ML20207N371
| ML20207N371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1988 |
| From: | Feigenbaum T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, NYN-88138, NUDOCS 8810190115 | |
| Download: ML20207N371 (23) | |
Text
,
b Ted C. Feigenbaum Vice President PikdC service of New Hampshire New Hampshire Yankee Division October 14, 1988 NYN-88138 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Document Control Desk
Reference:
a) NHY Letter NYN-88114 dated August 25, 1988, "Response to USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05
Subject:
Request for Additional Infor. nation Gentlemen:
New Hampshire Yankee provided the information required by USNRC Bulletin No. 88-05 and Supplements 1 and 2 in reference (a).
Subsequently, the NRC staff requested additional supplementary product chemistry information to support the overall NHY Equotip test program results. The Equotip test program was deve-loped by NUMARC, through the technical management of the Electric Power Research 1
Institute (EPRI), and implemented by licensees. The additional product che-mistry information is provided in Enclosure (1).
Seabrook has performed the additional requested chemical analyses on the weld neck flange material and found that the results are consistant with the product chemiJtry expected for SA-105 material and the flanges are suitable for their intended use.
Additionally, NHY's review of the NUMARC data for both laborartory and I
industry test results shows that, except for a limited number of blind flanges, l
the suspect material meets mechanical and chemical test results expected for product tests of Code materials.
Except for these blind flanges, the field hard-ness data in the NUMARC report shows that this data follows the same general bell shape and range of hardness distribution as the laboratory hardness tests performed by Bechtel/EPRI. The generic test results were used to generate a correlation relating measured Equotip hardness to tenslie strength.
Independently l
developed utility Equotip and tensile results show good agreement with the generic correlation.
Of the thousands of tests performed on all product forms, only a limited number of blind flanges were identified as substrength.
However, the stress in blind flanges, was addressed analytically in the NUMARC Ceneric Analysis Report submitted in reference (a).
Based on this report, it was shown that for blind flanges there would not be a structural integrity concern even if tensile strength on the order of 40 kai were to be assumed.
f>
f 0
O l
\\\\
P.O. Box 300. Seabrook, NH 03874. Telephone (603) 474 9574 l
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1988 Attention: Document Control Desk Page 2 Since the NUMARC effort had identified blind flanges as having the poten-tial to contain suspect material, NHY took samples from each heat of blind flange material which is installed at Seabrook, in addition to the original sample plan in order to ensure a high confidence level of installed material. Together with the Bechtel results from the sample tests performed on Seabrook material, a che-mical analysis from each heat of blind flange material indicated that, with one possible exception, the blind flanges as well as other product forms of material are acceptable.
The one blind flange required further evaluation, however, it 's derived tensile strength was also determined to be adequate for its intended function.
In summary, the additional Seabrook data ; resented in enclosure (1) supports the overall conclusion in reference (a), that the ASME Section III and ANSI B31.1 material, installed in safety related systems is acceptable for its intended use.
Very truly yours, 4
T. C. Feigenbaum cc: Mr. William T. Russell Regional Administrator Region I United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Avenue Mr. Victor Nerses, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. David G. Ruscitto Senior Resident Inspector (Acting)
P. O.
Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874
United Ststos Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 14, 1988 Attention:
Document Control Desk Page 3 STATE OF NEW RAMPSHIRE Rockingham, ss.
October 14, 1988 Then personally appeared before me, the above-named Ted C. Feigenbaum who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Vice President of New Hampshire Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, that he is duly i
authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the name and i
on the behalf of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, and that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
b39 shu b b' M rufut Beverly E..Jilloway, Notar yP blic My Commission Expirest March 6, 1990 l
i I
\\
l l
)
i i
i l
i 4
r 1
1 1
4 i
ENCLOSURE 1 To i
NYN-88138 SUPPLEMENTARY TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS j
f J
i f
1 4
t I
e 1
)
J, s
l l
)
i i
-w-vv---
r-e e s
---,,~,p_ae--m.e e -. m -- g,-,m, mm w-w --
w.
rew y
1.0 SUPPLEMENTARY TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS The NRC on September 15, 1988, requested NHY to perform additional product chemistry tests of the WJM material installed in Unit 1.
It was agreed that thic supplementary testing would:
(1) Use MIL-STD-105D to develop a valid sampling plan (to a 95% confidence icvel) to determine that the chemistry cf the suspect parts conforms to SA-105 requirements. Each heat of material representing installed material should be included.
If the number of heats is greater than the number of samples needed to meet the. sample plan, the sample need not include all heats.
Sample heats can be randomly selected.
(2) Test samples from heats not meeting SA-10. hardness requirements (137-187 BHN) must be included in the sampling plin to ensure their chemistry is conforming. This represents nine heats.
(See Table 1).
(3) Credit for heats previously sampled under the NUMARC testing effort 1
which are Seabrook specific samples are included in the overall sample plan.
To support the testing effort, NHY Engineering prepared an evaluation No.
88-05, "Material Sample Drill Holes in Weld Neck Flanges", to permit material removal f rom installed flanges. A procedure, MS-88-1-22, "Metal Sample Removal for Chemical Analysis", was developed to implement and facilitate metal removal.
MlY also included samples from heats containing blind flanges in order to ensure that potential material deficiencies inherent to some blind flanges would ue identified.
The attached tables contain test values of the WJM samples to Bechtel and our independent lab tests for analysis.
The results are tabulated as follows:
Table 1-is a status of the 29 ASHE flanges / fittings reported with a value of l
less than 137 BHN and the total number of components of the same heat installed in Unit 1.
These flanges / fittings represent 9 heat numbers.
Test analysis for the 9 heat numbers is contained in Table 2.
t Tables 2 & 2A - contains the test results for materials that are representative of heat numbers installed in Unit 1.
This represents 67 test analyses for 52 heat numbers.
2.0 EVALUATION OF WELD NECK FLANCES AND FITTING CHEMISTRIES Chemistry data has now been obtained for all heats of WJM material with hardness values less than 137 installed at Seabrook.
Each heat has been shown
to satisfy the chemical requirements of SA-105.
Of the fif ty-seven weld neck flanges and fittings sampled for material chemistry, fif ty-five have chemistries which meet the requirements of ASME SA-105 when utilizing a product analysis.
On two (2) weld nenk flange samplas, one element, manganese, was reported slightly below the minimum listed in SA-105. All other elements satisfied spe-cification limits. The carbon content is 0.21%.
The manganese is reported at 44% and.43% on heat samples T4298 and T600777, respectively, as listed in Table 2, Page 1.
The SA-105 specification requires a minimum manganese content of 0.6%, for a heat analysis, or 0.54% when accounting for the permissible t
i variations in preduct analysis per ASME SA-788.
t This result, however, does not indicate that this material was not properly certified as code material.
Significant variations have been observed between tests on finished products and the original "heat" : 4*t upon which a Certified
}
Haterial Test Report has been based. A detailed discussion on these variations l
f is presented in Attachment 1, which has been exerpted from the forth coming report, "NUMARC Response to NRC Bulletin 88-05 Final Report" (Th! = report is scheduled for issue by October 27, 1988).
i The NUMARC study concludes that generic and utility test data (including I
several items with Mn < 0.50%) all exceed nominal values or are similar to the i
variances documented by AISI in their study titled, "The Variation of Product i
Analysis and Tensile Properties - Carbon Steel Plates and Wide Flange Shapes" -
l i
AISI - September 1974. The two items with slightly low manganese are within the NUMARC data base and therefore have material chemistries consistent with ASME Code material product form test e x pec t a i: f on s.
i i
)
4 i
The principle elements in SA-105, carbon and menganese, are,pscified to provide strength, and are controlled to facilitate weldability. Thus, by demonstrating appropriate hardness, an item which is satisfactorily inspected and tested after welding should be considered to meet code.
In the case of these two flanges, the hardness values are 142 and 145 BHN exceeding the code minimum of 137 BHN, indicating that mechanical strength exceeds code minimum ten-site strength properties. Also, radiographs of both flange to pipe welds have been re-reviewed.
Neither the veld nor heat affected zone (HAZ) exhibit any uvidence of grain boundary separation (HAZ cracking) which would be indicative of inadequate manganese content.
Table 3 contains a listing of flange sample chemistries which are shown to be within Code acceptable limits considering the product analy.is ', sinti variations allowed by ASME SA788.
This specification is invoked by SA1 2.1 Blind Flanges Fourteen safety related WJM blind flanges are installed at Seabrook.
]
Flanges were fabricated from four heats. All heats have been subjected to the-mical analysis, i
i The tesults of the tests (See Table 2A) have indicated that one blind a
flange from heat 56989 indicated low manganese content as well as low carbon content.
Additional hardness tests taken on the face of the flange indicated a tensite strength of approximately 55 ksi. This value is above the value shown in the N'! MARC generic analysis of 40 kai for acceptable stress valuer. However, l
in order to preclude any question of acceptability, NHY is currently planning to i
i replace the two (2) blind flanges from heat 55989.
All other blind flange samples produced acceptable chemistry.
In summary, as a result of NHY's extensive testing and evaluation program and the Bechtel/NUMARC/EPRI evaluation, NHY continues to conclude that ie material discussed in the initial report is acceptable for its intended use.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
OF ASME MATERIAL REPORTED WITH BHN LESS THAN 137 Bulletin 88-05 No. of pieces reported Total no. pieces Chemical Test ASME Material with less than 137 BHN installed Analysis for Heat Numbers Heat Reported f
- 1. 22478 5
14 Yes i
- 2. 1599 1
2 Yos
- 3. CFB 1
9 Yes
- 4. CW2 1
2 Yes
- 5. CMP 1
9 Yes 2
- 6. L4517 17 28 Yes t
- 7. 4504 1
3 Yu L
- 8. 7572 1
5 Yes J
4
- 9. T2759 1
5 Yes TOTAL 29 77
)
i l
Destructive test results are available fer heats 1 - 6.
This represents 90
[
(26/29) af the pieces for the heat numbers where some of the material was reported with a hr.rdness less than 137 BMN.
The remaining three pieces (7-9) l were tested for chemical composition and are reported in Table 2.
The chemical composition of heats reported with less than 137 BHN are within Code require-l ments.
t
[
I
Page 1 cf 11.
TABLE 2 - ATERIAL TEST RESULTS REPRESENTATIVE OF HOLLOW PRODUCT MATERIAL Heat C
MN (4)
Si P
S Equotip Rockwell TS TS
% EL Z RA COMMENTS
.35 max
.60-1.05
.35 max 04 max
.05 max BHN BHN 70K min 36K min 22 min 30 min CFW
.20 1.22
.26
.022
.02 141 158 76.4 42.5 30 64 Note 2 l
CFW
.21 1.25
.23
.015
.022 130 142 72.0 48.5 27 65 Note 2 CND
.29
.79
.22
.027
.016 141 147 77.2 45.1 28 58 Note 2 22478
.19 1.30
.20
.015
.018 136 139 73.7 47.2 31 70 Notes 2 and 3 22478
.16 1.29
.24
.010
.015 141 136 71.9 38.1 32 67 Notes 2 and 3 NOTES (1) - Test performed by J. Dirats and Co.
(2) - Test performed by Bechtel.
(3) - Indicates heats with a hardness value testing below 137 BHN as reported in Reference (a).
(4) - Per SA-105, For each reduction of 0.01% below the specified earlion maximum (0.35%), an increase of 0.06% manganese above the specified maximum is permitted up to a maximum of 1.35%.
lll ji i Il1 4
1j 1
1 S
f T
2 e
N 2
2 2
2 3
2 E
s 2
M e
e e
e ed e
M t
t t
t t n t
e O
o o
o o
oa o
c C
N N
N N
N N
c P
n Ai R m 3
5 2
6 8
2 0
6 6
6 5
5 I0 3 n
Li E m 1
4 9
0 8
7 3
3 2
3 2
2 L
%2 A
2 I
RE n
T i
A S s 0
7 0
0 4
1 M
T K
9 9
6 8
9 0
T 6
3 3
3 3
3 4
C 3
U DO n
R i
P m
4 4
9 9
9 3
S W
TK 7
4 3
4 4
7 O
0 6
7 7
7 7
7 L
7 LOH l
l F
e O
wN 4
0 9
4 4
0
~
kR 4
4 3
4 4
5 E
cB 1
1 1
1 1
1 V
o I
R T
AT p
N i
E t N 1
8 1
7 9
7 S
oH 5
3 4
3 3
5 E
uB 1
1 1
1 1
1 R
q P
E ER x
S a
T m
8 8
6 5
0 7
L S
1 2
2 2
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
U 5
0 SER TS x
E a
1 3
1 3
1 1
T m
1 1
1 1
1 2
P 0
0 0
0 0
0 L
4 A
0 I
R ET x
A a
M m
2 6
4 8
8 3
2 2
2 2
2 1
i S5 3
2 EL
) 5 B
40 A
(
5 3
4 0
9 9
T 7
3 2
3 8
9 1
N -
M0 1
1 1
6 xa C m 8
2 2
2 7
8 2
2 2
2 2
2 5
3 ta N
N N
2 C
e P
H H
H W
W H
V C
C C
C B
Pag? 3 cf 11 -
TABLE 2 - MATERIAL TEST RESULTS REPRESENTATIVE OF HOLLOW PRODUCT MATERIAL I
Heat C
MN (4)
Si P
S Equotip Rockwell TS YS
% EL I RA COMMENTS
.35 max
.60-1.05
.35 max
.04 caz
.05 max BHN BHN 70K min 36K min 22 min 30 min 6072802
.24 1.21
.22
.011
.023 154 145 78.0 49.8 24 34 Note 2 6072802
.23 1.2
.21
.01
.022 141 147 76.3 53.2 22 37 Note 2 L4517
.20
.82
.22
.025
.031 137 144 N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes 2 and 3 L4517
.19
.81
.26
.029
.037 131 149 76.6 47.4 28 60 Notes 1 and 3
1 1
S f
T 2
c N
3 2
2 2
2 2
E s
4 M
ed e
e e
e e
M t n t
t t
t t
e O
oa o
o o
o o
g C
N N
N N
N N
a P
n Ai 1
6 1
2 9
4 R m 6
6 6
6 5
5 Z0 3 n
Li E m 0
6 9
7 7
8 L
3 2
2 2
2 2
A I2 I
2 RET n
A i
M S m 4
9 3
6 3
6 T
T K
5 7
5 5
3 9
C 6
3 4
4 4
4 3
U 3
DO R
n P
i m
9 9
2 5
2 1
W S
O TK 3
2 9
0 2
1 L
0 7
8 7
8 8
8 L
7 OH l
F l
O ewN 1
6 9
6 0
9 E
kH 4
6 5
6 6
5 V
cB 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
o T
R ATN p
E i
S t N 1
9 3
3 5
3 E
cH 4
4 5
6 6
5 R
uB 1
1 1
1 1
1 P
q E
E R
S x
T a
L m
3 9
6 8
6 3
U S
2 1
1 1
2 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
S 5
E 0
R TSE x
T a
1 3
0 1
m 1
1 2
2 1
1 L
P 0
0 0
0 0
0 A
40 IRETA x
M a
m 2
8 7
8 8
9 2
2 2
2 i
1 1
S5 2
3 ELB
) 5 A
40 T
(
5 1
4 6
6 9
9 2
9 9
8 8
1 N -
M0 1
6 xa C m 5
3 3
4 0
0 2
2 2
2 3
3 5
3 ta P
V 9
9 C
C e
M F
2 2
B B
H C
C A
A C
C
1lI l!
i)i 1
1 S
f T
2 2
2 1
1 c
N 2
3 3
3 3
3 E
s s
s s
s 5
M e
ed ed ed ed ed M
t t n t n t n t n t n 2
O o
oa oa oa oa oa g
C N
N N
N N
N a
P n
Ai R m 9
8 2
1 5
5 6
6 Z0 3 n
Li E m 7
0 0
8 L
2 3
3 2
A I2 I
2 R
ET n
A i
M S m 9
4 5
0 Y
T K
4 8
3 7
C 6
4 4
4 4
U 3
DO R
n P
i m
8 6
8 5
W S
O TK 5
6 7
8 L
0 7
8 7
7 L
7 OH l
F l
O ewN 3
4 0
7 E
kH 5
7 5
cB 1
1 1
1 I
o T
R ATN p
E i
S t N 7
7 4
8 7
1 E
oH 4
6 5
4 2
3 R
uB 1
1 1
1 1
1 P
q E
E P
S x
T a
1 1
8 8
3 L
m U
S 3
2 3
2 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 S
5 E
0 R
TSE x
T a
0 8
9 8
4 4
m 2
0 1
1 1
1 L
P 0
0 0
0 0
0 A
40 I
R ETA x
M a
m 6
1 8
8 3
4 2
3 2
2 i
1 1
S5 2
3 ELB
) 5 A
40 T
(
3 4
8 4
4 7
8 0
8 8
9 7
1 N -
M0 1
6 xa C m 3
9 5
5
/
4 2
2 2
2 2
1 5
3 f
9 t
A 9
4 2
a 2
9 B
B 0
7 e
2 5
F F
5 5
H 2
1 C
C 4
7
l li l
il;1l illlllllll1
- 1ll1I 1
1 S
f T
1 e
N 3
1 1
1 1
1 E
s 6
M ed e
e e
e e
M t n t
t t
t t
o O
oa o
o o
o o
g C
N N
N N
N N
a P
n Ai
- m
%03 n
Li E m LA
%2 I
2 R
ET n
A i
M S m Y
T K
C 6
U 3
DO R
n P
i m
W S
O TK L
0 L
7 OH l
F l
O ewN E
kH V
cB I
o T
R ATN p
E i
S t N 1
5 0
8 1
0 E
oH 3
6 6
5 7
6 R
uB 1
1 1
1 1
1 P
q E
E R
S x
T a
L m
6 2
1 5
4 7
U S
1 1
1 2
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
S 5
E 0
R T
SE x
T a
9 0
6 1
4 2
m 0
3 1
1 3
1 L
P 0
0 0
0 0
0 A
40 I
R E
T A
x M
a
~
m 9
7 6
5 7
8 2
3 2
3 2
i 1
S5 2
3 E
L B
) 5 A
40 T
(
1 2
7 7
8 2
9 2
6 8
2 1
1 N -
M0 1
1 1
6 x
a Cm 4
9 8
1 5
9 2
2 2
1 1
1 5
3 9
3 4
4 4
t 5
0 8
2 2
4 a
7 0
0 1
5 5
e 2
2 2
2 3
5 H
T 1
1 1
1 1
I' ll l
l il llI 1IllI l
- l1ll, l
l; 1
1 S
f T
c N
1 1
1 1
1 I
E 7
M e
e e
e e
e M
t t
t t
t t
e O
o o
o o
o o
g C
N N
N N
N N
a P
n Ai R m Z0 3
n Li E m LA I2 I
2 R
ET n
A i
M S m Y
T K
C 6
U 3
DO R
n P
i m
W S
O TK L
0 L
7 O
H l
F l
O ewN E
kH V
cB I
o T
R ATN p
E i
S t N 1
1 3
1 9
1 E
oH 6
8 7
6 4
5 R
uB 1
1 1
1 1
1 P
q E
E R
S x
T a
L m
4 7
5 3
2 0
U S
1 0
2 1
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
S 5
E 0
R TSE x
T a
7 6
2 5
0 0
m 0
1 1
2 1
2 L
P 0
0 0
0 0
0 A
40 IR ETA x
M a
m 7
4 2
5 5
3 2
2 2
2 2
3 i
S5 2
3 E
) 5 A
40 T
(
1 5
9 2
1 5
8 6
9 8
7 1
1 N -
M0 1
6 xa Cm 6
9 6
6 2
0 2
3 2
3 1
1 5
3
(
2 t
1 6
6 2
a 6
2 S
9 8
e 1
4 2
4 6
9 H
3 3
4 4
5 6
,1lll 7
1 1
z S
f T
e N
1 1
1 1
1 1
E 8
M e
e e
e e
e M
t t
t t
t t
e O
o o
o o
o o
g C
N N
N N
N N
a P
n Ai R m
%03 4
n Li E m L
I2 A
2 IRE n
T i
A S m M
T K T
6 C
3 UDO n
R i
P m
S W
TK O
0 L
7 LOH l
l F
e O
wN kH E
cB V
o I
R T
l AT p'
N i
E tN 6
6 9
3 2
8 S
oH 6
8 4
7 6
6 E
uB 1
1 1
1 1
1 R
q P
E ER x
S a
T m
8 9
7 9
2 2
L S
2 4
1 3
3 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
U 5
0 SER TS x
E a
9 4
9 1
5 4
T m
1 2
1 2
2 2
P 0
0 0
0 0
0 L
4 A
0 I
R E
l T
x A
a M
m 0
1 7
7 8
8 4
3 2
2 2
2 i
S5 3
2 EL
) 5 B
40 A
(
2 6
4 5
9 4
9 8
2 7
7 8
T 1
N -
M0 1
6 xa Cm 0
3 6
4 9
0 2
3 3
2 3
1 5
3 2
7 1
t 8
C 7
3 3
a 2
T 3
2 7
e 0
T T
1 3
3 H
9 A
E H
H H
s w
M h
Mo
=
e W
e b
b b
b b
b u
u a
u u
u h
O O
O O
O O
to O
2 2
M M
E E
et k
c d il HCM a.C W N 1
HN 4
N w
M h
.E 4
to B E
H W H
U M
DQO
.O ad A
E 3
hW Q
O 1
OlI:
m m
ta.
t 0
3F 8
.* d h
8" N
N H<
H
..c g
W u2 N
m N
O 2:
e 5
CO N
Dm w
w w
w w
w Q*
A W
W th og H
H N
m m
4 N
J to M
N M
N N
M D
e O
O O
O O
O en o
e o
e e
o e
W e
cd H
to N
W 4
N N
N H
8 N
N N
M N
N b
o O
O O
O O
g
-g e
o e
e e
e e
Of W
s l
E B
C C
O c0 4
. as M
M M
N N
N l
Mm o
e e
e e
o M
N e
^m 1
40 w e M
m N
M H
M CO tO N
00 N
CO.
p; e
e e
o e
e M
4 U R Os m
c0 m
o cc N
N N
N M
N e
a e
o e
e e
1 I
N e
A N
4 4
N u
C0 4
00
+
N 4
N co m
m M
a b
M W
W N
N CO E
E E
E E
3 3
l ll llll 1lll l
l 1'
1 1
f S
c TN 1
1 1
1 0
E 1
M e
e e
e M
t t
t t
e O
o o
o o
g C
N N
N N
a P
n Ai R m
%03 n
Li E m L
%2 A
2 IR E
n T
i A
S m M
Y K T
6 C
3 UDO n
R i
P m
S W
TK O
0 L
7 LOH l
l F
e O
wN kR E
cB V
o I
R TAT p
N i
E t N 9
7 1
8 S
eH 6
5 6
4 E
uB 1
1 1
1 R
q P
E ER x
S a
T m
1 4
0 6
L S
3 2
2 1
U 5
0 0
0 0
0 SER TS x
E a
2 8
8 9
T m
1 2
0 P
0 0
0 0
L 4
A 0
I R
E l
T x
A a
M m
8 7
6 5
2 2
2 i
1 S5 3
2 EL
) 5 B
40 A
(
4 9
8 5
8 7
5 9
T 1
N -
M06 xa Cm 9
9 7
9 2
2 3
1 5
3 1
3 2
D 8
7 8
9 3
t 7
7 9
1 a
1 1
3 1
e B
B 1
4 H
L L
T T
i
7
$E bl W
m 9
H 6m 6*
n m een w n en w w
Q. 4 ha m
6 w
w w 6 e w 6 et et O A c 0 C C te fJ 2 O *a 2O+*
4 Le c
ii.
HOM
.c I
W G W
"N M
N ma E
H M H
Q M
DQO c
M em A
B to 3
HM O
o A
h 3
O lI".
m w
Its 6
0 3M ew ::
W VA Q
N SYe H<
H 0.
2 W
w2 e
N to O lI:
4 4
in3 Dn ee
~
Ed A
la) w tn H
G N
N A
to m
m
)
e o.
o.
to o
N H
en W
ta3 4
CO H
e o
o o
o 4
8 e
M W
G I
e 4
m N
l 44 e o
e M
N e
In3 J
me A
4o v e 4
m H
a 4
4
%a 4
88 4
tJ B N
N e
e e
M e
N N
CO N
w O
W N
Q 6
4 3:
la H
I
l Page I cf 2 TABLE 2A - MATERIAL TEST RESULTS REPRESENTATIVE OF BLIND FLANGE MATERIAL 4
Heat C
MN (4)
Si P
S Equotip Rockwell TS YS I EL I RA COMMENTS
.35 max
.60-1.05
. 3 5 max
.04 max
.05 max BilN BHN 70K min 36K min 22 min 30 min Note 2 CFY
.23 1.19
.18
.02
.016 157 163 81.6 44.7 24 61 2" - 150d SW-FF Note 2 CFY
.20 1.10
.24
.01
.016 139 147 75.8 45.0 30 66 4" - 150d 6072802
.24 1.25
.17
.003
.024 142 78.3 45.1 21 38 Note 1 Blind Note 2 6072802
.25 1.26
.21
.011
.027 144 144 79.0 50.8 26 50 6" - 150d Blind Note 2 6072802
.25 1.26
.22
.012
.27 134 153 76.4 30.3 27 42 8" - 1504 Blind Note 2 6072802
.26 1.25
.23
.012
.028 137 150 75.0 51.3 23 31 10"-150f Blind Note 1 363666
.19
.95
.26
.024
.023 148 4" - 150d Blind BST
.24 1.30
.26
.008
.063 184 160 84.2 57.2 25.6 49.3 2" - 1504 Blind i
I I
I I
I I
I l
l l
l i
I l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
i l
I l1, 2
S f
f T
0 0
c N
1 5 15 E
1 d 1 d 2
M e-n e-n t
i t"
i o "4 l M
?
O o4l g
C N2B N2B a
P n
Ai R m I0 3 n
Li E m L
I2 A
2 IRE n
T i
A S m M
T K E
6 C
3 NAL n
F i
m D
S N
TK I
0 L
7 B
F l
O le E
wN V
kH I
cB T
o A
R TN E
p S
i E
tN 4
9 R
oH 4
3 P
uB 1
1 E
q R
E ST x
L a
U m
1 6
S S
2 1
0 0
E 5
R 0
TSET xa 8
1 L
m 0
1 A
P 0
0 I
4 R
0 ETAM xa n
2 3
0 3
i A
S5 2
3 EL B
)5 A
40 T
(
5 0
2 1
1 N -
M0 1
6 xa Cm 6
4 0
1 5
3 m
9 9
t 8
8 a
9 9
e 6
6 H
5 5
)
>ki
? >
1a
l TAB 1.E 3 SUMHARY OF FLANGE CHEMISTRIES VS. ASME ALLOWABLE PRODUCT CHEMISTRIES HEAT ELEMENT VARYING SAMPLE FROM SA105 REQUIREMENT SA105 PRODUCT VARIATION NOTE (1)
(HEAT ANALYSIS)
LIMIT ALLOWED BY SA788 COMMENT 12084 Si (.36%)
.35% max.
+.04 Acceptable 13524 Si (.37%)
.35% max.
+.04 Acceptable 425 C (.36%)
.35% max.
+.04 Acceptable 9028 Si (.4%)
.35% max.
+.04 Acceptable (Note 3)
T1399D C (.37%)
.35% max.
+.04 Acceptable f
i.
T4298 Mn (.45%)
.6% min.
+.06 Note 2 l
l T600777 Mn (.44%)
.6% min.
+.07 Note 2
[
NOTES 1.
See Table 2.
i 2.
See evaluation in paragraph 2.1.
L I
3.
The 0.01% difference in measured Si and
[
allowable is within the test accuracy of L
the chemical analysis method.
l l
i I
L I
4 4
t I
4 1
NrrACHMENT I From *NUMARC Raspcme Tb NRC Bulldn ee-os, %L pept+ ^
Laboratory testing has focused concern sn carbon steel blind flanges.
50 DUCT TESYS Tests of finished products will almost always give different results than the original test upon which the CHIK has been based.
De ASTH and ASME have long recognized this and in some editions ut certain specifications have provided allowence for such dif ferences.
Allowaaces, tolerances or variations are real and are based on test accuracy and upon metallurgical fundamentals. Th e alloying elements in steel segregate within ingots as do nonmetallic inclusions. W ie causes composition to vary. D e strength will also vary due to the amount of work or size reduction given to the ingot, billet or bloom, and due to the heat cycle. n e heat cy:le includes specific heat treatments such as normalising a completed part, as well as heat cycles involved in extrusion, rolling and forging.
Peak temperatures and cooling rates af fect strength and hardness.
An additional source of variation is that it is permissible to test : specially forged blank rather then cut up and test a finished product. For SA105 material which is not required to be heat treated, Me test blank may repreaant an entire heat of steel which could be 75 tons or more, many dif ferent ingots, worked and forged to different diameters (such as 1/2 to 24 inches), ratings (150 and 300 lbs), and forms (blind flanges, slip-ons, weld necks).
