TICAR
- S.
IN ADDITIOil, CERTAIfl ISSUES RAISED (CONT) IMMEDIATE REPORTABILITY EVALUATION: ilOT REPORTADLE, FURTHER EVALUATION l u Of:G AtlIZATION RESP 0tiSIDLE FOR FURTilER EVALUATION: NAtiE : DPCO PE DA~lE: O FItlAL REPORTADILITY EVALUATION: PRESS PF8 FOR CONTIllUATIGH SCREEN l ' APPROVAL OF EVALUATIOilflANAGER HPQAD: NAME: WRBIRD DATE: 42101 JUSTIFICATION OF EVAL (RECORD ATTACil ID HO): NONE OF Tile PRESEtlTLY IDENTIFIED ITEMS ARE DEENED REPORTABLE AT THIS TIilE DUE TO THE LACK j L OF AtlY IDICATED S(4FETY IMPACT. IN ALL CASES, APPROPRIATE ANALYSES b WILL DE CONDUCTED BY DECHTEL TO DETERMINE lilE ACTUAL SITUATION RELATIVE 10 POTEllTI AL IMPACT 011 PLANT SAFETY. g FIrlAL APPROVAL sigil HCR HPQAD: WRDIRD s d Di.~1E: 32284 IIhE: O " ilRC l10TIF"'AIIDH llOW: TELECON l Ye&,..s.,F,- iLL.,,.. ., J H!E W s
ORGAffIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR FURTHER EVALUATI0t4: HAME: BPCO PE DATE: O FIllAL REPORTABILITY EVALUATION: 13. PRESS PF8 FOR CONTIllUATION SCREEN gy ';. 4.t 'n APPROVAL OF EVALUATI0tt HANAGER HPQAD: W ilAME: WRitIRD DATE: 42181
- )
JUSTIFICATI0tt OF EVAL (RECORD ATTACH ID 110): ll0llE OF Tile PRESENTLY c IDENTIFIED ITEMS ARE DEEMED REPORTABLE AT TilIS TIilE DUE TO Tile LACK i 0F Ai1Y IDICATED SAFETY INPACT. Iti ALL CASES, APPROPRIATE ANALYSES i WILL DE CONDUCTED BY BECHTEL TO DETERMIllE THE ACTUAL SITUATION RELATIVE TO POTENTIAL INPACT ON PLAtlT SAFETY. j FINAL APPROVAL sigil HGR HPQAD: WRBIRD Eh DATE: 32284 TINE: 0 .V NRC NOTIF'"ATION 110W: TELEC0il 4 DAIE: 3 84 TIME 500 '6'j INDIVIDUAL il0TIFIED: R0ll GARDilER
REFERENCE:
OCR CHRON FILE NO 23053 PRESS EllTER TO DISPLAY SUS VALUES il A { E s SUS: NTS00 PRESS ENTER TO DISPLAY NEXT SUS VALUE s-PRESS PF1 TO EXIT THE UPDATE FUNC flott .j
- J
.,. g k'.v 1 4*. -2 e 'Jb I,
SAFETY CONCEgg00'JE EREtl * " "^ "' '^ ACTION NUMBER: SO3961 SCRE NUMBER: 15 COriPAtlY CODE: C TYPE: SCRE TO tiANAGER tiPQA FROM: BFHEllLEY ORGANIZATI0ti: DESIGN PROD FILE NO: 15.1 DISCIPLINE: G PRIORITY CODE: 02 TREND CD: K-9 ORIGIllATION DATE: 40781 IS C0ilCERil A PART 21?: il0 HHEN: O DY Ull0N: IS tlRC AWARE OF THIS: il0 WHEtt AWARE: O tit 1E WHOM: PRESS PF 8 FOR C0tlTINUATIOil SCREEtt HOW WAS C0tlCERN IDEilT(WHEll WHERE): DURING THE COURSE OF PREPARING FOR THE NRC *S STRUCTURAL AND SEISilIC DEISGil AUDIT TilIS CutlCERN UAS DROUGil f TO C0ilSUMERS ATTEllTIOil Ill A HEETING Ill THE DECllTEL ANN ARDOR OFFICES Oil APRIL 3, 1901. BRIEF DESCRIPTIOil 0F CONCERN: IN DECllTEL'S ORIGIllAL SEISHIC AllALYSIS OF THE DIESEL GEt'ERATOR BilILDING IT HAS LtEEN DETERhINED fHAT THE MATERIAL STIFFilESS OF IHE SITE FILL HAb DEEN INADVERIENILY Cil0SEN TO DE THE SAliE AS THE UtIDISTRUBED TILL t1ATERIAL. DECHTEL Sil0ULD PROCEED AT OtlCE TO PERFORM A SAFETY IMPACT EVALUATION FOR AtlY POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON THE DIESEL GENERATOR STRUCTURE AND INTERNAL EQUIPHEllT. IHtiEDI ATE REPORTADILITY EVALUATIOll: NOT REPORTABLE, FURTHER EVALUATION ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR FURTHER EVALUATION: ilAt1E : DPE DATE: O FINAL REPORTABILITY EVALUATION: PRESS PF8 FOR CONTINUATI0tl SCREEtt APPROVAL OF EVALUATION HANAGER HPQAD: llAME: JLWOOD/WRD DATE: 40781 JUSTIFICATIUti 0F EVAL (RECORD ATTACH ID HO): v L 3 d FIi1AL APPROVAL SIGN HGR tiPQAD: URDIRD vV DATE: 32285 TIllE : O N' NRC NOTIF"'ATIOil H0tJ: TELECON DAfE: 3. 34 TIllE 500 (j T H D T V T I.II M hat i r: T r b - pnn r oonne
y SAFE. CONCERN AND REPORTABILITY EVALUATIOil BROWSE SCREEN ACTIOil NUMBER: S-683 SCRE NdHBER: 9 COMPANY CODE: C TYPE: SCRE TO HAtlAGER HPQA FR0it: WRBIRD ORG ANIZATIOll: HPDQAJ FILE NU: 15.1 ~ D ISCIPLIllE : PRIORITY CODE: 04 TREllD CD: DilT ORIGIllATION DATE: 20401 IS CONCERN A PART 21?: i10 WHEN: O DY WH0it: IS tlRC AWARE OF THIS: WilEi1 AWARE: 0 TIME Wil0H : PRESS PF 0 FOR C0i1TINUATIOil SCREEN H0ll WAS C0i1CERN IDENT(WHEN WHERE): DURIl1G THE FSAR REVIEW TI WAS DETERMINED THAT lHERE WERE DUt1E IllCOriSISIEllCIES Ill 1HE FSAR WITH RE-GARD TO VARI ATIOi1S OF SDIL HODULUS At1D EFFECTS Oil STRUCTURAL FRE-DUENCIES. REFER TO FSAR SECTIOil 2.5.4.7, 3.7.2.4, 3.7.2.9, AND APPEN. 3A (RESPONSE TO REG GUIDE 1.122). BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF COi1CERN: THE FSAR SECTIONS ARE 110W Ill THE PROCESS s OF REVIEW AND REVISIOil TO RESOLVE Ii100ilSISTEi1CIES BETWEEN SECTIONS AND WITHIll SECTIONS. THIS WELL BE C0l1PLETED Ill THE NEAR FUTURE. WITH REGARD 10 STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY, A CliECK OF SEISilIC RESPONSE FORCES WITHIN THE a HAJOR SEISHIC CATEGORY 1 STRUCTURES FOR A VARIATIOil 0F SOIL HODULUS OF + - 50% FROM lHE F10HINAL VALUE (22X10(6) LD/FT(2)) AS IllDICATED BY FSAR 2.5.4.7 IS Ill PROCESS. (CONT) IllHEDI ATE REPORTABILITY EVALUATIOil: il0T REPORTABLE, FURTHER EVALUATION ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR FURTHER EVALUATION: tlAt1E : DPE DATE: 0 FINAL REPORTABILITY EVALUATION: PRESS PF0 FOR CONTIt1UATION SCREEN s L APPROVAL OF EVALUATION MANAGER HPQAD: ilAME: URBIRD DATE: 20401 JUSTIFICATION OF EVAL (RECORD ATTACH ID NO): DASED ON INFORMATION IN v BLOCK 5, THERE IS CONFIDENCE TIIAT TliE FIRST REPORTABILITY CRITERION IS i10T BET (IE, NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON SAFETY). THE COMPLE FIOil 0F ONGOING STRUCIURAL (SEISi11C) ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED TO CONFIRH lilIS. TiiE SECOND REPORTABILITY CRITERIION TifAT COULD DE APPLICADLE IS "A SIGNIFICANT DE-v PARTURE FROM THE FINAL DESIGil AS (CONT.) FINAL APPROVAL SIGN HGR HPQAD: WRDIRD N DATE: 32204 TIME: 0 g NRC fl0TIFICATI0tl HOW: TELECON e DATE: 31504 TIME 500 0 INDIVIDUAL ll0TIFIED: RON GARDilER REFEREllCE: OCR CHRON FILE NO 28053 FL TS ENTER TO DISPLAY SUS VALUES s. t . ~
(.6F,9.Cu.m_, N SAFETY CONGERN AiiD 8' TE0Jf.CT3.ECt*:EEMING
== o= ' = - y nun wnet==1 M./ nwTg, REPORTABlUTY EVALUATION LOG RACE. Il01EDIATE ,l 77 DATE IEF DMCRIPTIM EVALUATION OF ,SCRE DAT:, CONTINUED EVALUATION KRC 0F SAFETY 9 g REPORTAB111TV EVALUATION RY NOTIFIED CONCERN YES POT. NO YES NO Hev1 11/4 fel X 10/5U/01 1 11/17/00 Part 21 on Air Extractors X Bechtel Eng X 2 11/25/80 Reactor Coolant Pump Snubber Anchor Bolts X CPCo Design X 11/25/80 Production .3 12/5/80 Anchor Darlinc Motor Operated Gate Valves X X k 12/17/80 Accident Induced Neutron Flux Measurement Errors X B&W X 5 1/7/81 BWST Ring Foundation Values Inconsistency X Bechtel Eng-X 1/22/01 4 Civil 6 1/8/81 Potential Problem With Lubrication of DG Thrust X Be'chtel Eng X !/3/81 4 j Bearings f 7 1/20/81 Part 21 on One-inch Stud Anchors X Bechtel Proj-X LADreisbach l 6 1/28/81 RV Cavity Cooling X Bechtel Proj X 6/16/81 4 Eng - LHCurti: 9 2/h/81 FSAR Inconsistencies - Variations of Soil Modulu X CPCo Design Production 10 3/2/81 Potential problem with RCS if HPI Line Pinch l Break Occurs X Bechtel Proj Engineering l 11 3/11/81 NSSS Components Design Concern X Bechtel & B&W ) 12 3/17/81 Corrosion of safety-related stainless steel pipe X Bechtel Proj X ~, Engineering 1 DRAnderson i 13 3/25/81 Residual Heat. Removal System Wiring X Bechtel X 9/11/01 j 1h h/02/81 Service Water Sluice Gate Concerns X X li/ 3/81 i 15 h/07/81 Soils Properties Used for Original DG Building X Bechtel Eng 4 l DesiEn 16 h/09/81 RCP Snubber Spring Rates X Bechtel Eng 4 LHCurtis 'f 17 h/09/81 Cooling System for UPSG Lower Support Skirt X Bechtel Eng X 18 h/16/81 Indeterminate h60 V Motor Control Center Breaker 'M Wiring ( HEVER ISSUED but referenced by UCR M-01 6-1-C i3) X Bechtel Eng X hIs/17/81suedT (SCRE Ilever j 19 h/20/81 Documentation of Plant Design Criteria to LHCurtis }G Licensing rald/or Design Criteria X Bech Proj Eng 20 h/27/81 FSAR - Steam Flow for NSSS X B&W I ~
~ ~ PROJECTS. ENGINEEilNG an:== SAFETY CONCERN AND = C===uc=a- { Fgwgt OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT i "" mar REPORTABILITY EVALUATION LOG 2 0A71-0 , ACE. I Ht1EDI ATF. SCRE DATE EVALUATIM OF FINAL DATE SC M TION CONTINUED SA W TABU M EVALUATION NRC NO RECEIVED L CONCERN EVALUATION BY NOTIFIED YES POT. NO YES NO I X
- 21 5/7/81 Safety Features of Service Water Sluice Gates X
CPCo Tech 8 Dept f 22 5/18/81 125 Ton Aux Bldg Crane Weld Defects X Bechtel Eng X i j 23 5/18/81 Emergency Diesel Lube Oil Piping X Bechtel Eng X g ~ p 24 6/19/81 Westinghouse Gate Valves X B.echtel Eng y 7/9/81' LHCurtis l 25 6/25/8i Failure to Consider Accident Temperatures in X Hechtel Eng X Design of NSSS Component Supports LHCurtis 26 7/20/8'l Failure to' Obtairi' Impact Properties for X Design Prod X 7/E0/81 E Contaisunent Penetration Sleeve 27 8/17/81 CE 931 Composite Model Damping Program X Bechtel Eng X Calculation Resulted in Too High Damping on RB g 28 8 /214/81 Sizing Emergency Diesel Generator Fuel 011 X
- Bechtel, X
Storage Mechanical 29 9/4/81 Indeterminate Wiring in G-205 Circuit Wiring -(Bechtel Field Modifications) X Bechtel Eng X 30 9/02/81 Rockbestos Coaxial Cable - Part 21 X Bechtel Eng X LADreisbach I 31 10/13/8 Potential Faulty Current Transformer in DG X Llicurtis X I i Control Circuits 32 10/2/81 Invalid Seismic Qualification of Class 1E X Bech Eng y 1/12/83 Cabinets X bechtel Eng X 33 10/20/8 Misinterpretation of Welding Symbol i I X LHCurtis X i 0 34 11/10/E _ Power Strut Design Load l f., 35 11/13/8 Discrepancies between Vendor supplied X
- r, equipment and instruction manuals 36 11/20/81 Minimum Bend Radius Violations X
L!!Curtis x 37 t1/16/81 RCP Snubber Spherical Bearings X Design Prod & X ( Bech Civ Eng {y 38 12/2/81 IE Bulletin 79-21 Temp. Effects on Level Meas'm.s X .%W & Bechtel X 4/1h/82 i
1 I'! M* onom SAFETY CONCERN AND "f! E l#uM T Ysk h. D# "ofo REPORTABILITY EVALUATION LOG 8 QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT l f,Cn e ItGIEDIATE FINAL DATE SCRE BRIEF DESCRIPTION EVALUATION OF DATE CONTyNUED EVALUATION NRC 0F SAFETY REPORTABITTTY. yo RECEIVED EVALUATION BY NOTIFIED CONCERN YES POT. NO YES NO 3' 39 12/28/81 Rodent Damage to Electrical Penetrations X X l'/20 /82 1 40 1/7/82 Part 21 by Delaval on DG governor lube oil cooler X X, [ problem X. i hl 1/13/82 Control Power Transformer in h60V Motor Control X LilCurtis ,I 'i Center (Mounting of) ,k 42 2/2/82 Reactor Bldg Spectra Comparison X LIICurtis i h h3 2/15/82 Snubber Drawing Errors Effect on Pressurizer X LilCurtis X Y Lower Support Design hk 3/h/82 Schematic Diagram Does Not Function In Accord With Logic Diagram (ESFAC) X LHCurtis X, 4 V + l .k5 3/8/82 Aux Feedwater Level Control Valv'es X LHCurtis Xi 3/9/82: 4 ,I. h6 3/12/82 B&W Transmitter Mounting Brackets Lack of X TJSullivan X" 6/3/82! i Seismic Qualifications [ l a h kT h/1/62 Transamerica DeLaval Diesel Engine Starting Air X Dalughes X Sensing Line Failure kB h/16/82 Material Damping Value for Cat. I Cable Tray X DRIughes X. -l Supports X lf i e 2 S 49 h/16/82 Yield Strength for Design of Pipe Whip Restraints X B41Iughes 50 5/6/82 - Containment Penetration Sleeve X Dillughes X l l9 51 5/20/82 Discovery of Void During Drilling of Permanent X B0lughes lf Observation Well OBSik i X;g r 52 6/9/82 Diesel Generator Building HVAC Operability X Dillughes
- f 53 6/17/82 Piping Class ELB Tittings Minimum Wall Thickness X
DUluches X' l r itequirements 1 j[ Sh 6/21/82 Welding Defects in Structural Beams X JARutgers I f 55 T/23/82 Formation of Frazil Ice, Its Effects on Midland X Dulughes X. 11/12/82 ]g Cooling Water System g i ', 56 8/2/82 Zack ID Number Discrepancies (Welder) on Traveler : X Zack Co/Bech Xl y Construction j !f 57 8/19/82 Termination of Instrument & Control Transformers X Bechtel Engrg X' l {; 58 9/2/82 Cracked Termitial B1ks in NSSS Instrumentation Cabi tet X IDGreen, B&W yl t-59 9/8/82 Flued Head Fittings - NDE Rejections X Sec_htel Proj i y
gra SAFETY CONCERN AND '"iM'A%"s'oi** 00ALITY AS$URANCE DEPARTMENT ggpq REPORTABILITY EVALUATION LOG ,,c,. b Om_o IMMEDIATE FINAL DATE BRIEF DESCRIPTION EVALUATION OF SCRE DATE CONTINUED EVALUATION NRC OF SAFETY NO RECEIVED REPORTAB1TTTY EVALUATION BY NOTIFIED CONCERN YES POT. NO YES NO 60 10/8/82 DeLaval DG Governor Drive Couplings Mfg Deficier ey X Bech Proj Enr X 61 10/8/82 Design Criteria for' Dresser Main Steam Safety X CPCo Design Valves Production 62 10/22/8 Improper Sizing of Cable X 10/28/8 63 10/29/8 Paralleling of Emergency Diesel Generators X Bech Proj Enr X ) 6h 11/5/8: Workmanship on(Vendor) DG Engine Control Pant ts X Bech Proj Enr X 12/3/82 65 11/2/82 Circuit Board Plug-in Modules X CPCo Licensin. X 66 11/15/82 Vendor Workmanship on Safeguard Cabinets (Elec-X Bech Proj Eng X 12/3/82 trical Circuitry) 67 11/18/8; Service Water Pump Grease Seals X Bech Proj Eng 12/3/82 68 11/29/82 HCR M01-9-2-173 AFW PT Control Panels X Bech Proj Eng X , X X Bech Proj Eng 69 12/1/82 Violation of 1" Separation between Conduit X. Bech Proj Eng TO 12/2/82 Emergency DG Exhaust System X REWhitaker X 71-12/15/82 NCR H01-9.2-130 Flued Heads ITF by Uncertified Personnel 72 12/17/82 .Vaneaxial Fan Motor Grease Drains X Beh k k 73 12/27/82 Discrepancies Between Unit 1 & 2 SG Feedline X Be X Valves Th 12/30/82 Steam Line Break Analysis by B&W X B&W X 75 t/6/33 Qualification of Zack welding X Bech Proj Eng 76 1/12/83 Routine Inspection of Operations Warehouse X Mid Administre. ive X Inspection Practices 4 i. TT 1/28/33 ASME Class II Piping Installed In ASME Class I X Bech Proj Eng System (B&W) X Bech Proj EnE X 78 1/28/83 Raceway Supports Not In Accordance Wi't.h Design J Drawings y X DBMiller/ X 79 2/h/83 Design Control of Turned Over System LHCurtis 80 3/02/83 Exide Batteries Case Cracks Around Terminal Pos s X Bech Proj Eng X
L- ~ {
- g y
n ^' PROJECTS. ENGINEEllNG c=== - SMETY CONCERN AND pgwgr >= c==uc = - = OUAUTY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT a REPORTABILITY EVALUATION LOG ~ OA71-0 RACE. 5 IPl!EDIATE SCRE DATE ESCRIPTION EVAWATION OF C'ONTINUE0 NO RECEIVED A TABU M EVALil T ON NRC CONCERN EVALUATION BY NOTIFIED YES POT. NO YES NO ..E i 81 3/31/83 Pipe Whip Restraints on NSSS Cold Leg Piping X Bechtel Proj Engineering I l 82 3/2/83 CCW Temperature Bypass Valves A X Bech Proj Eng I 83 h/6/83 Lower Thermal Shield Bolts In Core Support X Design Prod. X h/19/83 84 h/1h/83 C'ontrol Room HVAC Air Handling Housings Leakage X Bechtel Proj X [ Engineering i 85 2/11/83 Potential Problem Potentiometers Foxboro Circuit Modules X Bech Proj Eng 86 5/5/83 Conduit Support Loading X Bech Site Mgr i 87 6/8/83 Power Supplies to FOGG Interlock Relays X CPCo Elec X 6/22/83 88 6/13/83 Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Injection Temp Transa at X B&W Lynchburg 89 7/1/83 Foxboro Modules X Bech Proj Eng j 90 7/8/83 Throttling Valves X CPCo Eng X (REMcCue) 91 7/18/83 Redlined Drawings X .ech. Const l i 92 3/1/83 Main Coolant Pump Seal Cartridge Assys X B&W f 93 8/11/83 Nonconformance Reports 2h-hour Clock X CPCo MPQAD ( ever ssued 94 8/19/83 SWPS Building Problem with Dewatering Wells X X 95 9/1/03 Torquing Anchors after Grout Hardening X lech Proj Eng f. 96 9/6/83 J-h01-h Cat I Racks & Supports no't to Spec. X 3ech Proj Eng 97 9/9/83 SS Pipe w/ Rejectable Linear Indications X 3ech Proj Eng f 98 7/9/83 Routing & Separation of Class IE Cables X Bech Proj Eng 99 J/26/83 Retroactivity of Design Changes X Bech Proj Eng I 100 9/23/83 Env Qualif restriction-factory rework of cable X Bech Proj EnE X' 11/10/E 3
n ~ PROJECTS, ENGINEERING c=== SAFETY CONCERN AND A#o conmucu=- POWN OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTWENT 7% REPORTABILITY EVALUATION LOG 4 , ACE. 6 i IMMEDIATE BRIEF DESCRIPTION FINAL DATE -SCRE DATF EVALUATION OF CONTINURD F SAFM WMTARTI m EVALUATION NRC HO RECEIVED CONCERN EVALUATION BY NOTIFIED YES POT. NO YES HO 101 10/7/8'; Q Coating Verir on Carbon Steel Supports X EMllughes BPI X 102 10/25/8: Electrical Schematic Els38 X X 103 11/1h/8 ; Results of Investigation of Analysis of RPV X EBPoser BPE Anchor Studs 104 11/28/8:- Installation of BIW Cable in Q System X EBPoser BPE .I 105 1/18/81: Safety-related installations using grouted anch ir bolts X Bechtel Proj - ngg f G 9 e p l
~
- ,, /'
~ e - sm .7 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY - MIDLAND 1 AND 2 Report Number of Report . Number of ~ Number Noncompliances Number Noncompliances 70-1 0 74-1 1 70-2 0 74-2 0 70-3 0 74-3 0 ~ A //j 70-4 0 74-4 1 70-5 0 74-5 0 70-6 4 74-6 0 71-1 0 74-7 0 71-2 0 74-8 0 ] 74-9 0 74-10 0 72-1 0 l~ 74-11 1 1..' 73-1 0 3 73-2 0 75-l' O 73-3 0 75-2 0 73-4 0 75-3 0 73-5 0 75-6 0 73-6 0 '![' 73-7 0 75-7 0 fx;.1 73-8 5 76-1 3 73-9 0 76-2 2 ' ~
- l[
73-10 4 76-3 0 'l 73-11 0 76-4 5 = HOs Notice of Violation 76-5 0 7_,:. 9 ~ 76-6 0 Show Cause . i.y,; order Issued 12/3/73 10 v3.g j v3 77-1 0 i; 77-2 1 l ., j 77-3 0 ~ As of 8/24/76, nine stop-work 77-4 0 ~, ', M,... orders issued by CP. 77-5 0
- f; I U't!
1 (Total 27) ..C l
J(., 1- ,.~
- n.c 4
s t MIDLAND 1 AND 2 ' CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF QA/QC EMBEDMENT PROBLEMS 9/29-30l&.{S'iteInspectionconducted..Four nonconformances regarding: 10/1'/70: ? E(1) placement activities violated ACI Code, (2) lab not performing tests per PSAR, -(3) sampling not per ASTM, and ,j -(4) QA/QC personnel did not act_ on deviations when identi- .fied. This was considered during hearings. 1971i. In mothballs pending CP. 1972: In mothballs pending CP. 12/14/72: CP issued. (Calvert Cliffs impacted on CP issuance.) 9/73: Five nonconformance of Bechtel Ann Arbor activities. 11/73: Four separate criteria nonconformances with several examples c of each, including cadweld splicing, storage of materials, identification of acceptance, and resulting records. Pre-cipitated the Show Cause Order. ..;U.h 12/5/74: CP reported to RI I per 50.55(e) that rebar spacing out of specification 50 locations in Unit 2 containment (RIII Reports 75-01., 75-02, and 75-03). 3/5 & 10/75:CP reported tc RIII that approximately 63 #6 rebar were either missing or misplaced in Auxiliary Building. (RIII .a .fl Report 75-03.) '~SA \\ i 3/12/75: RIIJ held management meeting with CP (RIV letter to CP, dated April 16, 1975). s. 8/21/75: CP reported to RIII that 42 sets of #6 tie bars were missing t in Auxiliary Building (RIII Report 75-07).
- n r
. EA ,,<s, SNlES 1
- u
. :. e!...:e % ' t ?, %: ~ /~, A
- _,.. : L, a.,:
7. . 4.?i ' ',u' 'y. e z e ..'{. ij.. ..: 3' M "ns y;.- 3/22/76: CP reported to RIII that approximately 32 #8 rebar were '3-omitted in Auxiliary Building. A stop-work order was 1; . [*_ issued by CP (RIII Report 76-04). e.i.s Jj ..gpg 3/26/76: RIII inspector requested CP to inform RIII when scop-work y :a . -!.;[ order to be lifted and to investigate the cause and the .:~ ; extent of the problem. Additional rebar problems identi-fied during. site inspection (RIII Report 76-04). ~ 3/31/76: CP lifted the stop-work order. ...a j 4/19 thru RIII performed in-depth QA inspection at Midland (RIII
- ?..
- {.i 5/14/76
Report 76-04). 4 E di 14 5/14/76: Discussed inspection-findings with site personnel (RIII .. nq Y- @d
- P Report 76-04).
09/$ .j9fj 5/20/76: RIII management meeting with CP President, Vice President, ff[p: and others. wj .. j 6/7 & 8/76: RIII follow-up meeting with CP management and discussed ?; {l.).d the CP 21 correction commitments. ..c,.. - .e ,q,f3 6/1-7/1/76: Overall rebar omission reviewed by R. E. Shewmaker (Report . :M . 'd.b 76-05). Mi L,Q 8/9 thru Five-week, full-time onsite inspection conducted by RIII ' f3 9/9/76: inspector (RIII Report 76-08). 2,G.s '03 2/28/77: Unit 2 bulge of containment liner discovered. '.. f. '.'s J 4/19/77: Tendon sheaths problem of Unit 1 was reported. }I, ?,-' [v m +m ' 8h . [b i .e
- - Vf1 -
iNa --. ~ i t ,. 2.n '.: * ' ', *. s... - gw ,sf. ri e *.. ..u .s ,. 4, c 5 ; -* ^ a.- .s. .e. 'e4-r.6 6,.. g< s; +..t.. c.
- v d.
, i
- ~,.,s 1.,,..
.,i. + a. e t 4., '. h'*,2f. g *,'.b,..'s..$.%. %.* ** : ' e.:'. *% e ',,*...,,%,f^ U. ).*.ar,' '~
- I i.p.
'I " ? P 8la I g.). i ' "k.f. m . ?. :,t.,g g.,- a L gt .e a e r
- ,4*.
r -*p' p + * ..e e7* s. V y, ~s %.*,e' v*.d;.t
- .}.jp **
,,; %.,. 4 '. s /.":. .A 1. - v's.1 ;; y. s ^. se ' s a ,.s :+. $ a,y.. g.. */y <gr.;.. -(. p.. 7. f. * - g s,- a C.
- i. e s 4. ~. 7 *
. s f. ' ,,. t ; p '.*. " ? s.,.. 4.. l. l ~ R* I..I.~, J 'y ,,p 'e'. %,i.,.,'.' f*' g. a*.
- K
,,,.N '.:]"J 2.h*: x '.s g
- '... a
- ~
n 2 *au
- r y.-
.. r ' r;a y _ g ,,*..,.,e..,t.* y s. ji .g '~
- a. n_!, r'e> A)3,..,,,.h y s
.:.[,, %[.g * *,..$'; R, '.j.," +, * ' < r.I. 4 s fQ', a <,.,;t",_ i g,a
- s
.e,. ,.- t, ^ '*p.*+8,. ,,s ,,,.i-. L *
- e u.*
e 44 s i - , tr.. e el s s.., -n.-
- j.
- 1**
.=)...- ,.s. ., s. (g., '.2#.#,.A,i. k.. ' ~...#.*
- y,,'
.y'f.,*'.%.k.~......,;.,. u........,. ', A.,, ; . th,. y. p n ,) 1 i r 31 * *.,. ) R.:, t. s.n..,,' -,,...e. o ,'L..,
- \\* Y. ~
N;.. $ *.? l Yl fd N x,.- f l ?
- ) ' hhh '.h-
.. "g.,e3., t. f - s.~7 . w.;.c. s., p.,., s.N.. A. ....t o 1 ee au* . 4,, O.- ,se 3 - u.Q,.. 6 ,,1". < .%.. e. W W : qr... 4 4 es .,a '. ~. y,, y -s,._ h.+ *N....d$N N.2
- x.. J
' 4 ,) si f: . -.,.,. v...g
- - +;
. = r.. s ?y..s e, c~. a. ;g n. >.. .e .,,.e l ( p}
- . ::y:/ m;, Q l;x,r.!~.q :
<.s .). 4.G,:- ~:g,. . <i _ . '..c. ( ! -
- .4,8 M - T,' f 9 t
'..'c... -.v n . s,. ~ g L,+A'** t' .,.s ~ ' '*s ' ' * \\
- s g.'.
- g. i
) t l ,~;m.;. -z a
- , )"* ;. 'V
<~ s j .o j /' \\ fan v. r ', ;; w?.y..y.v. Q, g, ,.4 ~ ...,m. .s-,.- s ~ ..,..*q;. 3 ..f 1 w 'f.*..,<. 3r "...i' ,,v 4 5t n r 7', '+ A. 7. l= h. M.. D. 'e. g'., ?,. '.1. -. :.2 6.. ** ...!.,,y...h.lA... ?..)." s.....s .a..+.- + .. A, Q,..,*I,; *..j.C 9.*..;.. J,,, ~z '...Q' ...w...s.... . va. n
- 4. ',' ' M,.:. 4.s.ti,s;.w.tq. &.f c <..,.; f. f.13; *l*
.a -t .w ~ y.....a, .f 1ry: v . so
- rr.
w &r . ;,t,. V c.F;.q M/ y. (,w. ees* , y**v ' g p,% "
- 7 ^. g;*.'. y,'
%.,.?,2 + K;* - @. W... t ? S v.;:'.~V. N.... f.:.&. G M.,'.Y.;.Q*<: *. f...,l', f fL&.2 - ~ c r ..n,. 3 -.e/%.; <. U.. .5 WM.. ;. .e s v... m.w,,.%.a, na.,",.c ^ .us ..~.c-.+.- g C I.. w.. m.:..- J *. eV e 9,4~ m,o.. ).:n,w'g,;.. w ,v..., ~ . w, -..es x '.. ' m ;/ *
- 2.., e. ss.t.: s. :. &, **.* N ',,)..
- ,7 'j,,s.f;f y 7,8 e,. *g.:< /; -
.y*. ,gg...-<,.p -s..s 7 ;.,-2. c.,s.
- _
..,... -,,...,..,,r... .a .1,*.r ,., p .o
- y; %.
,.. y., ; ; cf '6,y@- - +.. 3 y '.; 'ry.N.,K :. Q.::~.;&al.f w-K.;?;[p. r. .,e v. ., n. .w& ..e.. ..' ~ ~. ' ?
- * / p *'y J.
- N..,..n.,.
..M...e . +. 3 ",r , e .,.,. *.~.a p a r - w '$.y;a. a r.* 6 . m a 4 . s* c. a pi n '.'P*
- :: *. y '* * *
". ^
- +
e.. t a '.' :s *. L,. W.':l? Y',*6 v . _.W.* l \\ a j;:
- p.
-v,g. ..s e .v ... a.,.;. a..:. p. v :.. s + s fr. 3 :,.'..-
- r..
- y.
r,- 4, ..f,,, .,o ..t< 9,5 ',.
- +,, * ;'i.' ;?.ll. p.',. '.. # 3. a A + d,.7..
'g (,,'N s - 3 *. *. .,.-2 4 ~. u.,&..... '.f a;. y.. G 41 e... $t.,,.H,.4...*=v ,*..,. g.&-.,m*gll..n;.f,V. Q'f 4 % fs a -3 %.s.. f ;, hj'.%.
- !u y
,%. t :: = w N...N. s s r u<'> .r y[..,...,.....- .4.., . a.m ou. o.
- 3. a. ) 2..".,,.,.. c
.- e,; g . f., c,.y.r,r., ,mp,w. es. t e ..a.. v.x y. .t.ey a. a M ~eyh .\\, ~
- l *- * $ ;;
h o.f[ Y. 'O ~,..A'J ' < e :. n, m?. n"; ;T-1.*.(.&, y, It, r_. Q+* j.,, p,.['1. ?',!...g, ' 3
- w. ( $v., ~* 'g s 'n.., Y.%. *. #,f,h t,'.
,s' c.. e* + y c .q. ,p... t.2 ;,, r .:f< > -. s.' ':4t.f,9-x: u ;;&; ^. f< a.i.;.f.. e 4a v s J W ,.)A 'f :.
- q. s.:W: _.' p. r-. '&. %.,.w*bQQ.7@4. P' * *.H M...*f,s c~ !.*;.*Q,., o,.,pf,
-g, c.m y p .,,.,.*3 ,. m.1.. ....e... ..s v%.b.. 4. s. m..a.,.:.,;m a. M ,w,.g,m.,.,. q.,..g m, ::.,
- b.,., #.,v. *.4 : :... y4..,7'c..N m n,
. c~.y. . n..., w ., s.s,. ;..y,4.,. %.?Le.e. '. *... o%.. s. ~$.. . m*.m.- ., +.
- ,g.,;
...... -... o..n.. .s..... 2 - i@..,W Wc. +o., y . r '. 4,, s. f.1. n, n,s.a,.,;.%.,~ . ',v,&..:.,m, ~. 7. %s..... y. v@...N. ~ .N &,' Wi. M,,.....,.., t
- s., 2Q, a. wp.qs.,e b...,
5..m....,,m... 4 .y< .,, e.m-:t. ,2.- .. '. :, e> . < w.. ..w u. .w n m.,i -~....:. u.: ,.,.% ;n.v:. ?:;,e.1-2. u. ...:a :;.s, ...s .m.: y.k;..;;w y.w. n mlu . i. .wl %-a.. :.;g sq K.,q..p. 'x, : y :ii ~. '.t Qi:. ,~..m:. g %. . _ :.=r. L^ ~ w. 1 - s , *.- n.,, e., ~ ~, $x.r, s ;...., p. m9, y. v R.,,.?. v.n.-. m..,... r. s e :.4.. p..,. %,. !...; g -{:'\\.[ .9 .r.. ,, Q,.. Q. 5... -Q. ~.,.,% ~...,. 4- .*pp.y. ,,5),).... ] 9. g I 9., 5 %.. n
- a.,.,.;.. -. 7..
. y, w. - - - u.,,n.. w%ps. ,r , x.;. p. ...c .,s. ,. -.,., ;^ .t ,'p. s q *....g" . n_t
- e,
.,. u..;. .c .. o., .w, S.,..,.;: :. ' f..&,.. ;. yM c., ? ".,.~;.:,, F. i...;:m ?+m,v.. 3* .s.o
- Q.
h,'5 7*s. '. e., "..m, ~ . %r. n . ~ s.. s s. n .M., *,9 {,... -- ~. ' ' ' ...s j'y.*4., s r -.t. a }>{.t.. w / *.... h E.h,h.' g r?'a e v <.h.,, wea,%..$', '.,'No%,2.T ~ f. k'h... [ .e
- Mh.,,
, ' f..' * . u w m.. q n., Se p - ~,. J. Q *.., - 84%."g, N w ' ;. N_ w. ' S :'. 'p 9,,.. +. w. (.',". o;==* <"gr i * . %. "*' 7 * '* -T y...U ..,t (e ge. .. x ~. _ na 'y. s 3, m, v,,4ged h)h"' QMh. ' y.h.ew' e a*. i[E.(*,p V-A. ,. /*MJge. hel, 3 .bg,,*,. e. 2 .:> v;; N, ; Dt.: 2%.c,;;.,.s min M. e :.F a
b / g MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2 Major Events Ladder December 5, 1974 - Rebar spacing nonconformance identified for Unit 2 containment by licensee. March 5 & 10, 1975 - Rebar deficiencies in Auxiliary Building identified by licensee; RIII accepts justification. April 9, 1975 - Bechtel engineering-justification for rebar spacing in Unit 2 containment accepted by RIII. (Report No. 75-03.) l April 16, 1975 - Meeting at Consumers Power Company Corporate office; Hunnicutt, Hayes, and LeDoux relative to rebar spacing in containment and missing rebar in Auxiliary Building. ) i 1 l April 28, 1975 - Unit 2 containment rebar spacing reanalysis accepted.- August 21, 1975 - RIII notified of rebar omitted in Auxiliary Building. May 4, 1976 - Bechtel conclusion, that missing rebar in Auxiliary Building vill not affect integrity, referred to Headquarters; Hayes to Seyfrit. June 7 & 8, 1976 - Meeting, Consumers Power Company, Jackson; Keppler and others vs Selby and others relative to missing rebar in Auxilic77 Building and QA deficiencies per Report No. 76-04. June 18 & 24, 1976 - Li 'nsee letters of response coinnitting to 21 items v of corrective action in response to Report No. 76-04. June 25, 1976 - Keppler to Consumers Power Company; Immediate Action Letter per Jordan to Keppler memo 8/26/76. i 't '}
I . July 14, 1976 - IE concurred kith the Bechtel conclusion regarding missing rebar in Auxiliary Building, Seyfrit to Hunnicutt. July. 28, 1976 - PN-III-76-52 issuea on concrete work stoppage due to further rebar placement errors found as a result of Consumers' overview program instigated in late June 1976. August 2, 1976 - Keppler letter to Headquarters recommending Headquarters' Notice of Violation be issued. Notice sent 8/13/72[. 4 October 29, 1976 - Consumers Power Company responded to Headquarters' Notice of Violations. November 30, 1976 - Hearings take place on environmental matters. Completed in January 1977. December 10, 1976 - Consumers Power Company's Midland QA Program accepted by NRR.
- July 1977
- Staff commenced responding on Consumers Power Company's Regulatory Guide use. February 26, 1977 - Bulge occurrence of Unit 2 containment liner discovered - reported on February 28, 1977. April 14, 1977 - Meeting, Ann Arbor, to review activities of bulged liner plate repair. April 19, 1977 - Tendon sheath omission of Unit 2 reported. i April 29, 1977 - Immediate Action Letter issued relative to tendon sheath placement errors. i
- See backup information on Regulatory Guides.
l ~
. May 5, 1977 - Meeting, Consumers Power Company, Jackson; Keppler, Heishman, and Hayes relative to Immediate Action Letter discussion regarding tendon sheath problem. May 24 - 27,1977 - Special QA inspection to determine adequacy of QA program implementation at Midland. June 30, 1977 - Meeting, Ann Arbor; R. F. Heishman and R. E. Shewmaker; release to proceed for tendon sheath omission and for bulge repair. August 1-5 & - Site inspection to witness start of repairs for bulge 8 - 9, 1977 liner and review records of completion of tendon sheath. August 12,'1977 - Final 50.55(e) report o-tendon sheath. August 15, 1977 - Final report on liner plate repair. 0
I REBAR OMISSION PROBLEM Inspection Report File Information f CP identified rebar spacing noncompliance for rait 2 contain-12/5/74 ment wall. Issued QF-36 and stop-work FSW-6 December 6, 1974. l Inspection conducted on December 11 13, 1974. Inspection Report No. 74-11. 2/5-7/75 Inspection Report No. 75-01 More information requested for stress analysis for the rebar spacing of December 5, 1974. Tentative submittal March 15, 1975. NRC refuted existing analytical work. 2/26/75 - Inspection Report No. 75-02 NRC reviewed stress analysis on rebar spacing nonconformance. ) NRC refuted (CP agreed with NRC) analysis. Another analysis report due March 28, 1975. 4/8-9/75 Inspection Report No. 75-03 f NRC accepts Bechtel engineering justification. Resolves rebar I spacing of December 5, 1974 for rebar in Unit 2 containment. Auxiliazry Building rebar deviations - found by CP on March 5 i and 10, 1975. NRC accepts the licensee computat' ions. 10/23-24/75 -Inspection Report No. 75-07 August 21, 1975, NRC notified of rebar not installed in Auxiliary Building. NRC accepts CP analysis. 4/19-21, S/3, 6-7,13-14, and 20, 6/7-8/76 - Inspection Report No. 76-04 Bechtel concluded missing rebar in Auxiliary Building will not 4-affect integrity. Referred to Headquarters. QA inspection: Licensee letter June 18, 1976; licensee letter June 24, 1976. r Inspection Report No. 76-05 states revised and new work l }.-- - + - -. - - - -, -, -, -,. - -.,, - -
Rebar Omission Problem procedures for concre'te placement acceptable. Covered under -licensee letter of June 24, 1976, under " Activities to be-Completed Prior to Resumption of Q-Listed Concrete Placement." 6/24, 25, 30 and 7/1/76 - Inspection Report No. 76-05 IE:HQ did not identify any deficiency with Auxiliary Building rebar omissions. Bechtel trend analysis not accepted by.NRC - found acceptable in 76-09 dated November 1976. November 16 - 19, 1976, Bechtel trend analysis accepted by NRC. 8/9 - 9/9 and 23/76 - Inspection Report No. 76-08 Completes same licensee commitments from 76-04. 11/15-19/76 -Inspection Report No. 76-09 Inspector review of "Bechtel Trend An' lysis" was found to be a acceptable and considered resolved. e f e ,,-,w-.- -, ,,,n,
LETTER FILE 12/5/74 - CP quaIity assurance, coordination found rebar spacing out of specification on containment wall of unit 2. 12/6/74 - Stop-work order issued by CP. 12/11-13/74 - Site inspection. 6/lb/75 - Meeting by Mr. Yin with Mr. Slager, CP staff. Meeting held in RIII offices to review unresolved and/or open items from RIII inspection reports from 1970 to present. 11/18/75 - Meeting at Headquarters between RIII, IE, and CP to discuss implementation of Regulatory Guides 1.20, 1.26, 1.29, 1.46, 1.48, 1.67, and 1.72. 2/4/76 - Meeting scheduled for 2/4/76 between RIII, IE, and CP. Meeting to review noncompliance items and unresolved items identified during RIII inspection of 1/14-16/76. Infractions: 1. No assurance temperature limits were exceeded on concrete pours. 2. No measures to identify nonecnforming aggregate. 3. Nonconforming aggregate not idsposed of as required. 2/4/76 - Meeting at CP corporate offices between CP, Hunnicutt, and Hayes. The meeting reviewed noncompliance and unresolved items from January 13 - 16,1976 (Inspection Report No. 76-01). Meeting discussed effectiveness of QA/QC effectiveness. Licensee responded with letter of March 5, 1976. 4/28/75 - Memo of Yin to file. Yin review of BAPC report claims that rebar spacing problem in Unit 2 containment is considered resolved. March 5, 1975 CP notifies NRC of missing rebar in March 10, 1975 Auxiliary Building.
Letter File Letter April 16, 1975, Keppler-CP.- Refers to meeting at CP corporate office with Hunnicutt, Hayes, and LeDoux. Meeting to-discuss rebar spacing in Unit.2 containment and missing rebar in Auxiliary' Building. CP committed to: 1. Complete safety evaluation and engineering review for rebar spacing discrepancy. 2. Continue review of safety implications and reportability considerations for missing rebar. 3. Complete formulation and implementation of corrective measures. 2/26/75 - Inspection at BAPC, Ann Arbor. NRC refuted analysis. On April 28, 1975 (Yin memo) analysis accepted. 3/16-18, 24-26/76 - Inspection Report No. 76-02 Addresses continued rebar omission. Discussed with D. W. Hayes on April 13, 1976.. Report letter dated April 20, 1976. Letter, March 5, 1976, CP-Keppler Responds to citations of inspection of January 13 - 16, 1976. Citation: Concrete temperature, aggregate control, and disposal of aggregate. May 4, 1976, Memo Hayes to Seyfrit 4 Rafers to Headquarters for review and evaluation of missing / misplaced rebar for periods of 2/76, 3/76, 10/74, 7/74 May 20, 1976 - Scheduled meeting at Jackson CP corporate offices to discuss noncompliance of April 19 --May 20,1976 inspection (Report No. 76-04). l l i l b
Letter File 6/8/76 - CP issued stop-vork order for placement of safety-related concrete. Referenced in NRC letter (Keppler) to CP dated June 25, 1976. 6/18/76 - CP response letter to inspection findings of April-May 1976 (Inspection Report No. 76-04) 20 items. 6/24/76 - CP response letter relative to schedule for plan of action for items of June 18, 1976 CP letter. 6/25/76 - Letter, Keppler to CP. States resumption of concrete place-ment for safety-related structure will not start until certain items addressed in CP letter of June 24, 1976 are resolved. Memo, Jordan to Kappler, dated 8/26/76 refers to this as Immediate Action Letter. 7/14/76 - Memo, Seyfrit to Hunnicutt. Response to Hayes's memo of May 4,1976, as a result of Yin-Shewmaker inspection of June 24 and 25, 1976. The strength considerations for missing / misplaced rebar is considered resolved. 7/27/76 - RIII informed by CP that: Concrete work stopped because of errors in placing rebar. PN-III-76-52 filed on July.28, 1976, states work stopped also in June 1976 and o'n three earlier occasions. Rebar placement error of July 1, 1976, was in Auxiliary Building. 8/2/76 - Keppler letter to Thompson recommending Headquarters' Notice of Violation. Notice sent August 13, 1976. l
l \\ Letter Fle * ~ - (and May.20,'.' 976) meeting at CP corporate offices. Mheting 6/7 & 8/76 1 involved Selby and other and Keppler and others. 10/18'/76 - Hearing dateJse 'for November 15, 1976. Rescheduled Inter (11/18/76:to 11/30/76). Environmental. ~ - Notice of Viola' ion-issued to CP (Selby). ~ 8/13/76 t 10/29/76 - CP response.to Notice of Violation. 12/8/76 - Notice to re'sume Midland hearing on Decem*er 14, 1976. o 12/16/76 - 50.55(e) os deformed (defective) component cooling water pump casings. 12/29/76 - Notice of resuming Midland hearing on January 8, 1977, in Chicago, Illinois. 4
REGULATORY GUIDES Backup File - 1975 2/12/75 - J. G. Davis letter CP: acknowledge receipt of Consumers' report on reinforcing bar spacing (50.55(e)). Control No. H00419F3. 5/19/75 - Letter: S. H. Howell to A. Giambusso. First quarter '75 Financial Report. Page 3: QC/QA activities remain unchanged- ^ curtailment of construction activities. 6/13/75 - NRC Schedule. 7/3/75 - Letter, R. C. Bauman (CP) to A. Schwencer. References meeting of June 24, 1975 between NRC and CP to discuss applicability of Regulatory Guides through Regulatory Guide 1.75 at Midland. List of Regulatory Guides having some disparity with Midland construction. t 7/24/75 - Letter, Bauman to Ciambusso. Refers to NRC-CP maeting of 7/22/75. Implementation of QA Regulatory Guides at Midland. 10/2/75 - Letter, Bauman to Boyd (NRC). Refers to tentative meeting on Materials Engineering Regulatory Guide 1.31. States Midland position. 10/14/75 - Letter, Cooke to Keppler,-NRC Schedule. 11/14/75 - Letter, A. Schwencer to CP addressing additional loads on vessel support system. NRC investigating but indicate present design may be adequate. 11/7/75 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Midland position on Regulatory Guides 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 1.13, 1.25, 1.42, 1.49, 1.52, 1.54, and 1.70. 11/14/75 - Letter, Cooke to Keppler. NRC Schedule. 11/19/75 -- Letter, Schwencer to CP. NRC staff position on Regulatory Guide implementation at Midland. Refers CP letter of 9/11/75. ,u-r---
j Backup File _ 12/1/75 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Midland position and information to NRR on use of Regulatory Guides. 12/11/75 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Refers Schwencer's letter of ~ 11/14/75. Supplies additional supporting information to vessel support system. 12/17/75 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Supplies additional information in response to-Schwencer's letter of 11/19/75 on Regulatory -Guide implementation and procurement status of plant components. 7/21/75 - Letter, Bauman to Schwencer (NRC). CP position on Regulatory Guide use. Refers to meeting of July 22, 1975. 8/8/75 - Letter, Howell to Giambusso. Financial status. No QC/QC changes. Indicates tentative change of personnel: Keeley as Midland Project Manager replaces Kessler; F. Southworth named Director of QA Services. Both effective August 1,1975. 10/10/75 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Information on Midland Regulatory Guida positions. Refers to tentative Regulatory Guide meeting of 11/13/75. 10/15/75 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). CP position on Regulatory Guide use at l Midland. d 11/10/75 - Letcar, Howell to Giambusso. Financial report plus no change to QC/QA. Indicates construction escalation on January 1976. -1/13/76 - Letter, Schwencer to CP. Comments and request for information for use of Regulatory Guides at Midland. Refers letter, CP to NRR of 11/7/75. 1/13/76 - Letter, Schwencer to CP. Request for information on Regulatory Guide use at Midland. Refers to letter CP to NRR dated 10/10/75.. 9 4
i Backup File ! 1/26/76 - Letter, Schwencer-to CP. NRC consnents and request for information on use of Regulatory Guides 1.26, 1.20, and 1.94. .2/3/76 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Supplies information requested ~ in Schwencer's letter dated 12/23/75 pertaining to Regulatory ' Guide use - electrical engineering. 2/3/76 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Supplies information requested in Schwencer's letter dated 10/30/75 on use of Regulatory Guide 1.59.. 2/3/76 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Responds to Schwencer's letter
- dated 1/13/76 and supplies additional inforamtion on use of Regulatory Guides.
2/5/76 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Responds to Schwencer's letter i dated 1/26/76 requesting information on use o'f Regulatory Guides 1.26 and 1.29. I 2/10/76 - Letter, Bauman to NRR (Boyd). Final response to Schwencer's letter dated 1/26/76 requesting information on use of Regulatory Guide 1.94. 3/23/76 - Letter, Kneil (NRC) to CP announcing meeting at RIII March 30, 1976, on Section V.B of Appendix I, 10 CFR 50. Also, letter, Kneil to CP dated 4/23/76. Also, letter, Knell to CP dated i ~ 5/10/76. Also, letter, Howell to NRR dated 3/15/77. 3/2/76 - Letter, Howell to Rusche requesting relief from Quarterly - Financial Reports established in Giambusso letter of September 13, 1974. 5/3/76 - Letter, Boyd to CP. Relieves CP of Quarterly Financial Report and conditions of Giambusso letter of September 13, 1974. 4 e t-- m ~ -- m-, = y ,e.ee, s-wy-.,e-y--,,,r.-n,,--,.s -,,A
Backup File' 6/14/76 --Letter, Kneil to CP. Staff position on use of Regulatory Guides.l.10, 1.12, 1.15, 1.18, 1.19, 1.35, 1.60, 1.61, and 1.92. (Regulatory Guides 1.27, 1.55, and 1.59 excluded.) Refers to CP letters of 7/21/75, 8/19/75, 12/1/75,~ and 2/3/76. 7/14/76 - Letter, Vassallo (NRR) to CP. Letter requires CP do a reevaluation of vessel support systems for LOCA conditions. 10/8/76 - Letter, Varga to CP. Staff position on use of Regulatory Guides 1.28, 1.30, 1.37, 1.38, 1.39, 1.58, 1.64, 1.74, 1.88, and 1.94 covered in CP of October 15, 1975. Also, staff position on use of ReEulatory Guides 1.54 and 1.55 covered in CP letters of November 7,1975 and August 19, 1975. 10/8/76 - Letter, Varga to CP. Staff position - partial response to CP letter of October 10, 1975, for use of Regulatory Guides 1.20, 1.26, 1.29, 1.46, 1.48, and 1.67. 10/15/76 - Letter, Varga to CP. Staff position on use of Regulatory I Guides 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.22, 1.32, 1.40, 1.41, 1.45, 1.47, 1.53, 1.62, 1.63, 1.73, 1.75, and 1.81. Regulatory Guide 1.12 addressed in NRC letter of June 8, 1976. Refers to CP letters of July 21, d 1975 and February 3, 1976. 10/12/76 - Letter, Varga to CP. Staff position on use of Regulatory Guides 1.1. 1.4, 1.7, 1.13, 1.25, 1.27, 1.42, 1.49, 1.52, and 1.59. (Excludes'1.54.) Refers to CP letters of August 19, 1975, November 7, 1975, and February 3, 1976. Staff position on Regulatory Guide 1.70 covered in NRC letter of June 2, 1976. 1 4 y
Backup File, 12/10/76 - Letter,' Varga to CP accepts Midland Design and Construction; QA Program (10 CFR 50, Appendix A). Submitted to NRC by-CP 'on 11/9/76. 1/5/77 - Letter, Howell to Vassallio (NRR). Vessel support analy' sis due 4/77. References letters of NRR-CP; 7/14/76, and C'P to: NRR, 9/10/76. 3/15/77 - Letter, Howell to NRR (Boyd). Additional information on Appendix I. Refers to backup information on 3/23/76. 4/29/77 - Letter, Howell to Vassallio. Vessel support analysis due 7/77. Reference 1/5/77 and 6/8/77. 6/27/77 - Letter Howell to NRR (Boyd). Clarification of PSAR Amendment 32 dated 4/4/77. Electrical penetration information. 7/19/77 - Letter, Howell to NRR (Boyd). Addresses CP position on use of Regulatory Guides 1.10, 1.12, 1.15, 1.18, 1.19, 1.35, 1.57, 1.60, 1.61, 1.90, and 1.92. Refers NRC letter of 6/8/76. GIVES
SUMMARY
STATUS OF REGULATORY GUIDE USE FOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. 7/19/77 - Letter, Howell to NRR (Boyd). Addresses CP position on use of Regulatory Guides 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.22, 1.32, 1.40, 1.41, 1.45,
- 1. 47, 1. 53, 1. 62, 1. 63, 1. 73, 1. 75, and 1. 81.
Refers NRC letter of 9/29/76. GIVES'
SUMMARY
STATUS FOR REGULATORY GUIDE USE FOR STRUCTURAL (ELECTRICAL) ENGINEERING. 7/28/77 - Letter, Howell to NRR (Boyd). Proposed FSAR Section 13.2 on Plant Staff Training for Cold Operator Training. 1 i w v ,w- .-v
UNIT 2 LINER PLATE BULGE 2/26/77 - Bulge occurrence discovered at 11:00 p.m. (Report No. 50-330/77-02). 2/28/77 - 50.55(e) prompt report to RIII at 2:15 p.m. 3/16/77 - NRC letter with report to licensee with noncompliance regarding ~ failure to report timely. 4/5/77 - Response letter. Commitment made to provide procedure i s " Reporting Deficiencies to NRC" No. 20-2, Revision No. 3, to prevent recurrence. Currently,' Revision 3 still in review and modification stage. 3/23/77 - NRR representative visited site with inspector for damage briefing (50-330/77-04). 4/14/77 - Meeting at Ann Arbor to review actions of bulged plate removal and to review activities relative to proposed repair; D. W. Hayes and R. E. Shewmaker (77-06). 5/4/77 - Site visit for inspection of existing conditions of liner bulge D. W. Hayes and R. E. Shewmaker (50-330/77-07). area. 1 5/16/77 - Interim report issued per 50.55(e). 5/24-27/77-Special QA Progrca Inspection. i 6/20/77 - Interim report issued per 50.55(e). 6/29-30/77-Site Inspection by R. E. Shewmaker (6/29/77) - (50-330/77-10). Meeting, Ann Arbor (6/30/77) R. E. Shewmaker and R. F. Heishman. Release for proceeding with repairs. Notify when start of repairs. l 8/1-5 & - Site Inspection. T. E. Vandel. Witnesa start of repairs with 8-9/77 first four-foot lif t of liner plate installed and grouted. Satisfactory. (Report No. 50-330/77-11.) ( 8/15/77 - Final report issued per-50.55(e) in review by R. E. Shewmaker. I Further site inspection planned later. ~
UNIT 1 TENDON SHEATH PROBLEM -4/19/77 - 50.55(e) prompt notific.ation report to RIII made. 4/20/77 - PN-III-77-18 issued.. 4/29/77 - Immediate Action Letter issued to CP. Six items of commitments: 1. Notify RIII prior to repairs or modifications. Complete (see Report No. 50-329/77-07). 2. Complete investigation of cause and implement C.A. Not complete, still in discussions with Bechtel regarding adequate performance. 3. Expand overview program - expanded program in process. 4. Notify NRC of placement errors for all embedments starting May 9 and for next 120 days. - 120 days completes on September 9; during that time seven separate items have been reported. See backup sheet A.
- 5. ~ Review and revice QC inspection procedures. All Bechtel QCI's have undergone review. Revision in progress.
6. Training of QC engineers and field engineers expanded. Training program and retraining is underway. 5/5/77 - Meeting in Jackson with Keppler, Heishman, and Haye's. 5/19/77 - Interim report issued per 50.55(e). 5/24-27/77-Special QA Program Inspection. Five noncompliance items. l 1. Bechtel: inadequate piping hanger support plate installation. Currently still open. 2. Bechtel: field engineers mark up installation drawings for hangers. Currently CA complete. 3. Consumers: audit report remain unissued (4). Currently CA complete. 4. Consumers: trends analysis procedure unimplemented. Currently CA complete. ,,---,.,.,,,,,y -w,...-,
Unit 1 Tendon Sheath Problem 5. Champion (Batch Plant): defective batch scale not tagged per procedure. Currently CA complete. Additional CA for items 3 and 4. CP to reorganize and provide additional manpower. Currently new organization in effect and most all personnel additions completed in August to be reviewed further later. (See organization chart backup sheet B.) 6/27/77 - Interim report issued per 50.55(e). 6/29-30/77-Site Inspection by R. E. Shewmaker (6/29/77) - (50-329/77-07). Meeting in Ann Arbor (6/30/77). R. E. Shewmaker and R. F. Heishman. Release for proceeding with rapairs. 8/1-5 & - Site Inspection, T. E. Vandel. Report No. 50-329/77-08. 8-9/77 Complete record review of repairs to tendon sheaths. No problem areas identified. Installation was accomplished as proposed. 8/12/77 - Final report issued per 50.'55(e). Review is completed and thank you letter states that we have no further questions. I I l l 4
i _ BACKUP SHEET A 1. Tendon Sheathing, 5/19/77 /jej[l[> urm cn Vertical Shcaths - notified on 5/24/77 (PCR-803) C 2. D. W. Hayes - 6/22/77, 9 #11 bars missing (QF-169) 3. I. T. Yin - 7/15/77, 2 #11 bars missing (NCR-863) 4. D. W. Hayes - 7/28/77, 2 bars missing (QF-175) C 5. T. E. Vandel - 8/15/77, 8 #8 wall dowels missing (QF-176) C 6. D. W. Hayes - 8/16/77, 4 cut bars not replaced (NCR-898) 7. C. E. Jones - 8/17/77, pipe restraint controls omitted - reactor building (NCR-910) $ coy l0 e a l
B.- yul.L11'Y /GU1JJiCC. PROJECTS, EtEll!ELIIItG A Cor:0TitUCTIO!1 Dire B. W. florguglio,secy.ctor J. 11.
- icle,
[ ..d.174 U.J11.u.x110 ItciPECTIal, Ex/J11W. Tion & gj,u.ITr E!:cInsuuta. INSFEcrioia, EXAtut:ATIO:s & ALuiI L
- '.IILA!O PT.G E 7 TEST VERIFICATI011.!!IDLA!!D OI!!Eli PRaIUCT3 TEST VERIFICATI0rl OrtER
- 2f*I!;IST.:.CIC!i P
kl. W. Sieger (u)+ P J. L Esclere. W M J. L. Corley (ii) P
- u. W. tilager (HJ +
- m. h. Bird (11)
H. V. SleEer + M P. Golombek, Secy. (Pending) P D. Te rt' +. P D. r r.e, L. J. Bidol, Secy.+ P L. J. Bidol, Secy.4 (Acting) C1cri C E. G Adone P G..v.. le11 ~7 D. A. Taggart (H)+ P (Actingi ,C J. H. Decker P D. Jones P P. E. Ic. e. ' ) -P D. A. Te6gert + Civit CIVIL P
- 0. E. E)..-r Vacancy H'
R. O. Wo11ney (S) D.E.Ucrn(Acting)(S) H G. T. B1'ock ~~ G. B. Johnson H D. A. Blumenthal# H D. A. Deans' H H. F. DeWitt H P. Kraus' ' 111.01 AICt.L/d.h.CI60GICS D. H. Becker (S) (8/15) P.11. Jacobsen 11ECTRICAL/ELECTitolilCS H P. H. Kyncr (3) V. H. Benkert oy' E,UIIS as 12CHA!sICAL P Vacancy R. E. Whitaker P Vecency FLUID 3 & 14CCilANICAL H D. ft. Keating (8) 10:I:JTFUCTIVE EXJJtillATIO!; g f',[*," I, E H. S. Garcha (8/22) H Veconcy* P J. L, voog H Vecency' = Section Head = Group Surervisor P = Perr. ell Locotton H = Hidland Location id.LL3ILITY & 1;0 iDESTRUCIIVE C = Campbell Location P.AI:? TAI!;ABILTIT EXMtIllATIOtt
- = Contract Personnel P
VecencY. H Veconey Date Expected Report Date for New Hire H Vecency + = Duel Cepecity H Yacency* 7/18/T.' - o
BACKUP SHEET B Other Items A. May 27, 1977 - Final report per 50.55(e) regarding the surveillance specimen holder tubes (provided by B&W) Follow-up agreements were outlined in our letter of thanks dated June 21, 1977. B. May 27, 1977 - Final report per 50.55(e) regarding component cooling water pump casings. No comment by RIII, since casings have been rejected and will not be used for Midland. C. May 24, 1977 - PN-III-77-30, Industrial Accident - Death of Construction Worker (no repercussions) D. March 22, 1977 - Meeting in RIII offices with B. W. Marguglio, CP Director of Project Quality Assurance Services regarding contemplated independent inspection of NSSS installations. J E. November 14, 1975 - Vessel support LOCA loading adequacy - question. Analysis is due July 1977 to NRR. 9 r-w
D 0 .7 'SsheElA/0.Q9ak,i& ,i ./ \\ V U CS 6 ...,..y . dC $,)f]y % v' t"l W-- S Av O -- innpw_ X uaL3 ~1La wa.lt.. .nc.c2_.cF-..3s_l_shpat F1 c<> - l.... -_Dee. L, /f 2d $ & p. E l u. L L M m D ze. H - a / % tM 4.3 4-tu $41-,i_ih2E ~ ~~ 04_$ 70-o I ~ M
- imJ,
.-. M ~ l.9 2..Y 'A 4 s w w NKt ~ q Q ~L 4). M w L. P4 u. / nr f $, 7 S' c.L Y k d- & % % & W M W sfoy&~ey a'wap. une.kp (eca p a ' W Wm&p& t8p 6/MLs,Jits . ).-Q_ Ajat. ,t-o a y a m n _s k 'LW A4%m % Q _ W' LAW s a d L
- g v&..fs.
<L&r Y At - ~ \\ [c _ s w u n ec~~ % - Ad 6-cc.e.$ T_ i .{ 6
9 9
- fl a
o -~ ~ - ,or, g s 9 ,0a + l 2 .k k (OM = (58_ib - 2 4, I R if P Q _ $ ~7C-o7 rw n n>s-m uazu a w } W L M.A d,c Awe unjzw cho c-Q ti;I d i 19 >>, thy,) 1(3, n - 14f 2c,)m 7 -R,19 7s L N.._g > -e # w (~u w uk-- L eudi ~ i+ a t s A o m, ol-b,d i, ) ~ 5 __ NO Sc Qw2A,2x3o9)/M,i,.M>LJAM d id - att e~p%_a, & dg'_f hi. "TE!MQ d.c
- /
a s ) k G A p%23'.mc M n,1, Lak 34 ?r& /o& rlu~~~. - M W @, %.je & ~ w 1 nan,k vu & J - u,ios w n X &z w p N W>Y^ f' _x Bn
- L'.
ffw & _'adu,,1M - \\ { %_M & -QL4A u-es'olw/n ',s s ' Yv-//-/9/9M % M c/rJ g %,Mhgd ~
9 ~.a k. I, ' '..e ,, t."- 4 ' ' k'<.) ,a + (( - ~,..... 4,
- ' ~ '
. y' aft
- " ' i. (Igh,
s. g - y. 7 a-hiM A M y /;, AQ, d ?d-c8 M M -- WM hw n-o + x, ~ -b.---.)4. -l$-7 Vp&._Ak
- ?d-o1 WL A c'B'x/:Lc%M~Ap p1 L. L uz d-C d
-1" % - wn:w. 9 A h ', t +- { 8 -t'. ~ t +. e g li - -cg ?,! h'n' .\\-} } 2
- (
. - - -. ~. ~ h ~
- v. *
\\\\
9 9 ( e 4 6 [( ~ J.. ;' ' Di!. Xh:,>. O Ace M Dus r; /ezi eM etc.o JC. -- A i J d u a% u n 013 af +f C 2 %'- Le ac w A inlc wl a f o I &f_1vu-l<etcl<~s.s,p{/l3,/PCo Luc,4,>>-/3,,i974 d ufu 1 % n o,- m z M1.n L d. - G 'D/ M, ) ds P.. b#c'o i g,$ __. gW ._/.!^ ] h.tt ' fN'N l& uJAn cr/n &,4wldv4WG w )4~n)L hm .s )97o% N 4 _i9 )9,5 l Y W_ h Nik AI519$
- O n/-QW cd A' f A.N/d@yAdab
- 1. g_), L6.1. LR I. %, J 4 9, jap _)lt f
x d
- 913h in-k pin Ax%
A y @s p_, + eten rLpA mn L A J<.k~e ' M re.07r&W a-s / I i Q4,.I4-/.L, l479 A koet$ : 0 M-N4 udW A M_ke m - i % M w a t_.;, M f a _ p' a m_a,g u p nM-/%wui-%aapg ... 4 \\ a
' ;9 .5'p,7'p,.:F,;, ,..-ff 4 t 1 '. *~; : G.'.).k i* *,
- h;, -
s,%C -%:.;., Es& = i e gax GA. su ~ ' m.<g_d cyeo an(a y tw (to.M-J M & dG & M A ,W e w&y nn-is,m d%p f# a-n. mG qWu. G& & B ed %,.w M -._ d _ A b i h w,c4 % / n 6 ffLL.M,.L17C ~ ' ~ ~ ' @ ' & 4 0. 6 < _gh e ' t YR' sWe 4d c/a k-t-' 7. M.a s p 6 C _ a u ; ~t v DJb A w4 Lle,)9w s ei'ca h&}pu o q' M%t JhJk77 Mf / kg.6>S ~' A fCD N 4 & _&~e& Qd <f a kW' m @ A M,h &_ cG % u t' t _ a' L wA ~ 01~f W. do ~/ a' ski e ~ OMo 6 db /M v w th L u k-6 dz @ C u A f ~ - ~ A A. .c [. O k - -A
- \\
3.) a la u % M & M A r& l - 4.? .&,j Q3;lb J s., / . ~....u...,
S e $7:.:~l; 't-p!: .g %g
- z., -
'. ', ', Y,f. = ,2 : - ..' 2 ? Y. i' 'M 4 ' It" m W cA n~,Lyh n2 b A $ C,i QL {nn. _mt ---> % G,hl & _ Qt22-s,i9C4y.61% & Q - A/Rc w a w ).Vza. ew Awlis-ja ug->c., is v - S&2'A 24 -on - (cht ' i :.xJ nl+ < W r & G2db.l% a M Ih!ct%_ A u. h k d h l 0 k u l 1 0, U,s. Es Y%~4 5,JhaJ. n% -LHA )w& & LSYLAfh & Q n-n a u,as m~1a a, s wa '&fqrN my.A,1 m v hM T,- 't Lk-tr. A _y-6 <..sA%_y W ! s.:., A s &ls) & A 4 n 1A0 i r -- - A 'L-), &r---)/>s / o /14, ~1/7 ti J u Ai '2 o, I411 ~ uvM Dh W &cr 1 .b W ' M 4/ A A AV
- p g / i.s i n g o L % _ ( - M - o_ s ).
5f re s,
0 0 .? 'L . a c.'. ~ y..::: -: - e 6 ,.. +. ....)4 (~I'is, 1,a.-1;1 ' * *. $?- ,, Ods ?. 5 .5: c. O O L&92L % h,M dte$ M 4m 4tw.- 13 -Y J9 7_k Cb s &d M -sp% R a AL aris)vuco otkuru c2rgin,c J )]o W j -Q - $Xf @c.o- _) p,4tme<-) q' Opal-ntm_n u.. (9. 2 o & _._ d/dd M d M b M d_ g y w & W (LuAdn M _ Q % _ C t'd a h pMQ - s yk a Awmp 24 %LuML M n K nceo WN W $l8MQ W h?E& pu, nu /&jf1 w - (dL %) m d ~ C'- ! J ay_sa n i ~ G Tk, M y w,womm vw g -yg >g .x, y _c. g: ~.. .: -...-. - -...... l.. 4 . ~.
t-4 fhhf..Ma[ .1 W C4 Q 'n n'n ad I _tjeo -tM ' %5 k $ it. Av4m~- L wn k %.I-E l x - s 2. 4LLInIfn /9,C a w y i n._ k u e m & e, p P T V Si&% pJ &st-d-N A./ 9'7G L,.o +- - wn D / -S W4 } [ _2,/976K L TL- ' sV Lh:~l~- pn c4fr,/#,u 4 _ 14 Ho a 6 af nPc2mm m) ca o_ / kY Y Wl.! l}chj_819,G ve 9 _L1 4 w n-w ing /ht R (n/)s/7 c) te My so < 97 A, _ S g ;/A,/9 n f tsL% %Jt~efco_Lhily, AL 2L i D.% 19 7 Q 'bkn red,l0 w Y hl & e
- 4
.WG e =#e ~ e
o-w, gfr ' 7'. N ' !, Q[ -A' ",, ., ' " " j.",, s .. x T-O i l l r )- c-v'Eb-- D-r'6 un f Lb_ 4 s /s,c h/Kt-m IMM O' ~ d Do A -a / h1LI.kiJ9 7 L Ro.~ cele 3P h wd.-(- ) 64w u r%~ 8Ai% /9 7 4 U-l0 '&=1 ; A/ Q -hw _7 v pn Je, e, & c "y.Jij e F,d-,_ m,..- ? 3 . ~. e, .t. 4 g 4-'p. ~ , m.., ~ iy. -. .a v:..,,
- ;p -
.s. .._ % % a,.4, e..sef'w '. y,, 4.,- s , [R~},-. ,? . :%g ; . l.C ' ~ ;... p.,,t ' qfi k. .;l.\\. -= " [_se, ', L -lJ, '3' ir .y-L., ,,4 r a s.-
- e,
.4 .,;: c.J.. ..my,y.. t 33
j g;. j s i p Qh l his C1.4. /T W-. _.... F ./ Pdi2,2W 0 4 D C 1Lckoi M._ a Q 6 3f f Ls)oa~cL4p ew=ds d m_ (%,As) /4. NeoE5 Fa -d Y4hr ll. s.u.hgc-g__Aqib,__ Wy: s'e PMAp4_. 42 em unna %d ' h.w a fd tY6~.ht_ nit .J b l,C NKe J W 1A/W' Lt ' &6(bAto3%A. %%_ ~ NNhitDI a a a.,u a s,i l'es /. 74-ddad h n a e e.a rh o m c. u A. % /2Cd % & _+ &L LATA lA.WJd&& 1 2 74 fAr 47L A d h, i Kzkm-ma asci,hbr k A'bLL224m GA An M 3 =y t i. I /o/1 b f ' 5 h e> w _ L h n (AtRt'\\ bL L LAkL>~,L!n i
- h A.. Ar1A /,'s t. Itt
- w. JL. > vL&'.
-..Y ' ~ ; d ; ~~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ p. 6 I l0l/1Vi (L_ _ (1 A.{_j_ f fl M M g. /_J /4/M_ _dJE41wd_C/_Co 4 v+v _.s Cho-N'E / 1 CG cdlif&lo-a A< Lsvt.ne C %hhwY - pmvwe_ g pv. & /AOC.&;&M k_y /HJ 1 ' Q.4. . M [4M e :l_/ @ A9 <k _cfc3 _ ),/7 _y /1/1$ $bwk Al A-8 $epAh Ll hMsm% AjM / ). l,I L ).yJ. /4, I.w),45 LIL / G'L.,J. 4~9 + 1. 1c. IIAA/2: JY.- l t I(/L9/7s' )$ S,) m 1; cPen LX CMa-AIR.t _ aremlLWinAAs " Wnhc L b h L. N L & lh ulAc d / &fetcAh-yghi,Ar 1
- I L /t /> T ) R k =.
~6. K\\ L L K k k ) Mad-Cfd s M1U h A d kL 4 ber L.//x L It f////74 m m a A Ex 1 / t2/ith.c LL_: %w h sln Q Lk)\\ N M -c$co $$L, Sk,,L jfdithihs dO1////Wr~ ]h/Ar c/f _C R 2k l $,Llb /.. b o J & & 'y : j - k k lm$ %b }s2 ~ o U5of lo/23/76 f l; - g -sv n 1 ' Il 9//o/76 4
w:.wnw m .u y_ +. ~. . i;.1 = . a i; w; b M L Q. C__ K_ -M_._.ic_._._. I24,/1{LL.hm=n_L_f]A(LQay)l).& )4J M.s ~ 4 % e#_p n A y s u n &AL; Q M.Lud k.s&stk- _fL;L._ _- - .. % h r it % m s _ r d L w c avec c/o_geahamAp ht_w A4Mh 4 .21&_f._- AQ-q .nizur 3;b'Ac LL %LLy&W w 4;uk_ / E b- @ l @ 6 b ~- w._! O w awir _ % % L._ L. d f~) n t h un AJA~ymAur-RSA & SM cah - y g 6 p A,, /. m e Qo/iSrit Ln L >>at(k.43 LJ.- ~ WUL J As. b loh 4,p d.hh )&y.)LA mLgi 11/,qw ^^_ \\ I
- c/cm i m h L & 2 f> c;r T~
walk./ ~' i-1 uhohtit %u 6.L%- ? %:4 AL1kL. Male %Bcbe r h & i Ma ~ 5 m.xn.
f...; 7:.;;; ;.w.;j s. q:.
- 1. -
-c .,,. 7 ; ,, c,...; . :,%..~.. '. D.. :. y %.- :.. :.. '.... h .BAdKO? I91L .A/Dble lL.bluw u L fEca-e
- j. w fa-sm a ng/nsd/M htA.es. :
A_, Mc1 ,$ H L eI% b-NMQ_UL7./75.__. Mw-Fm JhheLLLLa d ac.A&L_w MA?'.L >b4 k.L. - n b J l' F y A kn.dtL -FLk k k etc,- -C-NRg db/ /obahf I shth4 Lk. Sk L.C6 c. Cho -N14 0 NRc t A o,duz J g obkl sAYM u j/ h M t.wj.ur d / 4 W s/7e Q.g-j + l. 9 4 ---=-% ^^ 1 .Lat M Joa A - M vah t-k $W* AA. L&d t1/nhr ,ks~%i.t k U w %LaJ .i f Jme Mm4. A t/ / 1 1 wh/74 Ikt 6
- 4. unacwa Lk d4u Lk-sy & A N
ui ??-t $Nd Jo/3ahr m i Ld < G J2-wM I. M. r t 1 2h/nLk L ~ tuncbe 1 La s t,- M A.a< l .'t/n'/ n. 4 &M.z s... adA.*ka 1 k ~ L.- x w J#1 b #_J A } 9 O / a 4
,'. p. x
- 4 : ~.... !. ': '
' i...." .. m _ E' ~ j frcilu P - 1 Q w - ka-AIAA. d LpALkJam(Ibey )tuL4 20~/1LA h lf2&l'7G " W 4{- ~ 7 facrg/ss & l.% 6, L).2-1 / kl$'s!7h. L L h or + -$~c A/li2 $ 2/bb L a ) >.: I u e. 4 h J a m ,& cCCJ. I xG 1% / L /u
- f e u s-x r t j f r<j -
lA4 3_da/7!.4t_M Q/AA bldC- %M M%_dr da.' /4 in dpf.im# SM& n erb ' 1.j).wncc I - M __l~.h u el171 9/23/2( ' '3 a [ .5/_a/.7L lbL 1kwd/L/L.-1dv s,.n&'e t J'E6-Ub- ~ -f 9pE Sb d b & O Wh/7A. n l< 31 ura 4 A ;_ L.,.J e - W LlifI % i9 sq o ' ch hsLt u.A v.c4c M a.Aa efe a tik a t:L D,mu ]Q set cd &elo/S4 YAl0 W f n er dSf,/319 74 p u \\ C////7& 'l%. LEl t t'PCe,- !s R C I:p 2 i w,vi 2.d 1.Io. ),11. 1.Is.),lf }. l9,).$ C ) l,s,). N a<
- l. 9t./ Q.e,t. n 1.cr /.ss.a e A 4 J J Ada t'fr Jha b,Ai/,s. elis/,r.
9)fs)1C + W.5/,& 4 4
,s... :3
- v. '
=;. :. ..v.: :. u.s :... c m. bAClid f - L11b ,JL4/is_kk._VmJL cmaRceco , c?cm d o o.A u., N L , lod@_ r/ LNc11 L - _. _ = - N /3 h i_L t & n -. k -c f L e - = A )%f &Lt&un_wA4. C 's-l> L.8,_j-))oI 32, I A8,). 31 l.52u-fi e 8 s Ia_9 + AvH - J. Ld; L.1.1 ]Ot<1 15,L9.].C. W LCY$0-c[ T Alk A5 /. c4 L b_5 f L M Q _C)0d.c 1f A?v- '7,LtN3Lk L4,112f-4 J lD/dl11 L&-9_d-.CjCD D C 'p0}Wf. 8 CYl9,JA75'= ' COstyperu % m.AO_ps I>.2J, taa,IAL ), 4 8. 6 /, i2 A { l=~I'L. & w4 i b Y Wed & _h_Lo,. I 41 S', %. /97 L N ad f~ 19 7 (,,, 6 f f-fp M >?-$ q Al JB g 2[s l F'y 2/e/? 4
- Johdyc. ) Lh \\/
t ch a v ') M 4) M E w t m r/14.d# t QU V ^ 0 , la. ). 9. 1,1/ I. *L L. l. 3 %, / > 4 0. l. 4 1, 1 3 J. 46 1, 4, 1, q 1. L 1,1. 6 3, /.12,. } -). 7f.8 1, 8 /. /), $, I. l'L t. dam d ni wad $ d Tk 8 i M L. M g c/5 A ef 6,s p n t.p.64 4/9>c i d
~' ~ ' ^ ' - . z. 3....,... _ , (, -*s.
- 3
- ;l ',.=
_jf.;.,.; . z..... : ;<; ;. + m - G OAC8_U_P - / 5 7 L . 8 /2 F[J k A tt.d / g % % w g. 2 A.'r & C R'a %qs Lub->ut L<4 ).IL_bALJ bb i.4 w J 91;,l'S L + la C1 & W.).5%)-- 4 <fo_& J 3 Lf x 6 _L.Lhr+ P4 3, tuk_ _/E M m. .G._f.7D L W.___ C A f l % }j_13.)4_._. 4 . )2 h 7lll $V9wb t' PCer- 0 c.sif b.. s' A Puk L D+Goopn.copp3_ + i bAfy n* A 'dC Mec kyMb nit /3hj,_ I l: i L 9 s I, 4 l 4 9.:
- ~
9 m. 9 i 9
s.:prTfMtw. v+ W., N ~ h5 i ?. S.i+ f, ~# 1.., e.[ k _k))CRU f -) 911.-- VS/27. JdL.f\\cu<tL4,-b&-[hPA V m L Q p t. ' b %2 Aki_q //AE-c 0-7/Aht+ 0.co L UM-1)/e/7 4 . M f/11 13 C. k w<E 't.N eQ O.70 GM h ekjemc) W T A. f bc.<h > y k l n W h b l. %/n.1LhlwM4-Mel+ W I m;d-Qia.M 7/77 t/1/n _ 3 6 2 / r _ 1 t k i b E_' 4 - E A.R. O. p d ) c/M/ M q.d4d/t M n hV4/r7 }L W d)a.462a &<. ~7A9/11__&_ Ym6tJR.tL C&r, A) /f w M e AM a ro d L, ) 10,},l'L,l.IC,),18.I,I9. ),34~ J. i~7. J. 6 o. J. 4 /. /. 9o o / 9 L- 'A<f h 8 cf bR/74 0 o 1 44 ' $/ \\lGS sSdtMLMAA V $T'AY-d3 oP REG GuC2 i ' 0 5 E. Ve\\L NueTUAM Dvd/NWAJAlG $_7//9/11'L% li m elf. NM A fbn d\\ 5 Edwn ebbe 1Af )$yki-J = ] (. T. 9,,2 il. 1, %3,.. l..) L,. /. 4 0, /. 4,/ J. 4 C". E U. 41. )..Ch. A 4 's.,/,l,3, l 7 3,1.7 Cr }, 8 l_ @.t/Ic A/N ULh 9by/-d ,I b# '$NfE atitmn1 Atty-.Gh10} PeC8&&c 1 et j 0 l N $rRocTv/A.c. GCEc'TIUCAL) o?MNeMJns \\ j
J r--- 4 ~ . L *.,r{_t * ;.. - K. a n't. Tg ...f--*c< ~ y. s p . ;s.L .),*. f.. ' ', _* p"[.* ,,,,,s e
- * ' ' $ 1..) ' 4 f'. I 4
sp [gs ' 'f- + 4 n. ~=~ ~~ _Y ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ 7/tsba.1%2A%RM C 9 *y0- ~ Q w 4 osAg hofJaa + 94~t Q5:=lfmRM-We ' ;;- ..e_,- ..m ~ e h 1 A 1 i i I. a f. 4 i O jt j' j .s y F 1. ] e -.u.. \\ \\ 1
g-l p'. ..M b ~ :9 .;~37y;7_:. .""1;..'i ~' .r. l .I-r ~ ~ x.pm- _a_te p.,G24 m 3.:27 ggs -sy 0 -walak ne d L a.dL nd,. : 4,704,m_,cp&y G L s._ p &d2;qq Aldo Lu,a:G.h />& ~- 9 [ l s y H PM-4% f.Yh., ht-515 ar. f-WAllt E de, ?? ~_K tcahha.- A!o.-} 4' t c e } r c.u e n a.. w besteafb r&J. l ' 4 W t= .tr h M __ 1 wcb && 4p..--... c sucf f a,s.puu!bc.azdL.rzh u;K /4Lc,m NU 4.y(. r n n-3 -A) A rWIf'?g Nee $n-Q 4dW k wda f -tch&x.LeC wC k k A ket ' Llrts_afe.h d t QwcLap p.xsbmy'_ e.ro,., _ ( /27=tf Sy4,k sqQwe9Lsdx n-Au4.. t.c.5Lm>~ _A-32/27, N k.,.17 N f@n ssk-a.ssc-> _ \\ T.A&pLa p&Ld&w A21, ').7 A$ ny ~
9 + + ,y I M/'d /C h [s p pc,g g,5 g M ~ g so ns/n - to (s-n.,,) dug .-...Alce Ann M.r. 4: ro '?,) -- LE.. k & k.LEEHea/ ~ y.& ukew y!n p a ..%- j:_ a:a.g _ _.. n y.:~ x x d f 1- .i ; N,At++4 ,p , az ) n_ '-"^ ' l-W$ Q lL $Y E.- _utmecr__f b b_c,_ 9 - c. .i + .n. Luik /? <!! 'd ,i /a.- (Mr ik& fad A L $ ~
- n. a L ML y u -no,b,->>}%
a a i f,, w Nu4]W het,_2 )} @N m s r_ces__ek m aw_6v ?j$h g.E-Olaw.meAc _ r M . 4, w% N -w-w,e w 'h.Jg = ~h,k0 NN. m C r'; 3, o. .h ,.rP q 3.L';
- L'?
' h.t' g m l$ ma me i ee< 62 % L
7
- -e
.,. L e 6 o 54 ' p,
- 4* [ e 1
+ s ,.9 e g lb,4 / %fe, M$$< WN .>D We +,.-&+e eweN. ~ W L 0, s r:. ....,,A x $rs C f ~ f ~k / K V. c /// C >1 ~ gn nr cn 4 a r 8 n u k k v.e d s SEy (L ,4 %w,a&y,wpb wl,,g_ J. Akfy R Gr / cd' e nn cA aci.10 !E beautssa cl oLMAbt . - ~1.# p&c_,Lt uds py % .l 2. my u Mali Q u,e._a3 A c.,l-<,.c<z n 9, G,-.o esJ h. A dnh uqq $ 3 +A A w 4-u & -l-f- ..a /.10 A a W-8h % 3p~ ? 0 ALiDy. h-Aa, w%4-ik t~ my/cD < ac._. /=L r@d @ 7 l m R adTMc ry yn~%_ All B~DM diror kuL. WO f M ll-0 1$1 ft l b, Trmlu;,g d toc.5p/mWpp. ', " ey - AD halm4 p y w s b uhaay-a u_A 3 li h J l
r. s ? i - ~.+ 5.;. n;W;-c.:3,y r. ..s- .. : -/..~ '.,. w.. :-i w, +.. w.. ,.y +-- J.. 1.. W:.? .g s - r A w. .r ; +. ,,. t ~c..., x,-
- f~
Jet fW t<r/ He k--. ?~ffhi //fr*t*,$es 's.' ) / // ? C;f. M:9~ llPff l~lou?.! Y;ll.&: Y. f '.?. - gut,y ~, k h.? ?. 7 7,o ha pla>l-bYwak.& $0 STG*) . o.
- 1
'I'l }/*/s. ' /MMu. $ t"? - &* Y. $ 5i .M.,...1.aN','p WM. 'unt /, V ' '\\." r 5%n.... r,.;',.....2?;. y ~ ltf,2 rime _ A,a. t _. j e ~ .c y.kh;!;.4,Ch.. '}- %,0e :
- kd s E s >%:s Lh'Q
'Nhk.5.$Y.w?!f;i' l.%. ~~
- nk n,~,s + &n*.. &-
h N* . ~ J,...t. .e ,y G
- g. ', % '
g_. fLJ V& Aa (F L* h,' a-3 - BeAld : Yc.11 F Ac EA AN'i$.6G5..%-... i ; s /.'/. / 3 e a -;I d. '..,iT*!* /p ... w< m %.% & v :p;"ih..a. ' f .y..:,J. p,n a, rc ~ hi, b bso ll - A m$ sin'itp.,:,.-." rg en e v A. fMitw.ne~ SYWYT ,A, - llb n as.Ye g~.w... gg,Y '~~. t n s %'!?s?.. ~... .3.$..'g^ ? * = ..l, <. W A.Lt>4 ? _ bMf 0_*] hlK l,,,l <.4* m
- K ra r."
+* * *, 9 &sL f* a 9 t 3r n?.Ea C.* Ne C s9/ ., '*" K c g' , k r. h.a.'9. -.,,. " a / 4 .f J. )'[ w ~e..%. .* >lW'sf g* th;.g.c.,.; /) y @lY&@@$h ' A e /*A *ay. L d,rt.,a_ l Lt nm > r kll M. to n w A fs-- r-. aL. :o,,,~ J a.u n L u t~ $N i}&' .t[WjhryeQ. W,*6?. .$' j%.g.. l~. w-s L L Y < s eir h d -dwr f th,- .c
- Q
'. & 4 %'i +:?. e p r.+y.; .r W-y h.t /swt"lkuL_. .G,;u.W*5 fnn ' .V,&'.:;',~ >MRi%a~ y i %>r,., L/ (Jp n At, s= +.. n... i , ru .J,.1..;::y.y,e:.;, u - 4 - y f[,,h:.3.,%,,k kk s' aQ MA S ik. e .? I d p6 .:,- a as" ,an L O UL"~ lMa%w: se A.n.1 n.> % a CG,,k,R.,,w$$. 'r"
- r. it 0
~ A [ l
- >g. c* '.m ".
g ;c, f.Q
- l bl ^ U_
hU f i" Ah A ^ h>rf EM are d.- ~' n A0i$w - }ol? (h 50hYlk /%
- ?.k~$$.: n*
H-)) ndu - $,,. 36 /sk, $,wn,%.a,n h5 l J. _e.e 7 i w:.s:b.w)b;Y'ih7 h f$~e e. hd. Yit h l%tb t<e $4 - a ~ i i WPO l'1MS b,te.- s'v, tr*(e \\ .i5k5 ] '*r-wp7w.$l..e' -.~)n. 't ( - G.o. E K;* oJ na lw ? ~TQ i u cr [/. -39 'u1h ra - D4 4 9 - o n "J h.$fg4j i e__2~nW1h '/,' ' - /,,',t _ r .~ .s. I .. ~. _ ..~,....u, r$. 4,r % g,* p w. p- 'Mhs E.M.c /"
y-- - '. y*=8 ..I. d .pg s.> 5
- [,'.
- _ g.- .,~,. ?
- *=,4
e 3 e < s ad = *. * -i . 3. c. b.-., M/kinanw-pwL. / w a -...re)ase.. c p a. & g.u p Sp, -. Ak.; /-rf f-7,.77-r24 'upL M g d y - ss-u M yer =- 6.,JLead a~. d o ~< 42 L X Y ~ bdM_. 64.4 -<< A s.. .Mn. a.d4.~ h{A_? - ,2 <g U? L so. >
- n,LLL L si w
iJ.'/* R iu d ic J, % [._. Ae}< /2,179 a s r ce> y - s > ! n _~ of 4.. $ c! n A /4, A, &+ nuc. ~ LL w ata 2 ~u, [ 6 ( l t I t 1 l L
c-tr 'gl .., ll v ..6.... f-: kff.,('?, $[. '5}k.f.' $;7^. '. IrI . [,.[. Sk f'l'.2kk,;[i.: [ ^ l .;a,;.h.:;1c..s';.,, a&1ta:;;..'.'. ; - .<s, & ;, ::e. -.g: ~ =c c St W b 7 e~ as D J 2-77 %2) *.}l,- l$k, su Ya! su - ? /. 7,9 7 Fei ro A A-A r- / 5 b td M l - 3 $ '4. ',1 - M/ e h r *-r s
- e
/ = .fW 6, P' A \\ y s 1- ?,ir t~ P-- ePle 3 h Y,, 2. 9'l T ')!1 I * // he hiitM h p s / . d b* fh7 dllLa f fff) fP ~ ( s.; -j,7 d, _ a
- / T 7,7 Ilf/[ / ec c..b TZ n, r een, e O F ~11L ) A' q-
/ 7$ b4)H bl4 ,7',1 A,C n,,] /e<x u[ (. Aee,de,o,- h? /* E ?$ V' / / r A ), [_(, g([ b ~ I~ ~ 'wfL lW - ak$ Di,3 - gi,n b ' '.. e i .i
- I 1
4 4 L._
_9 7-o 2 -a -a. PaQ.TECTS, EIMInsults & COCTRUCTIon o Director
- h. W. Arguglio,Eecy.
J. M. atete, I 4 3 laJ11 h M14 ILFr.cTICA, LaMLLiAILON & g in gul;a,utira. IncyCCTlal, LLP.IEATIG3 & L AI & r.Zi!JC PILM TEST VERIFICATION 6 OTHER PAQJLCT3 TEST VtRIFICATION.0 REB A&!*.19T RWTC1 I 3 * "" 83 *8" N ' I J'" I**A III N J. L. Corley (N) F U. sloger Luje I'8 7 .. k. B.re (k) F
- 5. W. $1eger
- M F. Golombek, Seey.
(Pendlag) 8M8#* 7 L. J. Staat, Seer.' F L. J. 31401, Seep.* D ^ ***j"' ("I' I C
- s. o us.e F
- 6. r.. te a
("II"8 ,C J. M. Decker F D. Jones -F D. A. Taggen
- F F. E. Ime (6/1)
CI4I.L CIVIL F
- 0. E. N o kacancy M*
- 8. C. Wo11asy (6)
D. E. Ecra (Actir4) (S) M C. T. Black 1 G. S. J.hason M D. A. BLucenthe18 M D. A. Deene* M N. F. DeWitt M-F. Estus' 111c7 SIC.1 h.11CTi Ol.ICS P D. R. Becker (S) (6/15) F F. W. Jacobsen kJIctkICAL/EIJerWalcd M V. Erner (S) W. 5. Benkart _S,_w F Vecency 31
- 8. E. W1teker F
Vecency IUJ1D3 & MLGANICAL M D. a. E ettag (8)
- Veceaer, M
k2ti_GFbCilv2 EXwl 4ATICd y 9,,,,, F ~ J. L. Eso4 M Vecency'
- 5. S. Garcha (S/22)
M Vecency* F (R).SectionNeed (S). Croup Surerviser F. Ferne11 Location M. M141ene 1ecetion 3..IT 3YrYTY & uwpmmr rIyg NATTAllJ4II.ITY Ex;MIuATION C,. Cespbell Locettoa . Contract Personnel F Vecency M Vecenc7 Date. Espected Report tage for New Else M Vocency +. Duel Cepeetty M Vacancy
- 1/16177 e
)
- tig eg% w
.?%;;a;w.4- +. ~
- 4. :,sJ.,;, ps:y.-;;. ;.
v m;m ACh r,;.i.:., y ~' -%a - Ff g g (D.ff0 T - s, iu n c , ~.. A M. m. s n.'n, n, [L,D was n o n (A,. -v u JL ~ ~L a y -ac,,,,.g _ x g, x 1 1. r,...x,f 6.." ci / 4 L S %f~ Q rnY.' ft*//rziltlodnsn?r. m ; te n _N,_ ' G'Ak el 6.. G Ah y .Tu n T/, / 9 'V, f ~ ) AL,.. ,7 n I 9 '7 9 $0 k's A ac - p. Tr-[e A wa nL. e p > ? > >,, e.. ~l-r - a $/M5u n
- f. M$n ud$qs.
M. -, J U V I }!n nurn,eE f., P: n7 e. /~ R.,, 2.1~ -.~ i,.m % 6 aaJ.C ' m.'/LL h. 'Adtt,., Jtst 'a n PAf ~ 7// ~ '11 - 10
- r. A.,l.. _f
~ ~ L,s1 k.a a 1,Lun wa-rn..:L....b-.A ~ ? I ~3, i ale 0 n, %,, Lja dLe T iL P. 177' e% w, L o42 nj,J 4 .A ey / n us u pr n
- bia, 4
r x k._, c...:,- n-(Auf, a s _ cLe_ 7~77 D llL., /%l _ use,LLa.k 4A...,AJ t u% 'd J m 3 u-o F V i.I - M. oc - ~ G J <, ~., +,in n. L / C. u. '\\
p h MIDLAND' UNITS 1 AND 2 ( Major Events Ladder. i December 5, 1974 - Rebar spacing nonconformance identified for Unit 2 containment by licensee. l March 5 & 10,1975 - Rebar deficiencies in Auxiliary Building identified by i licensee; RIII accepts justification.~' ~I \\ / ~ - Bechtel engineering justification for rebar spacing April 9, 1975 n w Unit 2 containment accepted by RIII; /. ,( April 16, 1975 - Meeting at Consumers Power Comp'any', Hunnicutt, Hayes, ll' ' / \\ and LeDoux. l August 21, 1975 - RIII notified of rebar.omitted in Auxiliary Building; l ll }* / RIII accepts enginee' ring' justification. '. V j' April 28, 1975 - Unit 2 containment xebar sp' acing reanalysis accepted. / May 4, 1976 - Bechtel conclusion, that missing rebar in Auxiliary L\\ / /n Building will not, affect integrity, referred to l t. / I ~, Headqu,arters; Hayes to Seyfrit. ..N p-r/, / June 7& 8, 1976 I-Meeting, Co$sumera Power Company, Jackson; Keppler vs f / { / \\ Selby and others. i June 18 & 24,1976 - Licensee letters of response committing to 21 items of l. l ' corrective action in response to report 76-04. f June 25, 1976,' - Keppler to Consumers Power Company; Immediate Action / / Letter per Jordan to Keppler memo 8/26/76. i l July 14, 1976 - IE concurred with the Bechtel conclusion regarding missing rebar in Auxiliary Building, Seyfrit to l l Hunnicutt. l l July 28, 1976 - PN-III-76-52 issued on concrete work. stoppage due to further rebar placement errors found as a result of 1 Consumers' overview program instigated in late June 1 l l 1976. 1 ) T e %$ wt* 6 N cong 4 11 9 eg a' Q e.- =.r ; w M Q 4, m t w. w. N. & -u.. - 7 A. A f W :. s % n.i w c. c - ~~ i ': R Lw.txed.D-ae.. .. J:D m. .,.w..i. u.::,,.: .r o
g . August 2, 1976 - Keppler letter to Headquarters recommending Headquarters' Notice of Violation be issued. Notice sent 8/13/77. October 29,_1976 - Consumers Power Company responded to Headquarters' Notice of Violations. November 30, 1976 - Hearings take place on environmental matters. Completed in January 1977. December 10, 1976 - Consumers Power Company's Midland QA Program accepted by NRR. December 16, 1976 - 50.55(e) notice of component cooling water pump casings.
- July 1977
- Staff commenced responding on Consumers Power Company's Regulatory Cuide use. February 26, 1977 - Bulge occurrence of Unit 2 containment liner discovered - reported on February 28, 1977. April 14, 1977 - Meeting, Ann Arbor, to review activities of bulged liner plate repair. April 19, 1977 - Tendon sheath omission of Unit 2 reported. April 29, 1977 - Immediate Action Letter issued. May 5, 1977 - Meeting, Consumers Power Company, Jackson; Keppler, Heishman, and Hayes. May 24 - 27,1977 - Special QA inspection. May 24, 1977 - PN-III-77-30 issued on industrial accident death. May 27, 1977 - Final 50.55(e) reports for: (1) surveillance specimen tube holder, and (2) component cooling pump casings. June 30, 1977 - Meeting, Ann Arbor; R. F. Heishman and R. E. Shewmaker; release to proceed for tendon sheath omission and for bulge repair.
~ 3-August 1-5 & 8-9,1977 - Site inspection to witness start of repairs for bulge liner and review records of completion of tendon sheath. Final.50.55(e) report on tendon sheath. August 12.-1977 Final report on liner plate repair. August 15, 1977 n 1 a + ^ ? I ? k f I . # 9* % / -. h e b.e 44. _, b 4..., - .,3 g., ,m ,3
e MIDLAND UNITS 1 AND 2-s Major Events Ladder [;. December 5, 1974 - Rebar spacing nonconformance identified for Unit 2 containment by licensee. Y Marcti S &,'10, L1975 - Rebar deficiencies in Auxiliary Building identified by licensee; RIII accepts justification. Apkil9,'1975 - Bechtel engineering justification for rebar spacing in i Unit 2 containment accepted by RIII. April 16; 1975 - Meeting at Consumers Power Company, Hunnicutt, Hayes, and LeDoux. S Augus't.21, 1975 - RIII notified of rebar omitted in Auxiliary Building; RIII accepts engineering justification. April 28, 1975 - Unit 2 containment rebar spacing reanalysis accepted. May 4, 1976 - Bechtel conclusion, that missing rebar in Auxiliary Building will not affect integrity, referred to ~ Headquarters; Hayes to Seyfrit. June 7 & 8,1976 - Meeting, Consumers Power Company, Jackson; Keppler vs Selby and others. June 18 & 24,1976 - Licensee letters of response committing to 21 items of corrective action in response to report 76-04. June 25, 1976 - Keppler to Consumers Power Company; Immediate Action Letter per Jordan to Keppler memo 8/26/76. July 14, 1976 - IE concurred with the Bechtel conclusion regarding missing rebar in Auxiliary Building, Seyfrit to Hunnicutt. July 28, 1976 - PN-III-76-52 issued on concrete work stoppage due to further rebar placement errors found as a result of Consumers' overview program instigated in late June 1976. m-w 3 ry---
u A=u,. en + g i y'.l, , p
- q
- b'.
y 6t/ .j 2- -c pi Keppler letter to Headquarters recommending V August 2, 1976 _ M' .[ ' Headquarters' Notice of Violation be issued. Notice sent 8/13/77. Consumers Power Company responded to Headquarters' October 29, 1976 Notice of Violatione. November 30, 1976. - Hearings take place on environmental matters. L Completed in January 1977. Consumers Power Company's Midland QA Program December 10, 1976 accepted by NRR. 1 50.55(e) notice of component cooling water pump December 16, 1976 casings. Staff commenced responding on Consumers Power
- July 1977 Company's Regult. ory Guide use.
February 26, 1977 Bulge occurrence of Unit 2 containment liner discovered - reported on February 28, 1977. April 14, 1977 Meeting, Ann Arbor, to review activities of bulged liner plate repair. gs Tendon sheath omission of Unit 2 reported. April 19, 1977 -April 29, 1977 - Immediate Action Letter issued. Meeting, Consumers Power Company, Jackson; Keppler, May 5, 1977 Heishman, and Hayes. May 24 - 27,1977 Special QA inspection. p May 24, 1977 - PN-III-77-30 issued on industrial accident death. 3., > 4 Final 50.55(e) reports for: (1) surveillance specimen , May 27, 1977 tube holder, and (2) component cooling pump casings. Meeting, Ann Arbor; R. F. Heishman and R. E. Shewmaker; June 30, 1977 release to proceed for tendon sheath omission and for bulge repair. 4 ___m__
l r _3 August 1-5 & 8-9,1977 - Site inspection to witness start of repairs for bulge liner and review records of completion of tendon sheath. August 12, 1977 - Final 50.55(e) report on tendon sheath, f August 15, 1977 - Final report on liner plate repair. t G I
. G. " f y.- ';-} ' ',. ; - = e - -~ , ). jj ~_ ;(.' [- '~ .>w..
- a.:.
M.iiIn k t6ik l+ L cz A//ejn l'e.eb b SeH .. A ce %- "x;-g >wa.. ~ ~a . AsL; J g.af.-( DL-f zw.e,'7f E6r~lebl Gin ~ Si 2 a-g./,,~1ca..ar fLLAu )teckstto,7r k p;,ad. Qufdl_ N &a.,= G d 4 L c A aQ ~Al & _Ajat-[7r A k, d,_lL l ? r g M ! ? S L_ d. ] v % f M e 3 - $ p _g a p a, _a_ -) lebuo-9 ,2t,.L75 C TIT' u fe ] abc_ rr& LA us, carsay4 ~ p,- g d L $ RAI_6. law &lqi&udaicap Aj,4_Rht daLt enchuk 4G sndsy ak. wayQ& ak ajp a: fad ba rQA W/&M w aa, wp . )Jicae.JL/%M,L76 kiq. CP_fadstu-jerd._/4 +w <hll-A L /kw A L JD we m e e A;4 G 1.f, 'tb a i/eaa a f each naa lepe .-74 of I:._. -N_weAS,-7A k<fyLvl C&Co. lafi. kl'O' ALcN # y, h5 J Q~ 'q b ' ma'4 scane s&a, pg ,,eiaa-i,f- /:A$, _s;A L 4' LA41_ a>,- -Q:n-m-2xa -rr L A :.. m&t .it-y &Le 4 . t. L e - L A.n.. : \\ \\ 11,, Q ~ n.. r t, f b n g. 1 p y+. QD /d %:n. - -t .f, L-qtr;s f n %.yL>J4a. I Mt 9 ..Y i v44ub _a/A L /ce. o Nb cs -n%7
- ... s s...
.x e' , f g 4. l E, dic) ydi ,Aff n en h) b lb' jab. d_ l' " Q.Q J_ ~l' ~ v "I ~ W Whlo,h % ll L. -la b b lu.. r,n,L.A ~ ~~ ' ' wds,. & Abi L 'E 'O. n, u l T%,, ll ' 91. no. WA bdGv d 6,,,,xA / S L2,. I M u m.s ded./, a a q q-i%. In , O, L 6
- i'n hld'l. 0 0,4 nre w 3
f ke. N Ah. ,* t /?,w. ~ q f Nb.
- b. 9
[h Y off e & e, lAh fm ,c h~ rs nslAoy 1, 3 P-7 7- ~ r, fb. Tl, O '1 $,,ho e. ) lb N 2 mar,,,,,, e ~ n,I 2 i,,J i.: n L,.,:.a ' - ~JJ ra. m ~ V / 4 d f.a b b
- f/ /s.: )
'd r p r~ ,, 6 L, i-, A i.u a& l 1 v Ab 10 'l!1
- iL l%
cbN rn!,.iri?s. d 7J~> glr .,_Aq~' d a ').A.. Y L w AaTE A,,SL. ,blb Irhej ,( AAE V, v,1, k.l 6 %..X b r ,buL,.B;,'i.. Iq lIsa s y e 4 q , ;:0 '$A~3 4. D *1 A 0 Cser. k 14A t 'U ~ U ] m
.p -. 3; 'y _, 7
- 7.. p:,,.
s ".wene. =* f -... _. a n de s de a l... .Afw+&_hq SAsck N
- 0. -
g -. o> r a a a ~v=~.D DL _ .Q).. 6-s<,rac k..hoO..). M y k edp. f G.s_20, %? Mig. Ae6-47ILAm-L F..Sdsuudv-t cA.w-4-fcul de rs. caswsr nJ-c.- '4./ Y "f A fYa Y*$h k* 4 l'1 }! Cf tr' Lw bl / reg ,,,T y&' r) Myus 0 IN e b' ~ -o y s.) >&ab.a s m A ef s~,lk, 4 4.dw&A f - d-M [3 ', SfuA. .QJs, ?7 SJ 9~& ~ AQ % 1 l w I j ~ .c. l~. g-g" (. ', w l 'f l . f '. .6 e. ...,.7,2,..e<,..;,,-a,,,,,
? 'S. t I 3 KtC .h# 'o UNITED STATES ,\\ [ Ig,, ~,,f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COTATulSSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 2C553
- ;g
- . p
--a ,/ - $7M f.... Docket ilos: 50-329. OM, OL and 50-330, OM, OL MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 (C. Bechhoefer, J. Harbcur, F. Cowan) FROM: Thomas M. Nov'ak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL BOARD NOTIFICATION REGARDING MIDLAND DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING (BN 84-010 ) This Notification is provided in accordance with NRC procedures regarding Board Notifications and is deemed to provide information material and relevant to safety issues in the Midland OM/0L proceeding. The appropriate Boards and parties are beina informed by copy of this memorandum. On December 2,1983, the NRC staff sent this Licensing Board a supplemental Board Notification (83-185) regarding the Midland diesel generator building which contained geotechnical engineering review cccrents on the Applicant's proposed findings, Corps of Engineers memoranda on the diesel generator building, comments by Joseph Kane on the October ?.1,1983 task group report and an evaluation by Frank Rinaldi of evidence on the diesel generator building. We enclose a document entitled " Meeting Notes" by John P. Matra,' Jr'., of t'he Naval Surface Weapons Center, a staff consultant. The document responds to concerns expressed by Joseph Kane contained in the information sent to the Board on December 2, 1983. We wish to emphasize that the staff's review of ~ the Task Force report is on going and the views expressed in the December 2,1983 Board Notification and in the enclosed document are preliminary. f The NRC staff's re-examination is also proceeding with the benefit of a recent report by the TERA Corporation entitled Structural Evaluation of the Diesel Generator Building". That report provides an assessment of the structural performance capability and serviceability as catentially affected by settlement - induced cracking. The report was performed in accordance with TERA's Independ-ent Design and Construction Verification Program as part of their broader assessment of the diesel generator standby electric power system. Copies were forwarded to this Licensing Board and hearing parties under TERA's cover letter dated January 4, 1984. l-N -S1212012 ~ ~
4 During the evidentiary hearing on December 3,1983, this Board stated that it would postpone its decision on. reopening the record with respect to the diesel cenerator building pending' receipt of further information from the staff (Tr. 22,687). As soon as that information is available we will fon.ard it to the Board. .)% ~ i Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing 4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
J. Matra Meeting Notes SECY(2) OPE OGC EDO e e O 'N -m-w-y- - =- r y
~ '~
- MEETING NOTES ATTENDEES: Joe Kane Chen P. Tan John P. Hatra Jr.
Sill Paton (Came in near end of discussion) Talked to Joe Kane - Started by telling Joe that the total.'ecepleted ~ structur'e has never nor will ever undergo the predicted differe.ntial settle-In my analyses I have agreed only for academic purpc'ses-to! place the ment. measured and or predicted settlement values on the Diesel Gen'erator Building - (DGS) to determine the stresses in the structure under these conditibns if - they ever existed. Pointed out.that as the analyses was perro.rmed, reinforced concrete that has not been installed (for the complete time period) would be subjected to stresses resulting from the settlement values of'e'arlier time periods. The structure stiffnesses are also changing with each poring of a new slab of concrete. To correct this a lot more (>100) analyses steps need to be performed. It was also concluded tnat though it is possible to perfor= a finite element analyses of the DG3 using as input the measured settlement 1 data, a lot more measured settlement date points as well as finer construction details and material property. data is required before an accurate analyses can be made. It was stated that rarely any building is designed in partial stages of centruction and to impose these, measured deflection for each of the stases I of const uction as wcs done; is not only unheard of, but can lead to large fictitious errors. Because of the rigidity of the structure it required hypothetical, imaginary forces to deform the structure to match the no=inal measured values. I stated that for this to happen, certsin areas of the soil would have to be pulling the structure down to make the model exactly fit the =easured values, which is a physical impossiblity. It was for these reasons that I could not put any credence to: these analyses, but will still discussed the analyses with him. The discussion then turned to Joe Kanes concerns. Joe stated that his ecmparision of my results and crack maping records indicated that the calculated high stresses at most locations of structure and cracks locations were in good agreement. However, I stated, that the analyses also showed that other areas of the DGB still have high stress and in all probability should also be cracked (in the conclusion of my report) but no cracks were observed ~ in these areas. Again I pointed out to him that the construction time frame, crack mapping survey time frame as well as the analyses time frame, must be the same before any comparisons or results of the analyses can be concluded. You can not have the building being contructed to a given elevation (therefore time frame), the analyses done at the end of the time frame and the crack mapping survey done at a later time frame and expect to get good correlation between analytical and actual results. Joe then mentioned that one of the reasons that I got tension in the soil is the fact that I did hot include the surcharge load in the analysis. I told him that the Way I ran the analysis, I do not h, ave,to.put the surcharge as a load *on the model. What I do is pull the structure down (deform the l
w structure) to the measured and/or predictdd, deflection and the pr'ogram calculate's'the stresses. The density of the material therefore the weight of the structure is included. To account for t.he surcharge only a change in density is requirec and the program will'do the rest. I also told Joe that this tension force also exist after the surcharge is re=oved how do you explain this? He stated that after the structure is defor=ed it stays deferced and does not completly bounce back and therefore, so=e for= cf lead still exist in structure. I told him I just don't see how this effect can cause the amount of residual load required to keep the structure in equilibrium. Once you re=ove the surcharge I continued; this load is gone-ycu may have some residiual. stress-though this is s=all and will never equal the large tensil force that must exist to pull the structure down-still a physical impossibility. The discussion then went back to the crack. map comparison with the analytical results. AgaAn I reiterated my concerns with using the analysis this way and we again reached an impasse. ~ About'this time Bill Paton entered the roon, I tried to explain.to Bill our proble=-but before this was done-discussion broke up-with no satisfication as far as Joe Kane'was concerned. Since I caly pointed out the highest stresses in each wall, I told Joe-if I get a chance I will show the high stresses in other parts of the wall further' justifing my conclusion-thus the ciscussion ended. e l \\
MIDLAND (For BNs) Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President Consumers Pcwer Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson,ti'chigan 49201 cc: Stewa t H. Freeman James G. Keppler, Regional Assistant Attorney General Administrator State of Michigan Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Protection Division Region III 720 Law Building 799 Roosevelt Road Lansing, Michigan 48913 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 j Ms. Julie Morrison Mr. Ron Callen Midland Daily News Michigan Public Service Commission 124 Mcdonald Street 6545 Mercantile Way Midland, Michigan 48640 Lansing, Michigan 48909 i Mr. R. B. Borsum Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. Nuclear Power Generation Division ATTN: Dr. Steven J. Paulos Babcock & Wilcox 1017 Main Street 7910 Wcodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 l l Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Billie Pirner Garde l tir. Don van Farrowe, Chief Director'. Citizens Clinic l Division of Radiological Health for Accountable Governnent l Department of Public Health Government Accountability Project P. O. Box 33035 Institute for Policy Stucies Lansing, Michigan 48909 1901 Oue Street, N.W. Washingten,.D. C. 20009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Resident Inspector's Office Commander, Na' val Surface Weapons Ctr. Route 7 ATTN: P. C. Huang ~ Midland, Michigan 48640 White Oak-Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consumers Power Company Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager 212 W. Michigan Avenue Facility Design Engineerina Jackson, Michigan 49201 Energy Technoloay Enaineering Center - P. 0. Box 1449 Mr. Walt Apley Canoga Park,. Cal.ifornia 91304 c/o Mr. Max Clausen Battelle Pacific North West Labs Mr. Neil Gehring Battelle Blvd. -U.S. Corps of Engineers SIGMA IV~ Building NCEED - T Richland, Washington 99352 7th Floor 477 Michiaan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 \\
Pr..il. W. Cook 9 cc: Mr. I. Charak, Manager NRC Assistance Pro:iect Arconne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue 'Argcene, Illinois 60439 ATTH: Clyde Herrick - Franklin Research Center 20th & Race Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 ~ i Mr. Patrick Bassett [ Energy Division Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A. 8th and Marguette Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479 l e en 4 e 9 e e S O N ~ G
. z- _ DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BDARD NDTIFICATION l . Midland Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-329/330 ACRS Members Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Ms. Lynne Bernabei Mr. Myer Bender James E. Erunner, Esq. Dr. Max W. Carbor Dr. John H. Buck Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole-Mr. Ronald C. Callen Mr. Harold Etherington Gerald Charnoff, Esq. Dr. William Kerr ~ Myron M. Cherry, R.C. Dr. Harold W. Lewis Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Dr. J. Carson Mark Barton Z. Cowan, Esq. Mr. William M. Mathis T. J. Creswell Dr. Dade W. Moeller Gary J. Edles, Esq. Dr. Milton S. Plesset Steve J. Galder, P.E. Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Dr. Jerry Harbour Dr. David Okrent Samuel A. Haubold, Esq. Dr. Paul C. Shewmon Mr. Wayne Hearn Dr. Chester P. Siess Dr W. Reed. Johnson Mr. David A. Ward Mr. James R. Kates Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Ch.ristine N. Kohl, Esq. Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr. Mr. Howard A. Levin Steven Lewis, Esq. Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Michael I. Miller, Esq. Thomas S. Moore, Esq. William C. Potter, Jr. Mr. Paul Rau Harold F. Reis, Esq. Ms. Mary Sinclair Ms. Barbara Stamiris Frederick C. Williams, Esq. . Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ~ i Atomic Saf.ety and Licensing' Appeal Panel Docketing and Service Section i... Document Management Branch O \\ 6
= -h nam o UNITED STATES .', d ! } yJ a ; g gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ep wassimoTom. o. c. 20sss 8 \\[..U p November 21, 1983 Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for ~ the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 FROM: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION REGARDING MIDLAND AUXILIARY BUILDING UNDERPINNING (BN 83-174) This Notification is provided in accordance with NRC procedures regarding Board Notifications and is deemed to provide new information material and relevant to safety issues in the OM-OL proceeding. On September 14 and 15, i 1983, the NRC and its consultants audited revised calculations for the design adequacy of the Midland Auxiliary Building reflecting the results of an-underpinning pier load test. The test results had indicated that the soil modulus for the base of the underpinning should be 1500 KSF rather than the 3000 KSF used in the original analysis; thus, Bechtel revised its -structural analysis using 1" of settlement rather than 1". The audit meeting was summarized by R. Warnick's letter of October 5,1983, and copies were pro-vided to tne ASLB and hearing parties. During the course of this audit, the NRC received additional information which calls into question the validity of the assumptions upon which the staff's acceptance of the underpinning design was based. The additional information is reflected in paragraphs d, e and 9 of R. W. Warnick's memorandum of October 11, 1983 (Enclosure 1). The informa-tion concerns (1) the manner in which differential settlement has been applied in the applicant's structural stress calculations, (2) the absence of limits for upward movement of the structure during jacking operations, (3) the acceptability of the actual measured upward movement due to jacking, and (4) the extent to which settlement stresses can be jacked out of the completed structure. Paragraph d of Enclosure 1 notes that the stress calculations for 1" of dif-ferential settlement at the southern edge of the Control Tower results from a settlement gradient that begins at the center of the main Auxiliary Building, rather than a point at the northern edge of the Control Tower. Application of the 1" gradient over this longer distance is inconsistent and non conserva-tive with respect to the prior review perfonned by the staff which led to acceptance of the 1" differential settlement in Supplement 2 to the SER, page 2-40. The staff is presently evaluating the effects of this recent informa-tion and believes a solution can be reached by establishing a future differen-tial settlement limit in the Technical Specifications that will be based on field monitoring records. The limit to be established will assure the integ-rity of the involved structures. l l -Sht6106n .~. _ ~.
Paragraphs e and g of Enclosure.1 ~ call into question 1) what should be the upward movements of the str'u'ctures:during jacking operations and 2) whether or not the stresses due to settlements' prior to and during underpinning construc-tion can be completely jacked out of the completed structure. With respect to the upward movements, the,' staff understands that the east EPA has been jacked to 91 mils of upward movement and'the west EPA has been jacked to 70 mils. Upward movement in excess of 30 mils has not-been reviewed by the staff. 10n the issue of stresses due' to. settlement, and underpinning operations, the allowable jacking loads are limited by a concern for redistribution of stresses following upward movement of the structures..The applicant's analysis, relied upon by the staff, assumed no significant residual stress due to earlier settlements fo'r. the completed underpinned structure and, there-fare, may not be sufficiently. conservative. We understand that Region III has verbally imposed a hold on further jacking in excess of that previously reviewed by the NRC staff pending establishment of allowable jacking limits. The issues associated with this and cther information from the September design audit are presently being reviewed by NRR in accordance with R. Warnick's request by Enclosure 1. The staff's response to Enclosure 1, once available, will be provided to the Board. 7: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Attachment:
R. Warnick memo dated October 11, 1983. cc: See next page t e
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION Midland Units 1&2, Docket Nos. 50-329/330 ACRS Members Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Ms. Lynne Bernabei Mr. Myer Bender Lee L. Bishop, Esq. Dr. Max W. Carbon James E. Brunner, Esq. Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole l Dr. John H. Buck Mr. Harold Etherington Myron M. Cherry, P.C. Dr. William Kerr Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Dr. Harold W. Lewis T. J. Creswell Dr. J. Carson Mark Steve J. Galder, P.E. Mr. William M. Mathis Dr. Jerry Harbour Dr. Dade W. Moeller Mr. Wayne Hearn Dr. Milton S. Plesset Mr. James R. Kates Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Frank J. Kelley, Esq. Dr. David Okrent Christine N. Kohl, Esq. Dr. Paul C. Shewman Mr. Howard A. Levin Dr. Chester P. Siess Mr. Wendell H. Marshall Mr. David A. Ward Michael I. Miller, Esq. J Thomas S. Moore, Esq. Mr. Paul Rau Ms. Mary Sinclair Ms. Barbara Stamiris Frederick C. Williams, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Docketing and Service Section Document Management Branch e e e
m - MIDLAND (ForBNs) Mr. J.'W. Cook _Vice President Consmers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road i Jackson, Michigan 49201 cc: Stewart H. Freeman James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, State of Michigan Enviornmental Region III Protection Division 799 Roosevelt Road 720 Law Building Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Ron Callen Mr. Paul Rau Michigan Public Service Commission Midland Daily News 6545 Mercantile Way 124 Mcdonald Street P.O. Box 30221 Midland, Michigan 48640 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. R. B. Borsum Geotechnical Engineers, Inc. Nuclear Power Generation Division ATTN: Dr. Steven J. Poulos Babcock & Wilcox 1017 Main Street 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief Director, Citizens Clinic Division of Radiological Health for Accountable Government Department of Public Health Government Accountability Project P.O. Box 33035 Institute for Policy Studies Lansing, Michigan 48909 1901 Que Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20009 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspectors Office Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center Route 7 ATTN: P. C. Huang Midland, Michigan 48640 White Oak Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Consmers Power Company Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager 212 W. Michtan Avenue Facility Design Engineering Jackson, Michigan 49201 Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Mr. Walt Apley Canoga Park, California 91304 i c/o Mr. Max Clausen Battella Pacific North West Labs (PNWL) Mr. Neil Gehring Battelle Blvd. U.S. Corps, of Engineers SIGMA IV Building NCEED - T l Richland, Washington 99352 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue - Mr. I. Charak, Manager Detroit, Michigan 48226 NRC Assistance Project Argonne National Laboratory ATTN: Clyde Herric.k 9700 South Cass Avenue Frenklin Research Center-Argonne, Illinois 60439 20th & Race Streets Philidelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 i Mr. Patrick Bassett Energy Division Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A. 8th and Marquetts i Minneapolis, MN 55479 l
e a: OaTo UNITED STATES, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,[ R S REGION Ill ?' 'l 799 moosEVELT moAo f-GLEN ELLYN. ILUNoIS 60127 OCT 1 1 sgr MEMORANDUM FOR: D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM: R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
NRC AUXILIARY BUILDING AUDIT f On September 14 and 15, 1983, an NRC team comprised of Messrs. J. Kane and F. Rinaldi of NRR; Mr. R. Landsman of RIII and Consultants S. Poulous and G. Harstead, audited the licensee reanalysis of the Midland Auxiliary Building. This audit was performed at the Bechtel Office in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As a result of the audit, the team identified several design concerns and issues requiring resolution. These are referred to'the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for action as appropriate. The design of the remedial soils slab fix at Elev. 659 (i.e. the eye bars) a. was performed to ACI 318 and not to ACI 349. The acceptability of the licensee's decision to use ACI 318 in lieu of ACI 349 needs to be evaluated. b. In view of the critical nature of the eye bars, the question arose as to the need for some type of monitoring on this fix (i.e. strain gages)- due to the anticipated settlement over the life of the plant. Do moni-toring requirements need to be imposed? c. Because of the anticipated differential settlement expected to occur during the life of the plant, the control tower will be pulling away from the main auxiliary building. Has the mechanical branch determined that equipment between the two buildings can withstand this elongation? d. The licensee performed an analysis on differential settlement of the buildings that was different from that which the NRC anticipated. The staff expected the differential settlement to be measured between the edge of the main auxiliary building and the edge of the control tower. In reality, the licensee performed an analysis using the center of the main auxiliary building as one point instead of the edge. Thus, for the requested 0.25" differential settlement analysis, the actual value was 0.17", and for the requested 0.50" differential, the actual value was 0.24". Is the licensee's analysis acceptable to NRR? e. There appears to be a lot of confusion as to what upward building move-ments the licensee and NRC staff should allow during underpinning. What are the allowable upward movements during jacking operations? f. The licensee stated that existing structures were analyzed according to ACI 318 as agreed to with NRR. The SSER #2 states that the buildings have been checked against ACI 349. Is this acceptable to NRR7 -,e l lid n/Jc ce 0 2s uv s v.,) 4 9 ~. - - - .e-.-,
. -' E r OCT 1 i fdsf D. G. Eisenhut 2 g. The analysis of the existing structures has been performed by assuming that th<: existing settlement stresses will be removed during the permanent underpinning jacking. The audit team feels that the existing stresses cannot be jacked out in their entirety and must be included in the final analysis of the building. What is the NRC position in regards .to including existing settlement stresses in the analysis? Should you or members of your staff need additional information, please feel free to contact R. Landsman (388-5587). RFlL % dk R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases cc: J. C. Stone, IE E. G. Adensam, NRR J. D. Kane, NRR F. Rinaldi, NRR 9 F l l r l
P ] J o { ?. Y,- 'q '~ / / i i s J ^) n y_ b ,7 I / \\., # ~ Vice President - Projects, En;intering James W Cook j .snd Conssrucsion t eae al Off..es-1945 West Parnals Road. Jackson. Ms 49201 * (5171 788-0453 Sur t ec *.,er 10, 1982 Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 J G Keppler Administrator, Region III US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road (' Glen Ellyn,-IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR COGENERATION PLANT MIDLAND DOCKET NOS 50-329, 50,-330 QUALITY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FOR SOILS REMEDIAL WOPJ. FILE:
2.0 SERIAL
18845 4 This letter summarizes recent discussions with NRC management regarding implementation of soils remedial construction and presents the' Company's documentation of those discussions. BACKGROUND The 1980/1981 SALP Report, presented to Consumers in late April of this year, indicated that activities in tne soils area should receive more inspection effort on the part of both the NRC and CP Cc. Follow-up discussions with the NRR staff and Region III Inspectors led to the conclusion that the Quality Program and its definition was adequate; however, there was concern that certain aspects were not being or might not be satisfactorily implemented. Consumers Power has performed an in-depth review of all as'pects of the implementation plans for the Midland Soils work activities. This review included the areas of desigr. and construction requirements and plans, organization and personnel, project controls and management involvement. The results of this review and the proposed steps to assure the successful implementation of the Quality Program were discussed with the NRC management in a meeting held in Chicago on September 2, 1982. q.. oc0982-0232a100-14 o <.v 3c4TW-TF k M
p--: a 2 SfEPS TO IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION . -.A : number of new steps have or are being taken by Consumers Power Co to enhance 7the implementa tion of the quality program with regard to the soils remedial . wo,r k. These neasures touch upon all aspects of the work, from cesign to post-construction verification and include the following: f(II,'IRetaining a third party to independently assess the implementation of the auxiliary building underpinning work; '(2)' Integrating the soils QA and QC functions under the direction of MPQAD; (3) Creating a " Soils" project organization with dedicated employees and single point accountability to accomplish all work covered by the ASLB order; (5) Establishing new and substantially upgraded training programs, including e special quality indoctrination program, specific training in a ~ 4 f 4 "# j. underpinning activities,.anc the use of a mock-up test oft for underpinning construction training; , q., (5) Developing a quality improvement program (QIP), specifically for soils US: remedial work; c. (6) Increasing senior management involvement in the soils remedial project through weekly, on-site management meetings wherein both work progress and quality activities are reviewed; (7) Improving systems for tracking of and accounting for design commitments. k'ha t f o,11ows is a description of tha " 1s cnality_proggm implemen @ g glan, as it will be carried out using the new appr_oaches outlined above, together with_other _speci fi c aspects which we believe will be retticial to the sy c,c e sAf ul_p e r f n -m a n ca n' tha job. The discussion is limited to the implementation features specific to soils, is divided into areas, roughly describing the progression of the job from design to completion and ends with a description of organizations, management involvement and NRC overview. DESIGN ADEOUACY AND IMPLEMENTATION The design for the required remedial activities is in an advanced state; design details and adequacy have been reviewed by numerous organizations. A special ACRS Subcommittee reviewed the soils activities and commented favorably on' the thoroughness and conservatism of the review and remedial approaches. Numerous submittals to the NRC have been presented to clarify the design. intent. It is our understanding that the Staff is completing its detailed review of all design aspects and is in the process of issuing an SSER. This advanced state of design has permitted the early development of a thorough planning effort _and assisted in the organization and development of a detailed training effort. Following-up on design activities, the Project has ,jy assigned to the site a design team comprised of experienced structural and - ?! ' - geotechnical engineers under tne Resident Engineer. This team will monitor oc0982-0232a100-14 b
i g --- \\ \\ 3 and review the field implementation, resolve on a timely basis routine construction questions requiring engineering response and administer the ~ specific contingency plans immediately if any problem should arise during the underpinning work. IMPLEFENTATION OF DESIGN FEATURES AND COMMIT'ENTS All soils activities covered by the ASLB Order of April 30, 1982 are "Q-listed" and covered under soils-specific QA plans. These plans require that appropriate procedures are in place to accomplish the work in a quality manner and that detailed inspection plans and over-inspection plans have been developed and are utilized. Additionally, a Work Authorization Procedure and Work Permit System insure that NRC and CP Co have specifically approved and released the work. Under this system, the NRC reviews proposed work details, asks for additional information when necessary and specifically approves construction activities in advance. CPCo then authorizes the work to proceed. To further assure that all commitments made to the NRC are properly accounted for in design documents, Consumers Power and Bechtel review the written records of commitments and insure that they are incorporated in design detail. The Project is currently undertaking a review of past correspondence to create a computer listing of all commitments not already reflected in the construction documents. This computer list will be periodically reviewed to insure that commitments are incorporated in design or construction documents in a timely fashion. PERFORMANCE OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES To assure that project construction, quality assurance and quality control personnel correctly carry out their appointed tasks. a number of measures have been taken, including a reorganization of quality control, substantially upgraded training programs, direct Company involvement in construction scheduling and control, and utilization of a contract format to minimize any cutting of corners by contractors. These elements of enhanced performance are described more specifically below. First, the project has reorganized the Soils QA-QC effort, creating an integrated organization with single point quality accountability under the MPQAD. This new organization is expected to improve QC performance, increase CPCo involvement in the management of the quality control function and improve QA-QC interfaces. Second, training programs in relation to the soils underpinning work have been developed to be quite comprehensive. The training program, which includes all the major organizations involved, covers both general training in quality and specific training relative to the construction procedures. More specifically, the majority of the personnel associated with Remedial Soils work have_, attendei a special Quelity Assurance Indoctrination Session. This includes Bechtel Remedial Soils Group, CP Co, QC, MPQAD, Mergentime and Spencer, White ' jh and Prentis '(SW&P) personnel down to the craft foreman level. This training C8 consists.of one three-hour session covering Federal Nuclear Regulations, the oc0982-0232a100-14 i \\ = nL___.
y 4 , : D gn NRC, Quality Programs in general and the Remedial Soils Quality Plan in -detail.. In addition to the aformentioned training, both Mergentime and SW&P ~ Procedures for Quality Related Training require specific training prior to initiating any quality related construction activity. The extent of this training, and identification of individuals to receive it, are spelled out in procedures pertaining to specific construction activities. Completion of the specific training requirements is a QA hold point which must be satisfied before work can proceed. ~ In further recognition of the importance of training to the underpinning work, the Company is utilizing a mock-up test pit as part of its training program for underpinning construction. The purpose of tnis test pit is to provide specific training in the construction of a pier, bell and grillage assembly from initial issuance of design drawings through completion of construction. This allows supervisory and craft personnel to perform work under the conditions, requirements and restraints which will be encountered when the actual underpinning starts. It also allows the various quality organizations to inspect the work and insure that their concerns and requirements are properly reflected in the procedures. Third, to further enhance the performance of key project organizations, Consumers Power will maintain day-to-day control over scheduling, both through ,; j:j the construction approval process and by frequent meetings with the involved N JT contractors and subcontractors. Each week, underpinning subcontractors will present proposed construction work to the Company. In addition, to assure the best quality work, the major subcontracts were entered into on a time-material basis. This should improve subcontractor attention to detail and acceptance of owner direction in the performance of specific construction activities. Last, the Company has established a new Quality Improvement Program (QIP) for the soils project. To launch this effort, an indoctrination program will be presented to all individuals, stressing the absolutes of Quality and the concept of "Doing it right the first time." Measurements specific to soils will be developed for those critical areas which are indicative pf a " quality product". Tracking these activities will provide an indication of the effectiveness of the program. The QIP will provide mechanisms for individual " feedback" from all individuals involved, including the craft personnel. INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT A third party will be retained to independently appraise the initial phases of the construction of the auxiliary building underpinning. This party will be mobilized as soon as possible and, after familiarizing itself with the design, will evaluate the auxiliary building underpinning construction work at the site. (Work performed after the date of this letter but before arrival on site of the independent appraisal group will be examined and verified by the group upon arrival on site.) If si aificant problems or adverse trends are F observed, the third party assessment program will be extended in both scope and duration until a satisfactory conclusion can be drawn. The initial kfg evaluation will be carried out over a three-month period. I N].,W 1 oc0982-0232a100-14
m et 'n 4 c. 5 t The independent assessment will be conducted by'a team of nuclear plant construction and quality' assurance experts. This team will be supplemented by the additon of an underpinning consultant who.will review the soils design documents, construction plans and construction itself to assure not only that the design intent is being implemented but also that the construction is consistent with industry standards. 'The assessment will further assure that the QA.I rogram is being implemented satisfactorily and that the construction is being implemented in accordance with the construction documents. Arrangements are being made with Stone and Webster Engineering Corp to assume the lead _ role in this appraisal. They will be assisted by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc who will provide underpinning expertise. The NRC will be apprised of, all findings of this independent assessment in a timely manner. ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND NRC OVERVIEW The project organization formed for the performance of the soils remedial work inco rporates single point accountability, dedicated personnel, minimum interfaces particularly at the working level, and a quality organization integrating QA and QC. The soils project organization is peculiarly tailored to the task at hand. The entire organization, including quality assurance and ,-Qs quality control are staffed with well qualified, experienced personnel, 'hy augmented by design consultants and construction subcontractors nationally i recognized in the underpinning field. The soils remedial effort will, also. include a high level of senior management involvement. Project senior management will conduct weekly in-depth reviews on site of all aspects of the work including quality and implementation of commitments. The Company's CEO is briefed on a regular basis and schedules bi-monthly briefings on all aspects of the project including soils. During . the bi-monthly briefings, the CEO normally tours the Midland site. Complementing the CPCo management role, NRC Region Management overview of the construction process will be enhanced by monthly meetings, agreed upon by the Region, to overview the results of the quality program and the progress of the soils project. These meetings.will cover any or all aspects of the project of general or special interest to the NRC management. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion outlined above, CP Co believes that the soils program has been thoroughly and critically evaluated and that all prerequisites for successful implementation have been or are being accomplished. The Company's program, with the initial overview from the independent implementation assessment, and the continuing overview by the NRC staff and management should provide adequate assurance that the remedial soils activities will be succes<,N11y completed. .4 c oc0982-0232a100-14
72. ~ ~ .i i 4 { 6 1 ) I. i / f(b.- 1 JWC/ JAM /bjw ~ l i CC. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board CBechhoefer, ASLB~ MMCherry, Esq l FPCowan, ASLB RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector RSDecker, ASLB SGadler JHarbour, ASLB GHarstead, Harstead Engineering DSHood, NRC (2) DFJudd, B&W JDKane, NRC. FJKelley, Esq RELandsman, NRC Region III -WHMarshall JPMatra, Naval Surface Weapons Center WOtto, Army Corps of Engineers WDPatton, Esq .SJPoulos, Geotechnical Engineers .yh [ FRinaldi, NRC T30$' HSingh, Army Corps of. Engineers BStamiris ih iii? oc0982-0232a100-14 I. L
e: 7 9 -. -/'~f Q_. BCC :RCBauman, P-14-312B AJBoos, Bechtel, w/a JEBrunner, M-1079, w/a WJCloutier, P-24-611, w/a EMHughes, Bechtel, w/a RWHuston, Washington, w/a JKMeisenheimer, Midland, w/a-JAMooney, P-14-115A,~ w/s _DBMiller, Midland, w/a + MIMiller, IL&B, w/a .KBRazdan, P-14-419, w/a . JARutgers, Bechtel, w/a JRSchaub, P-14-3-5', w/a PSteptoe, IL&B, w/a TJSullivan/DMBudzik, P-24-624A, w/o. RLTeuteberg, P-24-505, w/a TRThiruvengadam, P-14-400, w/a DJVandewalle, P-24-414, w/a FCWilliams IL&B, w/a GBSlade, Midland DLSowers, P-13-407 DMTurnbull,' Midland i. RAWells, P-14-113A NJ' NRC Chron File r f oc0982-0232a100-14
I js, ~, _ ~. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial Dated [- At the -request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of l 1954, Land the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By J W Cook, Vice President Projects, Engineering and Construction ..v3, iL'. Sworn and subscribed before me this day of i I Notary Public t Jackson County, Michigan
- My Commission Expires 9
l' - -[h 5 oc0982-0232a100-14 I-s
~ f 4 [. (.. ~ CONSUMERS POWER COITANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330. Ietter Serial Dated At the request of the. Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of '1954, and the Energy Reorganination Act of.1974, as amended and the Commission's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By /s/ J W Cook J W Cook, Vice President Projects, Engineering and Construction Sworn and subscribed before me'this day of /s/ Barbara P Townsend Notary Public Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires 4
- ).n up oc0982-0232a100-14 e-.
,. ~.. 7- ,m \\ Attachcent 3
- /
31 .(I ANALYSIS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE QUALITY ACTIVITIES WITH REGARD TO REMEDIAL SOILS WORK At the April 26, 1982 SALP meeting Region Administrator, Mr J G Keppler, expressed concern that his staff had informally characterized the ongoing soils and foundation work as only minimally acceptable. Mr Keppler. asked CP Co's m.anagement to comment on its impression of this characterization and to provide its suggestion as to how this assessment could be improved. The following consists of a brief analysis of what Consumers Power perceives to be the basis for this informal. characterization and a description of some of the current organizational and programmatic features of the soils activities that lead us to conclude that prospects are excellent for the satisfactory execution of the remaining soils and foundation work. The soils-related activities at the Midland job site are currently at a relatively low level pending completion of the NRC staff's technical review and rele'ase, by the NRC, of the major portion of the remedial work still to be undertaken. The work that has been done thus far in 1982 is concentrated in -two areas. First, a significant number of wells have been drilled at the site, as part of the plant devatering systems, as part of the freeze wall associated with the auxiliary building underpinning activity and to support the site drawdown tests. Second, the major contractor for the auxiliary building underpinning work was mobilized; the initial work on the access shaft was completed; and, in parallel the detailed underpinning construction planning and continuing technical review with the NRC staff of subsequent work was carried out. Very little work in the other remedial soils areas has been acccmplished during this period. In responding to Mr Keppler's comments at the SALP meeting, we believe that the basis for the staff's informal negative comments regarding the current soils quality assurance activities can be traced to one spesific area of concern and one more broadly-based general concern. A discussion of each of these follows. A specific. area of work which may have been of concern to the staff, and one of immediate concern to Consumers, relates to the controls on the drilling and excavation activities that have been recently carried out. Because the number of NCR's that had been written in this specific area and the severity of the most recent occurrence (drilling into an electrical duct bank), the Company concluded that even with the formal controls that were previously in place, additional controls were required. issued a stop work on all drilling. As a result on April 28, the Company (This Consumers Powe,r stop work direction preceded the ASLB Order of April 30, 1982.) As of May 12, the stop work order had not been removed, nor will it be until a new detailed drilling and excavation control procedure has been fully reviewed and accepted by Consumers Power Company. While there had been other corrective action taken prior to the CP Co stop work order, the Company is confident that,the comprehensive revisions to the prior control procedures on drilling and excavation will preclude errors of the type recently experienced, and will assure that future rp0582-0091a100 g
,e ummass--muec= 3-2 i s t drilling and excavating work will be carried out in a satisfactory and controlled manner. The general and considerably more significant area of inferred NRC concern can only be identified as the lack of timely agreement between the Company and the NRC on the specific quality assurance coverage requirements to be imposed on I. the remedial soils work, particularly those to be imposed on the underpinning work. The lack of timely resolution of this issue, the apparent misunderstanding regarding the Company's commitments, and the contentious atmosphere at the March 10, 1982 meeting en this subject and at the subsequent inspection undoubtedly contributed to the negative rating informally expressed by the staff. Vhen the auxiliary building underpinning work started with the first partial NRC release for construction of the vertical access shaft, CP Co presented a special quality assurance plan encompassing, in our opinion, appropriate portions of the underpinning work. This plan was initially presented to the staff at a meeting in Region III headquarters on January 12, 1982 and documented in a letter dated January 7, 1982. While the initial staff response to the plan appeared to be favorable, no official NRC conclusion was expressed. It became evident during the time between January and early March that st least one individual within the NRC staff believed that an extensive modification of the program coverage under the QA plan, MPQP-1, should be required. This preference for expanded NRC requirements became an NRC staff working level position, formally expressed to the Company at the meeting on March 10, 1982. As a result of that meeting, the NRC Region III inspector apparently concluded tha-Consumers had committed to fully accepting the NRC Staff position that essentially all to go underpinning work should be Q-listed, unless exceptions are agreed upon. The NRC's meeting minutes reflect no such commitment. In fact, no commitment was made. This misunderstanding, a end others arising out of follow-up discussions with the staff, has apparently affected Region III's feelings toward our soils quality assurance program and personnel. It is, therefore, not surprising that the NRC Region III staff considers the quality assurance activities in the soils and foundation area to be in need of improvement based on its recent experience. (It should also be noted that the NRC SALP Board held its second and final meeting on March 23, 1982.) The Company also agrees that it is extremely difficult to avoid regulatory difficulties unless both parties have a common understanding and agreement as to the scope of applicable requirements. The major issue with regard to QA program coverage was' resolved at the management level meeting held on March 30, 1982 in Glen Ellyn and documented by the April 5, 1982 letter of J V Cook to J G Keppler, in which the Company agreed to "Q" list f essentially all of the to go underpinning work. However, the staff has still formally acknowledged its concurrence with that letter. This concurrence not would be of significant assistance in documenting the conclusisn of the staff's review of program requirements and permitting the redirection of resources from program definition to successful program execution. Resolution of the concerns noted above will make a significant contribution to the rcmaining soils work. In addition, the following considerations should provide added confidence that excellent results will be obtained in the remaining soils construction activities. rp0582-0091a100
l ll E _ _ _ ___=_.-:.__----_----_ ,3-3 Dedication of a high quality professional staff to the underpinning and other soils work is of paramount importance to its successful completion. Because of the complexity and importance of the underpinning work as the dominant factor in the soils remedial program, a mini project of dedicated groups has been set up to focus attention on the soils activities, with particular emphasis on the underpinning. The technical qualifications of the individuals staffing these activities emphasize previous related experience. At the site, specific underpinning groups have been formed within Bechtel construction, Bechtel quality contr~. and MPQAD, all staffed with individuals having significant applicable technical experience and academic credentials. Both Bechtel resident engineering and Bechtel engineering in Ann Arbor have dedicated remedial soils groups. The onsite resident engineering office will have four geotechnical engineers and at least two structural engineers dedicated to supporting the field activities. Consumers Power Company home-office soils activities are currently staffed with two experienced geotechnical engineers and several experienced structural engineers who have been active in the design reviews and prior licensing evaluations and who will continue to follow the soils remedial work throughout the duration of the construction. The overall Consumers Power Company project management of soils is also organized as a mini-project, and the senior Consumers Power Company individual has had significaat nuclear power plant experience at the project manager level. In addition to the on-staff individuals for Consumers Power Company, Bechtel and the major subcontractors, significant consulting resources are also integrated into the soils work. The design consulting firm for the auxiliary building underpinning has a staff man onsite to coordinate with his home office personnel. All the major consaltants will be asked to periodically review the job progress as the underpinning work proceeds. To assist some of the technical specialists in fully understanding all of the quality requirements on the job, some additions to the staff are also planned. The Bechtel underpinning construction gieup leader, who oversees and interacts with the underpinning subcontractors, will have a quality consultant on his staff to assist him in any and all quality-related matters. It is also anticipated that the un,derpinning quality control organization will be augmented to enhance its breadth of leadership. We believe that the NRC themselves can significantly assist in the successful completion of the underpinning and other soils remedial activities by expansuis cae presence of their lead inspector on the site _ as the work Specific steps to facilitate this NRC interaction were agreed progresses. upon, as documented in the April 5, 1982 letter referenced above, and__ complemented by day-to-day working agreements. A second area which should significantly assist in the successful completion of the remedial soils work, particularly the underpinning activities, is the degree of design' completion prior to the work entering the major construction phase. Because of the extent and thoroughness of the NRC staff review, there is a more complete design for the underpinning activities than is normally in place for other construction activities. Essential completion of the calculations for the underpinning work before the major construction phase rp0582-0091a100 ,.m
Attachcent 3 3-4 ' begins1willl einimize the kind of major design changes that can occur in nuclear; plant structural design process because of calculation revisions. There will,:of; course, be design changes as the work progresses, but the degree [6f calc'ulation completeness reached prior to initial drawing release will significantly contribute to the stability and success of the construction proces s.- theinte'rfacelfeviewcalledforby.thequalityassuranceplanfortheIn add underpinning l activity, MPQP-1, is also substantial. These reviews will also contribute to.both the validity of the design and the general understanding of design 're'cuirements and quality attributes by all persons part'cipating in the underpinning activities. ~ In addition, MPQP-1 directly inserted quality assurance (and through quality assurance, quality control) comments into the design. review cycle, a significant requirement above and beyond the quality assurance program for the balance of the plant. The number of procedural controls that havt been or are being instituted for this work should also engender confidence that the critical underpinning activities will be. satisfactorily controlled. there will be more than 50 specific work procedures developed for theJudging from the underpinning work. directly in these construction work procedures.MPQP-1 calls for integration of inspec As a result of these steps, the procedural controls for the underpinning work will be more extensive than those for any other activities, with the possible exception of NSSS primary loop activities, covered by the QA program for the balance of the project. Tne extent of the construction procedures automatically increases the scope of the training activities and of the inspection plans which are developed based on the specific work procedures. Finally, as a result of the extensive discussions with the NRC staff regarding the coverage of the "Q" program, MPQP-1 is being applied to essentially all of the underpinning work still to be done. be completely consistent with a strict definition of whatWhile this application may or may not is " safety-related," it should lend added assurance that the work in total, and the safety-related work in particular, will be carried out successfully. In light of the foregoing, it is hoped that the Region III management can gain an appreciation of Consumers Power Company's perception of recent i that both'the Region III management and staff can develop added confidence events and that the to go soils work, particularly the extensive underpinning activities can and will be carried out up to the expectations of both the applicant and the NRC. ^ rp0582-0091a100 i
N s '
- d)_
C N *!.' i 2fj f l
- l., bf%
/b Ik - ( **1 -l,. ;g ? m gf v,.,.,y : C = ,a e <p %)
- i[') 'v. O' Jarnes W Cook
( /f e & &, & )* Vice President - Projects. Engineering r Y .~- and Construction Generei Offices; 19.4f 3/est Parnali Rose, Jackson, MI 49201 * (5171 788-3453 September 10, 1982 Harold R Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 James G Keppler Regional Administrator US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLAhT QUALITY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION File: 0485.16 Serial:
REFERENCE:
CPCo Letter Serial 19158, 9/ /82, " Quality Program Implementation for Soils Remedial Work" The referenced letter summarized Consumers Power Company's discussions with the NRC management regarding the implementation of the Quality Program for the Midland soils remedial work. In addition to the discussions specifically related to soils, the total Midland Quality Program implementation was reviewed and areas were identified where additional efforts should be directed to insure successful overall project quality implementatun and the perfor-mance of the primary inspection function (QC) on site. In response to these concerns Consumers Power made two significant new commitments which are conceptually desgribed in the following paragraphs. Additional documentation will be prov as the details of these commitments are worked out. I f fg g oc0982-4024a-66-mkk N, -y, .y<
+1 l e -Page 2~ DRAFT f * '!,* ) $ 6t? Q. 4
- A i.' E'
.4 si,J :# Lv s 9;.*J/ : pf. 4 Quality Control Function 12 -In order to improve the performance of the Quality Control function and to make it more responsive to direction from the Quality Assurance organization, the responsibility for directing the entire Quality Control function will be assumed by Consumers Power. The Quality Control group will functionally report to MPQAD. The programmatic aspects now in place will continue to be used and the combined inspection resources of both Bechtel and CPCo will be integrated. This reorganization will be fully implemented as soon as the appropriate procedural changes are finalized. The integration of the QC resources for soils into MPQAD has already been accomplished as a separated action. Independent Verification - Total Project Consumers Power proposes a new'and expanded approach which will give a broader overview than the " vertical slice" assessment currently being recommended by the NRC for other NTOL plants. The assessment which is suggested for Midland will combine an INPO type construction project evaluation, which is a broad " horizontal" type review of all aspects of current project operations with the detailed " vertical slice" review of all aspects, current and historical of a criticel plant system or subsystem. The entire review will be performed by one or more independent contractors which are currently being selected. The details of this extensive independent assessment will then be finalized with the assistance of the selected contractor (s) and presented to NRC management l . for concurrence. The INPO portion of the program will be initiated l immediately to comply with the INPO schedule and (adustry commitments eveept l th;t an independent contractor rather than utility personnel will carry out i oc0982-4024a-66-mkk i
w s-r Page 3 DRAFT , _ ' ~ -
- a.
the INPO evaluation. The results will then be overviewed by the INPO staff to assure adequacy and consistency with other evaluations. The Company expects to meet with the NRC shortly and finalize this proposal. Additional Assessment Programs In addition to the above, Consumers Power has proposed to retain a qualified third party for an assessment of the underpinning activities as detailed in the referenced letter. Consumers Power Company has also initiated other appraisals to assess the adequacy of the Quality Assurance Program. Two major recent examples of this practice that have occured are as follows. In 1981, Management Analysis Company (MAC) conducted an assessment which focused on performance in three major areas as follows: 1. Adequacy and timeliness of both part and process corrective actions taken on a sample of " big ticket" hardware problems. 2. The degree to which the physical characteristics of selected significant. supplied components and parts meet their respective quality requirements. 3. The overall adequacy of the Quality Assurance Program to include corrective actions, effectiveness of the supplier documentation review efforts, checxout and preoperational testing activites and personnel qualifications. i This assessment was completed, the results were positive and all open items l l have been resolved and closed. The final report has been previously submitted l l to the NRC. oc0982-4024a-66-mkk e 2 4'
> - g,. r~. = !k Page 4 DRAFT f,gs, f./ .i'd /q%,y LYNil;. f :, A Bechtel Corporate S*.aff project evaluation was initiated in April 1982. A report on the results of this assessment is being finalized at this time. The -purpose of this evaluation was to review the Midland engineering activities to determine if design criteria have been implemented and if the design assumptions, design methods, and the design processes are satisfactory. To assure independence, the assessment team was specifically chosen to be independent from the Bechtel Ann Arbor office. This team consisted of Senior experienced personnel with appropriate expertise having previously performed similar work on other projects. The final report will be sent to the NRC upon completion and whatever other documentation or discussion as may be requested will be provided. A Conclusion Based on the discussion outlined above and in the reference letter, Consumers Power believes that steps have been taken to insure both successful implementation of the remaining work to complete the plant and verification p rog ram, including both quality records, test program results, and third party assessments, that will certify the adequacy of the plant as constructed. oc0982-4024a-66-mkk _ __}}