ML20248A012

Forwards Rev 1 to PECO Response to NRC Bulletin 88-005 for Limerick Generation Station Unit 2, Incorporating Comments & Providing Addl Info Per NRC 890427 & 0518 Requests. Chemical Analysis Paragraph Revised

ML20248A012
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/02/1989
From:	Kemper J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20248A016	List: ML20248A012 ML20248A026
References
IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, NUDOCS 8906080043
Download: ML20248A012 (6)

Text

_... . .--( ..-,__;_;--- . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - . - - - _ -

v. .. s.

s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA. PA.19101 1215)841-4 50 o .

. ' JOHN s. KEMPEM SENIOR VICE. PRESIDENT

• NUCLE A R JUN 021989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Attn: Document Control Desk Docket No. 50-353:

Washington, DC 20555-

Subject:

Limer$ck Generating Station (LGS) Unit 2 NRC Bulletin 88-05, dated May 6, 1988

" Nonconforming Material Supplied by Piping Supplies, Inc (PSI) at Folsom, NJ, and West Jersey Manufacturing Company (WJM).

at Williamstown, NJ"-

Supplement i to Bulletin 88-05, dated June 15, 1988 Supplement 2 to Bulletin 88-05, dated August 8, 1988

Reference:

1) PECo Report " Response to NRC Bulletin 88-05 for Limerick Generating Station (LGS) Unit 2", dated March, 1989

2) Telecopies of NRC Comments / Questions on PECo Report

" Response to NRC Bulletin'88-05 for LGS Unit 2" dated April 27, 1989 and May 18, 1989 Gentlemen:

Enclosed is Revision 1 to our report " Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) Response to NRC Bullet.in 88-05 for Limerick Generating Station (LGS)

Unit 2". Revision 1 incorporates the comments and provides additional information requested by the NRC on April 27, 1989 and May 18, 1989 (Ref. 2).

To assure clarity, the NRC comments / questions are restated below along with PECo response to each of these items.

NRC Comment Page Location Comment / Question 7 1st Paragraph The Equotip and tensile test results from t1m NUMARC Lab Tests for 47 LGS-supplied stock flanges are not shown in Table 3; Table 3 only gives chemistry. The complete results are given in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B.

8906080043 89060' PDR

• ADOCK05000g3 P

'))-}

4

!*: L' PECo Response

^

The 1st paragraph of page 7 has'been revised to state "The complete, Equotip hardness, tensile and chemical test results, are'given in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B".

NRC Comment Page Location Comment / Question i- 7 In-situ Hardness As stated in the stress analysis section, analysis was performed on installed flanges with Equotip readings of less than 396. The report should state the number of installed flanges found to have readings of less than 396. This important information is not given anywhere in the report. The only place 1 could find it is in Appendix C.

PECo Response The Chemical Analysis paragraph has been revised to include

" Forty-six (46) of the installed flanges fell below 396 LD. These forty-six flanges were composed of seventeen (17) heats."

NRC Comment 7 Stress Analysis Why is this paragraph included under Section 5.2, Testing? It also appears essentially unchanged on Page 13 in Section 5.3, Analysis.

In both locations, Appendix B should be Appendix C.

PECo Response The paragraph entitled Stress Analyses on page 7 has been deleted.

On page 13, Appendix B has been changed to Appendix C.

NRC Comment 10 Top of Page Same as first comment above; Table 3 does not list the NUMARC Lab Test results.

PECo Response Page 10, the top of the page has been revised to state "The complete results, Equotip hardness, tensile and chemical test results are given in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B".

NRC Comment 11 Top of Page Table 3A does not show which of the 2 flanges are F316L and which 2 are F304L.

3-l t __

(-

PECo Response Table 3A has been revised to incorporate the above comment.

l' - NRC Comment 11 Bottom of Page The report should state that the NUMARC Lab Test results are found in Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B.

l l PECo Response Page 11 has been revised to incorporate the comment.

KRC Comment ALL -------------- The text of the report does not contain any reference to either Table 7 or Appendix B.

PECo Response Pages 11 and 14 of the revised report reference Appendix B and Table 7, respectively.

NRC Comment

. Table 1 ----------

(a) Table 1 does not show quantities of each item; only 276 line items are given. Table 1 should show the quantity of each line item and should indicate the total items purchased for LGS, Unit 2.

(b) Table 1 should indicate the number of items installed, the number in the warehouse and the number-unaccounted for; these should equal the total purchased.

(c) Under " Type and Grade" column, indicate the grade for the SA-182 stainless steel items.

(d) Under the "SUPP" column, identify the initials used for the suppliers.

PECo Response Table 1 has been revised to incorporate the above comments.

NRC Comment Table 2 ------- (a) Under the " Number Installed" column, why are there 11 blank lines?

(b) Cross index the line items in Table 2 with those in Table 1.

4

- m__________.- _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _

1 *,

PECo Response l- a) Several of the installed flanges have the same description, heat number and supplier; however, the date in the suppliers l certificates vary. During installation of these flangas, only the heat number, description and suppliers names were recorded.

A footnote has been added to Table 2 to clarify the above comment.

b) Revision 1 to the report includes the cross-index to Table 1.

NRC Comment Table 3/3A ------- Cross index each of the 47 flanges with the line items in Table 1.

PECo Response Revision 1 to the report incorporates the above comment.

NRC Comment

. Table 4 -------- (a) Cross index each of the 37 flanges with the flanges in Tables 3/3A and with the line items in Table 1.

(b) In Sub-table 2 (pages 7 & 8 of 24) of Table 4, why is FTY not printed at Specimens 10, 14, 20 and 29 since these specimens also failed the tensile and/or yield requirements?

PECo Response a) Revision 1 to the Report cross indexes the flanges listed in Tables 3/3A to those listed in Table 1.

b) For specimens 10, 14, 20 and 29, the Equotip hardness values converted to Brinnel hardness number failed the specification requirements; however, the specimens did not fail the tensile or yield strength requirements during actual destructive testing.

NRC Comment Table 5 -------- (a) Cross index with the line items in Table 1.

(b) Highlight the line items having an "L" value less than 396 and provide the total number at the bottom.

l

PECo Response l Revision.1 to the report incorporates the above comment.

NRC Comment App. B'(Tables 1 & 2) (a) Copies of these tables are illegible; forward readable copies.

(b) Cross index the items in these 2 tables with the line items in Table 1 and those in Table 4.

PECo Response A legible copy to Appendix B Tables 1 and 2 is being forwarded for your review. Bechtel Power Corporation (LGS Unit 2 Architect -

Engineer) was also the technical consultant for the industry-wide Bulletin 88-05 effort directed by NUMARC. Thus, Bechtel was responsible for collecting, testing and recording the data for NUMARC. Therefore, Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B are equivalent to Tables 3 and 3A of the text. The changes'made in Tables 3 and 3A of the text are also applicable to Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B.

NRC Comment App. C Page 7 The following references are required to audit the report; References (1), (4), and (5).

PECo Response The following references are enclosed: ,

Reference 1 " Piping Material and Instrument Piping Standard" Limerick Generating Station Document No. 8031-P-300, Rev. 35.

Reference 4 - ASTM Material A370, Table 28 " Approximate Hardness Conversion Number for Non-austenitic steel (Rockwell B to other Hardness Number)".

Reference 5 - Generic Analysis and Evaluation of Suspect Material identified in NRC Bulletin No. 88-05, dated May 6, 1988. Stress Staff Calculation No. SGGS-04, Rev. 1.

NRC Comment App. C Page 16 Table 3 requires heading and an explanation of the values given and references.

App, C Page 4 Table 1.0A consists of 3 pages, i.e., pages 10 to 12. It is clear that the calculations shown on page 10 are for the blind flange, Item No. 1 on page 4. However, the remaining WN flanges should be cross indexed to the calculations on pages 11 and 12.

i '

s ..

PECo Response Appendix C has been revised to incorporate the above comments.

Additional connents were received from the NRC on May 18, 1988. The

_c comments and PECo responses are as follows:

' NRC Comments Page Location App. C Table 1.0 (a) Identify the meaning of "PC No." in heading.

-Pages 8 and 9 (b) Line Item 1: Stainless Steel Blind Flange Conn. Pipe Size is given as 1" S4.0.

In Table 2, none of SS flanges are 1" in size.

(c) Line Items 50 to 52 are identified as 150#

flanges in " Flange Identification" column and as 300# flanges in " Flange Pressure Rating" column.

PECo Response a) The "PC No." noted in Table 1.0 is the spool number used for identification.

b) Line Item 1 of Table 2 is a 1" SS flange which corresponds to the line Item 1 of Table 1.

c) The discrepancy noted for line items 50 to 52 is being corrected. Items 50 to 52 will be noted as 150# flanges in the

" Flange Pressure Rating" column.

If you have additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

.,k $

SAT 1000Q Enclosure Copy to*: W. T. Russell, Administrator, Region I, US NRC T. J. Kenny, Senior Residcut Inspector, LGS - 2, US NRC R. J. Clark, Project Manager, NRR, US NRC

• w/o Appendix C References (1), (4), and (5)

______._____________m___. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _