ML20206F192
| ML20206F192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1988 |
| From: | Hopkins J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, TAC-68846, NUDOCS 8811210013 | |
| Download: ML20206F192 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. November 15, 1988 DochetNo. 50-425 LICENSEE: Georgia Power. Company FACILITIES: Vogtle Unit 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 4, 1988,'TO DISCUSS THE'V0GTLE. UNIT 2 RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN 88-05 (TAC 68846) On November 4,1988, the NRC staff met with representatives of the Georgia Power Company at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland to discuss the Vogtle Unit 2 response to NRC Bulletin 88-05. A list of attendees is provided as-Enclosure 1. The discussion of the Vogtle Unit 2 response was based on the view-graphs (enclosure 2) presented at the meeting. The NRC staff requested that the applicants' chemistry data be submitted. The applicant agreed to submit that~ information. The meeting then ended with the NRC staff stating that they would evaluate the information presented at the meeting by the applicant.
/s/
Jon B. Hopkins, Project Hanger Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING SUf7ARY DATED: November 4, 1988 Facility: Vogtle Unit 2
~
70 nkiNiIel NRC PDR p Local PDR inJ8 PDII-3 Reading 080- D. Matthews 14-H-25 M. Rood 14-H-25
@f:>g J. Hopins 14-H-25 m OGC 15-B-18
-o E. Jordan NNBB-3302 88 8. Grirnes 9-A-2 MC NRC Participants ACRS(10) P-315 B. Troskoski j[ 17-0-19 f0ls l PD II'-3
/011-3 JHopkins:ls DHatthews 11/p /88 11/J5/88 i
/
I.
- / '
% UNITED STATES
! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t I wAsamorow, c. c. 2cose
% ,,,,,, November 15, 1988 Docket No. 50-424 LICENSEE: Georgia Power Company FACILITIES: Vogtle Unit 2 SUBJECY:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 4, 1988, TO DISCUSS THE V0GTLE UNIT 2 RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN 88-05 (TAC 68846) On November 4, 1988, the NRC staff met with representatives of the Georgia Power Company at the NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland to discuss the Vogtle Unit 2 response to NRC Bulletin 88-05. A list of attendees is provided as Enclosure 1. The discussion of the Vogtle Unit 2 response was based on the view-graphs (enclosure 2) presented at the meeting. The NRC staff requested that the applicants' chemistry data be submitted. The applicant agreed to submit that information. The meeting then ended with the NRC staff stating that they would evaluate the information presented at the meeting by the applicant. 0, , V,& j on B. Hopkins, Project Manger Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page l
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 Execctive 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: Sorgia 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 ll. Churchill, Esq. 425 Euclid Terrace Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge Atlanta, Georgia 30307 2300 N Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20037 Mr. 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 Il fir. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Comissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Department of Natural Resources 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900 270 Washington Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Office of the County Comissioner Attorney General Burke County Comission Law Department Waynesboro, Georgia 30830 132 Judicial Building Office of Planning and Budget Room 615B 270 Washington Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Enclosure 1 ATTENDEES NOVEMBER 4, 1988 NRC GPC J. Hopkins R. Thomas P. Kuo W. Ramsey G. Lainas D. Matthews Bechtel l H. Brammer l G. Hammer F. Breismeister C. Cheng H. Conrad Reedy Associates R. Hermann A. Herdt R. Reedy J. Richardson R. Swayne D. Jackson E. Rodabaugh - Consultant Philadelphia Electric Co. C. Czajkowski - Consultant W. Grossman - Consultant P. Tutton
ENCLOSURE 2 GPC PRESENTATION TO NRC VOGTLE 2 STATUS ON IEB 88-05 0 INTRODUCTION - W. Ramsey 0 NRC BULLETIN 88-05 OVERVIEW - R. Reedy 0 INITIAL VOGTLE ACTIVITIES - R. Reedy 0 NUMARC TEST PROGRAM - F. Breismeister 0 VEGP - UNIT 2 TESTING AND EVALUATIONS R. Reedy 0 ASME CODE COMPLIANCE R. Reedy 0 CONCLUSION - R. Reedy l 0 DISCUSSION - W. Ramsey November 4,1988 BACKGROUNQ 0 NRC BULLETIN 88-05 ISSUED MAY 6,1988 Raises Issue Regarding Code Compliance of WJM/ PSI Materials 0AShE CODE
- Effective Code o Summer 1975 Addenda to 1974 Edition of Section III Primary Piping Contractors o Bechtel (N-Stamp) o Pullman Power Products (NPT & NA Stamp) -
WJM o Accredited by ASME
- PSI o Surveyed and Qualified as a Code Material Supplier by Pullman Power Products, Bechtel and Others Hartford Steam Boiler Provided Inspection Services o Systems Inspected in Accordance with Code Requirements November 4,1988 2-
INITIAL VOGTLE ACTIVITIES 0 Initiated Documentation Review 0 Identified WJM/ PSI Items 0 Initiated Hardness Testing 0 Joined NUMARC Generic Program 0 Participated in EPRI Equotip Training and Procedures . O Sent WJM/.?SI Items to NUMARC for Testing 0 Reported Test Results to NUMARC November 4,1988 3-
NUMARC PROGRAM 0 GENERIC PROGRAM TO SUPPORT UTILITY TEST PROGRAMS NUMARC Training Program o Ta.st Methods and Procedures Laboratory Testing Support of Industry Testing and Evaluation Industry Data Base i I November 4,1988 4-r
E NUMARC LABORATORY TESTING 0 CARBON STEEL Herdness Testing - 279 Items FIGURE 1 Tensile Testing - 277 Items FIGURE 2 Chemistry Testing - 279 Items O STAINLESS STEEL il 1 Tensile Testing - 25 Items Chemical Testing 25 Items l Replication Testing - 25 Items Sensitization Tests 25 Items I l November 4,1988 f, -
Om E< C Og' 1 1 2 0 5 0 5 5 N os ? U ee {^ M A R es C f^ o= 1 L 4 A ( E ee , 6 WB J M O 1 HQ a - r d U os 1
/ R nO e
s 2 PA sT - - sI S FvP I a ea s 2 0 I T Gu l CO UeH - - - _ Rr A s es , 2 AR R eor u nD - - - 3 BY 1d eN +e , 1 O ' d
+E S -
6 NH 5 4 ,S va , 1 1 SA T
)
- ER L
D vs , ' ED L N ve E S vs S vs T E
+e ? S T
- S -
DN
% U m- \O 0 1 g 3 f 5 6 7 8 9 eo i i N
i i eo i U i i i M i i oo i - A i i i oo i i i R i i C c oo i i W J ML i i T T i ( e n E c oe ii / / / - i
/r r' - 7
/ A s
i N i// // i ' / / -
" /l
/ / / 7
/ /
PB S l e S ' / v' - " / r'///u/////?'
/ r
/ / / / , / / v'
- I O v I oo i'/ / / - "
i // -
/r//?
SR
- i / /
a L //f/-//nh
" ///u/-/.T i / / / - / //// / / / v' / / / .. / /, , ///-
l u E - AA rc' v' v' / / / / e i / / / - Fs oo f///-"////n////////-//e / / / /
/ - / / / / / / / / / i / - / / / / / /P o S T i / / v' - / / //f/////,/// /////////////
I l //-7 Gr T u i / / / / / / / / f,'/v' - / / / -
/-////////<
u / - / / // / / - / / / oo f/ // // -/-*/ // /// / / / / /-///'s/-/////////n~
- / / /,4
\
/ /
r
-(
/ / / / ,' / -
1 0 Und R 5 O e
\
~
// - / /// //e Re E i
///"///,u ////
/ - / / // / / / / / e' - / ///////r Ed N
,A / / -
/ / / - //////
/// "//1'
//-/////r / / ///r v' /-
./ > , - ' .
C R
/ f AY
/
t o o 2oc G '
///-
.//-"/////
/////?
R o l T '
//// "-
B
,///
s se ,H eo ' s '
///-'//.
O T t k K NE
)
si S I c o 3 SN TS woo ' E I E L L
.oo '
e E
,o' T
E e e ' S ee'
' T S
4vco ' 4
8 1 - i EE: 8 si m ; EisFMi 1555: Ig N'$ '^:'.' ~
- f. i b EME l* E 5l E : . :
gg ',gi! . 8 ' O . h I e E l? 5 l ^ 0 [ p l
~
g g g g i : ::- IB E GENERIC MC LifIL11? TDG!LE TY.ST H!STOGRAM
* ?
. LA80RATORY TENSEE TESTS HISTOCAAas Se l M
so gj yg LJ ._ 88 ~
- T.'
MutsetA 50 w --.u- qly . , .pt CASEE 4e g.T].- m- @%Q- Ij h-4 se i'; -
.. ]
.h;
;p ,
F . se VN -
-- 12 -
Q - f[ 2 5 'l ,
,[
~ ~
.[ I-
.} m o
mes >es >To ers >eo nas See .es stee .tes ..ite .its .
, TEN $JLE $ TRON 37N 9134 1
1 ESTWATED FIELD TEMSR.E STRENGTH SA 106 HOLLOW (TEldB l 186e 1see - . 1400 1800 B- - l t NUWSER 1000 cr cas soo eco - -- -. egg .. _ . . P , see -- -- - -
- e. _ ,
l see se$ mat 085 mee ede ate nas a1as mies e4te si15 WTunetBS TDeseLA STRONITN plar) CIG. 12 C0tlPARISON LADORATORY TEXSILE.1T104GTH AND FIELD EST1 MATED TENSILE STassGTH , l._,,___-.,__.__.____,__,,____,__,. , - _ _ _ _ _ . . . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ - - - - - - - -
t/BORATCRY CARBON DATA 90" 80 " ' 70 " 60 " l}
'1 A1 i
50 " i ') Y " l 40 - l 30 20 _[ $ '
'0 d,
o ER - em
<.05 .05 TO .11 TO .16 TO .21 TO .26 TO .31 TO .36 TO >.4
.10 .15 .20 .25 .3 .35 .4 CARBON %
LAE)RATORY M#GNESE DATA '. 70" 60 " ' 50 ' l l i , . i 40< OUANTTTY i 30 "
.m l
0
.20 .30 40
.50
.60
. ~
.70 .40
.~ K
.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
- TO .29TO .39TO .49TO .59 TO.69 TO .7sTO .89TO .99 D D D D 1.09 1.19 1,29 1.39
{ MMONESE % HISTOGRAMS OF hu(GC CAR 90N AND MANGANESE CONTENT
i VOOTLE EVALUATION OF INDUSTRY TESTING 0 EQUOTIP HARDNESS-TENSILE STRENGTH CORRELATION
- Test Results FIGURE 3 o Data Scatter
+ Equotip band
= 68% within 10-13LD (Equotip) 65% within 12Lo (NUhfARC)
+ Tensile Strength Bands 81% within 5 ksi 99% within 12 ksi
+ Correlation Agrees with AShi hiETALS HANDBOOK 8th Edition, Volume 11 0 AISI DATA ON PRODUCT TESTING Probability Cunes FIGURE 4 (Flange Tests)
FIGURE 5 (Web Tests) hican Value of NUhiARC Tensile Strength Test Results = 77 ksi o Comparison FIGURE 6 November 4,19S8 6
NUMARC LABORATORY TESTS 105 WJM/ PSI CARBON STEEL TS=0.2645LD - 29.84 ' y 100
# U
/
l9/ ~ 95 '
@ \f
/ /O/
C 90 8./ o / o Ari N I"~ "" / Bi%h&V/_ B =
/ : di4%sV / .
[ J c 0 e" ZO rnw ""/
- %f 340 3GO 380 X 400 420 440 460 480 EQUOTIP HARDNESS, LD (ASM Tolerance Bands)
FIGURE 3
I l]l1lllIl
^ -
~
6 1 C 9 1 p -
/l i
S
/~
- 4 1
T - S E T L A l
/ r 2 i
a
/
I .. 1 k C - l , I i F T .. t r F G s e
~ ,
O E i l T G N E l i T
/ "
0 1
- i T
l e a 00O 0 0,0 57a 0v 0,dn 4 H E 0 L i c 6 - 00 E t f F I S B j O f f r00 de 0,0, R 3 S E N E T 7
/ / m n50 U67 U 3
z C N E
- A p / /
8 F o r = = = G a u c R E F T S E / / c e ABC R i F T / n F I D E R N G / / / 6
- f e
r e O A F L S F
/ f i
D E V . m t i 4 C - Y I L T
/
I B A .
/ 2 O
R P _
/
n / s s s e s
- s. 3 3
3
' e s " o s
o o T ' s o 0
% ? 5 o R ! i . ss ,, g a '5 i
FictfitE 3T P!tchA!!!!.!TY clatV)$ Fort DIFFERENCIS FTtOM TI!E OFFICI A!. TFl;T - StJ/19 WEli TEST - TEN:III.E .STitFNCT11 . 9 -1*9
^ "
33.8 ll ,/ y
-/ L:
,, e P '
/ /
/
99's ' t " / / .
!! 08 ' -
i
/ /
E
;; ss ' '
L
?.I 3a q_ -
t ,, ii , / ll, / / To / [ so // - 50
- o -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -11 -16 Difference From Official Test, ksi A = Under 65,000 B = 65,000-70,000 C = 70,000 and Over 1
1 l l FIGURE 5 -
COMPARISON OF ' ENSILE TEST RESULTS AISI, NUMARC IABORATORY WJM/ PSI, AND VOOTLE WJM/ PSI SA 105 CARBON STEEL PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCT TEST RESULTS AT OR BELOW A GIVEN TENSILE STRENGTH BASED ON AN ASSUMED AVERAGE MILL TEST TENSILE STRENGTH, AVERAGE PRODUCT TEST STRENGTH STRENGTH, OR AVERAGE CONVERTED TENSILE (KSI) STRENGTH, OF 77 KSI (SEE NOTES) AISI REPORT' NUMARC _ FLANGE WEB LABORATORY' 69 25 8 11.6 68 17 7 9.0 67 9 4.5 6.1 66 5 3.5 4.3 65 3 2.5 2.9 64 1.2 1.5 2.2 63 0.5 0.8 1.1 62 0.2 0.5 1.1 j 61 --- 0.3 0.4 60 ---
- 0.2 ---
! NOTES: I Variances from an assumed averaje mill test tensile strength of 77 ksi. 2 Variances from an average product test tensile strength of 77 ksi. NUMARC/AISI COMPARISON FIGURE 6 r .- -
,-m_,
.o.
L l
.U_IILITY FIELD HARDNFES TESTS l
0 TEST RESULTS HISTOGRAM FIGURE 7 l 0 ANALYSIS t
- Substrength Blind Flanges Can Be Identified 1
- Substrength Blind Flanges Form a Separate Population l
- Substrength Blind Flanges Appear to be Made of Plate ,
- Equotip Testing is Appropriate for Screening
's i
l I l l { l t i November 4,1988 [ r (
4
~
VOGTLE 2 TENSILE STRENGTH INSTALLED WJM/ PSI bA-105 CARBON STEEL N = 636 ~ 9 7 r /
/ /
8 /
~
f
/
/ -
- /
7 - l /l
/ / _
- 2 / ~
~
M 6 ~---u n
/
~ / u/ 7 Era /-/ /
/
n/ ~./ O5
/ / - / - -
- - / -
/ /
4 - u f
/ / / / ,,
% 4 ,-"/-/f, /,f
/ / - / f /
/
/*/ / /
/"/ N-/,/,/
Z - / /
/ / / / /
/ u u'~/o
/ /
/ - / /
/
/
/ / /
/ / /
7
/
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / /
J / / / / / / / / / 3 /
/"/"/"/"/./
/
/ / / //
/ / /"/"/"/"/./
/ / / /
/
.. /
/
/ / /
/ / / n / / n /
/ / / /
/ / / -
/ <
/ / / // / / / /
/ / /
/
/ / / / / /
/ /
/ / / /
/ / /
/,/"/"/"N./,/
.' ./,,/,/ / /
/ / / /'/"/"/"/-//
/
/
/ / / / u / / /
/ / / / / n /
/
/ / 3
/ / n /
/ / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / / /
/
/ / / / / / u,/ / / / /
y /
/k"N,/./,/,nwu
/ // /
/ / / /
/
/ /
/ u / n nw~
~o / / / / / / 4
/ / / / / /
2
/ / / /
o / / /
/ / /
e/// / / / / / / o / / /
/ n
~ / / / / / n / r //
0 y / - u / /
, , , , , , , u , 1 , , n, ' c u i s a n a , ' i I , , , , ( y'
- - - m / / s / / / / /
' u" 's u , , , , , ;
s %R %
''<<ii',,,,,,,'<<g,,,,o,
) o c e c o w c o N N g o e c= g g g w , cv w , w , w TENSILE STRENGTH--KSI (* Converted from EQUOTIP hardness. b Tensiles are rounded to closest ksi.)
