ML20073P372

Interim Deficiency Rept Re Shaft Matl Fabricated of Carbon Steel Instead of Stainless Steel in Square Motor Housing RHR Pump 22.Initially Reported on 830302.RHR Pump 22 Will Be Replaced.Also Reportable Per Part 21

ML20073P372
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/16/1983
From:	Otoole J CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.
To:	Haynes R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
REF-PT21-83 10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8304250159
Download: ML20073P372 (2)

Text

e John D. C'Toole Vice Presdent Consondated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

4 Irving Place, New York. NY 10003 Telephone (212) 460-2533 March 16, 1983 Re: Indian Point Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 Mr. Ronald C. Haynes, Regional Administrator Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

Dear Mr. Haynes:

By letter dated March 2,1983 we provided confirmation of our notification to Mr. 'Ihmas Foley of your office, of a potential Reportable Occurrence IER 83-004 concerning shaft material in square notor housing residual heat removal pump No. 22.

Attachment A to this letter provides the status of our evaluation to date. Our evaluation is continuing. Notification will be made in accordance with applicable requirements when that evaluation is cmpleted.

RHR punp nunber 22 will be replaced prior to reaching 24 calendar months of normal operation. All similar equipnent in storage has been renoved fran stock and orders placed for appropriate replacement equipnent.

Consolidated Edison believes that this report also satisfies the requirements of 10CFR Part 21.

Very truly yours,

/

)y -V L JOT:ah Attachment cc: Mr. '1hmas Foley, Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission P. O. Box 38 Buchanan, New York, New York 10511 8304250159 830316 h

PDR ADOCK 05000247 S PDR a

5

/

i w., g a

w, ATDCHMENP A STMUS CF PNAUATION Upcn notification that RHR ptmp no. ~22 shaft material was fabricated of carbon steel rather than the specified stainless steel, a review was initiated to determine the acceptability of that material for PHR punp shaft service for a 24 month period of normal operation followed by a potential one year period of post accident operation. 'Ihe strength of the carbon steel- for this application was determined to be equivalent to that of the originally specified stainless steel. '1he corrosion rate for the carbon steel was concluded to be sufficiently low to preclude any significant consequences for the service period evaluated. In addition a

- locking device is installed on~ the end of the motor /inpeller shaft affording substantial additional retention capability to insure against-anti-rotation or loss.of the inpeller nut in the event of any significant corrosion of the threaded -surfaces.

Based on equivalent strength, the corrosion rate for the carbon steel shafts coupled with the fact that RHR punp No. 22 service time;will be limited, along with the presence of a locking device on the shaft, con Edison has independently concluded that the use of carbon steel shaft material in RHR punp No. 22 for a period no longer than twenty-four nonths does not involve an unreviewed safety question. We are currently in the process or evaluating the longer term inplications of operating with the alternate shaft material.

By telephone on March 2,.1983 and subsequently by letter dated March 3, 1983 Con Edison apprised Westinghouse (the motor vendor) of our determination that the shaft material in square motor housing residual heat remwal punp No. 22 was carbon steel instead of stainless steel.

-Westinghouse was requested to review their records advising Con Edison of any interim findings and to provide a written report of their findings at j

the conclusion of their investigation.

By letter dated March 7, 1983 Westinghouse acknowledged Con Edison's

! notification of discrepancies with regard to RHR punp shaft materials.

Westinghouse informed us that they are in the process of obtaining I . applicable hentation on original equiprent and renewal parts and will

! . formally advim Con Edison if incorrect material is involved based on their records. Westinghouse does not believe that ' shafts of this type constitute

a. safety concern at this time. Based on the results of their investigation

' to date, Westinghoum believes this problem is limited to one original purchase order for the RHR punps shipped to seven plants.and arry spare motors or shafts which referenced this original purchase order h=nts.

However, Westinghouse cannot state at this time that a small potential does l

not exist for this problem to extend to other Ingersoll-Rand RHR purps.

Both Con Edison's evaluation and Westinghouse's investigation of the occurrence are continuing with further results expected shortly.

! -