ML20206A197

Summary of 880822-23 Meetings at Site Re Util Response to NRC Bulletin 88-005

ML20206A197
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	11/09/1988
From:	Hopkins J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, TAC-68845, TAC-68846, NUDOCS 8811150011
Download: ML20206A197 (43)

Text

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _

t'v

- ,s :s

'lovember 9,1988 DOCKET N05.: 50-424 50-425 LICENSEE: Georgia Power Company FACILITIES: Vogtle Units 1 and 2 e

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD AUGUST 22 and 23, 1988, TO REVIEW THE V0GTLE RF.SPONSE TO BULLETIN 88-05 (TACs 68845/6)

On August 22 and 23,1988, the NRC staff met with re)resentatives of the Georgia Power Company at the Vogtle site to review t1eir response to NRC Bulletin 88-05. Participants are listed in Enclosure 1. The licensee's presentation is included as Enclosure 2. A Trip Report describing the review performed is included as Enclosure 3.

i Jon B. Hopkins, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated CC:

See next page DISTRIBUTION FOR f1EETING

SUMMARY

DATED: August 22 & 23, 1988 Facility: *Vogtle 1 and 2

~

1 Docket File'-

NRC PDR Local PDR PDII-3 Reading D. Matthews 14-H-25 M. Rood 14-H-25 J. Hopkins 14-H-25 OGC ' 15-B-18 E. Jordan MNBB-3302 B. Grimes 9-A-2 NRC Participants ACRS (10) P-315 B. Troskoski 17-0-19

• Copies sent perso s op facility service list f9011-3 P

/ JHepkins:1s D hews i

/

114;/88 11q/88 3 8911150011 8G1109 l ~

PDR ADOCK 05000424 Q FDC

]

., 7 i .

UNITED STATES 8' .

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y '

4 5 WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S6

% ,,[g # November 9, 1988 DOCKET NOS.: 50-424 50-425 LICENSEE: Georgia Power Company FACILITIES: Vogtle Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD AUGUST 22 and 23, 1988, TO REVIEW TiiE V0GTLE RESPONSE TO BULLETIN 88-05 (TACs 68845/6)

On August 22 and 23, 1988, the NRC staff met with representatives of the Georgia Power Company at the Vogtle site to review their response to NRC Bulletin 88-05. Participants are listed in Enclosure 1. The licensee's presentation is included as Enclosure 2. A Trip Report describing the review performed is included as Enclosure 3.

)

/.77 b. Wow f

on B. Hopkins, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/.I Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

fs stated cc:

See next page

, is -

ENCLOSURE 1 e

PARTICIPANTS August 22-23, 1988 i

NRC GPC G. Hammer P. Herrman i P. Kuo J. Foley e R. Schepens R. Lide E. Rodabaugh - consultant D. Capito '

W. Grossman - consutlant J. Bailey W. Ramsey ,

SCS P. Rice  !

C. Hayes  !

A. Tanfique H. Smedani F. Kuester J. Gilmartin R. George E. Groover ,

J. Kane ESSI R. Reedy - consultant D. Herrin t

k t

f I

I

,, . . - , , . - . , , . - - - - . , - - - - -l

, (

e

• f Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant cc:

Mr. J. P. Kane Resident Inspector Manager, Licensing and Engineering Nuclear Regulatory Comission Georgia Power Company P.O. Box 572 P.O. Box 4545 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Deppish Kirkland, III, Counsel Mr. Ruble A. Thomas Office of the Consumers' Utility Executive Consultant Council Southern Company Services, Inc. Suite 225 P.O. Box 1295 32 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. Paul D. Rice James E. Joiner Vice President & Project Director Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman, Georgia Power Company & Ashmore Post Office Box 282 1400 Candler Building Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 127 Peachtree Street H.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. J. A. Bailey Project Licensing Manager Danny Feig Southern Company Services, Inc. 1130 Alta Avenue P.O. Box 1295 Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Carol Stangler Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Bruce W. Churchill, Esq. 425 Euclid Terrace Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Atlanta, Georgia 30307 2300 il Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20037 fir. R. P. Mcdonald Executive Vice President -

Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr. Nuclear Operations General Manager, Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company Georgia Power Company P.O. Box 1295 P.O. Box 1600 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 Regional Administrator, Region 11 fir. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Comissioner U.S. tiuclear Regulatory Comission Department of Natural Resources 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 270 Washington Street, flW Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Office of the County Comissioner Attorney General Burke County Comission Law Department Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 132 Judicial Building Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Office of Planning and Budget Room 615B 270 Washington Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334

{ .

b ENCLOSURE 2 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY V0GTLE ELECTRIC 6ENERATING PLANT (VEGP)

NRC BULLETIN 88-05 RESPONSE PLAN AUGUST 22, 1988 II l

I l

l t

i n=re_

1 . ro a:e GEORGIA POWER CO.

VOGTLE ELECTRIC

. . . . . _ .  ;. GENERATING PLANT VEGP NRC BULLETIN 88-05 RESPONSE PLAN

• NRCB 88-05 CHRONOLOGY

SUMMARY

INDUSTRY EFFORTS NAh.k-sen pm s

Mtib^PC$

SUMMARY

V0GTLE EFFORTS

.,g..g3 LJt?"~

1 STATUS OF VEGP UNITS 1 AND 2 IDENTIFICATION WJM/ PSI /CLM MATERIALS

• VEGP TESTING H P+

T10N

L

,J u- i ~1 e.:

W -Q!')N4Has,.e '

• VEGP RESOLUTION / TESTING CORRELATION 1 ,

• CONCLUSIONS l

l

08.19.88 03:33 FM oREEDY ASSOCIATES P02 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 0 May 8,1988 NRC 8646 leeued Identined WJM and PSI Documentation Problem Must Assure Materials Comply With Code 0 June 16.1988 NUMARC/EPRI Program Initiated o Perform hardness testing with Equotip o Obtain materials for generic testing and correlation o Temporarily use Equotip/Bri.WI conversion for reporting (conservative)

.t.

e

08.19.88 03:33 FM

• REEDY ASSOCIATES ?03 )

l I

0 June 15,1988 (cont.)

i 2 -

Supplement 1 lesued (Resutt of Low Tensile T,wts Reported on Blind Flanges - CP&L) e o Neport "may deviation from spec;",cetion' h

o Many conservative data points reported wrongh Indicating poor material tests 4

i o Required JCO's for OL plants o Generic stress anahele indicated no safety problem existed 0 July 29,1988 NUMARC/EPRI Interim Report to NRC o Results show OL's een stop testing o NTOL's evaluate Code compliance O August 3,1988 Supplement 2 issued o OL plants stop testing o NTOL plants continue testing O August 18,1968

- Vogtfe Unit 2 Demonstrates to AIA that Code Requirements Are a ..,a e k , g .4 + e . -

2 D '"4

cc .

08.19.88 03:33 FM oREEDY ASSOCIATES PO4 INDUSTRY EFFORT 0 Docurnentation Review 1 0 identification of WJM/ PSI Material I

o Equotip Training and Procedures 0 Fleid Equotlp Tests and Reports of Results 0 Correlation of Equotlp Hardness to Brinell Hardness to Tensile Strength (Conservative No Better Correlation Yet Available) 0 Generic Strees Evaluation Based on Assumption of Tensile Stiervdi of CP&L Material 0 Testing of Warehouse Material at Independent I.ab Hardness / Chemistry / Strength 0 Reporting of Equotlp/ Strength Correlation to NRC 0 Comparison of industry Tests to AISI Data, ge.h of

- AlSI Data includes Chemistry of SA-105

- AISI Data includes Strength of SA-105

- - AISI Data includes Product Working of SA-105 Industry Test Data is Similar to AISI Data O Except for A Few Blind Flanges, Code Requirements are Met 3

g 1

.],y,74f"'"P.,?;ff '

V0GTLE EFFORT f--w

',49(;

' Documentati$n Review  ;

• Hardness Testing on SA-105

• Chemistry Tests on Stainless Steel l

• Replication Metallographic Tests on Stainless Steel

• Review of AISI Reports

• Evaluation with Equotip/ Tensile Strengh Correlation . . . . .

w.v. . :

• Conclusion is that Code Requirements Are Met U'iu.,.j

.J. .,

• Presentation to AIA and State

• Acceptance by AIA and State

• Report to NRC R.N" 2aji.i n v.

• Vogtle Methodology is Generic Applicable to All Plants - OL's and NTOL's

{

...i..e.

t

)v.yu.

a ,*.

i

': . ". . . . Tr

@.74WI~  : '

l

STATUS OF VEGP UNIT 1

p:s..;; ,

uk Ep p tyg ta a . :.  :.s r Trr g g; 3 H h.-

_ , . . m:

s fI'- b UNIT 1: $q7Ma 1. .

+i a gg' 3  ;. g . .

$%4

' ~

.r ATION j4Q "Hift{

E

• NEXT GUTAGE BEGINS EARLY OCTOBER,1988 WJM/ PSI MATERIALS ARE IN OPERATING SYSTEMS i

• NO OCCURRENCE OF MATERIAL AN0MALIES TO DATE i

l i,m l '

l ,14.M. t-l t n T, ,:.115.1nwJ. l, .

b____, _ _ - _ - _ _

STATUS OF VEGP UNIT 2 UNIT 2:

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

• FUEL LOAD SCHEDULEB FOR FEBRUARY,1999 PRIMARY HYDRO COMPLETES

• N-STAMP PROGRAM UBBERWAY (2) SYSTEMS STAMPEB NO EVIDENCE .0F MATERIAL-ANOMALIES DURING SYSTEM TESTING TO DATE

i

VEGP IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM i

,r.FM3./

mil:.

9 .: W ,. 4v

'"f.x m

. *1;.74 94 t4+nce .- .;

r.! t . :n$q

- WJM/ J, t r

t g.. 1.. .L- .

&cra -:

. "i2 . . :  :'..

~ ,J , ki rl :t,4.;_

SCOPE z ;

ta e a p-g7 .y  ;

si)i!J.:.$l COMPONENT REVIEW Bulk Purchase Piping Sebassemblies Vender Components

.- h a' ns

.

, r - U" j..f'i t.t '.'. 4.1.

,a.

-! I .' .'

STATUS OI{rMATERIAL IDENTIFICATION UNIT h I-UjQ#3  ;

M hE,

-, H.

4

'I 43 MFL. k . . ; Cif.

Wq gg i.. $!P.JJ A. d.%pe -

(.4_,g) .

CONST UNIT 1 PUNCHASE

• TOTAL PIECES 1,173 12 INSTALLED, 26 IN STOCK e PIECES TESTED 1,047 0 e PIECES EVALUATED 1,047 0 e PIECES IMACCES$1BLE 80 e TO BE TESTED / EVALUATED 46 38

• JCO'S 310 BASED ON ORIGINAL OVERLY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH e_m. .

j?ffypf SM i k.IU EFijf!Tf

.; iIIJti!,'

1 l .dllEfd . vets i

STATUS QE.s +

.. ATERIAL IDENTIFICATION UNIT 2L

• :..in;z 1

fIii-Q en r

-.},

q ..

I

)

t,_ g r:1. 4..,y.n.n-I j e TOTAL PIECES 1,454 i

i e TOTAL TESTED 1,454 1

I

• TOTAL EVALUATED 1,454 1

n a. .

. n. t . _

L_ _ _ _ _ _ . .

_ . ___ .-. .- = - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

.. c.

. . . g. ,

l TESTING & EVALUATION 1 i

I

.j'M * '

• PROCESS LOGIC 3EI'?

A, s . ,. .

I , ' . . '[ ;

.u.y- 1

~., -:e ~~ l a RESPONSE TEAM ,

1 I

L

• PROCEDURES  ;

P I

• TRAINING l

. . .a,. . _-a, a+ , +

,. l 1 ..  !

.s. . . . m., =

. . . . . t.

1

. . , .4 . ,

• • , Y i k7

• Tkf;'#E ,g

l I L

i 4

I

}

(

l ,

i I i

a il a

j i I

e 8 4 e

NRCB 44-05 VEGP PROGRAM FLOW CHART l :s se.n f

-5,%

t en w.

,i,.sg ,

il ,p lwr y-t AM%

^

t I f

• (M "2" ".*.

i M ,-e- W I 6..-~

Q =L M 9

i_

t W24 1

_ m.

a 6- .

" > g "

' T 4

. i

[ _ __

a m w f

__ I I _I I Ma $ s

1. 3,1

=L a ,, E i m .s ,

. e ,a I

j i

l l ll r 'l j

i

O l c .

l l

58-05 RESPONSE TEAM p

'K

, ........... *. .y ...

W irTr

.cW ....,

as m l, tMWF ,M41- 'efh ' M E e-u....a.........u........ ........a ty r .. z. .4!!s, .m ~6C

.',xm o%

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING OBJECTIVES:

• UTILIZE TEST METHODS THAT WILL EST DAMAGE INSTALLES COMPORENTS MEASURE SALIENT MATERIAL PROPERTIES TO VERIFY MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE

=

• PROVIDE QUARTITATIVE BAWS FOR CONCLUDING MATERIAL SUITABILITY FOR SERVICE i

l N_.------------------------ - -- - -

] NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING -l "HARDNESS TEST"

.-Gi in .:

OBJECTIVE:i.jBETERMINE MATERIAL HARDNESS - RELATE TO -

idMh Rr. TENSILE /YlELD STREESTN E 'r APPL .Ml- Y: NUCLEAR CLASS 1, 2, 3 & APPLICABLE NON-ASOE J

%d7D CARBON $ TEEL 499-STA1NtES94T4EL . . Dd Deaw  : -

! ;u;

,

CRITERIA: IEITIAL: EOUS-Tir BRINELL - UTC CONVERSION '

l FINAL:- E000-TIP HARDNESS TO TENSILE STRENGTH I METHOD: EQU0-TIP HARDNESS TEST

)

i PREPARATION: BUFF MATERIAL SURFACE l ACCEPTANCE: MEETS SPEC./C0DE REQUIREMENTS l l

I N hn W; e;n r hrrn 4  :

L _.-._ _....___-_._.___ ..___ _ _ _ _- _ ._ --_.. -.- . _ _ - - - - - - - - ___ _ ___

i used G , u:.+ w b m ~ "^~'

) .

l l NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING 1

~ ALLOY ANALYSIS ~

l

OBJECTIVE

DETERMINE ACTUAL ALLOY CHEMICAL CONTENT (i.e. CHROEE, NICKEL, MOLYBOENUM)

O APPLICABILITY: IlUCLEAR CLASS 1, 2, 3 & APPLICABLE NON-ASME STAINLESS STEEL CRITERIA: SATISFY MATERIAL SPEC. REQUIREMENTS l METHOD; ALLOY ANALYZER - SCANS MATERIAL SURFACE 1

i i

PREPARATION: CLEAN BASE METAL BY BUFFING / LIGHT GRINDING ACCEPTANCE: CHEMICAL CONTENT ARE WITHIN SPEC. REQUIREMENTS i

L .. . _ _ . --

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING REPLICATION" OBJECTIVE: EXAMINE GRAIN STRUCTURE APPLICABILITY: NUCLEAR CLASS 1, 2, 3 & APPLICABLE IlON-ASME STAINLESS STEEL CRITERIA: GRA!N STRUCTURE WHICH REPRESENTS SOLUTION ANNEALED CONDITION METHOD: REPLICATION - PHOTOGRAPH (MICRO, MACRO)

BASE METAL SURFACE PREPARATION: POLISH & ETCH MATERIAL SURFACE ACCEPTANCE: VERIFY GRAIN STRUCTURE CHARACTERISFICS

t VEGP RESOLUTION / TESTING CORRELATION f

• CODE COMPLIANCE r::::-

r. .e.. :

e CARBON STEEL ffh w.

- AISI ir ,2 .

- NUMARC/EPRI i

• STAINLESS STEEL I

y e

SUMMARY

i

. ..t* 9m n p s-  :

. " . . ' .7,y.i' l

, b , e eIk e d

• • Y',:5; hit)i l

i l

l t

i l

08.19.88 03:33 PM

• REEDY ASSOCIATES P10 HOW TO DEMONSTRATE CODE COMPLIANCE O PURPOSE: Demonstrate WJM/PEH material (SA-105 Carbon steel and SA-182 Stainlese 8tsei) meet Code requirements 0 HOW1

- Physical tests

- Chemical tests Hardness correladon Industry knowledge regarding product teedng 9

1

(

- - ' ~ ~

. . :1

~

CARBON STEEL u

I e AISI REPORTS 1

- Include Chemistry Representative of SA-105

- Include Tensile Strw..gth Representative of SA-105

- Include product working representative of Sa-105 n ::. . . ,

- Demonstrates product test results con be more thane O% % er ,

than mill test results { _-

?

Jp. .

e Conversion - Hardness to Tensile Strength  ;

- Original conversion was L -BHN-UTS (known to be conservative)  !

, - Lab appliedtesting results in to SA-105, aredirect conversion.

conservative whenLab results, when compared to AISI  :

i data.

,- . w.. i y'I

' .h-2' ' '. $ $ saO.

- --t  ; {

.r. m  !

+

e Therefore, dam"4

.. _ .. ~

iiimeets a;!

.1 code requirements for SA-105 l 1

i

08. 19.88 13.133 FM

• REEDY ASSOCIATES F16

(,24 i 4 c y. r. :w W. i ht+ me .t, /+wl...

TENSILE TEST O MILL TEST N'

sC N N

....~- \

[sg.g h

6 3 nw Test Blank 0 TEST OF SAME FORGING A5Jial k

g;f,4 W"a e au

,g l

. }l////

O W/

d i

REASONS

- Co-Aing

'; - Shape Amount of Work Sizs 4

- Configuration 15 -

)

sr -

l .

],

I

• 1

\

t i

1 l

l t

! LABORATORY HARDNESS VS. ,

i TENSILE STRENGTH I

200 < -

199< - #

300 -

aA ,

170< - 8 mouowas ie. -

,g ( ,

sem is.. . a .

nasoness ue- , -

130< -

• 120< , M 4 "

110< , $a:

100  :  :  :

30000 70000 00000 90990 100000 110000 TM NE '1'

~>

l e

l i

1 -

/ . < e

>H. i c ,.

- j ' 'H-  :

l r 'i' T o po. w h I

l i

'Equedy MarWnees vs. Unimate TenneeI %ength Lakerstery Test Resume

~

I i i

E '  !

gE uo ,

l i a , a e I E~

4%.

H a

t E

II su "ar=/

.a .. ,

q n= m EE I

5 ,. -

}

a ggg [ g a Il f

t l sno f senten uit . me + n

/g = . asse I

E / EI o . ar,4ER Commesma samasema, t . afu r1 . mensofe - = ases) l 30 l I ameo esano Fonce Psono sense assee scope tason m iewee sswge ps4 Data as of i.

7/22/88 FIG. 3 BEST FIT EQUOT!P VS TENS!LE STRENGTH l

1

4 e e o

r ti i n. ti l5 43 l I $3 1

$ M i!!

5 m es:

s" m it!

ummmetil E ll I ta I

13 be

'l I, Go gg . . . i

4 I l l

l I

i

'I i

i I

l

\ .

1 8^

'l g ,:},,

l .

8 g M i! .

• M il .

I W V V w w w V O O O O O O O O O O V V li V

e e b e en v M N w e

EW e

]

4 1 o

O W

G SA105 FIELD HARDESS DATA 32 -

DATA AS OF 20 JULY 1988 300 -

250 -

F 200 -

gg 150 -

100 -

50 -

0 " E " -

3 <

86 HARDESS CATEGORIES

". ,",3,'"".'= "A=O' ";' ~ '"" " " ~ ' " " " " ' "

i 1

i blos lh V0GTLE SPECIFIC -

{

i IABORATORY TENSILE TEST RESULT 3 NEET SA 105 l LABORATORY CHEMICAL ANALYSI3 SHOW MATERIAL IS SA 105 1 i

[

l t

l t

. i l

. I 0

. - - - - - , . _ . - . - . _ _ _ - - - , . ..-,,_,,_w,-.- , r__

l..

l' j ie l ii ie s =:'  !

en -

g '53 8

>e?l .=l-w -5 E '

l -n i- a shhhh$8N8NNk e*

A.L11NYnO j

, o STAINLESS STEEL Tests Magnetic tests Chemistry Metallography (Replication)

All results on all tests show material to be Type 304 or 316, as applicable.

Therefore Code requirements are met for stainless steel

. 3

^.. "" * $. .

e l

(

l i

l

. ..L'?

(

. c--

l i

i

T slus+vy)

SUMMARY

OF STAINLESS STEEL TESTS TENSILE 14 HARDNESS  :

14

+

CHEMISTRT 48  !

SENSITIZATION 40 i i i . '

i i

L

(

.  ?

VOGTLE STAINLESS STEEL FIELD TESTING 27 CHEMISTRY

• 27 SENSITIZATION

• 141 MAGNETIC ALL ACCEFTABLE l

l

• INCLUDES ALL IDENTIFIED CLASS I ITEMS AND ALL HEATS OF WJM/ PSI STAINLESS AT TIME OF TESTING ,

I 'L k C l z.rs I

08.19.88 03:33 PM

• REEDY ASSOC 1ATES ?i3 1

SUMMARY

OF EFFORTS STAGE 1 - (Temporary and Conservattve) (Initial Screening) j 0 Equotlp Tests M 0 Conversion of Equotlp Hardness to Brinell Hardness to Tenelle Strength i 0 Generic th. Evaluation (Weak MateriaQ l,

o Vogtle Unit 1 JOO's

\

l l

i 4

I l

12 -

l

08.19.88 03:33 PM

• REEDY ASSOCIATES P14

SUMMARY

OF EFFORTS STAGE 2 - (Compilance with Code) 0 NUMARC/EPRI Hardnese, Tenelle Strength, and Chemletry Teste of More Than 260 h d SA-106 0 Determination d Equotip Hardness to Tenslie hvyh Corworsion d 8A-105 0 Evaluation of Al81 Papers O Comparison d SA-105 to Structural Shapes (AISI Dets) 0 Evaluation d SA-106 Hardness Test Data 0 Teste of Stainless Steel Demonstrates that Motorial is Type 304 l or 316, as Appilcable

! O

Conclusion:

All SA 105 and Stainless Steel Material et Plant i Vogtle Most Code 0 AtA and State Ag.9ement Code Requirements are Met l

l 13 l  %

08,19.88 03:33 PM

• REEDY ASSOCIATES P15 CODE

SUMMARY

('I J '),

0 ASME CODE SYSTEM WAS FOLLOWED IN CONSTRUCTION OF YOGTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 0 SUSPIC6ON OF FRAUD 0 TESTS DEMONSTRATE MATERAL MEETS CODE i 0 CODE REQUIREMENTS MET THERE IS NQ EMDENCE OF

! ANY CODE NONCOMPUANCE OF WJM/ PSI-SUPPUED MATERWLS AT PLANT VOGTLE l

j i

l i

e l

l

• 14 +

l l

[

S Y ENCLOSURE 3 l

l TRIP REPORT l

PROJECT: Development of Technical Input for Acceptance Criteria to be Used in the Review of Licensee Responses to NRC Bulletin 88-05 "Nonconforming Materials Supplied by PSI and WJM Companies" Task Assignment No.13 Under FIN A-3869 TAC Number 68442 LOCATION: Georgia Power Company Vogtle Nuclear Station

Waynesboro, CA DATES: August 22-23, 1988 PARTICIPANTS: P. T. Kuo. NRC Walter Crossman, BNL Cary Hammer, NRC E. C. Rodabaugh, BNL PURPOSE: Obtain information and observe field procedures relatye to licensee's ability / capability to respond to NRC Bu11ein 88-05 ~~

and to discuss other pertinent problems and concerns.'

BACKCROUND: Potential generic safety implications exist at facilities that have installed pipe fittings and flanges furnished by PSI and VJM which were sold with falsified CMTR's. The information available to date indicates that WJM started supplying ASMZ Code components to the nuclear industry in 1976, both directly as well as through intermediaries, and that PSI started supplying ASME Code components to the nuclear industry directly and through intermediaries in 1985. In addition, WJM held an ASME Quality System Certificate (QSC-385) as a =aterial manufacturer from Noveuber 30, 1979 to November 30, 1985.

DOCUMENTS .

REVIEWED: 1. Meeting Handout, VECP Response Plan, 8-22-88

2. AISI Report, "The variation of Product Analysis and Tensile Properties, Carbon Steel Plates and Wide Flange Shapes, Sept. 1974.

3. Vogtle's JC0 Control Log, Updated to 8-15-88.

4. JC0 0032, Flanges and Half Couplings, 7-23-88.

S. Calculations J-1K3-1217-027-07 Evaluation of Half Coupling and 10" kTVN Flange,;7-23-88.

6. Vogtle Field Procedure Manual, KD-A-08 Rev. O, Equotip Hardness Testing, 6-24-88.

l 1 l

l 1.

DISCUSSION: Bill Ramsey, Vogtle's Project Engineering Manager, opened the meeting on Monday af ternoon with a handout and presentation consisting of Vogtle's response plan to NRC Bulletin 88-05.

Roger Reedy, Consultant to Vogtle, completed the presentation.

The presentation covered Vogtle's response plan, a chronology of events, the status of material identification tests in Units 1 and 2, a description of Equotip nondestructive hardness testing methods and results, and a summary of ef forts and conclusions.

Vogtle contends that their results to date show that all WJM/ PSI carbon and stainless steel pipetittings and flanges at the plant meet code. Vogtle claims that this has been demonstrated by physical and chemical material tests, hardness correlation to UTS and industry experience with product testing. The most significant assumption by Vogtle is that product test results can be more than tot lower than mill test results. Vogtle supplied an AISI document to support their assumption. Vogtle concluded that the carbon steel material corresponds to SA-105 and that acceptable product UTS values can be as low as 62 to 63 kei, i.e., approximately lot less than the 70 kei UTS minimus specification value.

Subsequently we witnessed a live demonstcation of the Equotip hardness measuring equipment and procedures in the conf erence room. We were escorted to the diesel-generator butiding where field personnel demonstrated the procedures and took hardness readings on several flanges.

On Tuesday, 6-23-88, we were escorted to the containment of Unit 2 where we were shown PSI /WJM supplied fittings installed in Class I piping systems.

The remainder of the day was spent reviewing JC0 packages.

A. Taufique, a SCS contractor stress analyst at Yogtle, provided l a JC0 control log and approximately 20 JC0 packages for review.

Vogtle has completed over 50 JCO's. Each PSI /WJM supplied part l is given a unique record number identifier. A request for l engineering review (RER) may include as many as 50 records (parts).

The 2-step procedure to identify and resolve the adequacy of each PSI /WJM supplied part was described by A. Taufique. The first step consists of completing the RER Routing Sheet which identifies the nonconforming parts and conditionti. The second step consists of the review of the nonconforming condition by the stress analysis group. The stress analysis group issues a JC0 Torm which describes the nonconforming parts and conditions, the evaluation technique, the results of the evaluation, a JC0 susaary conclusion with regard to acceptability and references the stress analysis calculation number.

2

I

'O Several JC0's and stress calculation packages were reviewed. For fittings, such as half couplings, the procedure is to determine the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) from Equotip sessurements.

The adjusted allowable is assumed to be 1/4 of the UTS. The adjusted allowable is compared to the allowable used in the analysis of the pipe (SA-106, Gr. 8) at temperature. If the adjusted allowable is greater than the analysis allowable, the fitting is ruled to be acceptable; if the adjusted allowable is less than the analysis allowable, the calculated stresses in the pipe at the fitting f rom code equations 8, 9 and 10 are compared to the lower adjusted allowable. The. adjusted allowable is not corrected for temperature effects.

Flanges are reviewed for acceptability both from a pressure and a moment capacity capability. The procedure for assessing pressure capacity is similar to that described above for fittings. The procedure dif fers from that prcposed by NUMARC which uses an adjusted yield strength derating f actor where the adjusted yield is taken as 1/2 of the UTS. The procedure for assessing flange moment capacity is essentially the same as that proposed by NUMARC where the flange soment capacity is calculated using the equations in NC-3658 3 and compared to actual values.

Engineering evaluations reviewed appeared to be consistent with Vogtle's methodology. The documentation and traceability is fairly good. Where values of stresses in the pipe were calculated by computer, the values shown in the evaluation sheets were obtained f rom the computer output and are relatively low even when compared tn the adjusted (reduced) allowables. The stresses obtained f rom the computer output are in the pipe node at the juncture of the pfpe to the fitting er flange. Vogtle did not evaluate fillet velds conneett:3 the pipe to socket fittings; the weld saf have reduced strength due to an adsixture with the reduced strength parent material (See NC-3356C).'

An exit meeting was held in the af ternoon at which various topics were discussed. The significant consents are suasartsed below:

(1) Temperature ef f ects should be considered in the engineering evaluations.

(2) Temperature ef f ects on hardness readings should be considered and the tesperature indicated en the JCO.

(3) Some Equotip readings appear to be too high resulting in potentially brittle asterial.

3

.=a (4) The staff saw some UTS values as low as 43 ksi on JCO's which contradicts Vogtle's :t4tement that the minimum UTS from Equotip readings was found to be 62 ksi.

Vogtle stated that the difference appears to be due to an earlier method of converting Equotip to BHN to UTS.

Vogtle will investigate and explain the difference.

(5) The staff questioned the use of the best fit curve for Equotip to UTS conversion as being inconsistent with Code minimum requirements.

(6) Vogtle claims that for some of the nonconforming flanges, the actual UTS values are expected to be less than minimum required (70 ksi). The Vogtle claim is based on data from the A!S! report ("Variation of Product Analysis and Tensile Properties, Carbon Steel Plates and Wide Flange Shapes") which indicates that for soce structural steel final product fonns, UTS values are less than the CNTR values. The staff has some reservations about the applicability of the A!S! ,

report to the SA 105 material. The staff suggested that in order to substantiate the claim. Equotip hard-ness tests be performed on 75 flanges for which certi-fied mill test results (CNTR) are available. If the UTS trend for these flanges is the same as for the nonconforming flanges, then Vcgtle's UTS distribution dssumption Day De verified.

(7) Vogtle was requested to provide yield stress, reduction in area, ductility, redulus and chemistry values for the test specinens taken from discrepant parts.

The staff found Vogtle persennel to be well informed and cooperative. This was the first plant visit to assess a licen-see's response to NRC Bulletin 88-05. The demonstrations, inspections, and sample calculatiens provided resulted in a better understanding of the licensee's procedures and methodology.

4