ML20039F275

Deficiency Rept SD-414/81-30 Re Swepco Stainless Steel Pipe Below Min Wall Thickness,Initially Reported 811201.Pipe Sectioned & Sent to Swepco for Analysis.Next Rept Will Be Submitted by 820401

ML20039F275
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/30/1981
From:	Parker W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8201120301
Download: ML20039F275 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _

, l, S?,'p r,

g,

% J,O/ N.. ll DUKE POWER CO>IPANYA G p : Le Powru Beat.niwo

' v.1. ;q 4= Sourn Cucacu Sruzzi, CILAHIDTr},

2 242 WI L LI AM O. PA R K E R, J R.

WCf Persi c t mv TELEPmCNC; A#ta 704 ser.. p.oovere.

December 30, 1981 3 7 3-4o s a N

\\

![)9 g/g Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

t-q',,Cl s,p-j Region II js/

101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 f,'

Jg2 l

1/$v2.N [

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

e.,,

o gu..

e,.;d

., _r, Ni u,,"

h1 i

Re: Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2

/,\\

/

%/'jg-pgi Docket No. 50-414

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e, please find attached Significant Deficiency Report SD 414/81-30.

Very truly yours,

/

/h.

\\

William O. Parker, Jr ROS/php Attachment cc: Director Mr. Robert Guild, Esq.

Office of Inspection and Enforcement Attorney-at-Law U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 314 Pall Mall Washington, D. C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 NRC Resident Inspector Palmetto Alliance Catawba Nuclear Station 2135 Devine Street Columbia, South Carolina 29205 AO 0500 f4 PDR

'nC lA

r-se b

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION REPORT NUMBER: SD-414/81-30 REPORT DATE: December 30, 1981 FACILITY:

Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2 IDENTIFICATION OF DEFICIENCY:

Material in question is 8" S-40 SA312 TP304 Stainless Steel Pipe, Heat

1. 181033 manufactured by SWEPC0 Tube Corporation located in Clifton, New Jersey. Areas of the pipe are below minimum wall thickness.

INITIAL REPORT:

On December 1,1981, A. Ignatonis, NRC Region II, Atlanta, Georgia was notified of the deficiency by W. O. Henry and A. W. Roy of Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.

CG4P0NENT AND/0R SUPPLIER:

Material identified as having the deficiency is 20 feet, 8" S-40 SA312 TP304 EFW Stainless Steel Pipe Heat #181033.

Material was supplied, Duke P.O. E-38887, by Gulfalloy Houston, Texas (Distributor) who procured from SWEPC0 Clifton, New Jersey, P.O. #29-27-905551. SWEPC0 S/0 #M-3225-8, Heat #181033.

DESCRIPTION OF DEFICIENCY:

This pipe, along with 14 other pieces of pipe, were sent to ITT Grinnell in Kernersville, NC, to be bent. During their check by UT for wall thick-ness in the bend area, they found some areas below material specification minimum wall thickness.

The pipe in question was returned to Catawba and nonconformed.

Subsequent micrometer measurements showed a portion of this pipe to have wall thickness ranging from a high of.289" to a low of.277".

For this size and schedule of pipe, specifications require a nominal wall thickness of.322" and a minimum wall thickness of.282".

Pipe in some areas is at least.005" below minimum wall thickness (all in the welded area).

Other sections of pipe with this heat number have been checked for wall thickness and found to have similar thinning but with no wall thickness less than.277".

ANALYSIS OF SAFETY IMPLICATIONS:

The starting material for this pipe was ordered to.035" thickness with a minus of.010".

SWEPC0 check of this material upon receipt revealed a minimum of.295".

With this relatively thin starting material, the weld finishing operation reduced the wall thickness in some areas to below mininum thickness required by the material specification.

'e t'...n, g

Based on engineering analysis under Duke system operating conditions, it-has been determined that this thinning would not have led to a pipe failure

'in our applications. The Containment Spray (NS) Systems where this would have been installed have been qualified on the basis of Schedule 20 pipe instead of. Schedule 40 (.205" vs. 322" wall thickness).

CORRECTIVE ACTION:

The piece of pipe in questions is not to be used. The pipe was sectioned and one section is being sent-to SWEPC0 for analysis. Upon completion of-analysis, recommendations will be made to prevent this condition from occurring in the future.. A follow-up report will be submitted to NRC by April 1, 1982.

l l

. - -. - - - - _ _