ML20107A917

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Input of Proposed Questions for 10CFR50.54(f) Ltr to Util
ML20107A917
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Midland
Issue date: 03/09/1979
From: Shewmaker R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Hood D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20099A237 List:
References
FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8502200147
Download: ML20107A917 (3)
v • d • e


Text

2<-

--u--

s s

2kc goon,,gg

$ bl6 elm w, M W

so cfp e.svff) &

A 6 swen on Af' A:AND

/

e S//w 2

-77e, A

e f

e 9

f g22g7840817 RICEB4-96 PDR C////

g.a.

t MID1AND QUESTIONS _

l The licenses has stated that the fill has settled under itsW 1.

own weight.

settled locally under f the Structures with rigid. mat foundations as portions auxiliary building or service veter pump structure a.

.in lee.)Caf ennHnunna Clase 2.* piping in the fill resultingcausing additional stress not acco b.

suppor desi How has the lack of compaction and the increase in soil compressibility effected the seis=ic response spec 2.

seismic loadingt Af ter current preloading material is removed will. additional borings be taken to sacertain that the material, has

[

3.

and construction license applicationf Since the foundation material is variable as described in l

t be predicted ;o assure reliable startup of the D/G 4.

of emergency What tolerance does the D/G r.anuf acturer require on the alignment of the D/C for reliable operation and startupT.

I.'

5.

Preliminary information indicates that the piping in fill under and in the vicinity of the D/G building have grosa deformations 6.

What induced either prior to or dyring.the preload program.Is this deformation r

is the extent of deformation.

predictedt If so, what plans are being taken to correct the conditionY The borated vatar storage tanks and diesel

~

l 7.

plant fill of varyfag quality.

he constructed prior to sasuring the foundation material-is l

capable of supporting such structures for'the plant lifa 4

4 9

3

,,,w.

.+m....v--,m

,-r,,.

,J.y.

.,em.,

w,..w-w..,.g.

,..e.+.w,,,,wym.m,,,..w.ec+,--S e w

,-w

, --,,s.-c.w--

O, i'

4 4

MIDL sD QUESTIONS 8.

FSM Figura 2.5-48 abows estimated ultimate settlements which indicate a differential settlement across individual mat founcation and,within individual structures. Was this differential accountad "for in the origiudi'desigt of thd mat foundation and in the design tf structufe member within the structure? If not, vhat effect does t'his differential settlement have on additional stressas induced in the mat r in structure members such as

' slab-beam-column connections

3.. :,..

9.

Based on the information provided in CPCo interim report number 4, ic appear's that the tests performed on the explotatory borings indicate T. ail properties that do not meet the original compaction criteria' set forth in the PSAR and specification for soils work.

What assurance is there that the soil under other class I structures not accessible to exploratory boring meet char control compaction

~

requirems:ntef s.-

ri

.. y.

i 3

i a

g T

y, j.

{

.f f

e e

..J s

q.;

.?

+

6 9

l

?

M.i}l { -

' p;, 'c=s

.pl y.:

k UNITED STATES f

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • Qf g. '*j\\g. ~-g w 3 g g

WASMlNGTON. O. C. 20555 g

( 4, =.v../

MAY 171979 6-

./

MEF.ORANDUM FOR:

Domenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light k'ater Reactors, NRR FROM:

Dudley Thompson, Executive Officer for Operations Support, IE

SUBJECT:

RECOP?.ENDATION FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION AND UPDATING OF PREVIOUS NOTIFICATION - MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT The enclosed infomation is being forwarded for your consideration and possible Board notification.

Part of the enclosed infomation concerns a new item at Midland involving the qualification of compenents. Additional infomation is provided as an update of BN-78-27.,

k's request to be infomed whether or not"all, or part, of the infomation is provided to the Boards.

ud ey

. son Executive Officer for Operations Support IE

Enclosure:

l Me.o HDThornburg to DThompson dtd E/14/79 w/ enclosures cc:

H. D. Thornburg, RCI w/o enci R. F. Heishman, RIII w/o encl G. C. Gower, XOOS w/enci IE Files w/o enci

/

JVf&*TL2chfQ

[

& +p g V M 9033t y

C/u z_.

M lf w.

JUti G 1979 l

3 Docket No. 50-329/330 MEi*.ORN O!Ii FOR: James G. Xeppler Director. Pagion III FRO:i:

Karold D. Thornburg Director

~

Division of Reactor Construction Inspect *on, IE SICJECT:

RECCCWOATIO:t FOR tiOTIFICATIO.'i 0F THE I. ICE.*lSI!!G BOARD O!! !ilDLA!:D Your r.xr:orsndum dated April 20, 1979 recer.cnded that a series of interia 50.55(e) reports on the diesel generator settlecent problem (first reported to the cocrd on !'over.ber 15,1970) be sent to the Coard. ImR has acted on the IE recor:rendation for Board notification in a negative sense.

The cr, closed recrandum from Vassallo to Christenbury, dated t ay outlines the reasons for the denial.

~

20. 1979, i

i-The second item which we had recer.:..anded for Board notification, quali-I fication of c.: pencnts, was also denied on the basis that the ifcensee.

tas proceeding properly and problers of equipront not being able to l

qualify ware r.ct'eq{ dent.

Of particular note in this tiRR denial'is the fact that they indicate once the issue has been identified thare is no requirecent that the staff

~

Trevide ths routirse docu:antation on the resolution to th2 Coard unle requested.

The staff is c::pected to provide the results of the evaluation l

in the SE'l or its suppic ents, bu,t not all the background unless requested.

If you have questions en this ites, please contact us.

L Harold D. Thernburg. Director Division of I!cacter Constr:gtfon Inspection

Enclosure:

l l'cao Yassallo to Clu istenbury l

dtd S/20/79 w/ enclosures cc w/cnclosures:

J. G. Davis, IE D. Tho:.pson. IE G. W. Roin~.Jth. IE y,

G. C. Ga;ar. IE

!!CI AD:RCI D:RCI C0.iTACT:

R. E. Shewcaker. IE 49-27551 REShe caker: GtGeincuth IDThornburg i

5/

/79 ok C/

/79 6/

/79 I

N.

ll/

(,lj Distribution 7

8. >

Central File l

!!RR Readin'g.

p)@/

F. Williams F. Williams Reading J. Lee p

May 29,.1979 D. S. Vassallo 3

O/

iET?.*c!]U 4 FOR: _ E6tard S."Christenbury, Chief Hearing Counsel. OELD FR71:

D. 3. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light 'Jater Reactors, Division of Project ".anagecent SUSJECT:

5 CARD NOTIFICATIO:t RECO:t1E!! DATIO:i t!IDL211D - DIESEL GE':ERATOR BUILDI:G FOU!:DATIGil A* 0 QUALIFICATI0:10F CO'tPO!!E!!TS (EN-7?-21)

A acorandus fren OILE on May 17, 1979 rece=. ended that the liidland Soard be notified of (a) fo11ov up inferr.ation on the Diesel Generator Suilding Fcunda-tien pr:blen (!J!-73-27).and (b) 50.5E(e) reports on the qualification of ecs-ponents.

p D6)

The :fdland casa is not in the Board !!otification ti== frr.e TLSER Sumele-g

'.)N r.an: ad4=< sing ACRS cencarns has not been issnad.

I provided infor:.2-y tion to.the Scard on t.*.e rcundation problem due to a s ccia request from OILJ which noted that a prehearing conference was to be held in which that infor=a-tien ccuid be usefu1._

A Uditicnal re;crts on that problemineed not be sent to the Board. They have f

been c:ade aware of the sit:ation anc wit lle provided with the staff assessm.ent in the SER ind SER Supplement and then they will autenatically be provided

_ with staff correspendence en that subject.

The infore,ation rega'rding the cualification of cor:ponents does not appear to cualify as Gcard notification infornation regardless of the time frame.

It

're;rssents a progras by the app 1icant to assure proper qualification of ccm-ponents.

3 card notificatien would be recuired if the pregram indicated that they were unable to proper 1y cualify components.

erli.

MI 0.3. W Ul3 e

D. 3. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project :tanagement Encloscre:

As Stated cc:

H. Denton V. Ste1'lo R. Daer D. !!ced E. Case

2. DeYoung O. Parr O. Eisenhut V. Moera.
5. Varga

[

J. Davis, IE

.L. :lichols IE(7)

N A

p

_ m,p h w.

?.. Ecyd

3. c.rizes

,D.Tpeepson Q)D gUv w

~. - -. -

i__.-._.-.

s p.

..s..a

... '.3y gg

.g

..,I 11'

..me*

2.'.hNahs:ab DSVas.s.all.o

?

.u - - e *-

L....

l

.... '.../._N... 7. 95/*4 75 ec.

-a m,m.mu ae_ _.

a...... -... - --.....................

f y c: J yt.a...

.. -W. ;r

.Cr%,,..

f.,, )';,.sc*

UNITfo STATES Ys,.ases.55 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e

s**

~.1, n a oso u seu l 3 r th,2

< ( q*v /s.:l.

.. EXHisif e u. '. ".. ~.. s, ~ e..., n

s. v V

+, *<

.:li a

,, 4&,

9

~

,C j <.' ',:,.

i r !

,4..f. \\ l;Q t 9 p~ <;

.s,..,

..y

~-

// '/.*.' A/

Tabruary 15, 1979 r.~

b,,M.%;

  • 1+-

H. D. Thornburg Director, Division of Re ctor I./);*)

F

. }2:CR/C;D'?! TOR:

Construction Inspection, II

.n,,,.

~

\\

/

/

James G. Keppler, Director

--,i TROM:

i II!DL.CCD S~C5' RY rip 0R:

/

.z A

SGJICT:

3 (~(

The a:tached report, which represen:s Region III's overall assessmen:to da:

4 ef the Midland construe: ion projec:

K d

was discussed wi:h you and represen:a:ives frc= vour staf f, NR, an mee:ing a: EQ's on February 6,5.979.

D.: ring tha 4 I'f, cas concludtd that this napo.rt should ba..provicpd to OILD r

CILD during our N*k fyr iranC1.::al :.e the Licensing Board and the varie s : wie meeting. i:

G p

a Y..s Etaring.

  • 'a believe the =eeting was qui:e useful' in receiving feedback from the

.d various XRC people involved relative :o our posizion on the s:atus of

/

.s this facili:y.

L ne if you have any ques:icas regarding :his na :er..

I Please centac

()is=esG.KeSar 4

Director-N A::ach=en::

l'idland Su==ary Repor:

,~.

It j

\\ r.r.

~

k.

.o.

f, T

L*

,f E?

'f

'de & Odh s

f f

L l/f

' /d r

e D./f 3 L

,a

[-

s MIDU2O SUM".A7.Y F2? ORT Taeiliev Da:a D :ke: Nu=hers 329 and 50-230

- C??R-81 and CPPR-82

. Cons::ue: ion Per=its Per=I:s Issued

- Dece=he 14, 1972 Type Rea::or

- PWR; Uni: 1, 492 ML*e* ; Unit 2, 815 Mk's N355 Sup;11er

- 3ateex & Vilecx Design /Ce:s::ue:c:

- Se:htel ?ces: Cerpora:ics yuel Lead Da:es

- Uni: 1, 11/51; Uni: 2, 11/80 5:a: s of Co:strue: ion - Uni: 1, 522, Uni:.2, 560; Insineerin; 50

. 1 is dedicated.

  • A;;; xi=a ely cue-half the s:sa: p;cdue:ica for..

by con::a::, :: be supplied to Dov Che=1:11 C pora:icn, :hrough l/"

a;; ep-ia e 1sela:ic hea:.exchangers.

