ML091190778

E-mail from C. Taylor of Exelon Corp. to J. Richmond of USNRC, Regarding Timing of Finding 8 by 8 Third Layer of Coating Not Applied

ML091190778
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/23/2008
From:	Chutima Taylor Exelon Corp
To:	Richmond J Engineering Region 1 Branch 1
References
FOIA/PA-2009-0070
Download: ML091190778 (4)

Text

Sarah Rich From: Calvin.Taylor@exeloncorp.com Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:15 AM To: John Richmond

Subject:

FW: Timing of finding 8" by 8" third layer of coating not applied

--- Message -----

-- Original From: Polaski, Frederick W Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:12 AM To: Taylor, Calvin C.; Quintenz, Tom; Kandasamy, Jhansi R.; Hufnagel Jr, John G

Subject:

RE: Timing of finding 8" by 8" third layer of coating not applied The reinspection of 4 bays with a different Level 2 was in bays 3, 7, 15, 19. The issue in bay 9 was found very late in the outage by Chris Hawkins, the Level 3 when he was doing his final inspections. Chris found the condition only by very close visual observation while shining a flashlight at different angles. The painters could not find the 8x8 area when they entered bay 9 to apply the third coat. The 8x8 area was coated with a third coat to make sure that location had all 3 coats of epoxy.

Fred Polaski License Renewal Manager Exelon Nuclear 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square PA 19348 610-765-5935 Original Message -----

From: Taylor, Calvin C.

Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:59 AM To: Polaski, Frederick W; Quintenz, Tom; Kandasamy, Jhansi R.; Hufnagel Jr, John G

Subject:

FW: Timing of finding 8" by 8" third layer of coating not applied Fred, I see that you were the originator on this IR. John is planning on bringing up the timing of finding this up at the exit.

Was the additional inspections of four bays by a different Level II adequate (if he or she missed this condition)?

Cal Original Message -----

From: Taylor, Calvin C.

Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 7:30 AM To: Tamburro, Peter

Subject:

Timing of finding 8" by 8" third layer of coating not applied John Richmond called this morning and was wondering about the timing of finding the 8 by 8 missing coating (IR 844815).

After water was identified in Bay 11 we went back with a different Levell I inspector to four additional bays.

How was the issue in Bay 9 found? Was it after we did the four additional inspections?

[Taylor, Calvin C.)

Originator: FREDERICK W POLASKI Supv Contacted: Fred Polaski Condition

Description:

NDE observation of drywell shell coating during inspection of the coating in bay 9 identified an area approximately 8 inches by 8 inches that appears to possibly not have had the final coat applied, or the final coat is very thin. There are also 2 black spots in the coating. These appear to be holes in the first and second coat (if applied), but the primer is intact. There is noindication of rust. The area is located 6 feet to the left of the entrance tunnel, about 8 inches above the floor. The observation of the issue with the final coat was made by a very slight, j difference in color of the 8 inch by 8 inch area as compared to the rest of the coated surface. .....

Immediate actions taken:

None Recommended Actions:

Apply the final (second) coat. Work order R2094623, activity 25 has been previously prepared as a contingency for repairs to the coating. The repair consists only of application of the final coat. Primer and first coat are not needed.

What activities, processes, or procedures were involved?

Not known..

Why did the condition happen?

Most probably during application of coating in 1992.

What are the consequences?

No impact on drywell shell. No observed rust. Primer and applied coats are in good condition.

Were any procedural requirements impacted?

None Were there any adverse physical conditions?

No. Drywell shell shows no rust or corrosion.

List of knowledgeable individuals:

Fred Polaski Tom Quintenz Repeat or similar condition?

No. Other issues with drywell shell coating were due to mechanical damage

'during work in the sand bed region. This issue appears to be from original installation.

Operable Basis:

N/A Reportable Basis:

N/A 2

Reviewed by: THOMAS J BUSK 11/13/2008 18:34:29 CST Reviewer Comments:

None SOC Reviewed by: RALPH C LARZO 11/14/2008 15:19:23 CST SOC Comments:

DRYWELL AND TORUS (SEE NR01 & TORUS VESSEL) 11/14/08 RCL: Close to contingency WO to R2094623-25.

Calvin C. Taylor Sr. Licensing Engineer 609.971.4031 TEAMlOyster Creek Exelon Nuclear CaringAbout the Environment is the Nature of Our Job

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon Corporation family of Companies. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you arehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank You.

• 3

Received: from OWMS01 .nrc.gov (148.184.100.43) by R1 MS01 .nrc.gov (148.184.99.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:15:35 -0500 Received: from mail1 .nrc.gov (148.184.176.41) by OWMS01 .nrc.gov (148.184.100.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:15:35 -0500 X-Ironport-ID: mail1 X-SBRS: 4.8 X-MID: 34049899

.X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:

Au4AAK9zUEnGHb8zlGdsb2JhbACCQBcYI49RgQsBAQEBCQsICREES6ovWIUHCYw qhRKBMQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.36,271,1228107600";

d="scan'208,217";a="34049899" Received: from webmail.exeloncorp.com (HELO exeloncorp.com) ([198.29.191.51])

by mail .nrc.gov with ESMTP; 23 Dec 2008 08:15:18 -0500 Received: from ([130.197.106.20]) by cccunironl.exeloncorp.com with ESMTP id 5402003.119025957;Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:14:54 -0600 Received: from CCCMSXCH06.energy.power.corp ([130.197.153.205]) by CCCMSCONO1 .energy.power.corp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:14:54 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes: message MIME-Version: 1.0

Subject:

FW: Timing of finding 8" by 8" third layer of coating not applied Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:14:54 -0600 Message-ID:

<CEEAA8F52C444947A9FA014B7341 D8A1 01 425539@CCCMSXCH06.energy. power.

corp>

X-MS-Has-Attach:

X-MS-TN EF-Correlator:

Thread-Topic: Timing of finding 8" by 8" third layer of coating not applied Thread-Index: Aclk+jxZT3ojcrPhTnST39vjwdGJ KgAAOgsgAACDFCAAADCAgA==

From: <Calvin.Taylor@exeloncorp.com>

To: <john.richmond@nrc.gov>

Return-Path: Calvin.Taylor@exeloncorp.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2008 13:14:54.0673 (UTC)

FILETIME=[722DOC1 0:01 C96500]

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----= NextPart_001_01 C96500.71 F1 83FA"