ML20154D057
| ML20154D057 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1988 |
| From: | Grubic D LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154D015 | List: |
| References | |
| IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, NUDOCS 8809150123 | |
| Download: ML20154D057 (25) | |
Text
,_
! L usuussed E
l
[
MIDDLE SOUTH l
l l
l l
l l
UTILITIES SYSTEM WATERFORD SES - U NIT 3 i
i i
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS i
i h
j i
$)
$a I' ~
i Q MJ ~$
S a f e t y-j.gI E f ficie n c y l
Generation m9 v
1 t
l r...
.:p l
Louisiana Power Light Company j
Il @ t p D 7) t @ 1D i
)
US-NRC B ulle tin 8 8-0 5 l
b $ p k @ 71)'I e r 9, 'l 0 0 0 J
l
-=
_ _:)
l 0809150123 000909 I
PDR ADOCK 05000382 0
PNV l
J
Actions Completed By Loulslana Power & Light Company in Response to US-NRC Bulletin 88-05 (Non<onforming Materials Supplied by Piping Supplies, Inc. at Folsom, New Jersey and West Jersey Manufacturing Company at Williamstown, New Jersey)
PrepairJ by:
Daid D. Gmbic
TABLE of CONTENTS SECTION PAGE(s)
A.
I n tr o d u c ti o n.............................................................................. A 1,2 B.
R ec o r d s S e a :: h................................................................... B 1,2,3,4 C.
Te s t E q u l p m e n t........................................................................... C 1 D.
Tes t P ers o n n el Trainin g.............................................................. D 1 E.
I n Wa r e h o u s e Te s ti n g................................................................. E-1 F.
F i e l d Te s il n g................................................................................ F 1 G.
En gin eerl.9 g Eva lu atio n s......................................................... G 1,2,3 H.
O e a lity A s s u r a n c a......................................................................... H 1 1.
Summary........................................................................................11
1
(
Introduction M
l l
1 i
I
INTRODUCTION NRC Bulle6n 88-05 was issued to all holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear reactors on hiay 6,1988. This Bulletin addressed the possibility of materials supplied by Piping Supplies, Inc. (PSI) and West Jersey hianufacturing (WJM) being installed or stored for future use which may not have complied with design specification requirements.
For materials installed, or intended for use in safety related applications. 'his Bulletin requested that licensees take action to either assure that the materials comply with the design specification requirements, are suitable for their intended service or are replaced. A written report discussing these activities was required within 120 days.
On June 15, 1988, NRC Bulletin 88 05, Supplement I was issued for the following purposes:
- To provide additional information concerning material supplied by PSI and
- WJM, o Reduce the scope of materials in question to only flanges and fittings, I
- Delineate field testing requirements, and l
- Clarify what actions were required once the flanges and fittings were identified as not complying with the design specification requirements.
All other requirements of NRC Bulletin 88 05 remained in effect.
Supplement 2 of NRC Bulletin 88 05 was issued on August 3,1988 to proside additional information concerning materials supplied by PSI and WJM and to temporarily suspend records review, field testing, and the preparation of justifications for continued operations (JCOs). De request that the licensee provide a written report within 120 days of the original bulletin remained in effect.
A1
1 INTRODUCTION (Continued) i Upon receipt of the above mentioned Bulletin and its supplements, Louisiana Power & Ught Company's Waterford 3 personnel began the tasks necessary to assure that its materials were in compliance with the bulletin requirements. Necessary tasks were conducted in the following areas:
e Records Search e Test Equipment e Test PersonnelTraining In-Warehouse Testing o
Field Test 'ig e
Engineering Evaluations e
e Quality Assurance The following sections of this report describe these tasks and report their results as completed in regards to the reporting requirements of NRC Bulletin 88 05 and its supplements, l
l A2
Records Search i
1
RECORDS SEARCH The purchase records at Waterford 3 were reviewed to determine whether any WJhi or PSI supplied ash 1E Code or ASThi flanges or fittings were furnished to the nuclear facility.
A list of potential suppliers was developed by reviewing the following:
- Ebasco AVL's (Approved Vendors Ust) e LP&L QSL's (Qualified Suppliers List) e Ebasco Waterford 3 Index of Orders e Ebasco Construction QA Records Vault Index of Suppliers 5
List of suppliers generated as a result of keyword query of the Waterford 3 e
Tandem Computer System Databases A list of purchase orders was generated from the potential suppliers. Ilard copy and microfilm for these purchase orders were reviewed for certified material test reports (ChfTRs) from WJht and PSI. It was determined through the records review process that WJhi and PSI were not on the approved suppliers list nor did they supply flanges or fittings directly to Waterford 3. Only carbon steel flanges that were sub-supplied by WJhi were identified through the records review process as being supplied to Waterford 3. No flanges or fittings from PSI were identified as being supplied to Waterford 3. Usted below are those suppliers which supplied WJht carbon steel flanges to Waterford 3:
e Dravo Corp.
- Dubose Steel,Inc.
e Gulfalloy Co.
e Guyon Alloys e Tyler-Dawson Supply Co.
B1
RECORDSbCARCH (Continued)
Due to the enormity of the pipe fabrication and NSSS contracts, Dravo (Piping Contractor) and Combttstion Engineering (NSSS Supplier) were contracted to provide a listing of equipment / components on which materials from WJM or PSI were supplied. Combustion Enginect.'og responded on July 13,1988 that they found no evidence of either PSI or WJM as having supplied, either as prime vendor or subtler supplier, flanges or fittings to LP&L for Waterford 3. Dravo responded on June 30,1988 that they did supply carbon steel flanges to Waterfored 3 and they provided a list identifying these flanges.
Based on Purchase Records and communications with suppliers and sub suppliers, it was determined that Waterford 3 received only carbon steel flanges marv:tactured by WJM.
To identify installed locations of these carbon steel flanges, a "flange package" was assembled and a search made of contractor (construction) safety installation packages. Installed locations were identified by searching the following:
e ROW's (Requisition on Warehouse) e ROS's (Requisition on Stores) e RTW's (Return to Warehouse)
- Ebasco Surplus Inventory Listing e Current LP&LInventory e Nuclear Spare Parts inventory System o Transfer Requisitions e Stations Modifications Once the installed locations were identified, the "flange package" was processed by Engineering and Planning and Scheduling in preparation of field testing of the flanges.
D2
RECORDS SEARCH (Continued)
For WJM supplied flanges, procured under Ebasco purchase orders which did not have installation records, a search was conducted of the warehouse, senice buildings, Skills Training Center, and Milan Auctioneer in Harvey, Loulslana which bought surplus material from LP&L The results of this search indicated that those flanges were either used on non safety related systems, discarded as scrap, or sold as surplus material to Milan Auctioneers, Flanges supplied to Dravo by WJM which have not been located are believed to have been used on non safety related pipe spools or were identified as surplus material and retained by Dravo.
Table 1 provides a summary of the records search for WJM carbon steel flanges at Waterford 3.
Based on the records review process, the carbon steel flanges manufactured by WJM which are installed in safety related systems have been identified.
B3
TABLE 1 Records Review Results Flanges identified As Scrap 13 Flanges Located in The Warehouse 138 Flanges Located inside Containment 3
(inaccessible)
Flanges identified For Field Testing 257 Flanges in Non safety Systems 123 TOTAL FLANGES RECEIVED AT WATERFORD 3 534 B-4
)
Test Equipment i
TEST EQUIPMENT The test equipment used at Waterford 3 to perform the field testing on the WJM flanges was the EOUOTIP liardness Tester. This unit was chosen for its ability to test metallic materials over a wide range of hardness. Additionally, the hardness testing could be performed directly on site, in any position, and was especially suitable for applications in which static hardness testing was not feasible.
This unit was calibrated off site at the Stennis Space Center in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi prior to being used for field testing purposes. The accuracy of the unit was verified at the beginning of each shift by using the calibration block provided by the manufacturer, uboratory test results also demonstrated the reliability of the EOUOTIP liardness Tester.
By comparing results of the hardness readirigs using the EQUOTIP liardness Tester with similar hardness readings using the Rockwell liardness Tester in the laboratory for the same flanges, the securacy of the EOUOTIP liardness Tester was demonstrated.
C1
1 l
Test Personnel Training
l TEST PERSONNEL TRAINING Training was conducted by the Quality Assurance Departinent on June 23, 1988 at Waterford 3 for the personnel who were designated to do the field testing of the WJht flanges. He Following items were discussed at the training session:
Description of the EOUOT1P Ilardness Tester and its Accessories e
e Testing Procedure Preparation of the Test Sample e
e Practical Demonstration of the Unit e Documentation of the Results Upon the completion of the training session, the personnel were fully capable of performing the field testing of the WJht flanges. An attendance record for the training session is kept on file in the Quality Assurance Department, Additionally, a representative from the Quality Assurance Department attended a workshop on hardness testing conducted by EPRI in Charlotte, North Carolina. This workshop addressed these following areas:
Performance Check and Operation of the EOUOTIP Ilardness Tester e Surface Preparation hiagnetism Checking of the hietal e
Recording and liardness Conversion of the Data Obtained e
dis information supplemented the above training of the personnel who were designated to do the field testing.
D1
l 1
In-Warehouse Testing
IN WAREHOUSE TESTING A sample of the WJM flanges located in the warehouse was laboratory tested in response to NRC Dulletin 88-05. A representative sample from each heat number located in the warehouse was sent off site to Partek Laboratories located in llouma, Louisiana.
All testing was certified by Partek Laboratories and performed in accordance with applicable ASD1 standard testing methods and procedures. Each flange was hardness tested in four (4) locations with a minimum of 3 readings per location. Laboratory testing also included selected chemical analysis for Ganges with low hardness readings.
De laboratory test results for each flange were reported to the INPO Nuclear Network for dissemination to the industry. This was to alert utilities with similar heat numbers of possible non conforming material. De material sent to the laboratory for testing was returned and is being retained for future use as may be required.
The laboratory tests for Ganges previously tested in the warehouse also sened as an indication ta which Oanges instdled in the plant should be given a higher priority of testing. Any Dange installed in the plant that had an identical heat number to Ganges tested in the laboratory and whose results indicated a low hardness was promptly scheduled for testing. This provided Waterford 3 with the opportunity to test, on an expeditious basis, the Hanges which were most likely to be non conforming.
The remaining WJM flanges in the warehouse, and not yet tested, will be kept in storage. Waterford 3 has also taken the necenary steps to prevent any further installation of WJM Danges at its facility. Until further direction is given by the NRC, LP&L considers complete the testing of the subject flanges located in the wat chouse.
E1
1 Field Testing
FIELD TESTING liardness tests of the WJM flanges identified by records review as being installed at Waterford 3 were conducted at LP&L The hardness tests were performed using the EOUOTIP liardness Tester on accessible installed flanges to demonstrate the conformance of these to the des.gn material specifications.
De testing procedure was developed by the Quality Assurance personnel and included the steps necessary to pioduce accurate readings. Dese steps induded but were not limited to the following:
Proper Surface Preparation o
e Test Position Correction Factors liigh Temperature Correction Factors e
e Appropriate Tolerance Range of the Readings nis procedute prosided the means to perform hardness tests only and was not intended nor was it used to evaluate the hardness readings, liardness tests were completed on 217 of 257 flanges that were identifhd by records resiew prior to the suspension delineated in Supplement 2 of NRC Bulletin 83-05, ne results of these tests have been reported to the INPO Nuclear Network for distribution to the industry, ne hardness test results have been evaluated by Engineering and these evaluations sie described in the following section, "Engince ing Evaluations *,
Dere remain forty (40) WJM flanges installed at Waterford 3 which have not been hardness tested. Until further direction is prosided by the NRC, LP&L considers the field hardness testing effort complete.
F1
1 Engineerin Evaluations o
ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS De hardness test results of 217 WJM flanges were evaluated by Engineering for their acceptability. Dese flanges were installed per existing industrial standards and practices at the time of construction. De purpose of these evaluations was to determine if the material complied with the design specification requirements.
Acceptability was determined by comparing the measured hardness of the Gange with a hardness equivalent to a tensile strength of 66 KSI (acceptable Brinell liardness of 137). There were 209 flanges evaluated as acceptable based on their hardness results.
A group of 8 WJM Danges whose hardness readings were found not to be in accordance with the above criteria were evaluated by Engineering. These Ganges are summarized in Table 2. De NRC Operations Center was notified that the hardnas readings did not meet the acceptable criteria. When appropriate, Justification for Continued Operations (JCOs) were completed, ne JCOs provided the appropriate analysis justifying continued operation until comprehensive engineering evaluations were completed. The evaluations were completed to assure that the material was suitable for its intended design function. De evaluations consisted of comparing the allowable stresses of the Ganges, determined by the hardness reading, and the calculated stresses based on the maximum operating loads of the Ganget. De stresses based on the maximum operating loads were calculated utilizing the appropriate equations and information contained in or referenced by ASME B&PV Code Section 111. De operating loads included the effects of the following:
Dead Weight of the Piping e
e Design Dase Earthquake e Internal Line Pressure e Piping Configuration Piping Material e
Piping Sire e
Piping Supports e
e Hermalleading Unsupported Lengths of Piping e
G1
l ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS (Continued)
S vable stresses determined by the hardness readings were greater thra th<...
e to the operating loads, thu 8 flanges in question were deemed accept:.