- FIGURE 7 ..
u ANALYSIS OF NUMARC RFJ_U.LTS o Chemical Analysis of Carbon Steel Items Typical for SA 105 Items o Tensile Tests of Hollow Forgings and Most Blind Flanges Correlate Well with AIS! Data for Structural Shapes o Chemical and Tensile Tests of Stainfess Steel items Correlates Well with Types 304 and 316 o Magnet Tests Suitable for Evaluating Stainless Steel Items o Direct Hardness Tensile Strength Correlation Established o Field Testing Established that St.bstrength Material can be Identified o Test Results Show WJM/ PSI Maierial Acceptable Except for Some B.'ind Flanges
- o NRC Bulletin 88 05 Issue Limited to Blind Flanges November 4,19S8 8-
9 VOGTLE UNIT 2 TESTING 0 WJM/ PSI ITEMS INSTALLED IN SAFETY RElATED SYSTEMS (NO CLM ITEMS) Carbon Steel (SA 105) (636 Total) o 58 Fittings o 578 Flanges (29 were Blind Flanges) Stainless Steel (SA 182) (127 Total) o 61 Fittings o 66 Flanges 0 TESTS PERFORMED ON INSTALLED ITEMS SA 105 Carbon Steel o Hardness Testing o Chemistry Testing SA 182 Stainless Steel o Chemistry (Spectrographic Analysis) o Magnet Tests i November 4,1988 9- "
ANALYSIS OF VOGTLE 2 TEST RESULTS 0 Hardness Histogram FIGURE 8 0 Converted Tensile Strength Histogram FIGURE 9 0 Comparable to AISI and NUMARC Test Results FIGURE 10 0 WJM/ PSI hiaterial Test Results Typical for Code Materials 0 Installed Material Meets Code 0 No Substrength Material at Vogtie Unit 2 November 4,1988 10 -
PERCENTAGE % o a 5 E s 325 - o yO MC 335 - o pq
.o 345 -y &M e )b 355 - U m
{r 4 g 365 -(QM P g g 375 -gggg\\Q% ;;; p >> e 385 -hg\\\QQQy i mN g g N I
~
G) E m I 405 -(\%\Q\\\\\\%\\Q\\g\\\QN (; i i [(f) o to e Q 415 -h\\\\\g\\Q\\g\\Mt; CD 425 -h\\\\\\\\\\\%\y i oR y 435 -(\\\g\\\\\\\\1,a g S, 2H 445 -h\M e wZ e M
+
455 - }s
]Q M
cn 465 - ]s &% l 475 -5 6 2
- CA
\\
485 -{u d 495 - e 8& oH CD . k____.______.___._ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9
- 021 luS
- 511 4 F -
jrt M :011 d ft a :
)( nc : 501 22 5 $O e:
s
- 001
% ot Z -
59
~ ~ )f( P - 09 G ~ *~
O ' " "ms d j ,-L s __x i
,sssssssssssss msmw
, x _ _
_ g _n ll Is ssss sTss
'M 58 o m_ -,s m mm sm. .s HH >
-: - ' 5a"su<ssss
,s m isssmssm "s'- -
M m Z I 2/C MC mssssssmssssmmss _
, s t m s m s m s:s s s s s:s s s s s s s s s s s m
,mmmmmm
, .mmmsmsm. mms _ 08 H C
- i i i i , s m. m
, m s m s s m s s s s s s s s m s s.s s s m .s s s sssssmm pms3mm
_ w 8,. O 3 jTL M( ussssm msssssssss sssssssssmsmsssss m s 57 jrt g m Hm w m s u u', m m.m 3 ss mmm:ms- m.m3mm - s:.s m m s_ m _s >-m_ys s m 3 mF s._ _c_ 4 N ,ssmsssssm:sms3sssss.<<< - -
-g
' G s : 07
- i's 's "
ss
, ' " < ' ' ' ',i rms 2U Q[ % .
m m._ 2 .y 4 ysm _ jrt G 9 R9 j bEa- 56 Yg o - dF e : 06 g O g$ _ 5 c_ 5 w p 2 _
~
05
- 54
_ 04 e e w a e A a N - o
% EGATNECREP
/
I { l l COMPARISON OF TENSILE TEST R.ESULTS AISI. NUMARC LABORA1 DRY WJM/ PSI. AND VOGTLE WJM/ PSI SA 105 CARBON STEEL PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCT TEST RESULTS AT OR BELOW A GIVEN TENSILE STRENGTH BASED ON AN ASSUMED AVERAGE MILL TEST STRENGTH, AVERAGE PRODUCT TEST STRENGTH, OR AVERAGE CONVERTED TENSILE STRENGTH, OF 77 KSI (SEE NOTES) TENSILE AISI REPORT' STRENGTH NUMARC V0GTLE (KSI) FLANGE WEB LABORATORY 2 ' UNIT 2 3 69 25 8 11.6 68 8.7 17 7 9.0 5.2
~7 9 4.5 6.1 4.1 66 5 3.5 4.3 3.1 65 3 2.5 2.9 1.9 64 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.3 63 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.6 62 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.2 61 ---
0.3 0.4 --- 60 --- 0.2 --- --- NOTEst Variances from an assumed average mill test tensile strength of 77 ksi. 2 Variances from an average product test tensile strength of 77 ksi. J Variances from an average tensile strength (converted from Equotip hardness) of 77 ksi. NUMARCAISI/VOGTLE COMPARISON FIGURE 10 I
~
V0GTLE 2 CHEYISTRY - SA-105 . 25 5%:t & 70 Leh3 , lCrakom
'[ - RILJt W ys 30 _ 427 4 37flo.
E-. 15 - x . Er-. O 10 - Z 5 0 i i i i i i
< =.10 .11 .15 .16 .20 .21 .25 .26 .30 .31 .35 > .36
'/'/' .a # us 6,16_ CARBON %
. sc inx
g 4 O I
- 03'I = <
LO ' O T g k -811-011 m I
$ h - 80 1-0o 1 i
n 88 x . ($$$\N - ee -oe- l5 h Agg\%%\\%%N@{ - et -ot-e m s o m gggggg .,,._o,. a k\\% - er-or
-0F=>
i 8 S S1V3H JO 'ON [
ASME CODE COMPLIANCE 0 Met with Hartford and State of Georgia on August 18,1988 0 Hartford Confirms Code Requirements Met O Hartford Confirms Piping Systems Can Be Stamped and Certified 0 State of Georgia Agrees with Hartford 0 Letters of Confirmation Received from Hartford and Georgia , i l 0 Met with National Board on September 21,1988 ; 1 0 National Board Agrees Program Is Acceptable 0 Unit 2 Will Be Code Stamped 1 i t i: i i November 4,1988 11 -
4 . . -
,s 1
W
- CONCLUSION At Vogtle Unit 2, the WJM/ PSI material has been investigated and no substrength or Code discrepant material was found.
Therefore, Code requirements have been met and NRC Bulletin 88-05 issue can be closed for Vogtle Unit 2. l l November 4,1988 12 -}}