ML20028B589
| ML20028B589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1982 |
| From: | Maurin L LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| References | |
| 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, 94, W3I82-0100, W3I82-100, NUDOCS 8212030055 | |
| Download: ML20028B589 (2) | |
Text
i O
e I OUISI AN A /,42 ouanoNoe srnar POW E R & L1G HT/ P O. BOX 6008 NEW ORLEANS. LOUIStANA 70174. (504) 366-2345 UTEONdysE November 23, 1982 t.v.uAuntN Voce President Nuclear Operatens W3I82-0100 Q-3-A35.07 Mr. John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 Potentially Reportable Deficiency No. 94
" Lack of Design Basis Accident Testing for Coating Systems M5-1 and MS-3" Final Report
REFERENCE:
Telecon from M. Livesay to J. Boardman (NRC) on October 23, 1982
Dear Mr. Collins:
On October 23, 1982 a problem with the lack of DBA testing for Coating Systems M5-1 and MS-3 used in the Reactor Containment Building was reported as Potentially Reportable Deficiency No. 94.
This letter is to inform you that after further evaluation, this specific problem is not considered to be reportable pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.55(e). Below is the basis for this conclusion.
Recent discussions with Ameron, Brea California and an in-house investigation concluded that there is sufficient DBA data to support the acceptability of coating system M5-1 (Amercoat 71/Amercoat 90) and coating system MS-3 (Dimetcote E-Z/Amercoat 90) over SSPC-SP6 Commercial Blast Cleaning.
The basis for these conclusions and a summary of the successful DBA tests are as follows:
{,1 f I.
System MS-1
,u A successful DBA test was conducted on the Repair of Dimetcote E-Z with Amercoat 71/Amercoat 90 (ORNL Report No. 2509 dated January 16, 1978).
A portion of the front side of the DBA test panel was not primed and allowed to rust.
This area (and a portion of the already E-Z primed area) was power tool cleaned. It was then p';imed with Amercoat 71 and topcoated with Amercoat 90.
8212030053 9231g3
{DRADOCK 05000382 PDR 1
Mr. John T. Collins W3I82-0100 Page 2 Since power tool cleaning neither provides the degree of cleanliness nor the surface profile when compared to SSPC-SP6 Commercial Blast Cle_ning, it is concluded that this system will meet the DBA require-a ments when applied to SSPC-SP6 cleaned steel.
2.
System MS-3 a) A successful DBA test (ORNL Report No. 2399 dated November 21, 1977) was conducted on Dimetcote E-Z over steel cleaned in accord-ance with SSPC-SP6 Commercial Blast Cleaning. No topcoat was
- applied, b) Dimetcote E-Z over SSPC-SP10 Near-White Blast cleaned steel and topcoated with Amercoat 90 was subjected to a DBA test (ORNL Report No. LR 2206 dated December 17, 1975) and passed.
Since Dimetcote E-Z over SSPC-SP6 cleaned steel, without any additional protection from the Amercoat 90 topcoat meets DBA requirements and data is already established for Dimetcote E-Z/
Amercoat 90 over SSPC-SP10 cleaned steel, it is concluded that Dimetcote E-Z/Amercoat 90 over SSPC-SP6 cleaned steel will meet DBA requirements.
In view of the above, this condition has been determined not to be reportable pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e).
Very truly yours, L. V. Hau LVM/ MAL:keh cc:
- 1) Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
- 2) Director Office of Management Information and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 3)
E. Blake 4)
W. Stevenson