IR 05000289/1980007
| ML19339B856 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1980 |
| From: | Durr J, Reynolds S, Lester Tripp NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339B853 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-80-07, 50-289-80-7, NUDOCS 8011100298 | |
| Download: ML19339B856 (9) | |
Text
.-
.
O u.s auc'e^R REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No.
50-289/80-07 Docket No.
50-289 License No.
DPR-50 Priority Category C
--
Liceri,ee:
Metropolitan Edison Company P.O. Box 542 Reading, Pennsylvania 19640
-
Facility Name:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station - Unit 1 Investigation at:
GPU Service Corporation, Readi_ng, Pennsylvania Investigation con cted:
March 21 and July 31, 1980 Investigators:
, b. UU
P. Dur,FReactor Inspector date signed b-Mhh hO
. D. Reyfidids, Reactor Inspector
' dat'e signed date signed date signed Approved by:
h 95"o d
.
.
,
FL. E. Trip), Chief, ESS #1, RC&ES Branch
' date signed Investigation Summary:
Investigation on March 21 and July 31,1980 (Report No. 50-280/80-07)
Area Investigated:
Routine, announced meeting with GPU representative to follow up previous announced meeting dated March 21, 1980 to investigate an allegation concerning possible mis-marking of ASTM: A312 Grade 304 welded stainless steel pipe.
The investigation involved 13 investigative hours at the GPU Reading, PA office by one NRC inspector on March 21, 1980 and two NRC inspectors on July 31, 1980.
Results: The allegation investigated was not substantiated and no apparent items of noncompliance with regulatory requirements were identified.
-
.
Region I Form 143 (Rev. October 1977) d 8011100 k
.
.
Table of Contents
,
I.
Background A.
Reason for Investigation B.
Identification of Involved Organizations II.
Summary of Findings A.
Allegations and Investiertion Findings C.
Conclusions
~
III. Details A.
Introduction B.
Scope of Investigation C.
Persons Directly Interviewed and/or Contacted During the NRC Investigation D.
Investigation E.
Findings and Conclusions l
.
l
-
, =,
---,,
. - -.,, - -.... -. - -
.,.
. - -
.-
.
. *
.-
I.
Background A.
Reason for Investigation On or about March 1, 1979, the licensee's Legal Department received a phone call from an alleger who stated that he was in possession of information developed while he worked for a metallurgical laboratory in 1969 indicating that some of the small diameter welded austentic piping at TMI-1 was defec-tive.
The NRC was not informed by the alleger, but was informed of action of the alleger by the licensee and investigated the allegation.
B.
Identification of involved Organizations 1.
General Public Utilities Service Corporation (GPUSC) - A corporation that consists of a consortium of utilities that supplies QA support and services to the licensee, Metropolitan Edison.
2.
Metropolitan Edison (Met Ed) - The licensee for the Three Mile Island Unit 1 power plant.
3.
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. (UE&C) - The architect / engineer-ing company responsible for construction activities associated with Three Mile Island Unit 1.
.
..
.-
,
II.
Summary of Findings A.
Allegations and Investigation Findings After being informed by the alleger of possible defective pipe, the licensee held a meeting with the alleger.
A summary of the details of discussion notes made by the licensee are as follows:
The alleger informed Met Ed that while he was working for Time National Laboratories - a testing laboratory - in 1969, as Eastern Divisional Manager (out of Harrisburg), his company (Time National) was given a purchase order by Med Ed to analyze certain sections of seam welded stainless steel piping.
Pipe sections were sent to their Chicago lab for analysis. The results of the lab analysis were conveyed to the alleger over the telephone.
Based upon the phone information provided, he considered the material tested as not meeting acceptable standards (he called it " junk").
Based upon his recollection and as conveyed to a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) respresentative (as will be elaborated upon in the ensuing paragraphs) the samples were tested for the following aspects:
Chemistry:
C, Mn, P, S, Sr, Cr, Ni Physical:
Yield, tensile, elongation and H-factor, flat-to-flat (this may be flattening), fracture appearance.
The results were the following:
Chemistry - within ASTM allowable limits, but not in accordance with more stringent "AEC Specs".
Physical - different properties between metal and weld metal.
~
The alleger indicated he did not have copies of the lab test report or any other information.
He gave " lab sample numbers" (heat numbers) and they were:
125725 126019 158310 325950 When asked by the licensee if he (the alleger) knew if Time National was still in existence, he indicated that ;t probably was under a different name in Chicago.
He did not know any more details than that.
He said that if some funds were made available to him he would probably be able to get in touch with some people and may be able to provide documentation and
other information.
As a final note he also said that the licensee should not try to subpoena records from Time National as they had some " mafia" connections.
.
~
-
.
4 i
In early 1973, the alleger told Met Ed representatives that he met with j
Mr. Frank R. Clokey, Special Assistant to the Attorney General of DER l
and conveyed the defective piping information to him. Mr.-Clokey wrote
'
a letter to the alleger on March 7, 1973 indicating that he'had' prepared j
notes of their meeting and was enclosing them with his letter and asked
'
'
that the alleger review them and return them to him with any comments.
The alleger did not respond to this letter.
He gave as a reason for not responding some of the personal problems he had about that time. There
-
apparently was no further followup by DER.
The NRC investigation found no information or evidence to support the
'
allegation and found that the licensee took prudent action.to investigate and evaluate a potential material mismarking problem that was later l
Verified to be a nonexisting problem.
B.
Conclusions No items of noncompliance with regulatory requirenents were identified.
i
't
.
4
.-
.-
III.
Details A.
Introduction No allegation was made to the NRC.
The NRC responded and instituted an investigation when informed by the licensee that they received an allega-
,
!
tion. An NRC inspector followed the progress of the licensee's investi-
gation through a series of telephone contacts and held a preliminary meeting
'
with representatives of GPUSC on March 21, 1980.
B.
Scope of Investigation This investigation consisted of two meetings with GPUSC (March 21, 1980 and July 31, 1980), review of applicable UE&C QC documents, review of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory metallurgical analysis of samples of the subject pipe, telephone conversations with representatives of the pipe manufacturers, review of GPUSC reports on the subject pipe and UE&C QC memorandum on an inventory of the subject pipe.
C.
Persons Directly Interviewed and/or Contacted During the NRC Investigation 1.
GPUSC
- F. S. Giacobbe, Manager, Materials Lab G. Troffer, Manager, Quality Assurance J..laniszewski, Metallurgical Engineer 2.
Wallingford Steel Division of Allegheny-Ludlum Gilbert Boyd, Manager, Market Development 3.
Union Steel G. Keslows, Marketing 4.
Summerset Tube R. Cunningham (formerly of Union Steel)
5.
Youngstown Welding Frank Watson, President
- Denotes those present at exit interview.
..
f
..
.-
4 l
D.
Investigation On or about March 1, 1979, Mr. John Wilson of u licensee's Legal Department received a call from an alleger who stated that he was in possession of information indicating that some of the stainless steel piping in TMI-1 was defective. The alleger based his conclusions on the quality level of the pipe as determined by metallurgical analyses of four sections of pipe supplied by UE&C personnel to Time National Laboratories in 1969 (at which time the alleger was Eastern Division Manager).
Representatives of the licensee held an informal meeting with the alleger to obtain more informa-tion on the subject.
The licensee informed the NRC of this contact (Mr. George Troffer, Met Ed, phone call to NRC-Region I on March 2, 1979).
The allegation concerns whether certain pipe as supplied is seamless or autogenously welded to ASTM:A312 requirements, or if it is welded with filler metal to ASTM:A358 requirements.
Notice of a potential materials problem was first made by UE&C in Deficiency Report DR0091 dated March 3, 1970 by an inspector who indicated that the pipe was welded "apparently with filler metal" which was interpreted to signify that the material was ASTM: A358 instead of A312.
The written disposition called for selective utilization of the subject material in noncritical areas.
A report of radiographic examination in Deficiency Report DR 0093 was interpreted as further verification that the material was A358.
The purpose of the NRC investigation was to determine if the pipe marked as A312 was in fact A358 and if there was any safety related problem associated with the piping systems if A358 was erroneously substituted for A312.
E.
Findings and Conclusions The NRC representatives reviewed the following documents associated with the allegation.
1.
Material certifications for the piping identified by the alleger as being welded with filler metal.
2.
UE&C Deficiency Reports DR 0091, DR0093 and DR0099 which identified the subject piping as a potential problem of possible material mis-marking.
3.
Med Ed letter (Hreczuch to Hardy dated February 26, 1970) indicating the material in the aforementioned DR's will be utilized in non-safety
,
related applications.
'
4.
UE&C letter (Branch to Fant dated March 27, 1970) indicating that in piping specification SP-5661, page II-49 and GAI flow diagram C-302-719 that ASTM:A312, A358 or A376 are all equally satisfactory for us.~
.
l
]
S.
Met Ed report of meeting held with the alleger dated March 7, 1979.
6.
Pittsburgh Test Laboratory reports 698693 dated September 9, 1969 and October 20, 1969.
7.
UE&C memorandum (DeArmit to Hardy dated October 19, 1969) identifying the location and disposition of the subject piping.
8.
Met Ed report " Investigation into the Use of Welded Stainless Pipe" dated November 21, 1979.
9.
Met Ed letter (Prabhakar to Troffer et al), subject " Investigation of Stainless Steel Pipe at TMI" dated March 6, 1979.
The NRC inspectors also contacted representatives (in some cases previous employees) of Union Steel, Wallingford,facture oY the subject piping.
Allegheny Ludium and Youngstown Welding who were associated in the manu It was determined that Union Steel had no capability of making stainless pipe to A358 requirements, but that Wallingford Division of Allegheny Ludium obtained the subject pipe through a subcontractor (Youngstown Welding) who had the capability at the time the pipe was manufactured to produce either A312 or A358 in the 6",
schedule 40 size. The President of Youngstown Welding indicated that if the order was for 6", schedule 40, A312 pipe that there would be no manufacturing incentive to make the pipe to A358 and, in fact, current practice would limit A358 to 8 inch and over sized pipe A review of the previously mentioned documents has produced the following findings:
1.
UE&C identified a potential problem of possible material mismarking.
There may have been a misinterpretation of the visual appearance of the pipe weld at that time as there is no way to visually determine whether the weld is made with or without filler metal.
The process employed for pipe of the size under consideration is the GTAW process for A312 and the GTAW process with cold wire feed for A358.
2.
Radiographic examination is also not a technique that can distinguish between the aforementioned processes.
3.
UE&C took immediate steps to identify, locate and restrict the use of the subject pipe.
A summary of this information is shown in UE&C memo dated November 19, 1969, subject " Stainless Steel Pipe".
4.
UE&C sent four samples of pipe to Time National Laboratory for test on P09459-01-2873 and twelve samples of pipe to Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory on P0 MEC-37 CO.11.
There are no copies of the Time National Laboratory Report on file at Met Ed or Time National Laboratory.
The conclusions of the Pittr'urgh Testing Laboratory Reports 698693 Order No. PG-2642, o
dated Septe.nber 18, 1969 and November 20, 1969, indicate the pipe to be welded without filler metal.
The preliminary conclusion on the report
!
.
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
..
-
dated September 18, 1969 that the 6",
schedule 40 pipe " appeared to have filler metal applied over seamless pipe" is most probably due to observing a longitudinally cut specimen rather than a transverse specimen and misinterpreting the results.
5.
Discussions with the manufacturers indicates that Union Steel had manufacturing capability to make A312 pipe, but no capability to make A358 pipe. The pipe purchased from McJunkin, a distributor, was not made by Wallingford or Allegheny Ludlum, but rather by Youngstown Welding who had the capability to make either A312 or A358 pipe.
6.
UE&C (March 27, 1979 Mr. Branch to Mr. Fant Memo) engineering evaluation of the 6" schedule 40 pipe which was used in the Reactor Building Sump drain indicated that either A312 or A358 was satisfactory for use.
This is a portion of the piping in question. Met Ed was able to trace all but a few feet of the potentially mismarked piping and found that it was not used in safety related applications.
The NRC investigation has resulted in the following conclusions:
1.
Review of the data, documentation, and metallurgical laboratory reports indicate the pipe was welded to ASTM:A312 requirements and not to A358 requirements, i.e., the welding of the pipe less than 6", OD was accom-plished by the single OD oriented GTA autogenous (without filler metal) technique and the 6" OD pipe was welded with the ID and OD converted GTA autogenous technique.
2.
The possible material mismarking (A312-A358) was identified by UE&C prior to the test laboratory analysis made by the alleger's company.
3.
The most probable cause of UE&C DR's was the erroneous conclusion that A312 welded pipe could not have ID and OD reinforcement whereas the amount of reinforcement in the A312 process is a function of the compressive stress applied to the square butt joint by the alignment fixture.
"
4.
Radiographic examination of GTA welded pipe cannot distinguish between GTAW pipe with or without cold wire feed additions.
'
5.
The unusual characteristics of the metallographic sample shown in the PTL report for the 6" pipe weld are a result of a sectioning error where the section shown is longitudinal rather than transverse.
6.
Although the pipe is not A358, it would be acceptable for the service intended if it were A358.
i