Capability exists to alternate i

Nw

e Uni: 2 fer :he staa s urce upes de=a-d.

V

.Chrenele i a! Listin: ef Made Etents e

July :1970 5:ar: ef Cens::u'c:ic: under exemp:ica

~-

9/29-33 4 Si:e inspe::ies. fou: i:e=s ef nen:c=pliance ide=:ified,.

~

10/1/70-ex ensive review duries C? hearings

~

1971 - 1972 Plan: in =othballs pending.C7 I

12/11/72 C? issued I=spection at Bechtel Ann Arbor offices, five ite=s of 9/73 nonco=pliance iden:ified site, four 1:e=s of nenec=pliance idactified l= spec:1cn a:

11/73

.(cadvald proble=) precipitated the Sh=v Cause Order, 1.1 censes ansvers shov-Cause order. ec 1:s to i=p;ovener.:s i

12/29/73 en QA.p;ogra= and QA/QC staff Show cause.or, der issued suspe: ding cadwalding opera:ien 12/3/73-Special i= spec: ion ecadue:ed by RIII & EQ personnel r.

12/6-7/73*

Show Cause order nadified :o allow cadualding based en 12/17/73 inspec:1en findi gs of 12/6-7/73 O

In e

p.

}

c ;,.

12/5/7d CP repor:ed :ha: rebar spacing ou: of specifica:ic: 50 loca:icas,in Unit 2 contain=en:

3/5,& 10/75 CP reported :ha: 63 f6 reba: vere ei:her -dssing er risplaced in Auxiliary 3cilding.

3/12/75

, R.III lield managenen: =eeting with CP S

9 9

6 9

e 9

0 i(4.

O G

+

y I

e r

O e

r s

e e

e I

l t

1 e

l

, ep-e e

l l

e 8

s O

2

f

-)

8/21/75 C? report,ed that 42 sets of #6 :ie bars were =1ssing in Auxiliary Building 3/22/76 C? reported tha: 32 #6 rebar vere o=1::sd i: Auxiliary

~

Building. A stop-up k order was issued by C?

3/26/76 RIII inspector requested C? :o'infor= RIII when s:cp-verk order :o be lif:ed and to investiga:e :he cause and :he ex:en: of :he p;chle=. Additic a1 reba; prchle=s ider.:ified during si:e inspection

'3/31/f6 C? lif:ed the s:op-verk order

' 4/19 thru RI!I perfor=ed in-dep:h QA inspec:ica~a: Midland

.5/14/76 5/10/76 RI:I =anage=en: discussed inspee:ics findings vi:h site persennel 5/20/76 RI!I =anage=en: =eeting vi:h CF,Fresiden:, Vice Presidan:,

and others.

6/7 & S/.76 R;;I follov up =es:1:s with CF =anage=an: and discussed the C? 21 correction ec==1 = ants 6/1-7/1/76 Overall rebar c=ission reviewed by

?.. I. Shev=aker 7/;i/76 C? stops cen re:s place =en: vc:k when further retar' place =es: arrc s found by their overviev prog:a=.

?N-Ill-76-52' issued by RIII 8/1/76 RIII recc== ends EQ notice of viciatics be issued E/9 - 9/9/76

?ive week full-:i=e R!!I inspee:icn conducted i'

'S/13/76 N.c: ice issued 10/29/76 C? responded to HQ Notice of Violaticas 12/10/76

  • C? revised Midland QA progra: accep:ed by NER 2/26'/77 Uni: 2 bulge of con:ai==en: liner discovered 4/19/77 Tendon sheath c=1ssicas of Uni: 1 reper:ed 4/29/77 IAL issued relative to tenden sheath placement errors L

5/5/77 Manage =en: mes:ing a: C? Corpora:e Office relative :s LAL regarding : endo shea:h proble=

9 e

y

l'h s'.-

5/24-27/77 Special inspection by KIII, RI and F.Q perscanel to de:er=ine adequacy of QA prog:a= i=ple=en:ation at Midland si:e 6/75 - 7/77 Series of =ee:ings and le::ers be:veen C? and 5??. c applicabili:y of Regulatory Guides to Midland.

Co= 1:=en:s by CP to the guides vas respcasive 7/24/78 Construe:ica resident inspec:ica assigned 8/21/78-Measure =es:s by 3echtel indicate excessive se::le=en:

of Diesel Generate Suilding.officia*.ly repor:ed to RIII c Sep:e ber 7,1975 12/75 - 1/79 Special investiga:ic /inspectica conducted a: Midland sites 3echtel A Arbor Engineeringeffices and a: C? cc pera:e offices relative to Midland plan: fill and Oiesel Genera:or building sa::lement p chle:

e 8

e e

O

'O e8 O

e v

e 4

s 0

e g

  • e 6

p g

S 6

e g.

E t

Selected Ma$ce Events Pas: Preble=s 1.

Cadveld Solicine Preble=.and Shev Cause Order wnc.?

A routine inspe::ics, cendue:ed on Novenber 6-8,19 73, as a resul: of intervene: infor=a: ion, identified eleven exa=ples of feur nen::=pliance 1:e=s rela:ive to rebar Cadwelding opera:icas.

These ite=s vere su==ari:ed as :

(1) un::ained Cadveld inspec:c s; (2) reje::able Qdvelds accep:ed by QC f'"$y inspe::c s; (3) reec:ds inadequate = establish cadvelds ce:

pU require ents; and (4) inadequa:e precedure'.

s ry As a resul:, the licensee s:epped work on cadueld operations Ik on Neve:ber 9,1973 vhich in turn s:opped rebar ins:alla:1on0I The licensee agreed no: :o resu=e verk us:11 the NRC revieved and accep:ed : heir correc:ive ac:1cn. However, Shev Cause 0:dar was issued on Oece=ber 3,1973, suspending Cadvelding opera:1c s.

On Dece=ber 6-7, 1973 R:!I and HQ personnel condue:ed a special inspe::10: and deter =ined :ha: cons t ructica ac:ivi:y could be res==ed in a canner censis:en: vt:h quali:y cri:e:La.

The shev cause c:dar was modified en Dece=ber 17, 1973, alleving resu=p:1:n of Cadwelding opera:icns based c:

the ins;se:1:n results.

The licensee answered the Shev Cause Order en Oece:her 29. 1973, c:==1::ing :o revise and i:;; ve :he CA =anuals and precedures e**

and make CA/QC persennel changes.

?:thearing cc:ferences were held c: March 28 and May 30, 1974, and the hearing began c July 16, 1974 On Sep e=ber 25, 1974, the Hearing 3 card found tha: the licensee-vas i=ple:en:ing 1:s QA p :gra: in ec:pliance vi:h regulations and : hat construe:1o=

should n:: be stopped.

l 2.

Rebar d=1ssion/ placements Errors Leadine to IAL Ini:dal iden:1 fica:1cn and reper: of rebar noncenfor:ances

' ' ' ~ ~

occurred during an NRC inspection conducted en Dect:ba; 11-13,

4. <

1974 The licensee infer =ed the inspector tha: an audi:, had

' ' ~ ~

~

iden:ified rebar spacing problens at elevattens 642' - 7" to 65 2 ' - 9" o f Uni: 2 cen:ain=en:. This ite: vas subsequef.:1y reper:ed per 10 CTpi 50.55(e) and was iden:1fied as a ite= of n=====plian:e in reper: Nes. 50-329/ 74-11, and 50-330/74-11.

Additional rebar deviatiens and c=issions were identified in March and Augus 1975 and in April, May and June 1976.

Inspection s' '

repor: Nos. 30-329/76-04 and 50-333/76-04 identified five

..-semeau,t cen:c:pliance ite=s regarding reinforce =en: steel deft:1en:ies.

r.--

- 1. -

. c e

  • 4 *.%

jr.

f

-*1 4

Selec:ed Ma4cr Ivants w

?a s': ?reble=s 1.

Cadveld Salicint ?rehlem.and Shev Cause Order A rou:ine inspection, conducted on Nove=her 6-8,19 73, as a 6

i result of i=:ervenor ir.for=a:io=, identified eleven exa=;' es

.of four nen::=pliance ite=s rela:ive to rebar Cadeelding

}# g These ite=s were su==ari:ed as:

(1) us::ained operaticas.

Cadveld inspec: ors; (2) reje,c:able advelds ac:sp:ed by QC establish cadvelds =e:

p inspectors; (3) records inadequa:e ::

require =ents; and (4) i= adequate procedures.

gr As a result, the11'censeestoppedworkoncadvaldoperati==s C

j on Neve=ber 9,1973 which in turn s:opped :ebar ins:alla:1 :

"he lice:see agreed no: to res==a work u=:11 the N?.C revieved j

and a:cepted their corree:ive ac:1cs. Novaver, show Cause order was issued on Dece=ber 3,1973, suspending Cadwalding 0: Dece=ber 6-7,1973 RI:1 a:d F.Q persensel cpera:ie s.

c =due:ed a special inspe::ies and deter =1:ed that cess:::::i==

ac:ivi:y could be resumed in a =anner consis:en: vi:h quali:y The show cause order was modified on Dece=ber 17 I'

. cri:eria.

[

19.73, allovi:s resu=ptien of Cadwaldi:s opera:icas based c i

(

the 1:s;et:1:n results.

29. 1773,

~he licensee ansva:ed the Shov Cause 0 dar en Dece=ber t

ce==1::ing :o revise and i=;;cve the CA =anuals a=d precedures and =ake QA/CC persensel changes.

I prehearir.g ec:ferences were held c: Parch 26 and May 30,1974 and the heari=g began on July 16, 1974 On sep:e=ber 25, 1974,

he Hearing 3:ard found tha: the licenses was i=ple=e::ing 1:s L

CA ;;os:a= in.co=pliance with regulations and that ec:st, :ic=

a should n:: be stopped.

e 0=issien/ place =ents Irrors Leadins to IAL i.

2.

Reba:

Ir.1:ial ide::1fication and repc : of rebar scuconfer=ances occurred during an NRC inspectica c== ducted on Dece=ber 11-13, an audi:, had The licensee infer =ed the inspec:or tha:

1974.

iden:1fied rebar spact:g problems at eleva,:fo:s 642' 7','

t.

~his ite= vas subsequently 632' - 9" of U:1: 2 cc::ain=en:.

reported per 10 CTR 50.55(e) and was identified as a 1:e= ci-i-

Nos. 50-329/74-11 and 30-330/71-11.

[

nc=cs=pliance in repor:

Additional rebar deviations and o=1ssions were iden-ified ir.

Inspectica March a:d August 1975 and in April, May and June 1976.

'( 9

,repor: Nos. 50-329/74-04 and 30-330/76-04 identified five steel defician:1es.

no:co=pliance ite=s regarding rei=ferce=en:

I-l

?

l i

- _. _. _g.

/

.r Lice:see response dated June 18, 1976, lis:ed 21 separa:e ite=s (co==1:=ents) for cerrec:ive actien.

A June 24, 1975 le::er provided a plan of ac:1on schedule for i=ple=en:ing :he 21 it e=s.

The licensee con =1::ed =c: :o resume concre:e place =en: verk us:11 the ite=s addressed in licensee's June 2a le::e vere resolved or i=ple=ented.

This co==1:=en: 'vas doc==ented.in a KIII le:ter to the licensee da:ed June 25, 1976.

Although =ot sta= ped as an IAL, in-house =e=cs referred to 1:

as such.

~

Kahar installa:ica and con:: :e place =es: ac:1vities were resu=ed in early July 1976, fellowing co=ple: ion of the 1:e=a

, ar.d verifica:ics by RI!I.

Addi: Local ac:ica saken is as follows:

a.

