TXX-4232, Forwards Response to Findings in Section IV of BNL Interim Rept on Protective Coatings,Per NRC .No Safety Concerns W/Protective Coatings at Facility.Backfit Program Properly Conceived & Implemented
| ML20114A025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1984 |
| From: | Fikar L TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Bangert R NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20114A010 | List:
|
| References | |
| TXX-4232, NUDOCS 8501250494 | |
| Download: ML20114A025 (47) | |
Text
{ i
+
p, y .
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY MKYWAY TE DWEN
- 400 NORTil OR IVE MTHEET, L.H. M1
n:::: aeama w fir. Richard L. Bangart, Director Region IV Comanche Peak Task Force i
M '*
eon United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission f/
611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 -
Arlington, TX 76011 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 BROOKHAVEN INTERIM REPORT ON PROTECTIVE C0ATINGS FILE NO. 906.1, 10010
Dear fir. Bangart:
This responds to your letter of May 23, 1984 relative to the interim report on CPSES protective coatings prepared by Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). We have previously responded to each of the sixty allegations that you had received relative to the adequacy of pro-tective coatings at CPSES and have provided documentation and other information relative to Section III of the BNL Report (see our letter numbers TXX-4201 dated June 22, 1984 and TXX-4225 dated July 16, 1984). ;
The attachment provides our responses to findings in Section IV of '
the BNL Interim Report.
Based on the information we have provided in responses to the sixty allegations, the documentation and other information provided to you in our response to Section III, and our responses to the findings in Section IV, we do not agree with the Conclusions (item 2 and 3) in Section V of the Brookhaven Report.
Our position is that there are no safety concerns with the protective coatings at CPSES, the backfit program was procerly conceived and im-plemented, and therefore, no corrective actions are necessary, i
l i
l 0501250494 e41106 PDRADOCK05000g A DEVENDON OF TEXAN t"TELITIEN ELECTHIC COMPANY L_ -.
e- .
1
- s. , , ,
, a l Mr. ' Richard L. Bangart cJuly 20, 1984.
Page'2~
u l
l Please advise if you require additional information.
Sincerely, ,
s 1 q.
- L. F Fik r i
s i
e
- LFF
- pew-cc: Mr. Thomas A. Ipoolito Mr. John Collins
- l I
f 4
s 4
y .
l' j
-4
+ - - _ _ -
o .
TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. A.1 BNL has performed independent tests on the protective coatings at the site. On a random basis, 6 areas of approximately one hundred (100) square feet were chosen at various elevations and various azimuths.
Two areas represented liner plate, two areas represented miscellaneous steel and two areas represented concrete surfaces. In each area, five (5) test dollies of approximately 1/2 square-inch were glued to the protective coatings and a pull of 250 psi was applied to the test dollies. If a dolly separated from the surface, the force that caused the separation was recorded. If the dolly did not pull off the surface at 250 psi, a reading of 250 psi was recorded and the dolly was knocked off of the surface after the instrument had been returned to a reading of zero and removed.
For the liner plate, a failure rate was exhibited of.4 out of 10, or 40%. Failures occurred in both test areas with corrected readings of 156, 186, 186 and 186. For miscellaneous steel, no failures were recorded in ten (10) tests, and for concrete surfaces, a failure of the concrete was experienced at a corrected reading of 156 psi for one test and no failures of the protective coatings in nine (9) tests.
In addition to the Elcometer adhesion pull tests, 30 Tooke (scratch) tests were performed adjacent to the pull tests. No "out of ,
specification" conditions were recorded in the dry film thicknesses testing.
BNL's observed failure rate for the liner plate is unacceptable.
~
Although it was limited in scope, it raises questions bout the
. adequacy of the Backfit Program for the liner plate.
Page I w )
i , .
N .;
TXX-4232 07/20/84
' Response IV. -A.1' Applicants disagree with the finding by BNL relative to the coatings backfit program as the result of the few adhesion tests performed by them. This ,
disagreement stems.from two basic areas of the BNL evaluation:
- 1) BNL has apparently expanded the scope of the backfit program beyond that intended and documented by Applicants. -A review of Applicants response to NRC I&E Report 81-15 as well as,the backfit procedures-clearly establishes the backfit program scope. It was designed to establish confidence in contings that had been applied prior to late 1981 (where inspection records were incomplete) and not as a measure of coatings application activities-accomplished since late 1981. These latter'ac'tivities,have"been accomplished and fully documented in
- r. n .
accordancewith'theedtahlishedQAprogram.
- 2) The area under the eq ipment hatch (approximately Azimuth 225 and .,
. Elevation.813') where three of the four adhesion values were less than 200 psi (actual recorded readings were 150, 180 and 180 psi), had not been included in the backfit program because.this. area had not been painted at the time the backfit program was implemented.- Furthermore,
~
the BNL test results were classified as nonconformisg via NCR C-84-00921. Additional testing clearly show the lower values obtained-by BNL'to be extremely isolated and of no consequence, b ,
,o The fourth lower reading (180 psi) obtained by BNL was at-Elevation 945andAzimuth180.-'Again,additionaltesdIng.hasshownthisvalue to be extremely. isolated.
Contrary.to the finding by BNL, results of the backfit program demonstrate.
adequacy of the liner plate coatings. (See Response III. D.11 and ,III. D.12,
~
, TXX-4225 dated July 1.6,. 1984). / J' '
..t
$v G:
Page.2 e
~.
- N s 0
r
's ~ .
TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. A.2 During the week of March 18, 1984, BNL observed an area at approximately elevation 860 and azimuth 175 of the liner plate that was being repaired because of recent unacceptable adhesiot test readings and visible deterioration. This same area had acceptable adhesion test readings during initial backfit testing in December 1982. This again raises doubts about the adequacy of the Backfit Program for the liner plate.
Response IV. A.2 The area in question had been "backfit" inspected in December 1982.
These tests were performed by pulling 3 dollies per test; each test representing 500 square feet of coating. NCR C-83-03015 (attached) was prepared November 9, 1983 for loss of adhesion properties. A sketch of the area found defective is attached to the NCR. BNL personnel observed rework of this area in progress as directed by the NCR disposition.
We are unable to reach the same conclusion drawn by BNL with regards to this NCR, i.e., raising doubts about the adequacy of the backfit program, for two reasons:
- 1) As only 3 dollies were pulled in an area of 500 square feet, it is certainly possible that the dollies were not placed over coatings which ultimately failed, and i
Page 3 L J
r s .' .
TXX-4232 07/20/84
' 2) Coating work (which stripped existing coatings by power tooling),
was performed in the referenced area after backfit inspection occurred. (See, for example, PC49,983 and PC100,005, attached).
If these were the coatings that subsequeat;v failed, they would not have been subjected to the backfit program.
In either case, the coatings which failed were identified by the QA program and subsequently reworked to acceptable standards. No further action is warranted.
Page 4
-- . . , , > . , - - - , - -m, ., -,
- ( 1ANCHE PEAK STEAM ELEC CS 'lON
- TEP.S UTILITIES NCR N
. NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) C- 3-03015 R.1
.' [GEhERA' TIM CO. '
UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /ID NUMBER LOCATION R ELEVATION RIR NO.
Reactor ITotective Az. 16 1
Containment Bldg. Coatings N/A 866' - 867' N/A NONCONFORMING CONDITION Applied coatings on Containment Liner Ilate exhibit loss of adhesion properties, therefore rendering the quality of the applied coatings indeterminate. Original y cause of failure appears to be mechanical damage, but surrounding areas exhibit total o loss of adhesion properties. (i.e. total coating system, phenoline 305 & cz-11, is m w wremc
@ peeling at edges and exposing steel sQ:g.,cd Area is located directly behind column e #9 at Az.1690 El. 866' - 867'. Additional areas have been identified as
[ approximately 5 feet to the left of the area directly behind column #9 (3-4 spots less AT Ttie tr o than 2 sq. inches) and approximately 5 feet below strh--t- floor level, El. 860' 0".
- a. ^ e m9n E (1 spot approximately 6 inches in diameter) 2323-AS-31 1 REFERENCE DOCUMENT. QI-QP-11.4-5 nev 26 p,g, 39 fav k;ra / 6 d B An / s,2e 1 -
OE REVIEW / APPROVAL: DATE:
w O
h 0'{ & 4l 0 /28/Sb ACTION ADDRESSEE DEPARTMENT Kissinger Engineering DISPOSITION:
REWORK REPAIR M USE AS IS
N :
^
With addition of other small areas in same per QI-QF-11.4-23 l{hh .
sion tegts m
$ Repair areas found unacceptable per CCP-30. QA RECORD 7
8 >
ARtAS
""'"3"M riue uO.
l DEXED SUDFILE NO.
-t O
4 DATb EN R V EW/ APPROVAL DATE: ,
xr N I\ V Illi b h / N /M -
\
OE% VIEW AP R VAL: DATE: l w
O h .
, m _
/Z-/ / /0 l DISPOSITION V RIFICATION & CLOSUR
/ DATE:
/ ,. Y /f/
COMMENTS: #
R.1 issued to add to nonconformance and disposition.
t-
l
~
'~~
STEEL PROTECTIVE COATING INSPECTION TRAVELER PCI TRAVELERn Ul-00 T R R l
- 8" '
f _ @ - P{
l 3, 860' Aa- 165 *-170 ITEM # / DESCRIPTION (20)
E"'
,, JPG - R 1 L -569-0L S & 1\TC & - Mva < c " '
,a I
g ggg gy.g' /fd' . DATE I -D-OI 2 h i -rf'/1) l
", I
~ '
ACCEPTABLE STEP SURFACE PREPARATION INSPECTED AND FOUND RELEASED FOR PRIMER APPLICATION.
PER QI-OP il.4- -
INSPECTO _
, "/J" 4 ATE S 2 7-N !
COMMENTS _ d F-U _
. (
ECTED AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE
(
PRIMER APPLICATION IN
~- STEP PER OI-OP l1.4-2 RELEASED FOR FINISH COAT APPLICATION.
INSPECTOR yWA DATE 3 2S' O
I COMMENTS M l
STEP FINISH COAT APPLICATION INSPECTED AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE PER QI-QP il.4 6 INSPECTOR 2-f.ed.ubATE 5'2O COMMENTS M
[
STEP FINISH COAT INSPECTED FOR FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND FOUND
- ACCEPTABLE PER Q -QP I .4-26 INSPECTOR ~ DATE h ~ / ' 89 4 \ e va -sn i t COMMENTS ' '" I 5 !.i W !!i L U }l 9 Tl P 7 3
STEP COMPLETION OF INSPECTION TRAVELER VERIFIED.
l QC REVIEW DATE M N C0uuENTS S&lWG SR DAUk77eAl 6^>LY.
SMoe s *f vvizo "S3 i
i) DOCUMENT INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES ON ATTACHED SUPPORTING N DOCUMENTATION SHEET (S) 0 2) DOCUMENT REPAIRS AND ATTRIBUTES,lF REQUIRED,0N ATTACHED l T SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SHEET (S) :
E 3) FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REFERENCE THE -
ENVIRONMENTAL LOG. .
S L _ _
4 PROTECTIVE COATING INSPECTION TRAVELER CPPORTING DOCUMENTATION '
2 wonx exo.no.1-do-N pc TRAVELERHO. S ~ N U D)
ENTRY STEP APPLICATOR S BATCH MIN MAX AVG INSTR LOC SAT INSD DATE TIME COMMENTS
N / / }& /W da /A / NA WR Elk 3IVr hNNA% ' '
'% 5 SH -1sbl M '
of kr 2n
~
m 8 /e de M' 01% /F2"
$ 0Mfyrr/nk4. El 6 SW 'r'o Y10*. ?C4 5/*00272))
~~~~
?V -n A '/"/T , a lE V 1 /* / $ / $ k % i 1- V [fff 3-22-1c n/tt A/$ & #R W 9ff*& %tlq I SS w h $e % ef jny) 8 W 3 / un hA Lin nAM5 29/3 A Mr '11MULhlk 0% Llo noi, /66 3 dni, Lok cx,o eP Linfit IXArt in AWLA DERMD RV
" AE ISZ'ro Az /70,(Arnded
& , ElRiso Yo ELR68 (Armesh-4f m /$ffMHfD AtfKFl, $rytpWL t*Jtd}LE C a
~
area-rcev a acrexmibn w/
i DrAL THilkNfk4 8Ax t.
& 'Z. rcq'bW4V 3-Z4-15 MA MA NA No A AAr DfAL '
Trihy t/A Plc k L o u p. u r u ce # 5 1 .
rvSovex ro ZM wr 5 2 ' M'mKW W;3; p'+ n's AM erEA STT 44,k *kf' ' ilk- M : ^.',:l% ? " "'*"
9 2. u in hu A.o 70 u inut % M W wn % W M Weg:Ku,W 4M r 3 VM W"' 3-ze*z tth an h JW Pn %A M M9 % %% " M CC1;;W .-** ''P'"*' av 8 2 u ri ae s.o ,s c,.o Q% A %dM16. % 9&s g%%W:;py& MP
9 5 W7 %% 3% 3 wcz un uh an #- A 912 % 's % % yti L9ti'tG. %%?.7 n% c m l,u 30 O O V E 3C M i 6kT tO 3' EW 3 .1 f.-us #b #/A "b VA A S!W U,,)9li,// Y4 TQ?, A ddll;,,,,, f a.ru(li.,[,,. .$ My ,
ln 2 *% % a.5 4,. <r so-WJ 4 SAT L .;.; 4,4 %k 7s *,MC,'t.^'" 7,ysrL'uM m, r2 2 ass 3uu % '% , 'a "/> "A ssr L,s,. Le 4d 1% A *? ' c = u ' ' "'*'* "" *" '7d.n t5 4 nA -
ns aa aA n+ a}" WE Of %LukL L% 4% "a"Ei,[dr%k (
t+ 3 p , ,c. 1.9.~2 ~A ea as s> s*9 +n7 2,oA, xi %6 1:s4 ",ty%%&#,".%~'~ ~
16 i N4 NA na nA nn na DQ MT hl& N % *Xfs/M$lWN?$l'$"A Mn 2h h 6AT < b bdul
- 02. Z 5$24- $-274 NA MA N QI hl0 Af'12L To 4fkNMy Lan@
"rY$e5$l# # '*' " "'
%I l's 4 M4 NA 4A NA NA NA
,_at,8,MndI)Y,.w. AA M. 4:).S .
6 O
(STEEL) '
PROTECTIVE COATING INSPEC.TIONTRAVELER S ORTING DOCUMENTATION PORM P . MO. - "' SIE E T O PCI TR AVELER fl0.U 3 '
IH5R DATE TIME COMMENTS -
ENTJtY STEP APPLICATOR S BATCH MIN MAX AVG INSTR LOC SAT ' -
- . QU'ALIFIED LOG 4) DFT DFT OFT USED ID UNSAT SIGNATURE.
'w %,vumcarron cr- e-le er rw unvor
/E 3 189Z . FB 4-1 MB-IB UA e^ NA cA A ser iPJA L.a6% w ess r>se ww,
/9 '2. $ Ar4 3 5 45 $N V MTilfjfokddry+To * $7EcuWlE
'Z.0 'b (B92, 3-28 iB ALA. r,% AJA A4W MT lob!Al brv f,!bt Flc Apt >L Tobn r>k nu entcY 719 zi y ~p .u- .w ,,...,. 4 iu b,gpha picl.L n/A;- ;p2; gi;; ,t ri t y 2 p .~h.,
I . . . - . .
- T c r.a a., 1 s
- , .. , n, ,,,... .s. , : . a .. , - i.a hY $.- .1'/t' s *z, k. fff' /VfM J')/& /bl!T '
A9llf.!hh *h'l ).H g ) r7 y}rl!4 ~
'~~'"~'*''~
J3 3 %< 7l' :.": <~. r.4 obe m.- A.;r % %1 ~ %Ifdt.<- %' :h
%.U l/ > /A m in ris w vti; WY $E SW Nu.n{W ?%/ '$5 ll2, ira I?>pe rf,;,-
? ,7 ) W/A ,w 7w -r$ +- W 4 W *$14,br ~_x-
!%I 'Ah 3P L dc & Peu, n n
% 3 2 270 zun W v^5 ra 1'M n W %nn+ b @y < ~ gw F%" fece s 01 3 31/A 11/A 71/9 WM F/4 HM /3 3nt " :Wd>A % A SP-2 RW Mbbie 29 3 F'8 7Y 331-05 M MM 7i/a N/R B Snh W d mi- W *b% P'/c Son;pof hlhdogw&s I 29 4 x/o W/a $c 13.o gy [qq p 34y- Qg,,fjy W p 'gg' pyce ppyggg ) '
w 7 ag y.,.o.,
3O 4 LA1I 3 AH3 HJA Win dn de A SW hub ~ ?k/ b$$ *iD' ocW GP AT' 1'inE o/ FtA)8L
~ 61 4 pa) ma ac nc it s $$E h %i (.f&E M/n 'b2 G/ 1)cen)we fwa I,a n n m 9-i-a w a a ,w,i a u Li&za % 'W b . o ; t 1; a . ,.'r f, l
& W 8 FM%?h1W7;A'*?fAfE3/0$,'EV I
3> *) // M4 LlA /Z InA NN Q A4T' '5'/kfL/
i' Auk varecrue -6 ra,m w. 'no ru a.
l } / ') O f)t)* d f h .
m ._
SN
~ ~
N *a i C
)~ N
, ~
,2::. x l
x A
~ ,
e '
-*C.
c2 N
D W
.. . C
> .*'a'. A .7
.Dy,Q n
~
v"
)' --
__ 2 'b 4 -4 h
F
-)
Nr "
d- i 4 Q. '
Y -0 ( t.d
- s,i t /
s sT I s, r/
- *s' _ , ' '
s, .D* Q'h.9
. . -_' h O N di '
b i gL, .-
o'D* !. I O
~ .t,. tf 2. g q ,, % . N% ' N 's % -
u . _
N' _ s . _. . s 7M_**l> kt l
]* Q M
%.sN
\ b c.
2 1
g 3 4 -
3 > ,
B
_.p 7._
! _' .s $ _._. .
I i -
p fp 3 -
_ p ... _ _,pqg y
._N <
b \ h*
N
!?O _O
,% l\ \ N ;\ i .\ A ', '
AE>g. i /s -
g_ . p , . t '
O 1h ') . . . . _ .
4*f
= I kti -t, J.
3 0-#fhM Mi[ JNM0j l___..s_._. .
I: I h 3,M -
b 9' p.. .,**. , Qr
+
, ._. q g _g - - .
g l w-I .
q ,.
. ~~~ g' L . ... L._. ..h \ , ' f' .. t_.-
D N pg h !
- _. g._ , _ . . .
l 1 i
' N i l d b_.. B/ ' I l I * \
l 49%
l t !
N
./(. .. '._._. s _ __ ,
- l l
- j , ip ,
i !
' s . , -
q , . ._ . . _ .
l an .
(dWMP) , p r- y, \ \. N \ N. N } 's N \ 4ga- -T .v_ pg s E--- --f- -
- g g 7- - - -
fN - -
} - - -
.. _f 5 s
l I ' ~_ s h *
- 4 . s
% i .
l 6 ,t*E.U
. ".i g .i .
- \ ' *
)
, 9 9. al y .
i
] ,
N l
, 7~ .
- * . .y. +.-- --
_. _ . . ... f.-_-
I
. d .
\ ' N 'N N ' A N' N' A A s - t t
,, d' l I ,' t
._t .
t II'V ,
'.._ I' t.. , . . __ _ _
_.r. .__
] W
~
.N. _\ '
l \ \ ., _\ _ ' N. tk ' \ N '
N N '
}
_. . .f .o ..
.. _ . . - _ ..[.. .
g y >
j %
4 h
i - % ?
_ 1L W . . _
. _ . . . .___....._.. \. . s 'al '
e M N.. $
f d N _
\ \ t \ a.
I G
i
.. Qi _
v s.
% i -
m 4 \ \
- l k e &. s k s N g % %% % 'l % % \
l i i !
8 '
i
, i l .
j
' 8
. u l l
g , . , . . , . .-- - -m _- . 'emmenm l
"'~5 s - '
I .
m -
e 4 g l-"- -' 5
. I '
y . - r
. w r.c .
d* .
r' W $.'[ M 7.i. *
. 2. , -_. y . w. r1 "r M, m - "-
y+ < e ,c L, s' s.a
, ;. .. - L. -
A- -
= .__ s.. ~ . , - . - .
./
. b -
CcMANCHE FEAK S T EA.'.I ELECTRIC STATION / g g' / s>E-- er
' INSPECTION REPORT
,- m/1r4 /-OO2/2t9i
'ITF.Je OESCRIPTiCN ICENTiFiCATACN SYST M / STRUCTURE GESiGNATICM .
PROTECTIVE C0ATINGS 2 2 /uff 76 3 J6-/ 4/2450 6d06 C/O 4l SPF.C.AO. REV. REF. Q.C. CCC. & REY. & CHANGE NQ, MEASURE CM !
EQUIP. 20EK. No.
AS-31 , / , QI-QP-11.4-23,Rev. /*2 - 7 /J 903TE5fa'5-/7- W ) .gr ,i lN OlN!N @t l0N t
8 C PRE bDN , o O F,N TION T10N LMSP. REsULTS ,
i O iNspEeneN coMetETEo , Att AnnucAstE items sAnsracTony M '1 & % g-//o- $
INsPECDON COMPLETED, UNSAT!sFACTORY ITEMS UsTED SELOW
'" /
INSPECTION ATTRIB 0TES ; $ oATE sisNmat n /iz
- 5 i?
SEAL OR FINISH COAT I l 1 I l
- 1. l Perfonn Tooke test per para. 3.1 to determine thickness. l l l in mils of primer and total system (document one set I l l of readings for each 100 sq. ft. when testing Contain- l ment liner) l RECORD
l 1 2 3 4 5 l
}
Min. Spot Primer: / //Sl l
}
( Max. Spot Primer:
/ / l l l lAvg. Spot Primer: )$ \ l ! '
P i hin. Spot Tot. System: / / I
- [ Max. Spot Tot. System
- .
/ '
( l l !
- Ave. Spot Tot. System
- / > !
- hl l l I
- 2. Perfonn Adhesion test per para. 3.2. / l
, RECORD: Adhesion Test Strength in psi:(5EE 477zicArt) I l
' Dolly #1: Dolly #2: ' Dolly #3 l l
- DM Tb L.imtrGD CL62n7too & l l .
AnnEstoD TEsTGV $90 5 40t06ttxMS 1 i
l Of* OZ- @// V- 29 Rc7 110A 484- 009/1 l 1 ,Jas oue I l 4
nExARxs towas,seEcs, ETc.) #2 /57#~ //o#
1 =
Ec 740'W - 869'C "
- l f5GE /b*/-M27iM fcr /h9l. Tesrid61I ASeariou ofAssawb l RE*.A TEC NCR NO. ; OATE lmdn r
[fg. Q C/$ ,$ l.R. Mg C l aC NsPECTOR is
...p_....... . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .
, y
., l N
- g i k4 3 w
s:
o a '
be y
Q 9
w-9g ,
b % 2MEME d1 MMMMEN c
1 MEMMMM y
.s-8
~ a.
1-l -
w h
- bo
- h
, w.
O O
N
'O St o, l
~
{
k *O P, ao .
.=s .
... - x
COMANCHE FE'K STEAM Ei ECTRIC STAT;CN c,: g %$ //
f re-- er e i INSPECTION R e,,,. ._u_i pgg,,f,ggg7gf,.
ITE.'e OESCRIPTICM ICENTiFsCATiON NO. SYSTEM / $TAGTi.5E ^E5[GNATICN PROTECTIVE C0ATINGS 2 .666~72d /foce":- dC.8 / M&M (M/: E SPEC.No.
, , REV. REF. Q.C. CCC. & REY. & CHANGE No. MEASURE Ca TE57 F.CutA. :0 EN T. MO. p
- AS-31 3 / . QI-QP-11.4-23,Rev. /*2 7 f903[$ 'f.f)g.)
- 2933 (3-J3.ar41; O ININSPECT!oN meCEss O PRE INSTAU.ATioN f7l lNSTAU.ATICN ] FINat. !
VERIFICATION "'r INSPECTION INSPECT!oN O PRETEST INSPECT!aN 9:
INSP. RESUt.TS i 0:NSnECTroN ComptETEo , Act APauCA.LE ITEMS SATISFACTORY g*J P
[
NSPECT!aN CoWPLETED, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS USTED SELOW
! ITEM No. -
i.*
INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES QC
/. ; a OATE SIGNATURE n / i2
- 5 '?
SEAL OR FINISH COAT l l l l l
). 1. Perfonn Tooke test per para. 3.1 to determine thickness l 'l l l
! in rails of primer and total system (dccument one set l l l of ritadings for each 100 sq. ft. when testing Contain- l
, ment ifner)
- RECORD: l l 1 2 3 4 5 , l ,
! Nin. Soot Primer: #O S.o / V l l
{ ( Nax. Spot Primer: 40 R. o / / I l I kvg.SpotPrimer: 4. [( At.o [ (l I i ! Min. Spot Tot. System: 1 5~ , 12,5 / .I # l l Nax.SpotTot. System: //.O /#4~ ../ l
(
Ave. Spot Tot. System: 8/ > /$ f / '
/(
1 l
- 2. Perfonn Adhesion test per para. 3.2. I RECORD: Adhesion Test Strength in psi:[5G64Tr/Rahn 3 Dolly #1: Dolly #2:
[h
, -Dolly #3 l f/
% Ek)G *i~O l.i!!!472O GAC It$24WDn D/* ~
I l
' AnnES(DLrrc=STEL /71i"rf 2 905 l' #lO M33l ,
1 GuiDsL.wes ci cr-opit V-z# wb-c l 1
t/sso Er e64 CD?i1 l l ' '
I l l nEuARn3 towes, SPECS, ErC.sltwg ;qA7i= #)/Tc 2Yo.s Am%u Alus star. '
g g, g 0- / M O 80 .6 fD-G /910D hvmM4'11tD E ~l.* f 5 7 5 d- T (o f W,, "
alory ()ft 7:;t $?33 4-E.5 f3 l
(, e RE' ATEc NCR No.
I R* CLOSED I *II i SIGNAitFG l! 86*0 $g 6 \ ,s Q ! t oc nsPECTOR se l
i i
, y .___, , , _ . , -,,7,g+ ---a-4-+----------w-e- .,c. y -. ,-y,--_-. _ - - --
~, . . _ - .
._-. . . ..-.;_---=..
,y.
.. .~ _. .
N /
}
s .
n - - -
k -
- n '
W 8 - .-
.i t _
SMMSM?S al b ~
i SMMMMMM .
- tb MSSMSMBS EO ,
giD i s go e -
~. g -
g a g.)
-s @a .g ky ~
ges h
n b')h hkl- (h r qg a
a 4
4 4
- O . P, g
'O -
g_
.k '
3w ..
N'Y :
3 p>}
e, ..
N N [
TA h
N N , O e m
< e
~
e t
e
/.
M i 10 h
as
'A 4 .i
- d tu m e -
s Q4 O esB (p) m
. gr E/"g (F-Jx\
%.. e e ,. g y .
__ m- -w,- -
4 s; g -
- u. N ,
.o %
Y
$4M %
w gQ ~ . 9 W
.O Do
\
W 1--
4 tl 3
0
! 3
& s g ;
O Pn oe s
f m . .,
$ o)
\m
-)
o s, g -
- e-
=
< d.*
y , - - . - - -, -
.- . s A- _
- , - . ,_ .w_ - _ . _ _ ,
.;, E .-
COMANCHE FEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATICN se I cr 2 -
INSi>ECT10N REPORT .m
- 4/-OO27zzo il kEt DEScalPTICN ICCN T4FiCATION Jo. ,
SY "EM / STRUCTUjE CESIGNATICN I
?ROTECTIVE COATINGS 2 /-t d>6t* Fu276 3 / /S-/ N /C C/O 4I us SPEC..so. sEv. av. a.C. ccC. a acif. a CHAusE no. A y g TEST Ecu P. ioEg. No. l AS-31 s / .
QI-QP-11.4-23,Rev. /S 5-4 [ ;:5 -/f-f<,l.) ,l N C oN V iN S EC lo I oN NS . ion g.
INSr. RESULTS
/
O iNSPECTicN CoMPLETEo , ALL APPLICA8LE ITEMS SATISFACTORY g A [Mg PEC7oN COMPLETED, UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS LISTED SELow ITEM NC. i I INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES / ; y oATE SIGNATURE o / i2 a 5 e l SEAL OR FINISH COAT l l l .
l I l
~
- 1. l Perform Tooke test per para. 3.1 to determine thickness l l l l l in mils of primer and total system (document one set l l l l of readings for each 100 sq. ft. when testing Contain- l l l
- ment liner) l RECORD
- l l l 1 2 3 4 5 l l hin. Spot Primer: / v4 l l hax. Soot Primer:
/ l/ l l l l Avg. Spot Primer: ,$ ( l l l
' Min. Spot Tot. System:
, / Ih l l l Nax.ScotTot. System: / .
l l !
Ave. Spot Tot. System: [ >
Vl I
- 2. Perform Adhesion test per para. 3.2. I RECORD: Adhesion Test Strength in psi: l d l Dolly #1: Dolly #2: Dolly #3 l l
/$EE fl?YAcH ED) l l l l l l l l 1 l l REMARKS (CWGS,$PECS, ETC.) NT /.3$ ~ [$3 C'
- g. Es7'C"- yciva
) i4 sE_2TEc NCa no ~"; iU#II I: IMAM 8 i.R. CLOSED df'4 CC.SO/n- is -
! i oC :ssPE:T u is
q
. . .) ,...
o .
N
- d W o
D m s N
N i
y N -
h N F- =
m 1 .n b
4- 8.-
e a
~ t, e
~-
h, p-n u.
3 to w.
, g~ S .
'0.
~
o
- v. .
S v
o 0
$ *E
't\
9 , m'
- 7 m \o En,
. e-B. 9n m %
n 5-H e 1) 1
_- 7_
c JP -
9 % -%
n O }
s
- TEXAS UTILITIES
- NCR No.
- ' GE'NL*RkTING.CO. . ,
. NONCONFORMANCE REPORT (NCR) ,,,
UNIT STRUCTURE / SYSTEM ITEM / COMPONENT TAG /ID NUMBER LOCATION OR ELEVATION RIR NO.
l fMT-St.t1Lh u n kCIU7'W CO M'Ukb l /f$*lb$#
EkB66hflo1' l
NONCONFORMING CONDITION k/f/f$ $AT/N(q$ ON 0ATAIdMEN*i' N/AIEP AATC f/H/d/f lWCfrA7?fS ~Y/N~AfNf NNA
~
_s /0% Of k W[$/M]
y r;re pawu or 7wr A'sneh )eara/t67AbevrxMwne-8 f/(g//Ml C8t( E~ C'F FA/64{fff AfffAA6 % /$f N f WA Yl$$6
@ 'p9ptAqc, 6tt7 crg/coqJD/x/q 4AFAS FZH/6/1 R TAL g A06b O;C AbMSMA) Bo/E/t1/65 * [Ed D 7A & coa Talq f l g67EM y lMalowfd70S'/dF/l, /$ Acy2Wq A' REM &S Q f drRSM9 6r52%.:swsS7sxrr) A6% tsxod D 2/seny dewaa focera *'/c2 A-2, /M 62.866 W'7' 23ZS-AS-3/ /
REFERENCE DOCUMENT- [T- $M- /// h REV _ *2 h PARA ]_
FMD htfAll/rfist WW - 1 // f , k i OE REVIEW / APPROVAL: DATE-w f. 0/h5kfCgl 0 W Y 8h
/ /
O ACTION ADDRESSEE ,
. DEP TMENT DISPOSITION:
'W n ip 1 A lL w w ,
g REWORK REPAIR USE AS IS SCRAP Lack of adhesion iS limited to area adjacent to impact (mechanical damage).
g Repair per CCP-30.
E W
L .
8 ,
\l / @>*3 I
' ""*"RYL o ,7 o "
' DISPOSITION IERi% ION & CLOSURE: DATE:
/ /
COMMENTS:
4- 7
~ ~
ARMS /
FE8M. PL'T. RECORD INDEXED aru mL Loc. -
CCM AN CHE FEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION , ( 2_
L 17.1.99.3 se Or suaittLoc. INSPECT 10N REPORT j.sc. g g 9 3 3 .
SOOfPC # No. SYSTEM / sT AucTuaE Cc5iGNAT:cN
. 'A0lfdf.mlVE P .uD0ATINGS
[CLN TiFICATiCN gLsuee f/de r RC 6 "i .l srsc..so. acv. au c.c ac. a atv. a c.waNos .so. ucasuas ca Tcsr cowP. :cc3T.yo.
AS-31 s i e 01-0P-11.4-5,Rev.13 - 74oy[zvo3'z yt,[4 N ,
"" G PN ce ,ey OPatkye, OI"NsWN Q P"vE sp o t s u aP. RESULT 3 . l InspcenoN COMPLETED , AU. APPUCA8LE ITENs sAnsrACTonY A, h '
g 3-/$.g3
" "' ' " 5"7 "
D isseccnon countstro. unsAnsracTony irt.ws usTro art.ow ic
!NSPECTION ATTRIBUTES ; . oArt sicfATunt
,, /e a 5 e
- 1. l For repair of saos and runs over 5.5 mils DFT. Derfom mal l l DFT of Primer Coat in areas which have been sanded or ll l l L screened per Para. 3.2.1. (For multiple items, indicate ll l !
i Min. Spot, Max. Spot and Average DFT with corresponding ll l l l !
l QP & ID No's for each item in " Remarks.")
RECORD: Minimum Spot Test: enn n, u . m,d ,. <. .. I Maximum Spot Test: IUn Ti L TMhlLUN ULI i l Average DFT: l1 l l
- 2. l Abrasive acceptable per Para. 3.2.2./. c . Yns @ d4l l l
- 3. Separators installed, drained, and drains left mal I !
I partially open. l ll l l
- 4. l Air supply free of contamination. kJ/kl I !
5 Blasted or power-tooled surface and profile: y.-3 ll '
- a. Surface and surrounding areas cleaned per Ml l Para. 3.2.2.p. d % g g l l l
- b. Surface free of foreign matter incl. grease & oil l4 l l l c. Sharp (non-rounded) projections removed 4 l l l d. Anchor pattern depth 1.0 mil . minimum lV'
- e. Surface lightly abraded per Para. 3.2.3 M4' i f. Surface wiped clean pe- Para. 3.2.3 or 3.2.4 l#/[4 l l (Repairs Only) l l
- 6. i Unique Number st3mped on piece (s). Record Unioue l#lA I :
Number (s) in " Remarks" below.1-s u e .- P/ h l l
- 7. l Ambient conditions checked per Para. 3.3.2 prior to [ l l primer application and record below: -
l lDATE:J-/7-t3 TIME: /.'Yo /1 M WET BULB TEMP: 60* I !
ORY BULB TEMP: 8 z,* RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 25 7. '
l l l DEW POINT: V2 SURFACE TEMP: 37 8
ll l
- 8. Substrate surface free of contaminants and less than d L 24 hours elapsed since-b!rti- . 5F-3 D- s e. tr ! l l (Continued on Next Cheet) l I l
- LV j
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION QI-QP-11.4-5,Rev./3 7
INSPECTION REPORT Sheet 1 of &
(SUPPLEMENTAL)
. . . . . _ . . l
- DATE Q.C.
ITEM no. INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES g g h SGNATURE 11 " 2 ~-G It l
- 9. Trao. filter or seoarator installed nor nara 3.3.4 v '
- 10. Air supply free of contamination. v ,
- 11. Qualfication of anolicator. (List Applicators:)F. Lees V
- 12. Verify Mixing Operations per para. 3.2.2.h. v
- 13. Coating Material Product Identification: c Z-// v '
- a. Base Lot No.: 2 J 59 2 s M PART A: Ar/A
- b. Filler Lot No.: 2 3 3 0 sitn
- c. Thinner Lot No.: 2 M 314 7 M
- d. Tir.e Mixed: /z:35 /9._ M .
- 14. Pressure pot agitated. v Pot life not exceeded. v-15 .
- 16. Hose less than 75 feet._ V We k Aue Preo. A m b, ed_s pere 3-i s-3 3 _'
nMe / : o s' A .M -
V8 t, 0
- DB 12' . _ - ____ ,
<;f '
D.._E ;f, HM AT. IFM 57 27' R 11
, g,
_ R// 1 s 7e _
RsuARnS: towss,sRnes nic.) *rafa i primer r l'P- 3 +~ bare- sub s+rd's e;% .some. pr;mee c e m s ie .'-5 ;n'+Ae lacasa re@A.'te') +. %-F.Itew43 pc e, n -/k e I;ner ptafe j i M /
EL.V- $$g-1 t q, ggj 3 ;
bZ- I3 S "2 -fo p/g* 3c': l
)
I 1
i O c.<ca m.as 8.n L-s ..L +. ra c.c c..+ Pm , a l RU.AMD N R No i ^M iS MA M NM 1.R. CLOSED D AWpA l VA es ! oc un:rtcTon a 1
/
e . . '.... .. ..
t .
PC /0 0,00 $~
.
- w .r 3 23 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION / [.
INSPECT 10N REPORT & (>c g g .:
ICENTiricATicN '60. g5Y5 TEM / 5TMVCTUM L Gs51 GNAT'CN ,
"I I
) k'd _C ESCAlPTICMOT T; TIVE COATINGS , L ia e, 8/& d RC 6#1 5 ,
arsc.no. nav. mar. o.c. coc. a nsv. a cNanos No. es ca .m zw icaxy No. i AS-31 s I e QI-QP-ll.4-5, Rev./ 3 7 M 9 7 " 2 4 /. n # z voo . J z e.
CI"rENiio'N V WM WNS C o Q "Ns scroN NsWTioN 9 conspt Tro , au. Appucasi.s ims sawacrom fM, /g/ J-/ 933 Diaspecnoa conset Tro, unsarispacroav ims ustso estow g
' " " ' C INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES oarg 3,,"NATunt
- 1. l For repair of sacs and runs over 5.5 mils DFT. oerfonn Al/A l l I l DFT of Primer Coat in areas which have been sanded or screened per Para. 3.2.1. (For multiple items, indicate l l !
Min. Spot, Max. Spot and Average DFT with corresponding l l l i
QP & ID No's for each item in " Remarks.") i RECORD: Minimum Spot Test:
Maximum Spot Test: fIIH NFIlHMAIIllN I II E 4
~
a i l Average DFT: 15 l V i :
- 2. Abrasive acceptable per Para. 3.2.2.g.b. %.o O MA M 9 D I f
- 3. Separators installed, drained, and drains left A/A4 $ l@M ! l l partially open. '
I *. i [*I !
- 4. Air supply free of contamination. A//A "_1 1 ~~ i . !
E- 5 '
- 5. Blasted or power-tooled surface and profile: 39 5 l 6
- a. Surface and surrounding areas cleaned per vt li 2 t$ I Para. 3.2.2.(. d, fYet.rs d@ $ t I4 I
- b. ;ur fat.e free of foreign matter incl. grease & oil v." L E
- I
- c. Sharp (non-rounded) projections removed .d' !
- d. Anchor pattern depth 1.0 mil. minimum # ! l
- e. Surface lightly abraded per Para. 3.2.3 N/A. l I
- f. Surface wiped clean per Para. 3.2.3 or 3.2.4 N/4 l1 (Repairs Only) l
- 6. Unioue Ne4er sta==d on Diece(s). Record Unioue l#4 i j N+r(s) in " Remarks" below. L 8NEA FL A rE C l m i
- 7. As6 tent conditions checked per Para. 3.3.2 prior to # sir primer application and record below: -
06 'c l
" '- l DATE: 3- p t.H*r TIME:I2:zo 4 WET BULB TEMP:6 c' DRY BUL8 TEMP: 98/
- RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 2 6*/* 4 E DEW POINT: d/4' SURFACE TEMP: 15* 3
- 8. Substrate surface free of contaminants and less than '
l 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> elapsed since th:th;;. Sr. 3 4~'Ir s f
- J -
(Continued on Next Sheet) l I f
/
/(
t .-
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Ql-QP-11.4-5, Rsv. /3 -
. INSPECTION REPORT Shecti of I-(SUPPLEMENTAL)
"E
- INSPECTION ATTRIBUTES 11 g
s Tune "O .
l 11 3.3.4. v '
i
- 9. Trao. filter or seoarator installed nor nara
- 10. Air supply free of contamination. v
- 11. Qualfication of anolicator. (List Applicators:) B. Ber se- 7
- 12. Verify Mixing Operations per para. 3.2.2.h. V Coating Material Product Identification: ( 2 -11 v' 13.
- a. Base Lot No.: 2L 5 8 J/6 A PART A: v /A
- b. Filler Lot No.: 7 A soyd p1
- c. Thinner Lot No.: z M39 77 A4
- d. Time Mixed: / 7. # o /1. M .
- 14. Pressure pot agitated. 7 15 .__ Pot life not exceeded. V
- 16. Hose le_s_s than 75 feet. V Pre Sv.fece Jrre A m b:c,& Gn)Mkn 0117C' .3-11-14 re c . ,6 : So F N -
os . 6 3' DR- 99' sr S'f' il il idil JUL TIIDM Gn l' i y . g, . . ,
fM- W1 6D {'o r r+ c t,& L ue 6 <a m ele fe rec c o reee2 fb<a.
REMARMS: (owes, specs.ETC.) %-fa / gr/syte r ( e pc. , r (5f-3 4 bore .sv6 cfede.
we'ih swe primeo- rem a,,,;,,3 ;n .ffe p,,q,./e ) .f. +he /<w *s p l e e -
1
^
- - - E n.v y tA i s ff
- %:Arca Try"M
! 4 c.e rco h/
7" /
t
!l g ,-- - for- 9 6 0
'j g'n d i
A2 - IsW, ! A 2 - o s 4 *- s e '$
"^* g " is 1.R. CLOSEo O Ae/A-
' ' " I 8'5"^run.
I
.ie /,*-
oc INSPECTOR 16 1
r- ., !
I TXX-4232 07/20/84
- Finding IV. B.3 Contrary to good industry practice, solvent has been used excessively i -
to wipe down primed surfaces prior to the top coat application. Excessive solvent retention will inhibit the curing of inorganic films and can lead to j
coatings failure under operating conditions. The licensee's procedures do j not provide direction or caution on solvent use, nor is there evidence of I
proper training to this effect. In three areas of coating system failures on the containment-liner plate, BNL observed a solvent odor that was far in j excess of what would be considered normal.
l 1
Response IV. B.3 Although some small areas have experienced a loss of coating adhesion, we do not concur with BNL as to the cause of failure. BNL is correct in stating i
, that " excessive solvent retention will inhibit the curing of inorganic l
l films...." We do not, however, agree with BNL's implication that the source l
i of the entrapped solvent was the solvent wipe.
l l Apparently, BNL has hypothesized that " excessive solvent" from the solvent wipe would permeate the inorganic zine film and become " trapped" when overcoated with Phenoline 305. They conclude from this hypothesis that this .j solvent is retained, thereby inhibiting full cure of the inorganic sinc. As stated above, we do not concur with this conclusion. If solvent becomes i
" trapped" in a partially or fully cured sine film due to the' porous nature-of the inorganic zinc, it will eventually escape as a gas on the topcoat side of the sinc primer. (That being the path of least resistance). If and-when this occurs, the escaping solvent would cause one of two things to occur: '
- 1) The solvent could escape through the topcoat leaving a " bubbled" or cratered appearance, and/or Page 5
t
)
i l
. . l i
TXX-4232 07/20/84
- 2) The solvent could escape between the primer and topcoat causing lack of adhesion at this interface.
(.
Neither of the above mentioned possibilities has been observed in f4nish-coated steel at CPSES. The overwhelming majority of " adhesion failures" observed at CPSES, (including the " adhesion failures" described by BNL g above), have been cohesive failures of the inorganic zine primer. (See response to Allegation 38. TXX-4201, dated June 22, 1984).
The solvent retention noted in areas where " adhesion failures" have occurred is from the solvent applied with the inorganic zinc, not from the solvent wipe prior to topcoat.
(
t i
i
/
't Page 6
- ~. - _ _ _ . - . - _ . . - - - - ~ . . , - . _
p< .,
c ,. .
. . t j.
TXX-4232 L 07/20/84
-Finding IV. B.4
(
Contrary to CPSES FSAR Section 1A(B), Regulatory Guide 1.58, and !
ANSI /ASME N45.2.6-1978, Section 4 and Table 1. I.evel -1 Coatings QC I
j Inspectors have been making judgments and evaluations that they are not ;
qualified to make.
l ,
Examples of this were evident in procedures where level 1 inspectors j were: a) evaluating surface preparation without instruments or l approved visual standards, b) evaluating the adequacy of coatings materials when its " pot life" had been exceeded, and c) evaluating the acceptable extent of overlapping dry spray beyond the specific areas to l be coated.
t Response IV. B.4 l
(
l We contend that there# is not a significant judgment factor involved in the t
inspection process. The facts relative to the examples cited are as follows:
- a. evaluating surface preparation without instruments or approved visual standards - First, it must be kept in mind that the issue is. power tooling of areas in need of repair prior to reapplication ~of primer (where required) followed by top coat application. Our combined j Engineering and Quality Control experience indicated that an appropriate profile consistent with coating material manufacturer's recommendations could be achieved by simply specifying the process and equipment to be used for power tooling. Initial attempts at measuring !
this profile using available devices were not satisfactory.
Accordingly, the process was specified in procedures. The inspector '
does not have to exercise judgement, but rather monitors the craft
[ activities to assure that the specified process is used.
r i
Page 7 l
l -, _ - - - - - - . ._--_. - -_- . - - , - . , - , , - - - . - - . - - -
w-TXX-4232
'07/20/84
- b. evaluating the adequacy of coatings materials when its " pot life" has been exceeded 'The coating materials used at CPSES reach a point (at the end of their " pot life"), when they can no longer be sprayed from the application equipment. Identification of this point is obvious to all and does not require " judgment."
c, evaluating the acceptable extent of overlapping dry spray beyond the specific areas to be coated - Specifications state that a moderate amount of dry spray is acceptable for finish coat. Since dry spray is of commercial concern only end does not affect the integrity of the coating system, we fail to see how judgment by the inspector is required. Whatever judgment is required was put into the specifications and construction and quality control procedures.
Page 8-
L: .
p? .
. TXX-4232
_07/20/84
~
Finding IV.- B.5 Contrary to Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Protective Coatings Specification No.
2323-AS-31 Revision 1 'farch 15, 1978 for CPSES, Section 6.lb and
- . Brown & Root, Inc. letter BRV-12605, dated May 7, 1981 to Tim Dolen.-
Carboline Company from D. C. Frankum, Project Manager, proper surface preparation was not achieved. Instruction Number QI-QP-11.4-5 allows 80 grit " flapper wheels" versus the 60 grit " flapper wheels" used to qualify surface preparation.
Response IV. B.5 Specification AS-31, Section -6.1.b simply requires manufacturer's application instructions to be complied with for surface preparation. The manufacturer's recommendation in this case is to obtain a minimum one mil
( surface profile. As stated above, our experience indicates that the desired I profile will be achieved through power tooling (3-M Clean and Strip or Flapper Wheel). BRV-12605 reports the results of site tests to demonstrate l-the effectiveness of power tooling on adhesion (the important coating
! characteristic - not profile). Carboline responded to this letter on August 28, 1981 (attached) concurring with the results of the site tests and agreeing that additional preparation efforts on the surface were not necessary.
f-l
=
l l Page 9
i
'.. ? - , ,.
L .TXX-4232 l
07/20/84 l
l The site tests for flapper. wheels were performed with 60 grit paper. In preparing the construction and quality control procedures, 80 grit paper was referenced inadvertently. However, the quality procedure statement was an explanation and not a specific inspection attribute. Additionally, the quality procedures prior to mid-August 1983 required measurement of surface profile on power tooled surfaces using roughness gauges or equivalent. Most measurements were taken with a needle point micrometer; however as stated above, neither the use of the roughness gauge nor the needle point micrometer produced repeatable results, which was a partial basis for reverting to process specifications. The oversight in the procedures (80 grit vs 60 grit) was corrected in early March 1984. It should also be noted that a review of purchasing documents shows that only a small amount of 80_ grit paper was purchased. This material has been used for feathering of interface areas or stripping of surfaces and not to establish minimum profile.
BNL's subcontractor during the site evaluation recommended to again measure surface profile using a tape manufactured by Testex, Inc., stating in passing that some surfaces he observed in the field. appeared as smooth as glass. %e had previously considered the use of this device (in mid-1982) but rejected its use based on experience with lack of repeatability. We did experiment recently with the use of this tape and are currently using it in the field.
In summary, our experience and tests have shown that= suitable surface preparation is achieved through the specified use of power tooling equipment. Attempts at measuring the resulting profiles have repeatability problems and are really stretching the art of protective coating application to an unjustified scientific level.
i I
- Page 10 l
L
, s, g .
" Brown & Root,Inc. east office sox 100,, cien sose. Texas 7eo4a
,,,,, k n 6 /31 4 May 7, 1981 BRV: 12605 CARB0LINE COMPANY 350 Hanley Industrial Court St. Louis, Missouri 63144 Attn: Tim Dolen
Reference:
Purchase Order #35-1195-(Carboline B.0. #15795)
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION RE: PURCHASE ORDER No. 35-1195-15795 Gentlemen:
Recently the question of minimum acceptable surface preparation has arisen for steel inside contairiment structures to be coated with carco zine 11.
Under nomal conditions, spot blasting, e.g. open or vacuum would be the most cost efficient method of surface preparation for repair work.
However, inside containment buildings airborne contaminates must be limited because of delicate equipment. Presently, we are utilizing an elaborate system of enclosing an item or area to be repaired, and blast-ing or using a 3M Clean-N-Strip for removing damaged coating followed oy needle scaling for added surface profile.
The necessity for follow-up needle scaling has been questioned where the repair is performed over previously blasted steel. In January of this year, we performed surface preperation on two pipe hangers in the cont-tainment which had previously been blasted and primed, utilizing 3M i Clean-N-Strip only. After prime, one with Dimetcoat 6 and one with Carboline CZ-11 and cure, a pull test was performed on January 29, 1981 with results on Dimetcoat 6 ranging from 200-600 PSI and on Carboline CZ-11 from 200-900 PSI. Note PSI on attached pull test results.
Test plates were made and the panels were sandblasted to SP-10-63 and primed. Af ter cure 3M Clear-N-Strip and 60 grit flapper wheels were used to clean the cured coatings from the panels, we again coated with
-- *,, eon.
A 3
,, cp, .. ,
Bf0M)N .
. CARBOLINE COMPANY - BRV 12605 Pg #2 primer. After initial cure adhesion tests were performed, however J.T
/ Carboline CZ-11 on two panels had unacceptable results. The unaccept- l able adhesion could have resulted from cure time or application method; i therefore, these two panels were tested again on March 17,1981 with l acceptable adhesion froin 300-500 PSI. More panels were made by blast- l
~
ing/ priming / cleaning after cure and recoating then pull test perfonned on March 23, 1981 with results per attached result sheet.
The above adhesion testing was perfonned by Brown & Root Paint Q.C.
Department; also witnessed by Paint and Engineering Department repre-sentatives. All testing was perfonned over previously blasted steel and is not intended to reflect or imply satisfactory results over non-previously blasted steel. A slight amount of residue of coating was left on the surface after final preparation to simulate possible field conditions.
We feel the removal of damaged coatings by 3M Clean- i-Strip, or equi-valent from previously blasted steel does not require a follow-up of needle scaling for proper adhesion of the coating. We,woul_o apprec-ciate your professional opinion of the previous proposal as well as any ideas or procedure which Carboline may have for conditions such as we encountered inside of containment structures. Also, if the above is found acceptable, what limitations would we face in rela-tion to size limitation, any difference in curing before top-coating, or any other limitations which we might encounter. If furtner infor-mation or clarification is needed, please contact us.
) Very truly yours, BROWN & ROOT, INC.
f d f4M -
D. C. Frankum Project Manager -.
DCF/TVE/MW/vl ATTACHMENTS cc: Mark Wells (ll,lA)
J. B. Scott (ll,lA)
Bobby Lockamy (ll, l A)
Harry Williams (ll, l A)
~}
l Aw -- _mo-- -
__ 3 3'
I, , . .
M7N .
ADHESION TEST RESULTS l
TEST DATE: 1-29 81 C0ATING: DIMETCOAT 6 OVER PIPE HANGER SURFACE PREPARATION: PREVIOUSLY ABRASIVE BLASTED TO SP10, REFURBISHED WITH )
3M CLEAN-N-STRIP ADHESION TESTER: ELCOMETER j D0Jo IE # TYPE FAILURE
- 1. 600 PSI (GLUE)
- 2. 600 PSI (GLUE)
- 3. 500 PSI (GLUE)
- 4. 750 PSI (GLUE) <
- 5. 200 PSI (GLUE)
TEST DATE: 1-29-81 C0ATING: CARBO ZINC 11 OVER PIPE HANGER . . . - - . . _ _ . .
SURFACE PREPARATION: PREVIOUSLY ABRASIVE BLASTED TO SP10, REFURBISHED WITH 3M CLEAN-N-STRIP ADHESION TESTER: ELCOMETER 3 DOLLIE # TYPE FAILURE
- 1. 250 PSI (GLUE)
- 2. 525 PSI (GLUE)
- 3. 900 PSI (GLUE)
- 4. 200 PSI (GLUE)
- 5. 200 PSI (GLUE)
TEST DATE: 2-24-81 C0ATINGS: CARB0 ZINC 11 OVER STEEL PLATES '
SURFACE PREPARATION: PREVIOUSLY ABRASIVE BLASTED TO SP10, REFURBISHED WITH 3M CLEAN-N-STRIP (dos.1-13) 60 GRIT FLAPPER kHEEL (Nos.14-18)
ADHESION TESTER: ELCOMETER DOLLIE # FAILORE TYPE
)
I' - .,aw-- -.
t g- ,
l h' l' .
. .l ,
' ' 'BrownerRoounc. .' . ,
ADHESION TEST RESULTS l TEST DATE: 2-24-81 l
C0ATING: DIMETCOAT 6 OVER STEEL PLATES SURFACE PREPARATION: PREVIOUSLY ABRASIVE BLASTED TO SP10, REFURBISHED WITH 3M CLEAN-N-STRIP (Nos. 6-10) 60 GRIT FLAPPER WHEEL (Nos.1-5)
D0LLIE # FAILURE TYPE
, 2. 500 PSI (GLUE) 7. 200 PSI (GLUE)
COATINGS: CARB0 ZINC 11 OVER STEEL PLATE (PREVIOUS TEST PANELS FROM 2-24-81)
SURFACE PREPARATION: PREVIOUSLY ABRASIVE BLASTED TO SP10, REFURBISHED WITH 3M CLEAN-N-STRIP (Hos. 1-5) 6 GRI,P FLAPPER WHEEL (Nos. 6-10)
ADHESION TESTER: ELCOMETER ,
TYPE FAILURE
' .) DOLLIE
(GLUE / PAINT)
TEST DATE: 3-23-81 COATINGS: CARB0 ZINC 11 OVER STEEL PLATE SURFACE PREPARATION: PREVIOUSLY ABRASIVE BLASTED TO SP10, REFURBISHED WITH 3M CLEAN-N-STRIP (Nos. 6-20) ana 60 GRIT FLAPPER WHEEL (Nos.1-5)
ADHESION TESTER: ELCOMETER DOLLIE # TYPE FAILURE
- 1. 275 PSI (C0ATING) .
- 4. 300 PSI (COATING) 12. 400 PSI (COATING) 20. 200 PSI (C0ATING) 5, 200 PSI (C0ATING) 13. 375 PSI (C0ATING)
) - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - _ . - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - . - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - -
c A
<- *e- a.' mrew
+si n , WN tet 4% #% 'g% M
m
- a .. n: -
'. CaratAoHrte, O Q
b August 28, 1981 Mr. D.C. Frankum Brown & Root Inc.
P.O. Box 1001 Glen Rose, TX 76043
Reference:
Purchase Order #35-1195, Your letter of May 7
Dear Mr. Frankum:
We have evaluated the Elcometer Adhesion data you have developed on Carbo Zinc 11 over power tool cleaned steel. In regard to your 3
question as to whether needle scaling is necessary after using the
/ 3M Clean-N-Strip for application of Carbo Zinc 11 to previously SP 10 blasted steel, we concur that if the Elcometer Adhesion is at least 200 psi without using the needle scaling then it is not necessary.
In regard to size limitations for this type of surface preparation, we can only comment that our primary recommendation is to abrasive blast wherever practical for the highest" assurance of optimum long-term performance. Generally, this type of surface preparation should be restricted to small components of difficult surface configuration or to touch-up of small creas. It is difficult and arbitrary to assign a specific size limitation. There are no limitations on cure time nor other parameters other than possible long-term performance.
To answer Mark Well's question on date discrepanci$s on Carboline Test Summary Report 149, we have had to have Oak Ridge National Laboratory send us a revision to page 10 because initially they
\
/
l l
l L
- t .
.v
~
~
! COPY r I Mr. D.C. Frankum Brown & Root Inc.
'} August 28, 1981 s Page 2 l
l l
l omitted the initial temperature on the chart. When they received this page to correct this omission at our request, they put a current revision date on it also.
Please advise us to whether any clarification or additional information is desired on these matters.
Very truly yours, CARBOLINE COMPANY M
Dan W. McBride Power Industry Manager 1rb/1/614/
) Frankum/082881 oc: Mr. Mark Wells Brown & Root Inc.
P.O. Box 1001 Glen Rose, TX 76043 cc: Mr. Charles Rushing l
l l
I l
i F-
-. y y gpq-,y+., =
6"'1F"~
r- x TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. B.6.a.1 The procedures are not " stand-alone" documents, acceptance criteria are found in other referenced documents.
Response IV. B.6.a.1 We disagree with this finding. Acceptance criteria required for inspection are furnished to the inspector and in most cases the required criteria are contained in quality instructions prepared expressly for the inspection function.
Occasionally, data needed by both the craf t and QC (e.g. , cure time, pot.
life, etc.), may be included in the construction procedure and referenced in the quality instruction. Irrespective, the needed information is available to QC via a controlled office copy of the construction procedure. There is no practice of referencing acceptance criteria which may be contained in projet c specifications or codes and standards which this BNL statement may infer.
O Page 11
.a.
'i, TXX-4232 L 07/20/84' Finding.IV. B.6.a.2 Procedures such as Instruction Number QI-QP-11.4-1 and QI-QP-11.4-5 requires a flashlight to be held perpendicular to the inspection surface only. Proper inspection technique would require a light to be positioned parallel to the surface to locate certain types of defects. Additionally, the minimum light required is not specified.
Response IV. B.6.a.2 A
We disagree with this finding, but have difficulty responding since we are dealing with a matter of opinion. Our experience is that defects which are detrimental to coating performance can be adequately evaluated by observing the inspection area from an arms length position and looking perpendicular at the surface. Looking parallel to the inspected surface may show surface dust not visible from the perpendicular position, but for ASTM definition of contaminants this is not deleterious to the coatings. l Minimum light is in fact defined in the procedure. It is the light produced from a two cell flashlight.
-[
Page 12 m
d' . s TXX-4232' 07/20/84 Finding IV. B.6.~a.3 Procedure QI-QP-11.4-1, paragraph 3.1.2, states that for abrasives "... All grease, oil and deleterious material is unacceptable", and yet provides no methods to determine if these materials are present. ~The procedure also does not define deleterious material.
Response IV. B.6.a.3 This statement is taken out of context. The exact quote is'as~follows:
"The inspector shall obtain a sample of the abrasive to be used from each work area. The abrasive shall be verified to be dry by feel. 'All grease, oil and deleterious material is unacceptable."
Grease and. oil would not be dry. Deleterious material cannot be totally defined since it could be anything except sand. . We elected to not define the issue. Instead we decided to let QC identify matters of concern via established procedures and then evaluate the inspection results with senior QC and technical personnel.
Page 13
f- -
TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. B.6.b Contrary to 10CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion V and CPSES FSAR, paragraph 17.1.1.5, the final coatings walkdown procedure contained no acceptance criteria and did not contain appropriate instructions regarding hiding quality, cracking, delamination, peeling, excessive overspray, excessive roughness,1 flaking, blistering or cracking. In conjunction with inadequate inspection procedures, this could allow acceptance of inadequate coatings.
Response IV. B.6.b There is no paragraph 17.1.1.5 in the FSAR and it is assumed that the reference is to paragraph 17.1.5. The requirements of Criterion V of 10CFR50, Appendix B and FSAR Section 17.1.5 are not applicable to tha final walkdown procedure. All QA program mandated quality control inspections are accomplished prior to implementation of the final walkdown procedure. These quality control inspections are accomplished in accordance with a series of instructions denoted by the prefix QI-QP-11.4 ... In contrast, the final walkdown procedure is a procedure authored and implemented by CPSES
. Engineering personnel. Its purpose is to assure that the previously completed QC inspections have been maintained to the owners' satisfaction (i.e., construction activities subsequent to completion and QC acceptance of coatings work have not damaged the coatings). In the event that major damage is observed, the area is returned to the craft forces for rework in accordance with craft procedures and QC instructions applicable to the original work.-
Page 14
1
-s .-
TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. B.6.c Contrary 'to CPSES FSAR, page 1A(B)-11, R.G.1.54, and ANSI N101.4-1972,
' paragraph 4.4.3, CPSES coatings procedures allow weld splatter to remain on metal surfaces. This could contribute to coatings failure.
Response IV. B.6.c The correct. terminology is weld spatter. Consistent with paragraph 4.4 and 4.4.3 of ANSI N101.4-1972, the project specification did and does " provide
- for" removal of all welding ~ scale and spatter considered necessary by_
Engineering "to avoid contamination of substrates." We are'not aware of nor does the-Brookhaven report establish a basis for a concern with veld spatter from a safety-related viewpoint. Commercial concerns are not subject . to the stringent requirements applied to safety related activities. Neither the FSAR reference nor Reg. Guide 1.54 discusses the-issue of' weld spatter.
4
(>
Page 15-L.
pr ,
9 :- -
- 1: . .
-07/20/84 Finding IV. B.6.d Contrary to-CPSES FSAR, page'lA(B)-22; R.:G. 1.54, and ANSI N101.4-1972, paragraph 5.2.2, CPSES coatings procedures provide for the writing and approval of special coatings procedures, without the approval of the coating manufacturers.
i Response IV. B.6.d. !
(
The finding by BNL is correct, but is a matter of form rather than substance. Nine special coatings procedures exist at CPSES. For eight of these procedures, the manufacturer's Product Data Sheet is the substantive portion of the procedure, and therefore, are approved by the coatings manufacturer.. The remaining special coatings procedure is for repair of a Carboglass lining of'the component cooling water heat exchangers.- This
( procedure was developed to match the vendor's (Struthers Wells Corp) procedure'which-was based on Carboline's Product. Data Sheet. As the coatings manufacturer's Product Data Sheet was an integral part of the special coatings procedures, the intent of the ANSI Standard has clearly been satisfied.
t
+
l' Page 16 p
! :c' . -
U-
r_
-i
(
TXX-4232 07/20/84
. Finding IV. B.6.e Contrary to CPSES FSAR, paragraph 6.1B.2 and ANSI N'101.2, coatings applied over "drypack" concrete repairs were not DBA-qualified. Additionally, the "drypack" does not appear to meet paragraph 6.4.2 of ANSI N101.2-1972.
Response IV. B.6.e ,
f
- Section 6.lB.2 of the FSAR simply discusses the types of coating materials used at CPSES and the industry standards which are applicable to them.
Paragraph 6.4.2 of ANSI N101.2-1972 discusses general comments relative to preparation of concrete surfaces. Since "drypack" is a standard repair technique for concrete and since drypack is composed of the same basic ingredients as concrete, we fail to appreciate the significance of this finding. ,.
f
(
Page-17 t' .
r- ,
TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. C.7 Based on a brief review of Design Change Authorizations (DCA's) written in the coatings area, it does not appear as though Quality Assurance is ce 1~cluded n in the review and approval chain, as would be required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion III. Also, there is no formal mechanism to ensure that users of controlled copies of the Coating Specification have received and are aware of all applicable DCAs. Finally, there is no requirement for specification revision after DCA's have been issued against it, either based on time or number of DCA's. Additional review in this area is needed to determine how quality is assured in the DCA program.
, Response IV. C.7 Criterion III of Appendix B provides for the establishment of design control measures for verifying or ' checking the adequacy of design. The verification process shall be performed by individuals or groups other than those who 4
performed the original design.but may be from the same organization.
Criterion ~III does not require that Quality Assurance be included in the 1
" review and approval chain" for the design verification of the original design or subsequent design changes.
Contrary to this finding, formal procedures exist which describe the measures that have been* established and implemented for the control of design documents. These procedures meet the requirements established for Criterion VI, Document Control, of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
- r
! s l
Page 18 I
e n
e-TXX-4232 ;
07/20/84 Relative to specification revisions, it is true that no requirement (regulatory or otherwise) exists which mandates when a specification should be formally revised, either based on time or number of DCA's. This is a management decision and specifications are revised when considered appropriate by management.
In summary, we fail to define a regulatory issue and thus do not agree that additional review is warranted.
Page 19
r-TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. C.8 Contrary to FSAR Section 6.1B.2, ANSI N101.2, Section 4, a number of coatings systems have been specified and'used that have not been DBA qualified. After identification of this by BNL, the licensee has committed to submitting these coatings systems to the appropriate DBA testing.
Response IV. C.8 As delineated in our separate responses to the sixty allegations transmitted by Mr. Bangart's letter of May 19, 1984, some minute combinations of coatings have not been separately DBA tested. However, where these conditions do occur, they are small in magnitude and have been applied consistent with normal industry practice. It should be noted that no formal committment to test these combinations of coating systems has been made nor is one currently anticipated. It was made quite clear to Region IV and BNL personnel at the outset, that no testing would be undertaken without management concurrence, particularly when the testing could be classified as "Research and Development."
Page-20 2
( , .
,+
,s. . -
TXX-4232 07/20/84 Finding IV. C.9 Contrary to FSAR Section lA(B), Regulatory Guide 1.54 Section C.4, "STAF Hospital Spray Disinfectant", an aerosol containing chlorides, was used by painters inside containment where stainless steel is located.
Response IV. C.9 This matter is' explained fully in our formal response to allegation number
- 41. (See TXX-4201, dated June. 22, 1984).
~.
Page 21 a