In addition to the inherent chemical segregation, the great dif ferences in the amount of shaping ard forming, temperature cycles, recrystallisation and cooling rates of ten cause mechanical test results of finished products to be
~
dif ferent than original OfIR values, and could cause test results to be outside nominal specification values, h e American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) has provided an evaluation of these of f acts.
AISI h e AISI published a study in 1974 which quantified the variances in chemical analysis and mechanical test results. See Appendix 5.
Bis paper indicate s that the shapes (in study SU 19) which are similar to SA 105 carbon steel forgings in the amount of forming work (which varies widely within a single completed item), chemical composition and strength levels, will vary by 10 to 20% from OfrR values.
Figures 8 and 9 document the magnitude of the produc t test variation,,10 to 20%, and also the frequency of occurrence. Approximately one-third of the values were found to be in this variance range.
Line C in both Figures 8 aad 9, excerpted from the AISI Study, represent material similar to SA 105.
Figure 8 represents the flange product test data compared to the o f ficial web tests (CMTRs). Figure 9 represents the web product teste compared to the of ficial web test (OfrRs). From these tests it is obvious, by comparing the two lines labeled C in each figure, that webs and flanges in the same piece of steel do not compare to OfIR values in the same way.
Wie is because the amount of work and cooling rates are dif ferent even within the same piece of
- steel, ne application of a conservative allowance for variant.es in the laboratory data developed by the generic testing program and by the utilities laboratory testing makes it understandable that these materials could all have been properly certified as Code material.
Bis fact is important to a program designed to screen out deficient material and ehereby confirts that material is in accordance with the epecification to which it was certified.
1254m I
The important features of the AISI work aro c t the specific values f:r variation or the parcentages of variant natsrial, but rather the independent i
documentation of a real and connonly recognised f act that product test results i
will be different than aNrt test results.
It is readily seen that the generic and utility test data (except some blind flanges) all exceed nominal values or are siellar to the variances docamented by AISI.
i FIELD TESTS The utility ge'nerated h6-dness data (excluding blind flanges) is shown in the histogram of Figure 10.
This histogram has the same general bell shape as the histogram of laboratory 8.ardness data.
In addition, the lower bounds are similar (347 lab and 340 field) and the mean values are similar (465 lab and 417 field). This ind!. cates thst the laboratory results ace representative of the field.
FIELD HARDNESS TO TENSILE It is appropriate to apply the correlation of laboratory hardness and tensite results (Figure 4) (and correlation equation) to the utilities generated in situ hardness data. When this is done, refer to Figure 11, an estimate of l
field tensile a:ransch is obetined.
The figures show that all hollow form itema are estimated to exceed 60 kei and the vast majority exceed 70 kai.
These variations are consistent with the AISI variations discussed above.
Th e-applicatien of this correlation to the field hardness provides confidence that the installed items are code materials as initially specified.
Figure 12 is a histogram of blind flange hardness and astimated tensile i
strength. Blind flanges have been separated so that the scale could be expanded to clearly indicate that there are two groups of material, one sof t, one normal.
This figure shows a separation similar to that shown in the tensile histograms of figures 6 and 7.
At the low and it is obvious that this is not a homogeneous group, some blind flanges are substrength. Many are acceptable.
t OTHER CARBON STEEL MATELI ALS The. other carbon steel materials representing less than it of installation, SA 181, SA 234 and SA 350 also have test results consistent with requirements.
Secause the compositions, strength requirements and manufacturing methods are similar to those of SA 105, the hardness-tensile correlation may be used to develop appropriate screening criteria for these materials.
i HIGH RARDNESS l
Presently, SA 105 material does nnt have an upper limit on hardnass unless the t
material has been liquid quenched or is too small for a 0.252 tensile test, neither of which are common.
Historically, SA 105 did not specify hardness limits.
The principle high hardness concern for SA 105, SA 181 or SA 350 material in power piping systems is weldability.
If the installed iten has acceptable veld inspections, has sustained bolt-up loads, hydrostatic tests, functional test and whatever PSI /ISI that is applicable, then there are objective reasons to use as is.
The data in this program provide no basis for technical concern. 125La L