3v the NRC (1) Assig==en: ef as inspec:e full-:1=e on site fer five weeks to chse:ve civ1' verk in progres.s (2)

II ca: age:en: =es:ings vi h the li:essee a: : heir corpora:e of fices (3)

Inspec: ion and evalua:1:n by Headquarter pe:sensel h.

3v he Li:ensee (1) Jc=e 18, 1976 le::e ce=ni::ing to :1 1:e=s af c=::ac:1ve a::ica (2)

Is:ablishment of an everviev inspe::ic= pregra: :o p = vide '100% reinspection ef a:hed:ents by :he licenses folleving ac:eptance by the co:::ac:::

QC personne' c.

!v the Con rector (1) Personnel changes and re::aininS of personnel (2)

Frapared :achsical evalua:ien for accep:abili:y cf each identified construe:1c deficiency intheirQA/QC.progra=coveragec[ civil (3)

I= prove =e :

work (this was i= posed by the *icensee) 3.

Tendon Sheath ?lacemen: Irrers and Resulting I= mediate A::ien l

Le::e

( A*)

(

?

l

" on April 19, 1977, the li:ensee repor:ed, as e Par: 50, Secti:n l

50.53(e) ite=, the inadver:ent r=1ssion of :vo hoop tende:

sheaths fro = a L':1: 1 cas: sin =en: ess:re:e placeser.: a:

l 6

,s~

elevation 703' - 7".

The tenden shea:hs vere, for the os:

par:, loca:ed a: an elevation in the nex: higher concre:e place =ent lif, except that they were diverted to the lover place =en: lif:

it was where they were omitted.:o pass under a stea= line pene:ra:1cn and Failure to rely on the proper sou:ce doce en:s by construction and inspection personnel, con:ributed to the o=1:sion.

(~m**v An LAL vas issued to the licensee en April 29 spelled cu: six licensee ce==itten:s fo

,1977, which included:

(1) repairs and cause corree:r correction which 1ve ac:ics; (2) expa:sfon of the licensee's QC over view pro 8:a=; (3) revisicas to p:ocedures a:d trai ing of cess: uction and inspec:1c pe:se:nel.

a A spe:ial QA pr:gra:

The inspec:1:n tes: vas =ade up of persensel f c= RI, p. :! ins

' Q.

A1:heu

, and d

vas :he ec=:gh five 1: :s of nen::=;11ance vare iden:1fied,1:

ensous of the inspe::::s tha: the licensee 's pr:gra: vas an accep:able p :gra: and :ha: :he. Midland

s:::::1== ac:ivities vers ::=p' arable to =cs: c: hor cens::ue:ics p;cje::s.

The licensee issued its final rep:::

en usus:

reviev en si:e vas :::du::ed and docu en:ad i: 12, 1977. Final 50-329/77-03.

reper: ::o.

C...e..

..-A.le=s l* " '

1.

?lan: Till - Diesel Ce: erat:: Suildin: se::le en:

The licensee infer:ed the RI1! office en Sep:e=ber 8,1975 of per require =en:s of 10 Cy2 50.55(e) tha:

diesel genera:c:

sa::le=en: of the foundations and s::uctures vare grea:e:

expe::ed.

than Till =4:erial in this area was placed berveen 1975 and 1977 vi:h cons uction starting on diesel generate:

' 14-1977.

building in

=

vi:h the spring run-off water. Tilling of the cocling pond began in early 1978 has increased approx 1=a:aly 21 fee:Over the year the wate: level

. _;;.:..a.

.4150..--

and in turn increasing the si:e sound va:e; level.

I:

is not k :vn at this :1 e

.vna: affec had on the plan fill and excessive se::le:en:(if any) the higher s Genera:or 3cilding.

of :he Diesel ini:ially the PSAR indica:ed an underdrain sys:e= vould beIt is in ins:alled to =ain:ain the ground vate; a:

level but tha: it la:er was dele:ed.

its nor=al (pre pond)

'"3 ' g ",

d

,easseme d aW48****

  • 7 a =.

. ~. -

j h...

?-

r

.. +. -.

The NRC activities, to date, include:

a.

Transfer of lead responsibili:y to NRK from II by =eco dated Nove=ber 17, 1978 b.

Site meeting on December 3-4, 1978, be:veen NRR, II,

.Consu=ars Power and'3echtal to discuss the plant fill problem and proposed corrective actica relative to the Diesel Genera:o Building se::le=ent

~

c.

RIII conducted an invas: iga:ics/inspec: ion relative :o the pla=: fill and Diesel Gemara:c luilding se::le::::

. The Cons::uctor/ Designer activi:ies include:

a.

Issued 80K-1482 (August 21, 1978) b.

Issued Managemen: C:::ee:1va Ac:ie: Kaport (MCA7.) No. 2:

(Sep:a:bar 7,1978)

Prepared a p;c; sed cc:rective ac:1on c; 1:n regarding c.

pla:e=e::lef sand overburden sur'cha:ge :o accelerata and achieve p;spe: ce=paction of diesel generate building sub soils 7:a*.i=inary :eview ef the results of :he K II~investiga:i==/

inspac:len in:= the plan: fill /Diasel Ger.e:a::: Suilding sa::le=an: ;; bla: indi:a:e =any even:s escurred be: vee:

la:e 1973 a f early 1975 which should have aler:ed 3ech:e1 and the licensee te :he pending p;oble=. These ever.:s included =cte: ferman:a rep ::s, audi: findings, field =e=es

= engineering and ;;oble=s vi:h the ad=1:is::ation buildi.g fill which caused =odifica:ies and re;1 ace =ent of the already poured foe:ing and replace =en: of the fill =a:arial with lean ce=cre:a.

2.

Insteetion and Quali:v Docu=entation to Ia:ablish Acce::abili:v of I:ui:=at:

This p chle= consists of :vo parts.and has just recen:1y been ide::1fied by KIII i= spec:::s rela:ive :e Midland.

The se:;e and depth of the proble= has no: been de:er=ined.

cones ns the adequacy of sagi=eering ' avslus:ica -

Tha firs: par:

of quality documentation (:sst repor:s, e:c.) :o deter =ine if

.the documen:a: ion es:ablishes that the 'equipmen: ' seats specifica:Los 'and e:vire==en:a1 eguire=en:s. The li:ensee.

Y

.y e

d e

S

f

$be./JCeMCee.$

vs44aw /aagt4m

'l f

on Nove=ber 13, 1978, issued a cons: rue: ion deficiency rape :

(10 C.7 50.55(e)) rela:ive to this =at:er. W e:her the re:crI____ %.

was triggered by RI!! inspector inquiriester by II Circular or 3u11etin is not k:evn.

An interis report dated Nove=ber 28, 1978 vas received and s: aced Consu=ars Pever was pursuing this ca:ter no: caly for 3echtel procured equipment bu: also for NSS supplied equi;=ent.

  • h 7 ne second part of the p;chle: concerns the adequacy of

< qui;=en: acceptance inspec: ion by Bech:e1 shop inspectors.

Exa:ples of this proble: include:

(1) Decay Heat Reseval Fu=;s released by the shop inspec:c and shipped :o the site vi:h one pu=p asse= bled backwards, (2) electrical pe e::a: ions inspected and released by the shop inspec:or for shi;:en: to :he si:e.

S1:e inspec: ions :o da:e indicate abcu: 25': cf the ve:dcr vire ter:1:ations were i=;;cperly cri: ped.

I.ste::ie Eiste v De cess:::::icn inspection ;;cs 'a= fer Xidland Units 1 and 2 is a;;;cri=a:ely 500 cc ;1e:e.

n is is censis:en: vi:h s:a:us of cc:s::ve:1c= of the :vo uni:s.

(U:1: 1 - 52 ; C:1: 2 - 560)

In :e:=s of required inspec:fon precedures ap; cxi_a:ely 25 have been ec:;1e:ed, 33 are in progress cad 36 have :: been initia:ed.

  • e routine inspe::ics pregra: has nc: identified an unusual.nu:bar cf enfe:ce:en: 1:e=s. Of :he selec:ed maje: eve::s dese:1 bed above, caly c:e is direc:1y a:: ibutable :c RIII enferce:en: ac:1vi:y (Cadwald s;11cing). na c: hor vere iden:ified by :he licensee and reper:ed th:cugh :he defician:y reper: sys:e= (30.53(e))..The Midland da:a for 1976 - 75 is :abula:ed belev.

Nu=her of Nu=her of I: spec:c Hours Yea--

"-- e:sliances

  • Inssections on Site 1976 14 9

646 1977 5

12 648 1978 11 18 706

...,_:..s.

A reside:t inspector was assigned to the Midland site in July 197S.

Mw n e on site i= spec:1cn hours shov= above does no: in:1ude his inspection ti=e.

De licensee's QA progra= has repeatedly been subjec: :o'in-dep:h reviev by II inspectors.

Included are 1.

July 23-26 and Augus: 8-10,1973,1: spec:Los repor: Nos. 50-329/73-06 and 50-330/73'06: A detailed review was condue:ed rela:ive to the

'I i=ple=en:ation of the Consu=ers Power Cc=pany's QA =anual and 3echtel Corporation's QA progra= for design activi:1es at the 3echtel Ann Arbor office. De ide=tified concerns vere reported as discrepancies.

P ~~N '

rela:1ve :o the Far: 50, A;pe=.'tx 3 crite:La require =en:s.

~

(- dee g e

g

2.

Septa =her 10-11, 1973, report Nos. 50-329/73-08.and 50-330/73-08:

A detailed review of the Rechtel Fover Corporation QA progra= for Midland was perfor=ed. Nonco=pliances involving three'separa:e Appendix 3 criteria with five diff erent exa=ples, were identified.

yebruary 6-7, 1974, reports No. 50-329/74-03 and 50-330/74-03: A

,follevup inspection at the licensee's corporate office, relative to the ite=s identified during the September 1973 inspection (above) along with othei fo11ovup.

4.

[ June 16-17,1975, repor: Nos. 50-329/75-05 and 50-330/75-05:

Special inspection condue:ed at the licensee's corpo a:e of fice to reviev the nev corporate QA progrs= =anual.

5.

August 9.through September 9,1976, report Nos. 50-329/76-08 and 50-330/76-08:

special five-week inspection regarding QA progra:

{

i=ple=e :ation on si:s primarily for rebar installa:ic: and other civil engineering work.

6.

May 24-27, 1977, reper: Nos. 50-329/77-05 and 50-330/77-08: special inspection condue:ed a: the site by RIII, II and RI perso==e1 to ext:1:e the QA program imple=en:a: ion on site by Consu=ars

~

7ever.C==pany and by Bach:e1 Corporati::. ' Although five exa=;1es l-cf nonco=pliance to Appendix 3 Cri: :1on V. vare identified. :he conse: sus of the inspec: ors involved was that the progra= and its

(

i=ple=ectation. for Midland was considered :o be adequate.

A1: hough the licensee's Quali:y Assurance progra= has under. gene a nu=ber of revisicas te streng:he: 1:s provisicus, no curren: concern exis:

.regarding its adequacy.

Their Tepical QA Flas has bes= eviewed'and accep:ed by F?.F. hrough revisi.cn 7.

I=ple=enza:ics of the presta= has been and con:inues to be subject to further review w1:h the =1d-cc:s: ue:1.c progra= review presently. scheduled for March or April 1979.

C0:se:ers Feve: Cc=pany expanded their QA/QC auditi=g and surveillance coverage to provide extensive overview inspection. coverage.

This began in 1975 with a ~ ce==1:=ent early in their experts:ce with rebar inst'allation proble=s and was further co==1tted by the licensee in his letter of June 18, 1976, responding to report Nos. 50-329/76-04 and 50-330/76-04.

This overview inspection activity by the licensee has been very effec:ive as a supple =en: to the constructor's evn prog s=.

Currently, this progra= is functioning across all significan: activi:les at the site.

}: fetes =en: Histerv Approxi=ately 6 months after restart of cor.struction ' activities (11 sanths af ter CF issuance) an inspection identified four nonco=pliance f ta=s-regarding cadwalding ac:ivities. This resulted in a shev cause order being issued on Dece=her'3, 1973. This enforce =ent action was aired publicly"during hearings held by the Ata=ic Safety Licensing Board

-in May 1974 The hearing board issued its decision in Septa =her 1971

- y 4

6 I

to

.e

,,_.......,..-..,m..

-~

.c.,,,,~-..,.

tha: concluded that construction could proceed vish adequate assurance of quality.

Ide::ification of reinforcing har proble=s began in Dece=ber of 1974 vi:h F

the l'icensee reporting i= proper spacing of rebar in the Unit 2 cc=:at=es:

vall.' Turther reinforcing bar spacing and/or'o ission of rebar was identified in' August 1975 and again in May 1976 s-ith the citations of 5 =ence=.pliances in an inspectie repor:. An II:EQ notice of violatic:

was issued regarding the citatic=s in addition to the licensee issuing a stop work order.

De licensee issued a respcase letter'datedfJune 19 1976 co it:ing to 21 ite=s of corrective ac:ic:.

A 3echtel prepared technical assess =en: for each instance of rebar deficiency was sub=1::ed

. to and review by II:HQ who concluded :ha the strue:ures involved vill satisfy the SAK cri:eria and that the func:ica of these s:ructures vill

'be =aintained during all design condi: ices. De 7.III office of NRC perfo=ed a special five week-inspectie: :c assess the corrective ac:ics isp*e=en:stic: vithout fur:her ci:a:ic:.

De licensee reper:ed that two hoop :enden shea:hs were o=1 :ed is cenere:e place =ents of Unit 2 contain=e:: vall in April 1977. A:

I=ediate A:: ion Le::er was issued to the licensee on April 29, 1977 lis:ing six 1:e=s of lice =see ec =1:=en:s to be co=pleted. A special inspec:1'c vas perfo=ed en May 24-27, 1977 vi:h four NRC inspectors (1-F.C 1-7.I. and 2-RIII). Although five ite s of nonce =pliance vere '

f identified.-1: vas the cessensus of the inspectors tha the QA/QC '

p =gra: in effec: vas adequate. ne constructors =enec fo=ance reper:

p;cvided as al:e=a:e =sthod of insta11atic: fe; the tenden sheaths tha: vas acce;:ed.

. n e ?.III office of inspectica and enforce =en: instituted an aug=en:ed on.si:e 1 spec:ica coverage progra= during 197, this p:ogrs= has co::inued in effee: ever since and is s:ill in effect. It is ne:ed :ha:

~

the nonce:pliance history vi:h this pros:4= is essen:ially the sa:e as the history of other RIII facili:ies vi:h a co: parable status of ' -

construction.- Turther on site inspection aug=en:stions was, accomplished Vi:h the assign =ent of a full time residen: inspec:o: in Augus:,-1975..

. ne nonec=pliance history for the F.idland Project is provided i:.the follo ing table.

6

.D 6

4

.g 60 e

.~

e g

  • n'70 RCD'.f.s.? ACTIoxs Noncespliances Criteria (10 CT?. 50 Appendix 3)

( ) Nu=ber c' Occurrances V, X, x1,.XVI

{mp1

a. -;g m.,;a. a. v.s m.,.> w :.v Cons: uction haul:ed pending CP II V(5) XIII, nt, nqr

/

v(2) y, :

V(I.)

x, XII, xy, ryg,gy;7,777I V CS) 10 Cn 30.33( )

e V(') v!(2), VII, :x(3),,w:

"b 3eed::cs 2:a ing Cen:::1 *.* :k

.-r mamW. r ;_-

~~- m &.*

csed.v.a:erial

.a1 Processes I

g - Tcs: Iquipnen:

p

.._, n,-, n -c ~ ~ r ~ *-

--- w

...... w..,

r *

~~ -

.s -

5 v

Y: ?. hc!

...........,......a

.>.4.. m...y.

.. e.u wa s "+1'-

m.4.4 4.=.M.J; J<. ;s..u..........

......u

.r 9-

        • ~"

r**

-7 a=='

e

~.

.m..."

[

~

r-

~~

  • ENTORCIXINT ACTIONS Nonco=pliances Criteria (10 C77. 50 Appendix I)

Year

  1. Total

( ) Nu=ber ef Occurtances V, X, XI,.XVI 1970

  • 4

- 1971-1972 0

Construe: ion haulted pending CP 1973-9 II V(5) XIII, XV, XVII 3

V(2) WI 1974 1975 0

'1976 10 v(4)

X, XII, IV, W I, XVII, IVIII 1977 5

V(3) 10 CTR 30.53(a) 1:e=

s 1978 11 V(4) VI(2), VII. IX(3), XVI Criteria-QA ?:ogra:

t V-Ins::ucticus ?:ocedu:es Dra -ing Ces:::1 '.*erk

~VI Docuses: Con::e1 V!!

Ces::a1 of ?c: chased Ma:erial a

IX Con:::1 of Special Processes X

Inspection III' Centro 1 Measuring - Tes: Equipment IIII Eandling - Storage XV Nonconfo":=ing Par:s XVI Correetive Ac: ions XVII.

QA Records IVIII Audi:s 5

e 4

e

/E-y

r a

z.-..

c.

1 y

Su-=arv and Conclusions Since the start of construction Midland has experienced some significant proble:s resulting in enforcement action. In evalua:ing these problers they have occurred in clu=ps:

(1) in Septa =ber 1970 relative to i= proper r

place =ent, sa=pling and tes:ing of' concrete and f ailure of QA/QC to act on iden:1fied deficiencias; (2) in Septe=her 1973 relative to drawing con:rel and lack'of or inadequate proceduras for cost ci of design and.

procurement activities at the 3echtel Engineering of;1ces; (3) in Neva=ber 1973 relative to inadequate training, procedures and inspec:ic:

of cadvald activities; (4) in April, May and June 1976 resulting frc=

a series of RIII in-depth QA inspections and =eetings to identify underlying causes of weakness in the Midland CA progra= i=ple=enta:Len rela:ive to e= bed en:s.

(The sosco=pliance 1:a=s iden:ified involved inadequa:e quality inspec:fon, corree:ive ac: ion, procedures and docu=anta:ics, all pri=arily concerned vi:h i=stallatica of reinforce::::

staal); (5) in April 1977 relative to ta= don sheath o=issions ; and (6) in August 1975 cc carning plant soil fou=datic:s and excessive se:tla=en: of the Diesel Genera:or 3=ilding.

yc11cvi=3 each cf these proble= periods (excluding the last which is still under investiga:i,on)2,the., licenses has5.nen responsive and has taken ex:ensive action to evaluate and correc: the proble= a=d :c up-grade his QA progrs= and QA/QC staff.

The nest effective of these licensee actiens has been an overview progra= which has been steadly expanded :e cevar al=es: all safe:y related activi:1es.

The evalua:ie: be:h by the licensee and '1I of the structures and equip =ent affec:ed by these proble=s (again excep: the las:) has as:ablished :ha: they fully nest design require ents.

Since 1974 these proble=s have either'been idan:1fied by :he lice =see's quali:y progra= or provided direction to our inspectors.

l Looki:s a: the underlying causes of these 'proble=s rvo ce==en threads l

s=arge:

(1) Consu=ars Power historically has tended to over rely on l

Bech:al, a=d (2) insensitiviry en the par: of both 3echtel and Consumers Power to recognize the significance of isolated events or failure :o l

, adequataly evalusta possible generic application of these even:s either of which would have led to early ida=:1fication and avoidance of the L

proble: includi=s,the last on plan: fill and diesel genera:or building l

settle =ent.

f.

Norvichstanding'the above, it is our conclusion that the pr' ble=s o

.axperienced are not indicative of a broadhraakdevn in the overall quali:y Ad=1t:edly, deficiencias have ' occurred which should I*

, assurance progra=.

. T have been identified earlier by; quality control personnai, but the licensee's pregra= has been effec:1ve in the ulti= ate identification and subsequent correction of these deficiencias. While ve cannot dis =1ss the possibilicy that proble=s may have. gone unda:ected by the licensee's overall' quality assurance progra=, our inspec:1on program has not identified

-significant proble=s. overlooked by the lice =see --- and this -inspec:ica affor: has utilized =any different i=spectors.

o 1

+,

,,,...c-.,

,n-,e--,

,,+-,.,,,-~,,~a

-,-~~,n.--

n, ~ e n

-,--.n-,--,-

The RIII project inspectors believe that continuation of:

(1) resident site coverage, (2) the licensee overview progran including its recent expa=sion into engineering design / review activities, and (3) a continuing inspection progran by regional inspectors s-ill provide adequata assurance that. construction vill be perforne,d in accordance with requirements and that any significant arrors and deficiencies vill be identified and corrected.

.9 O

4 e

e e

e e

e 4

e e

e e

e e

5 Y

e e

9 O

1 g

a 9

g 0

9 0

4 g

~

"~'

sG e

e 8

e

^~

S

.ree...

-r-,-r..

~,, - -,,

i

\\

Distribution:

i Docket F' e

L'.f R d ile NOV 2 71978 S. 'Mrga i

Hood -

i

. Williams Docket Nos:

50-329-M. Service i

50-330 l-li MEMORANDUM POR:

R. DcYoung, Director, Division of Sito i

Safety and Environmental Analysis.

l-l

.t.

R. Mattson,- Director, Division of Site Safety;-

t..

i FROM:

S. Varga, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST You_; assistance is requested for the'following:

i.

r Plant:

Midland Plant, Units 1 6 2 i

Applicant:

' Consumers Power. Company l.

Contact:

Darl S. !!ood, LWR #4 (27331) r,.

Review Branches: ~

'Geotechnical Branch r

Structural Engineering 3 ranch

j.,

t-Description of Request:

Provide support associated

}.

with technical resolution of settlement of structures at the i

Midland site as requested in sttached letter from transfer of Icad responsibility.

Also provide for support in hearings for this matter.

Target Completion Date:

Acceptable resolution required

".r",.'q,., '..,,..

prior to issuance of operating

. license.

.s

.. - : y.

.7.

e.

0rigi:31 sis: ec*. by:

l s

. S. A. Yarga >

l

. f..., f,,... '.., -*

r...

g

...e o

4 g

' 3.. ' ;,.. ' - ',.Jl.'.;

Steven A.'Varga,, Chi'ef

' hf;.' ".l.,.7j., i tf 5.i ~;'....h.

.. Division of Project Management

- {-

.. Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4

,e e

n,,.. e s.1,4

'.,,,,,,, I D.:Vass Illo

..D...P..M.. : LW

... 4.. '.D. PM: L' JE...4-f f

u

,.....g.....

..t...c.ym.

..D3p_3,_.4,_1,b,_

,p, g a,,,_g...

=====*

.......}!.....B e r ku.......~..~..

p

.1.1... 2.. 2.7.. 8........1.1..

7..S.......

r.

..n >

5 e mu m es.m mcu om

-tr...........,....................... p.y /y

/]

h'

-?..?'.h 5h$5 57.#c..... :.. t7. : au ::; x.w.- ~ v...-

&n%?'. 4. '. :p i(;g p y,f

  • .q,,-
. y:

u

..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20107A917&oldid=4299855"