.:r intended use. Based on the engineering and 10CFR50.59 evalue'L..:
.aese flanges, the appropriate licensing documents will be reviewed and up ted as recu! red.
Tt ce flanges, located indrie the high radiation and temperature portion of the containment building, were determined to be inaccessible during normal plant operation for hardness testing. JCO's were prepared for these flanges, and the NRC Operations Center was notified that they were inaccessible.
LP&L has completed the required evaluations for the 217 WJM flanges that were hardness tested at Waterford 3. Based on the completed evaluations for the WJM Flanges, LP&L concludes that the material meets the original design requireinents or has been demonstrated as suitable for its intended use. No further actions are required for these flanges at Waterford 3 in regards to NRC Bulletin 88 05 and its supplements.
G2
TABLE 2 FLANGE EVALUATION
SUMMARY
l FLANGE 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 IDENTIFYING NUMBER CHW 550 CAR 204A CAR 2048 CAA 205 CAR 2068 MS 1068 MS 1088 MS 1138 CHAIN OF TYLER.
DMVO DMVO DMVO DMVO DMVO DMVO DMVO PURCHASE DAWSON HEAT NUMBER 15318 P51762 P51762 PS1762 P51762 G631889 G631889 G631889 S2 EON) 4 4
4 4
4 8
8 8
i SYSTEM CHILLED
CNMT.
CNMT.
MAIN MAIN MAJN WATER ATMOS.
ATMOS.
ATMOS.
ATMOS.
STEAM STEAM STEAM RELEASE RELEASE RELEASE RELEASE PAES$URE 150 150 150 150 150 1500 1500 1500 MT6NG (LBS.)
DESIGN PRESS. (PSI) 120 VACUUM VACUUM VACUUM VACUUM 1,085 1,085 1.085 DESIGN TEMP. (*F) 104 150 150 150 150 555 555 555 PROCUREMENT ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM ASTM SPECIFICATION SA 105 SA 105 SA 105 SA 105 SA 105 SA 105 SA 105
% 105 AVERAGE HARDNESS TEST RESULTS 127/131 121/123 1215/134 132/132 130/130 126/127 134/134 120/129 (BRINELL)
CHEMICAL N/A N/A N/A N'A N'A N/A K'A
.28 C ANALYSIS 051 S
.004 P
.ko SI
.T7 Mn RESULTS OF ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ACCEPT ENGR. EVAL AS IS AS IS ASIS AS l$
ASIS ASIS AS IS ASIS G3
Quality Assurance
QUALITY ASSURANCE The Technical Group of the System Development / Administration section of the Quality Assurance Department performed functions in support of the efforts concerning the actions required to respond to NRC Bulletin 88-05 and its supplements. The functions were primarily metallurgical expertise and quality review.
The Technical Group developed the instructions and training plan for the testing, and also conducted training for the designated personnel who did the actual hardness testing. In addition, when a tested flange was found to have an average hardness reading either above or below the acceptable range, personnel from the Technical Group were summoned to witness the re testing of the subject flange (s) to verify the accuracy and that proper testing procedures were followed.
Upon completion of the field testing, the Technical Group performed a quality review of the completed "flange package" to ensure the following:
e All average readings were correctly calculated, e The proper flanges were tested, o The required signatures were on the appropriate documents, and e Any necessary dispositioning of the tests results was adequately documented.
The utilization of the Technical Group for the above mentioned activities assured LP&L that Waterford 3 had properly completed the tasks associated with NRC Bulletin 88 05 and its supplements.
H1
e e
Summary s
u h
P
SUMMARY
Louisiana Power & Light Company (LP&L) has completed tasks in the following areas to assure that the WJM flanges installed at Waterford 3 are in compliance with the requirements of NRC Bulletin 88 05:
- Records Search e Test Equipment
- Test PersonnelTraining In-Warehouse Testing Field Testing e
Engineering Evaluations e
e Quality Assurance Each area listed above contained tasks which contributed to the evaluation process of the WJM flanges. The acceptable evaluations of the 217 WJM flanges that were hardness tested at Waterford 3 demonstrate their compliance with the requirements of NRC Bulletin 88-05.
The remaining temporarily suspended activities, i.e., testing, records search, review, and preparation of justification for continued operation (JCOs) have been discontinued at Waterford as stipulated in Supplement 2 of NRC Bulletin 88 05.
The pertinent materials and records associated with the activities of this Bulletin and its supplements are being retained by LP&L until further direction is provided by the NRC regarding this issue. Based on the acceptable completed actions described earlier herein, with the exception of updating the licensing documents, as required, which is ongoing at this time, no further activities are required for these flanges at Waterford 3.
11
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _