IR 05000440/1985064
| ML20138B747 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1985 |
| From: | Norton J, Williams C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138B745 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-440-85-64, NUDOCS 8510220013 | |
| Download: ML20138B747 (3) | |
Text
.
. _ _.
_ _.
.
_ _
..
__._ _._
-
_ _ _ _
!
'
i
.
.
i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION III
I
!
Report No. 50-440/85064(DRS)
l Docket No. 50-440 License No. CPPR-148
}
Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating-Company
!
Post Office Box'5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 j
,
Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 l
f Inspection At: Perry Site, Perry, Ohio Inspection Conducted:- September 12-16, 1985
'
h
[b kN I
' Inspector:
J. F. Norton
/C)//!E
.
'
f
'
'
Date
&wh{Y a
Approved By:
C. C. Williams, Chief
/ O///h[
!
Plant Systems Section Date/
/
l
Inspection Sumary
+
i Inspection on September 12-16, 1985 (Report No. 50-440/85064(DRS))
!
Areas Inspected: Special unannounced inspections regarding allegations i
concerning service level-1 coatings. The inspection involved a total of
17 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector.
Results: No violations or deviations were identified.
)
T
.
i h
i i
i i
,
!
!
G s
,
-
,
-.n
- -
.--
+.
-.,
. -
.-r
- -. -,. - -.
~
,
, -,,.. - -., -
.
-
._.
-
- - -.
.
.
-
-
-
..
-
'
.
i
'
!
,!
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI)
)
- C Shuster, Quality Assurance Manager
- E. Riley, General Supervisor, Construction Quality Section
- A. Lambacher, Supervisor, Operations Quality Section
- R. Clifford, Lead Engineer
i
- C. McCoy, Nuclear Engineering Department, Engineer l
- K. Pech, Supervisory Engineer, Nuclear Construction Engineering l
,
Department
- N. Lehman, Staff Analyst
- G. Gerber, Element Supervisor
,
- F. Stead, Manager, Nuclear Engineering Departnent
,
- B. Ferrell, Licensing Engineer i
R. Reifsnyder, Quality Engineer
~
J.' Victory, Operations Test Engineer l
'
D. Thompson, Lead Systems Engineer
.
M. Kritzer, Supervisor, Civil / Structural Unit
'
Metalweld Incorporated
,
l W. Avery, Quality Assurance Supervisor
j R. Garrett, Assistant Project Manager j
D. Leaverton, Quality Control Inspector
- Denotes those attending the exit interview conducted September 16, 1985.
.
I 2.
Followup on Allegations
'
(Closed) Allegation RIII-85-A-0152.
In March 1985, the Ohio Citizens
for Responsible Energy (OCRE) stated in a 10 CFR 2.206 petition to the
'
NRC that employees of Metalweld Incorporated, the coatings contractor at the Perry Nuclear Plant, had threatened to mix coatings incorrectly (s)
so
,
that the material would flake off within a year. Also, the alleger
,
t stated paint was flaking in the containment structure near the 689
elevation level and on equipment hatches.
i i
NRC Review
.
.a.
Direct inspection by the NRC inspector of service level I coatings in the drywell and containment revealed several localized areas of i
coating failures. However, in general the coatings appeared to be
,
in good condition. The licensee had documented t'1e localized areas i
of coating failures on Nonconformance Reports (NRs), and repair will be accomplished under normal program procedures. These localized
,
,
l areas of coating failure did not appear to be due to improperly
l
I
I l
'
!
-.
.
_,. -., -
-
-
. - - _ - _.
- -. _.
.. -
-
- _,, - -
.
.
mixed coating materials. They appeared to be the result of discrepant application. Most of the areas were identified and documented by the licensee, prior to hRC's notification and examin-ation of the subject allegation. The licensee's inspection program would have iden;ified the additional areas noted by hRC.
b.
Inspection of Metalweld's quality records for March and April of 1985 was accomplished by the inspector. No NRs or other adverse quality records related to coating mixing problems were documented.
The contractor's QA/QC program was discussed and examined with Metalweld's QA Supervisor and the Assistant Project Manager. No deficiencies were noted. Based on discussions with the coating contractors craft personnel, no instances of improperly mixed coating material has occurred.
Conclusion The allegation (s) were not substantiated. Although localized failure areas exist, as alleged, they have been identified and are being treated under the ongoing construction quality program. No additional followup cction is planned.
3.
Exit Interview The Region III inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted under Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 16,
'985.
The inspector summarized the purpose and findings of the i
inspection. The licensee acknowledged this information. The inspector
.,
also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report. Certain documents reviewed during the inspection were identified by the licensee as being proprietary.
This information is not included in this inspection report.
.
9
.I
1
-