ML19253A830

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Final Deficiency Rept Re Matl Used to Construct Pipe Fittings.Corrective Actions:Manufacturer Has Been Notified of overly-high Carbon Content in Steel Pipe Fittings & Those Already Installed Have Been Removed from Svc
ML19253A830
Person / Time
Site: Waterford Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/31/1979
From: Stinson L
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19253A828 List:
References
NUDOCS 7909110475
Download: ML19253A830 (3)


Text

.

1.0UISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO 3 FINAL REPORT OF SIOi1FICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO 12 MATERIAL FAILURE -

PIPE FITTINGS - 4" - 45 ELLS AND 4" - 90 ELLS Submitted by -

hu h ,

L. A. Stlnson - Itdnager, Site Quality Program n,,,.,...n aj s. ( U. s) *.]

70 091 I O L

FINAL REPORT SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY REPORT NO 12 MATERIAL FAILURE -

PIPE FITTINGS - 4" - 45" ELLS AND 4" - 90 ELLS SCHEDULE 40 Introduction This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e) . It describes a deficiency in the type of material utilized for the manuf acture of Pipe Fittings (4" - 45 Ell and 4" - 90 Ell) purchased through Purchase Order CF3-1215 far use in Louisiana Power & Light's Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit No 3. Tube Turns Division also reported this problem to the U. S. Regulatory Commission by letter dated 4-12-79.

Description On April 6,1979, the McJunkin Corporation, Tube Turns Division, notified Ebasco Services Incorporated that the pipe fittings bearing lot identification number W6719 were subject to experience material failure (cracking when welded) and that these fittings be returned to them.

The sequence of events leading to the deficiency is as follows:

Tube Turns Divl'sion, upon learning that one 4" - 90 elbow had cracked when welded in a line, determined that the carbon content of the fitting was above the 14mit of ASTM A234 WPB. Subsequen t investigation determined that the steel from which the fitting was made was from a shipment of pipe received from U S Steel. It was further determined that U S Steel had erroneously identified high carbon steel with the same marking as Tube Turns' regular material and mixed it with the regular naterial prior to delivery.

Tube Turns received 3.500 OD x .250W pipe f rom U S Steel - Lorain - identified as U S Steel Heat Number N57028. A total of 28,153 feet was received and identified by Tube Turns as Lot W6719. From this pipe, 4" - 90 and 45 .237 wall elbows and 2" .237 wall straight tees, A234 WPB, were produced by Tube Turns. Approxi-mately 27,000 fittings were produced and each is identified by Tube Turns Lot Num-ber W6719. Shipment of these fittings started in March of 1978, and it is esti-mated all were shipped before the end of 1978.

Upon confirming that several lengths of pipe were involved, Tube Turns initiated a recall program under which they advised all of their customers who had received 4" elbows and 2" tees to return to Tube Turns any of these marked Lot K6719 that are in their stock.

Safety Implication The fittings in question were purchased as stock material for use by the Plant Process Piping Contractor. This particular type and size of fittings are utilized Ebasco received ten (10) fittings in Safety Category Two (2) and Three (3) Systems.

.,../

,g UY=

SCD NO 12 of the lot in question. Of this, three have been installed and at present only one (1) has been identified as having been it.atalled in a safety-related system; i.e., Component Cooling System. The postulated failure of these fittings, had they been left installed, would tave resulted in invalidating the safety func-tions of the systems in which the fittings would have been incorporated.

Corrective Action Six (6) of the ells were 1mmediately placed on hold in the warehouse. Site Nonconformance Report No. W5-1354 was issued to the piping contractor directing the removal of the three (3) installed ells.

As of August 30, 1979, these nine (9) ells were removed f rom the Waterford 3 Site.

As reported in letter LPL 11493 dated June 29, 1979, it is concluded that the re-maining ell was scrapped. This conclusiou sas reached only after an intensive search had been conducted to verify the ell was not installed or available to be installed in the plant.

y>

5'j> t ) 4 LiL3 s'4