IR 05000438/1982003
| ML20054D754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bellefonte  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1982 |
| From: | Upright C, Wright R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054D743 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-438-82-03, 50-438-82-3, 50-439-82-03, 50-439-82-3, NUDOCS 8204230355 | |
| Download: ML20054D754 (6) | |
Text
._
-
..
-
-
.
,.
..
'o UNITED STATES
,
~ g,J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
E-REGION 11
o 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 k
ATLANT/., GEORGIA 303J3 o
Report Nos. 50-438/82-03 and 50-439/82-03
Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 500A Chestnut Street Chattanooga, TN 37401 Facility Name:
Bellefonte Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439 License Nos. CPPR-122 and CPPR-123 Inspection at Bellefonte site near Scottsboro, AL Inspector:
t/. bM 3/+'[FE R. W. Wright g'
Oate Signed Approved by: MN 6A 3M L
C. M. Upright, '
iopfhief Grate ' Signed Engineering.In cti(pf Branch Division of En neering and Technical Programs SUMMARY
1 l
Inspection on February 9-12, 1982
!
Areas Inspected
'
This' routine, unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the areas of QA inspection of civil work performance protective coating activities and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
i Results Of the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in one
area; one violation was found in the protective coatings area paragraph 5.b.
!
+
ss04 30 M[
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
,,
..
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- W. R. Dahnke, Project Manager
- F. E. Gilbert, Construction Engineer
- G. K. Blackburn, General Construction Superintendent
- D. R. Bridges, Assistant Construction Engineer
- D. Smith, Assistant Construction Engineer (Mechanical)
- J. T. Walker, Assistant Construction Engineer (Civil)
- F. J. Huffman, Assistant Construction Engineer (Electrical)
- J. T. Barnes, QA Unit Supervisor
- A. Richards, Assistant Supervisor, EEU-QC
- J. H. Olyniec, Supervisor, CEV
- L. Johnston, Field Engineering Supervisor, MEU
- P. C. Mann, Engineer, CEO
J. W. Robinson, Journeyman Painter L. R. Tanner, Journeyman Painter R. Bashaw, Journeyman Painter W. C. Sears, Journeyman Painter
<
G. Lindsay, Painter Foreman, Dual Rate D. Nixon, Supervisor, Soils and Concrete Laboratory Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians, and QA/QC personnel.
NRC Resident Inspector
,
- J. D. Wilcox, Jr.
" Attended exit interview 2.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on February 12, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
3.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation 438-439/81-30-01:
Improper Curing and Testing of Concrete Cylinders.
The inspector examined the licensee's response dated January 21, 1982, and the implementation of the response.
Additional atomizers installed in the curing room are now providing moist curing conditions as prescribed by ASTM C-31.
Procedure BNP-QCP 5.11 is under revision to require a daily documented inspection of the acceptability of
.
-
-
. - - -
-.
.
.
.
g.
, g i
!
i L
the curing room facilities. Laboratory tescing QC personnel now perform a
" Rate of Loading Verification" test each day prior to the testing of l
'
concrete cylinders for compressive strength. Satisfactory accomplishment of
!
the rate of loading test is documented on existing QA record, TVA-Concrete
Cylinder Data Sheet - Compressive Strength Testing". QCIR 14764 written on
,
this matter resulted in the licensee performing a back-check on all cylinder l
'
test results since the-initial calibration of the compression machine to
!
-
assure that a 4 percent decrease in strengths already recorded would not
deviate from that required by TVA's construction specification G-2.
This
!
back-check revealed all strengths to be within the requirements.
The
inspector exmained the curing room facilities, monitored the rate of-
.
verification tests, and subsequent concrete cylinder testing and found these
'
activities satisfactory.
!
(Closed) Violation 438-439/81-27-01:
Procurement Contract Implemented l
Without Acceptable Verification of Supplier.
The inspector examined the
!
licensee's response dated December 3,1981, and the implementation of the L
response. The bidders awarded the contract were referred to the Division of i
Engineering Design QA Branch for supplier evaluation and were subsequently
-
approved as acceptable suppliers by separate memoranda dated October 19, 1981 (QAS 811019004 and QAS-811019005).
Previous review of the subject'
contract revealed that all certifications and documentation were present as
' -
required by contract.
To avoid recurrence of the problem a memorandum
(BLN 811023041) was sent from the site to the Open Market Procurement Branch
>
i alerting them to the necessity of forwarding all requisitions for
j safety-related material to the construction site personnel for supplier
evaluation prior to award in accordance with procedure ID-QAP-4.4.
- i
'
4.
Unresolved Items
,
{
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
5.
QA Inspection of Civil Work Performance (350618)
i t
The inspector observed the-interior protective coatings work in progress at
the West D ring wall inside primary containment of Unit 2.
This inspection i
was conducted to determine whether site work is being performed in
'
i accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments; the QA/QC program is
functioning in a manner to assure requirements and commitments are met; and to assure that prompt and effective action is taken to achieve permanent
!
corrective action on significant discrepancies.
i.
a.
The following acceptance criteria were examined to verify the i
inspection objectives:
i FSAR Section 3.8.1.6
.
TVA General Construction Specification G-55, R2, Surface l
.
Preparation, Application and Inspection of Special Protective l
Coatings for Nuclear Plants
[
.
t
.-
ee 3.-
.i=
---g-
-nan-i.
-
--+-ie
,i_%
%
---e--ey---r-d-+---ePirz-"-
- - * - ' - + - - ^ - - + * - -
-7-+---m* - + -
d
-* -
F*
---^-rr------r"e'
T
'pW-W+'
~-
W9-+-mC-
'
-
_
_
-
..
.
-
,
,
ANSI N101.2-1972, Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities Regulatory Guide 1.54, R0, QA Requirements for Protective Coatings
.
Applied to Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants BNP QCP 2.4, R5, Protective Coatings for Concrete And Carbon Steel
.
Surfaces BNP QCP 10.11, R8, Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment
.
BNP QCP 10.23, R0, Qualification of Protective Coating Applicators
.
BNP QCP 10.30, R2, Craft QA Training
.
Owg. No. 66WO470-00-01, R3, and 09 R1, Powerhouse Units 1 and 2
.
Reactor Building, Architectural Protective Coating, Areas of Application The inspector reviewed the above listed acceptance criteria and
utilized observations of completed work and discussions conducted with craft and QC personnel to determine if the latest revisions of these documents were being employed and are in agreement with the SAR; to
-
determine if these documents adequately describe critical points and methods of application as well as inspection and test holdpoints - to properly reflect design intent.
b.
Field Inspection
Field observations and discussions with painting crafts and QC personnel were conducted to cover the following phases of protective coatings work: storage, mixing, surface preparation, environmental
condition considerations, coating application, testing (adhesion and film thickness) to veri fy program implementation.
Inspector
,
discussions with four painting craftsmen, observation of their work i
indicated the crafts level of knowledge pertaining to their work tasks
,
was adequate to provide the required quality of workmanship. Three
,
,
coating applicators and one mixer's certification records were examined
'
and all four found qualified.
!
Procedure QCP 10.3, Revision 2 defines QA training required for craft
superintendents, assistant craf t superintendents and, active hourly
foremen.
Section 5.4.1 of the subject procedure states in part that the Construction Engineer designates and shows on Attachment C eprocedures in which each craft (craft superintendent, assistant craft superintendent, and active hourly foremen) will be trained.
Training
,
records examined for the assigned painting active hourly foreman who
'
normally supervises the above mentioned protective coatings crew reveal this foreman (Badge No.10-040) had received training in only two of the five required procedures listed on Attachment C for Painters. The subject foreman was hired by TVA on 1/16/78 and has been a foreman
..
since 7/23/79.
Examination of additional craft supervisory training I
records and discussions with responsible site personnel revealed this
deficiency is not confined to paint craft supervision personnel only.
The above example of failure to achieve required QA training of craft supervision personnel was identified as violation 50-438-439/82-03-01.
'
i
,
.
- _ - -
.. - -
- -
- - - _
-_ -
_ _.
_ _.. -
-,.
_
__
_
_
_ _
_
>-
..- -..
.
.
4
i l
c.
Quality Control The inspector reviewed the above listed QC procedures (paragraph 5.a)
'
'
and conducted discussions with a QC inspector to determine if the i
frequency, timing, acceptance criteria utilized for testing and j
inspection of protective coatings work was adequate and that QC findings received proper management attention.
Examination ' of the subject protective QC inspectors training and qualification records
-
.
revealed he was qualified in the inspection duties he pecformed.
d.
Nonconforming Items Reports The inspector reviewed selected reports on safety related protective coatings discrepancies..that have occurred during various phases of coating activities to verify as applicable that:
l the action taken corrected the items
.
]
.
the items were considered for reportability to the NRC the instituted effective action prevented recurrence
.
the licensee has an adequate program to detect trends in
.
,
discrepancies
'
j Protective coating related NCRs and QCIRs reviewed included the i
following: NCRs 1145, 1179, 1340, and QCIRs 12515, 13621, 14070, 14379
)
and 14930.
'
i
!
The inspector examined the following Bellefonte Nuclear Quality Trend i
Analysis Reports:
,
.
Quality. Trend Analysis Report of Audit Items (to include audits of Construction QA, Authorized Nuclear Inspector, OEDC-QA, and ASME Surveys) for the period October - December 1981
i
,
Quality Trend Analysis Report of Significant and Reportable Items
.
(to include NRC noncompliances, 10 CFR 50.55(e) and - 10 CFR 21 i
reportable items, significant nonconformance (NCRs), significant construction and OEDC audit deficiencies) for the period October -
December 1981
!
Quality Trend Analysis Report (Draft) of site QCIRs and
.
nonsignificant NCRs for the period July - December 1981 Review of the subject trend analysis reports and discussions with responsible QA personnel revealed the licensee has an effective program
to detect trends in discrepancies, the program does an excellent job in
identifying the root cause of the problem and TVA's involvement in
follow" actions appears adequate.
i
<
,- - - -
,v
,-,,. -, -
- -. -
,-
,
,e--
-,-.w,..,,
,,, - -.
..,,
p.
..-,,,
c.e-,. - -
-
-
.s
.a r
e.
Materials and Equipment Examination of the paint storage and mixing shed areas revealed proper controlled environmental conditions and that all paint examined was found useable or still within its aliowable shelf life. Discussiosn conducted with the paint mixer revealed adequate measures were implemented to control paint mixing, issue and recovery of (extended pot life) expire,. paint. The following t'..ing equipment utilized in protective coating activities was exami.. for current calibration evidence; MiKrotest (SN 8908) dry film thickness gage, surface temperature thermometer (SN 8804), sling psychrometer (CEU-ST-55) and Elcometer adhesion tester (BNP CEP-AT-2).
f.
Audits (1) BN-C-78-06 Protective Coatings (2) BN-C-79-09 Protective Coatings (3) BN-C-81-02 Protective Coatings The inspector reviewed the above !isted site QA audits performed on various phases of pr atective coating activities to determine whether the licensee audit results indicate when applicable that:
Drawings are in agreement with the SAR
.
.
Application is in accordance to drawings, specifications and procedures Craftsmen are qualified and competent to perform the work they are doing Field engineer reports are technically accurate QC procedures and inspectors meet requirements CDRs, NCRs and QCIRs are accurate Materials and equipment meet specifications
.
These audits were also examined to determine if they were meaningful, ef fective, reflect quality performance, and whether corrective actions taken as a result of audit findings were proper, timely, and complete.
Within the above areas of protective coating activities examined, no deviations were identified. One violation 50-438-439/82-03-01, Failure to achieve required QA training of craft supervision personnel (paragraph 5.b)
was identified.